Click on the title to witness the Hansons Brooks running team's cheeseburger eating contest.
Just a little background first. The guy in a red baseball hat is Brian Sell who qualified for the 2008 Olympic team when he came in third in the US Olympic Marathon Trials in November ahead of many much bigger names including the bronze medalist from the 2004 Olympics. He has a reputation for being one of the hardest workers out there and his peak mileage in training can exceed 160 miles per week. That's unimagineable to me, but ever more incredible is the fact that he feels like he can't cut back too much in his taper without losing his edge so he'll still run 100 to 120 miles per week during his taper. The guy obviously has a high tolerance for pain, which is good since it looks like those are McDonald's cheeseburgers that they are eating in that video.
Anyway, now you know the secret behind being a world class distance runner. Lots of cheeseburgers.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Recovery
It's only been a little over 2 weeks, but my recovery from the Houston Marathon is coming along fairly well. The soreness is long gone and the only remaining problem is that it takes a lot of effort to run at a pace that used to be fairly easy. I ran 14 miles on Sunday and 6 miles yesterday and am actually now in the taper period for the Austin Marathon on February 17. Hopefully between now and then my muscles will fully recover and I'll be able to have a good race.
The following link shows an elite female runner at the end of her first marathon. It's a distance that can humble even the best and the fact that she can barely move her feet is shown by the fact that she falls 3 times in the last 300m of the race, the last time less than 10m from the finish line.
Watch
The following link shows an elite female runner at the end of her first marathon. It's a distance that can humble even the best and the fact that she can barely move her feet is shown by the fact that she falls 3 times in the last 300m of the race, the last time less than 10m from the finish line.
Watch
Friday, January 25, 2008
Be a Crank
I think that "civility" may ultimately be the downfall of civilization. It seems to encourage and reward bad behavior and penalize good people that try to follow the rules. I guess it's an example of the freeloader problem in evolution where useless genes reap the benefits of living among better individuals.
For example, last night I went to a one-time showing of "Marathon Dreams." I purchased the tickets online a month ago and knew it would be sold out so I showed up half an hour early to save a seat for me and my wife. I put a jacket on her seat and a vest on mine, told the lady next to me I'd be right back but that the seats were taken, and went for a popcorn run. As I'm coming back I see a scruffy young man pick up my jacket , move it over, and take one of my seats. I slide in and tell him he just took my seat. He looks up at me and smiles and tells me, "I don't see you sitting in it man." I'm pissed because the guy has just stolen my seat and so I simply tell him if he doesn't move then I'll get an usher. "No," he says, "Well, maybe if you had asked nicely..." and proceeds to act like I'm being rude and trying to make me feel bad for saving a seat and how if everyone saved seats then the whole theater would be saved and late comers like himself wouldn't be able to find adjacent seats. I'm thinking, "Ummm. Yeah, that is the way it works..." But all I want is my seat so I just nod my head and smile and wonder what he'd look like covered in 64 ounces of soda and a large popcorn. He finally gets up and moves. But for the rest of the night I wished that I could have punched him in his smug, self-satisfied face.
You see, in civilized society you can't do that. We don't assault people and we don't call them names and we don't dump crap on them. We try to follow the rules so we can all get along and we expect others to do the same. Which is why it's so frustrating when others don't do the same. Because it's all really voluntary. Society breaks down if people don't voluntarily comply because enforcement is difficult. But this little guy didn't learn a lesson. He'll go away in his delusion that he did me a favor by surrendering the seat that he'd stolen and continue making life difficult for people just trying to get along by playing by the rules.
Unfortunately, I see more and more of this. People are too polite to complain about bad service. Companies sell defective products knowing people don't want to go through the hassle of returning them. They under staff their support lines so that frustrated customers will stop calling. Then they assume their products must be good because no one calls to complain. They get monopolies and put out crappy products and then say that if their product was so bad then people have the choice to switch to something else knowing full well that they have a captive audience because they've methodically put their competitors out of business.
One more example. After that auspicious beginning, the movie was almost unwatchable. The bulb in the projector was so dim that it was almost impossible to see. I was in the middle of the back row and didn't want to cross in front of people during the movie, but I did hunt down the manager afterwards to complain. Apparently I'm the only person out of a sold out house that did so. Why? Was everyone else too polite? Or maybe it was the fact that I had to ask 3 employees and hunt all over the theater before I could finally get the manager? Even then he radioed the projectionist who replied that there was no problems with the picture. When I insisted that there most definitely was a problem the projectionist finally came back that the bulb was very dim and appeared to be going out. I got my tickets refunded, but I wonder how long that bulb had been bad and how many projectionists and movie viewers put up with it without notice or complaint.
So, my challenge to you is to make it a point to politely and insistently complain when things aren't right. And back up those around you who are doing it instead of mutely looking on like the people around me at the theater while someone tried to steal my seat. If you don't then you have no right to complain about the problems around you.
For example, last night I went to a one-time showing of "Marathon Dreams." I purchased the tickets online a month ago and knew it would be sold out so I showed up half an hour early to save a seat for me and my wife. I put a jacket on her seat and a vest on mine, told the lady next to me I'd be right back but that the seats were taken, and went for a popcorn run. As I'm coming back I see a scruffy young man pick up my jacket , move it over, and take one of my seats. I slide in and tell him he just took my seat. He looks up at me and smiles and tells me, "I don't see you sitting in it man." I'm pissed because the guy has just stolen my seat and so I simply tell him if he doesn't move then I'll get an usher. "No," he says, "Well, maybe if you had asked nicely..." and proceeds to act like I'm being rude and trying to make me feel bad for saving a seat and how if everyone saved seats then the whole theater would be saved and late comers like himself wouldn't be able to find adjacent seats. I'm thinking, "Ummm. Yeah, that is the way it works..." But all I want is my seat so I just nod my head and smile and wonder what he'd look like covered in 64 ounces of soda and a large popcorn. He finally gets up and moves. But for the rest of the night I wished that I could have punched him in his smug, self-satisfied face.
You see, in civilized society you can't do that. We don't assault people and we don't call them names and we don't dump crap on them. We try to follow the rules so we can all get along and we expect others to do the same. Which is why it's so frustrating when others don't do the same. Because it's all really voluntary. Society breaks down if people don't voluntarily comply because enforcement is difficult. But this little guy didn't learn a lesson. He'll go away in his delusion that he did me a favor by surrendering the seat that he'd stolen and continue making life difficult for people just trying to get along by playing by the rules.
Unfortunately, I see more and more of this. People are too polite to complain about bad service. Companies sell defective products knowing people don't want to go through the hassle of returning them. They under staff their support lines so that frustrated customers will stop calling. Then they assume their products must be good because no one calls to complain. They get monopolies and put out crappy products and then say that if their product was so bad then people have the choice to switch to something else knowing full well that they have a captive audience because they've methodically put their competitors out of business.
One more example. After that auspicious beginning, the movie was almost unwatchable. The bulb in the projector was so dim that it was almost impossible to see. I was in the middle of the back row and didn't want to cross in front of people during the movie, but I did hunt down the manager afterwards to complain. Apparently I'm the only person out of a sold out house that did so. Why? Was everyone else too polite? Or maybe it was the fact that I had to ask 3 employees and hunt all over the theater before I could finally get the manager? Even then he radioed the projectionist who replied that there was no problems with the picture. When I insisted that there most definitely was a problem the projectionist finally came back that the bulb was very dim and appeared to be going out. I got my tickets refunded, but I wonder how long that bulb had been bad and how many projectionists and movie viewers put up with it without notice or complaint.
So, my challenge to you is to make it a point to politely and insistently complain when things aren't right. And back up those around you who are doing it instead of mutely looking on like the people around me at the theater while someone tried to steal my seat. If you don't then you have no right to complain about the problems around you.
No Disrespect Intended
I apologize to Mormons who take offense at the fact that I no longer believe that Mormons have some kind of exclusive hold on the truth. I'll pay you the same back handed compliment that you offer to other churches. The Mormon church has a lot of good and true things that I admire, it's just that they don't have the whole truth. Specifically, they believe things that are either demonstrably false or else completely unsubstantiated by evidence or reason. They also insist on beliefs and behaviors that are completely unnecessary for living a full and happy life. Even worse they believe and practice things that are inconsistent with a full and happy life. One thing I think that Joseph Smith got right was that all of the churches are full of errors. Unfortunately he added one more example to the collection.
So, if you find Mormonism helpful and useful then more power to you. If you can convince others of its utility and convert them then even more power to you.
But please, when you find people like me who have thoroughly investigated the church and its claims and found them lacking, please stop telling them that they are proud sinners that have been deceived by Satan and that are doomed to a life of bitter misery for rejecting the "truth."
I welcome reasoned discussion and value dissenting opinions, especially when backed up by evidence and reason. I in fact am perfectly willing to change my mind if given good reasons. I ask you,
If the church wasn't true, would you want to know?
I would expect an unqualified yes from you before we engaged in any kind of discussion. I would expect that that would be back by an intellectual honesty that would admit the possibility that your beliefs might be wrong. In other words, not like my father who would answer, "Of course, I'd want to know. But I know it's true so it's a ridiculous question."
On the flip side I think it's fair for you to ask me,
If the church was true, would you want to know?
My answer is an unqualified yes. I would want to know. If I've misunderstood the issues or gotten the facts wrong I'll gladly accept correction. I reserve the right to change my mind. If anything, my loss of faith in the Mormon church isn't the result of pride. It's been truly humbling to realize how easily I was misled and how wrong I was. I find myself regularly reminding myself to listen and reevaluate my beliefs and opinions when I find them challenged. In other words, Mormonism instilled in me an overweening pride and sense of infallibility about religion that leaked into many other aspects of my life that I now find myself trying to undo.
I've posted my reasons for disbelief. I've explained the problems with Mormonisms methodology for evaluating truth claims. Please attack the issues, not me.
So, if you find Mormonism helpful and useful then more power to you. If you can convince others of its utility and convert them then even more power to you.
But please, when you find people like me who have thoroughly investigated the church and its claims and found them lacking, please stop telling them that they are proud sinners that have been deceived by Satan and that are doomed to a life of bitter misery for rejecting the "truth."
I welcome reasoned discussion and value dissenting opinions, especially when backed up by evidence and reason. I in fact am perfectly willing to change my mind if given good reasons. I ask you,
If the church wasn't true, would you want to know?
I would expect an unqualified yes from you before we engaged in any kind of discussion. I would expect that that would be back by an intellectual honesty that would admit the possibility that your beliefs might be wrong. In other words, not like my father who would answer, "Of course, I'd want to know. But I know it's true so it's a ridiculous question."
On the flip side I think it's fair for you to ask me,
If the church was true, would you want to know?
My answer is an unqualified yes. I would want to know. If I've misunderstood the issues or gotten the facts wrong I'll gladly accept correction. I reserve the right to change my mind. If anything, my loss of faith in the Mormon church isn't the result of pride. It's been truly humbling to realize how easily I was misled and how wrong I was. I find myself regularly reminding myself to listen and reevaluate my beliefs and opinions when I find them challenged. In other words, Mormonism instilled in me an overweening pride and sense of infallibility about religion that leaked into many other aspects of my life that I now find myself trying to undo.
I've posted my reasons for disbelief. I've explained the problems with Mormonisms methodology for evaluating truth claims. Please attack the issues, not me.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
The Spirit Can Overcome Contradictions!
Even your claim that prayer will not help you overcome a contradiction is a classic Satan led work that prayer is useless.I received a lengthy comment to one of my posts that included the above bit of wisdom. I guess that Elder Ballard's army of intrepid technologists are out trying to save people like me who have decided that evidence and reason are the enemy of the Spirit of truth. Apparently the opening salvo of this intellectual giant is that logic is a tool of Satan. To summarize the rest of his post, I have made the following mistakes:
- Faithful Mormon
- I had concerns about the Church
- I allows my concerns turn into doubts
- I sought answers to my doubts with a doubting Spirit.
- I went to non-Church sources of information that confirmed my doubts.
- I didn't seek God's counsel or the Spirit.
- I trusted my own reason which is a foul spirit and was led astray.
- I failed to be patient, other than waiting for over a decade.
- I wasn't humble
- I didn't repent
- I didn't ask the Spirit
- I followed the path he outlines above for most of my life. Just to be clear, over the years I did my best to obey the commandments, fasted, prayed, served a mission, accepted callings, married in the temple, etc.
- I didn't seek non-church sources for any of my doubts for nearly 40 years and 13 years after the temple changes that he refers to. I think that that is at least moderately patient.
- That path doesn't address doubts and issues, it just teaches you to ignore them. It puts a premium on feeling good about what you believe and encourages you to ignore anything that challenges your beliefs.
- This is a circular argument that encourages you to first decide what you believe, teaches you to feel good about your beliefs, teaches you to feel bad about things that disagree with that belief, and then teaches you that good feelings come from God and bad feelings come from Satan, and that then teaches you to reach the conclusion that you should believe in what makes you feel good and reject what makes you feel bad. Surprisingly, if you start with the conclusion that the church is true, never doubt it, ignore issues that may cause you to doubt, and never read information that may contradict the church, pray and ask whether the church is true without every doubting, then you will feel the Spirit and reach the conclusion that the church is true. What a beautiful formula.
If the church wasn't true, would you want to know?
If you follow the recipe from Faithful Mormon then you wouldn't even be able to sincerely ask the question because to do so you'd have to have a doubt and you'd have to have the spirit of doubt and according to his formula this will prevent you from finding the truth. Furthermore, if you were to consider the above question seriously it might lead you to ask the next obvious question.
What would you accept as evidence that the church isn't true?
Now, if your only answer is the Spirit and you perceive the Spirit as good feelings that you receive when you pray and you have been taught that considering the church isn't true is the spirit of Satan, how likely is it that you will feel good about asking if the church is false? For me, prayers weren't helpful because I never received a spiritual confirmation that the church was true no matter how much I wanted it to be true and no matter how hard I tried to ignore my doubts and believe that there must be perfectly reasonable answers to my questions/doubts. Instead I had more of what would be described in D&C 9 as a "stupor of thought".
So, since the spiritual man couldn't get me answers, I was left to the "natural man." Why is this wrong? I guess it's because evidence and reason lead to where I am now.
Finally, I love the quote I opened with. If prayer can overcome a contradiction then it is further evidence of the futility of prayer. What it means is that prayer can help you believe things that are not true. Faithful Mormon apparently believes that this idea comes from Satan. But it is simply logic. So, apparently logic is a tool of Satan. But if you must reject logic, then what does that mean about your beliefs? I'll lay out a simple logical argument to demonstrate.
- Assumed: Eternal ordinances are given by revelation and can never be changed.
- Assumed: The temple endowment is an eternal ordinance required for salvation
- Derived: The temple ordinance cannot change.
- Contradiction: The temple ordinance has changed.
Now the logic above is clearly correct so that leaves only two assumptions to be challenged. So, to resolve the contradiction you must accept at least one of the following statements:
- Eternal ordinances can be changed
- The temple endowment is not an eternal ordinance required for salvation
However, how can you choose to reject either since both are doctrines. Choosing either is effectively admitting that at least a part of the church's doctrines are not true. If one of them isn't true, then what else isn't true? If you go down this path then you are a cafeteria Mormon that is faced with the task of trying to pick and choose which of the church's doctrines are true or false. Meanwhile the church insists that it is all true or all false and that picking and choosing isn't an acceptable path. This is the conundrum I was faced with.
By the way, I've never heard a faithful Mormon argue for the second. I have had them choose the first. They basically state that the prophet can change anything he wants through revelation. This is plainly ridiculous because it basically allows the prophet to be a cafeteria Mormon an pick and choose doctrines and declare things that were once true to now be false. Whatever happened to eternal truths?
Another third option I've heard is to simply deny the fact that the endowment has changed. Given the first two doctrines, many members simply declare that the endowment has never changed and that this is just an anti-Mormon lie. Others who know better say that only the presentation has changed, but the essence has remained. Of course, then you are left trying to figure out which parts of the endowment are eternal and which are just window dressing. It also ignores the fact that the actual covenants changed and the method for passing through the veil to enter the celestial kingdom changed.
Of course, the fourth option is to just ignore the contradiction. I guess that prayer is useful here if it helps you feel good about being illogical and believing something that is provably false. But that won't make it true. It just means that you are a person of faith so strong that you can have an unshakeable belief in something that is demonstrably false.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
4:21:50
Depending on your perspective, 22 minutes is moment in time or a lifetime. Last Sunday it was how far I fell short of my goal at the Houston marathon. But don't feel sorry for me, because I feel surprisingly good about the race despite having some problems and am in a very positive mood. I'm getting a little ahead of myself so let's step back to last Thursday.
My last hard run was a 3 mile tempo run at 8:47 pace with one mile warm up and one mile cool down. My legs felt pretty good except a shooting pain in my right quad and discomfort in my right hip every time my leg came forward. It didn't hinder my running and didn't hurt bad, but if it was uncomfortable on a short run I was worried about what it could turn into after 26 miles. Fortunately my doctor had a cancellation and I was able to get in that afternoon. The poor doctor is a little guy and all of his poking and moving my leg around didn't replicate the pain. So he pulled my physical therapist in and he was able to push hard and duplicate the pain. The diagnosis was that my ileopsoas (hip flexor) was getting pinched by the ball of the hip joint. The PT strapped me to the table yanked on my leg to relocate the ball of the hip back into the socket and cracked my back in a few places. That fixed the problem and I couldn't feel anything the next day running an easy three miles. However, all of the pushing on my leg also revealed a mildly strained quad which was the other part of the pain I was feeling.
Friday I had a massage on the way home from work and then packed for the race. Saturday morning I flew to Houston and drove to the marathon expo to pick up my packet. While there I listened to a pretty interesting presentation by the Rice University men's track coach about adapting elite training programs to slower runners. One interesting point he made was that a 4:10 marathoner doing 50 miles a week in training was doing an comparable workload to an elite runner putting in 100 miles a week. Why? Because it's duration and intensity that matters, not mileage. I've read that before, but somehow it hasn't sunk in as I've looked at training programs. I'd peaked at 45 miles a week so I felt pretty good about my volume of training. The other interesting thing he talked about was recovery. He recommended walking a mile or two the same day after the marathon and then getting out for a mile or two of walking every day the next week. Then he said that the test for whether you are ready to resume training is if you can comfortably complete a 90 minute run.
I stayed at Hotel Icon downtown which was walking distance from the starting line. It's in an historic bank building and looked it's age on the outside but it was awesomely nice inside. It had a jacuzzi tub in the bathroom with a window to the room so I could watch TV from the tub.
When I got to the starting line at 6:30 am I felt great. The weather was a perfect 45F and I didn't even need gloves even though I started out with a light cap. I had 2 quarts of Powerade in my camelbak and another 28 ounces in the flasks on my fuel belt. I also had 12 gels hanging on the belt and a few electrolyte capsules. The race started right on time at 7:00 am with the sun just starting to brighten the sky in the east.
The race was pretty uneventful and went according to plan for the first 15 miles or so. I slowed myself down some for the first six miles and then settled into a steady 9:08-9:10 pace with my heart rate at about 160. The pace felt pretty comfortable. The only minor issue was some tightness in my right hamstring that felt like it wanted to cramp. I took gels every 20 minutes until about mile 10 when I started getting some stomach upset indicating that maybe my body wasn't digesting it as fast as I was taking it in. After that I backed off on the gels to every 30 or 40 minutes but I never really felt like fuel was an issue. I also did a good job of drinking regularly. I was carrying my own liquids so I ran through the water stops.
I went through the half mark at 2:01 so I was a little slower than my goal, but I was trying to save something for the end so I was pretty happy. At this point things got tougher and my heart rate started going up to maintain pace. I slowed down to about 9:20 pace and tried to stay relaxed. Around mile 15 my heart rate started going up closer to 170 even at the slower pace and I had to slow down when I felt my legs starting to burn. I really wanted to get to mile 20 and push, but at mile 18 I'd already pushed too hard and had to walk a bit and let my legs and heart recover. The rest of the race isn't particularly memorable and was a struggle like I'd imagined except after the 20 mile mark my right hamstring started cramping up every time I'd try to pick up the pace. I was tired, but felt like I had the energy to run faster, but every time I did the muscle would cramp. It wasn't the whole hamstring locking up like last year, but I had to stop and stretch it for a second before moving on. This continued for the rest of the race. In the last mile I picked up the pace back to 9:20 only to cramp again. So I just trudged the rest of the way in.
As I crossed the line volunteer after volunteer came up to ask if I was okay. I must have looked shaky, but I was just thoroughly exhausted. One lady finally walked me into the building. I didn't even come close to my goal, but I did everything I could and I finished.
The marathon was doing a hydration study. My weight at the expo on Saturday was 233.6 (dressed) and it was 228.8 at the finish so I lost at least 5 pounds (almost 3 quarts) on the course despite drinking 3 quarts. So I lost about a gallon and a half of water, mostly sweat, in a little over 4 hours. I don't know if that's a lot, it seems like it, but it means that dehydration could have played a role in my cramping and that I'll have to consider drinking even more in the next race by picking up additional liquid at the water stops on the course.
I don't know if the electrolyte capsules helped or not. The Powerade and the Clif Shots both have electrolytes and I had salty burps for the rest of the day, so I think I had plenty of electrolytes.
I was pretty weak on Sunday, but didn't feel too bad. I was sore on Monday and got a massage over lunch. I was really sore on Tuesday, but today (Wednesday) most of the soreness is gone and I feel really good. I'm going to keep walking each day and try to go for a run on Saturday. If I can finish a 90 minute run then I'll resume training next week and look forward to the Austin marathon on February 17.
In retrospect it doesn't look like my conditioning was up to running a 4:00 marathon. This is one of the things, out of several, that I don't like about my training group. We did a time trial early in the season, but haven't done a race or time trial since a 10k in early October so I didn't really have a recent race performance to help me know what a reasonable pace would be. Based on the training runs I did my goal seemed reasonable, but I'll be recalibrating for Austin and I'll go out at a 4:15 pace. That would be a PR so I'll be content with it and if I'm feeling good at the end then maybe I'll be able to do better.
My last hard run was a 3 mile tempo run at 8:47 pace with one mile warm up and one mile cool down. My legs felt pretty good except a shooting pain in my right quad and discomfort in my right hip every time my leg came forward. It didn't hinder my running and didn't hurt bad, but if it was uncomfortable on a short run I was worried about what it could turn into after 26 miles. Fortunately my doctor had a cancellation and I was able to get in that afternoon. The poor doctor is a little guy and all of his poking and moving my leg around didn't replicate the pain. So he pulled my physical therapist in and he was able to push hard and duplicate the pain. The diagnosis was that my ileopsoas (hip flexor) was getting pinched by the ball of the hip joint. The PT strapped me to the table yanked on my leg to relocate the ball of the hip back into the socket and cracked my back in a few places. That fixed the problem and I couldn't feel anything the next day running an easy three miles. However, all of the pushing on my leg also revealed a mildly strained quad which was the other part of the pain I was feeling.
Friday I had a massage on the way home from work and then packed for the race. Saturday morning I flew to Houston and drove to the marathon expo to pick up my packet. While there I listened to a pretty interesting presentation by the Rice University men's track coach about adapting elite training programs to slower runners. One interesting point he made was that a 4:10 marathoner doing 50 miles a week in training was doing an comparable workload to an elite runner putting in 100 miles a week. Why? Because it's duration and intensity that matters, not mileage. I've read that before, but somehow it hasn't sunk in as I've looked at training programs. I'd peaked at 45 miles a week so I felt pretty good about my volume of training. The other interesting thing he talked about was recovery. He recommended walking a mile or two the same day after the marathon and then getting out for a mile or two of walking every day the next week. Then he said that the test for whether you are ready to resume training is if you can comfortably complete a 90 minute run.
I stayed at Hotel Icon downtown which was walking distance from the starting line. It's in an historic bank building and looked it's age on the outside but it was awesomely nice inside. It had a jacuzzi tub in the bathroom with a window to the room so I could watch TV from the tub.
When I got to the starting line at 6:30 am I felt great. The weather was a perfect 45F and I didn't even need gloves even though I started out with a light cap. I had 2 quarts of Powerade in my camelbak and another 28 ounces in the flasks on my fuel belt. I also had 12 gels hanging on the belt and a few electrolyte capsules. The race started right on time at 7:00 am with the sun just starting to brighten the sky in the east.
The race was pretty uneventful and went according to plan for the first 15 miles or so. I slowed myself down some for the first six miles and then settled into a steady 9:08-9:10 pace with my heart rate at about 160. The pace felt pretty comfortable. The only minor issue was some tightness in my right hamstring that felt like it wanted to cramp. I took gels every 20 minutes until about mile 10 when I started getting some stomach upset indicating that maybe my body wasn't digesting it as fast as I was taking it in. After that I backed off on the gels to every 30 or 40 minutes but I never really felt like fuel was an issue. I also did a good job of drinking regularly. I was carrying my own liquids so I ran through the water stops.
I went through the half mark at 2:01 so I was a little slower than my goal, but I was trying to save something for the end so I was pretty happy. At this point things got tougher and my heart rate started going up to maintain pace. I slowed down to about 9:20 pace and tried to stay relaxed. Around mile 15 my heart rate started going up closer to 170 even at the slower pace and I had to slow down when I felt my legs starting to burn. I really wanted to get to mile 20 and push, but at mile 18 I'd already pushed too hard and had to walk a bit and let my legs and heart recover. The rest of the race isn't particularly memorable and was a struggle like I'd imagined except after the 20 mile mark my right hamstring started cramping up every time I'd try to pick up the pace. I was tired, but felt like I had the energy to run faster, but every time I did the muscle would cramp. It wasn't the whole hamstring locking up like last year, but I had to stop and stretch it for a second before moving on. This continued for the rest of the race. In the last mile I picked up the pace back to 9:20 only to cramp again. So I just trudged the rest of the way in.
As I crossed the line volunteer after volunteer came up to ask if I was okay. I must have looked shaky, but I was just thoroughly exhausted. One lady finally walked me into the building. I didn't even come close to my goal, but I did everything I could and I finished.
The marathon was doing a hydration study. My weight at the expo on Saturday was 233.6 (dressed) and it was 228.8 at the finish so I lost at least 5 pounds (almost 3 quarts) on the course despite drinking 3 quarts. So I lost about a gallon and a half of water, mostly sweat, in a little over 4 hours. I don't know if that's a lot, it seems like it, but it means that dehydration could have played a role in my cramping and that I'll have to consider drinking even more in the next race by picking up additional liquid at the water stops on the course.
I don't know if the electrolyte capsules helped or not. The Powerade and the Clif Shots both have electrolytes and I had salty burps for the rest of the day, so I think I had plenty of electrolytes.
I was pretty weak on Sunday, but didn't feel too bad. I was sore on Monday and got a massage over lunch. I was really sore on Tuesday, but today (Wednesday) most of the soreness is gone and I feel really good. I'm going to keep walking each day and try to go for a run on Saturday. If I can finish a 90 minute run then I'll resume training next week and look forward to the Austin marathon on February 17.
In retrospect it doesn't look like my conditioning was up to running a 4:00 marathon. This is one of the things, out of several, that I don't like about my training group. We did a time trial early in the season, but haven't done a race or time trial since a 10k in early October so I didn't really have a recent race performance to help me know what a reasonable pace would be. Based on the training runs I did my goal seemed reasonable, but I'll be recalibrating for Austin and I'll go out at a 4:15 pace. That would be a PR so I'll be content with it and if I'm feeling good at the end then maybe I'll be able to do better.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Nerves
I remember my first road races. I'm privileged to have road raced both on motorcycles and on foot so I had two first races.
I was a bundle of nerves for my first motorcycle race. The first time I went out on track as a provisional novice racer was to follow an experienced racer around the track with the rest of the newbies and I distinctly remember feeling like I was going to hurl in my helmet as I rode through the gap in the pit wall, entered the hot pits, and accelerated onto the track. It was just a slow lap, but it was faster than I'd ever gone before and after only a couple of laps I was left to my own devices trying desperately to hold my line as I was strafed left and right by riders that were much faster than me. The entire weekend I was a bundle of knotted, nervous exasperation as I realized how slow I was and how far I had to go to even catch up to the back of the pack of other newbies. It was horrible and I seriously questioned whether I'd ever return.
The Capitol 10k in 2004 was a completely different experience. I'd done track a little in high school, just enough to realize I had no talent for it, but I'd never once raced competitively. I was heavy and slow and I knew it. Coming into the race the farthest I'd run in training was 6 miles so I knew I could complete the race without problems. I had a target heart rate and I just ran at a pace that kept my heart beating at that pace. Sure, little old ladies were passing me, but I was pushing my personal capabilities and I wasn't even last. I had no expectations and no nerves. It was a thoroughly enjoyable experience that I shared with over 10,000 fellow runners of all ages and abilities.
One of the attractions to running right now is that I really can't fail. My goal isn't to compete with anyone. It's not really even to compete with myself. The goal is really to try to find my potential and reach it. That potential changes every time I run. As I age, my potential naturally decreases, but as I train my body it increases. So far at least, the increases are out pacing the decreases and I continue to get faster. But I feel great satisfaction at the end of the race knowing I did as well as I could that day. It isn't alway a PR (personal record), but I always learn something that I can take to my training and the next event. Success is just going out here. Success is putting on the shoes and running, whether its training or a race. The only way I can fail is if I don't do it.
One thing has changed, though. When I ran that first race I didn't really have a target time and I didn't have any expectations. That's the beauty of the first race; nothing to compare yourself against. But for the upcoming marathon I'm a bundle of nerves. I have a goal. If all goes well I think it's achievable. But there are so many variables and the marathon is such a long event it's difficult to know what exactly to expect. I've also done a marathon, so I'm also entering with a pretty good understanding of what is required to reach my potential and it entails a pretty extended dose of pain. Last night I kept running the race in my head, envisioning the finish, imagining the middle, trying to mentally calibrate the amount of effort required in the closing stages. I didn't sleep well.
The experts recommend having three goals: a best case, an achievable, and a fall back goal. My best case goal is 4:00. I think 4:00 is achievable, but not overly aggressive; I've trained for it, but it will require everything to go right and it is simply uncharted waters. I was on 4:00 pace for the first 19 miles of the Dallas Marathon in 2006 before the wheels came off. My achievable goal is a PR, which is 4:17, because I'm quite sure I'm in better shape than last year and this course is easier. My fallback goal is just to finish, which is a major accomplishment by itself in the marathon.
Pressure. Nerves. I love it.
I was a bundle of nerves for my first motorcycle race. The first time I went out on track as a provisional novice racer was to follow an experienced racer around the track with the rest of the newbies and I distinctly remember feeling like I was going to hurl in my helmet as I rode through the gap in the pit wall, entered the hot pits, and accelerated onto the track. It was just a slow lap, but it was faster than I'd ever gone before and after only a couple of laps I was left to my own devices trying desperately to hold my line as I was strafed left and right by riders that were much faster than me. The entire weekend I was a bundle of knotted, nervous exasperation as I realized how slow I was and how far I had to go to even catch up to the back of the pack of other newbies. It was horrible and I seriously questioned whether I'd ever return.
The Capitol 10k in 2004 was a completely different experience. I'd done track a little in high school, just enough to realize I had no talent for it, but I'd never once raced competitively. I was heavy and slow and I knew it. Coming into the race the farthest I'd run in training was 6 miles so I knew I could complete the race without problems. I had a target heart rate and I just ran at a pace that kept my heart beating at that pace. Sure, little old ladies were passing me, but I was pushing my personal capabilities and I wasn't even last. I had no expectations and no nerves. It was a thoroughly enjoyable experience that I shared with over 10,000 fellow runners of all ages and abilities.
One of the attractions to running right now is that I really can't fail. My goal isn't to compete with anyone. It's not really even to compete with myself. The goal is really to try to find my potential and reach it. That potential changes every time I run. As I age, my potential naturally decreases, but as I train my body it increases. So far at least, the increases are out pacing the decreases and I continue to get faster. But I feel great satisfaction at the end of the race knowing I did as well as I could that day. It isn't alway a PR (personal record), but I always learn something that I can take to my training and the next event. Success is just going out here. Success is putting on the shoes and running, whether its training or a race. The only way I can fail is if I don't do it.
One thing has changed, though. When I ran that first race I didn't really have a target time and I didn't have any expectations. That's the beauty of the first race; nothing to compare yourself against. But for the upcoming marathon I'm a bundle of nerves. I have a goal. If all goes well I think it's achievable. But there are so many variables and the marathon is such a long event it's difficult to know what exactly to expect. I've also done a marathon, so I'm also entering with a pretty good understanding of what is required to reach my potential and it entails a pretty extended dose of pain. Last night I kept running the race in my head, envisioning the finish, imagining the middle, trying to mentally calibrate the amount of effort required in the closing stages. I didn't sleep well.
The experts recommend having three goals: a best case, an achievable, and a fall back goal. My best case goal is 4:00. I think 4:00 is achievable, but not overly aggressive; I've trained for it, but it will require everything to go right and it is simply uncharted waters. I was on 4:00 pace for the first 19 miles of the Dallas Marathon in 2006 before the wheels came off. My achievable goal is a PR, which is 4:17, because I'm quite sure I'm in better shape than last year and this course is easier. My fallback goal is just to finish, which is a major accomplishment by itself in the marathon.
Pressure. Nerves. I love it.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
$29?!
My wife is a genius. It turns out she has a class she can't miss on Saturday which threw a wrench in my plans to drive to Houston Friday night. I was moaning about driving two cars down and back and I was asking her if she really wanted to drive down so she suggested I just fly down. So I headed over to Southwest's web page. The cheapest Friday flight was $117, but this was last Saturday so I wondered if the flights were cheaper if booked 7 days in advance. Sure enough, Saturday flights were $29. That's just incredible. It's actually cheaper to fly from Austin to Houston, plus I don't have to drive. It's even cheaper since I don't have to stay in the hotel on Friday night. So I'm flying to the marathon this weekend instead of driving.
Of course, if I was as smart as my wife I'd have bought tickets for her too...
Of course, if I was as smart as my wife I'd have bought tickets for her too...
Friday, January 04, 2008
Tapering
The last two weeks have been really weird. First is the fact that I didn't work for a week and a half which left me really, really not wanting to show up for work on Wednesday. Second is that last week I ran 45 miles including a 20 miler last Saturday. Third is that I've barely run at all this week.
You see, that 20 miler marked the high water mark of my preparation for the Houston Marathon and now I'm doing what is called a taper. This week all of my runs are basically cut in half and they feel really, really easy compared to what I'm used to. I ran 1.5 miles on Sunday, 4.6 miles on Tuesday, and 5 miles (3 miles at tempo pace) on Wednesday. Today I'll run an easy 4 miles and tomorrow or Sunday I'll run an easy 8 miles. Next week I'll only run 3 easy miles on Tuesday, a light 5 mile tempo run on Thursday, and 3 easy miles on Friday. The goal is to do just enough running to maintain my fitness level and stay sharp while letting my body recover from all the training so that on Sunday the 13th I can finish the Houston Marathon in under 4 hours.
I'll drive down to Houston on Friday night and check into a nice hotel downtown. On Saturday all I have to do is pick up my registration packet. The rest of the day will be spent relaxing and eating healthy food. On Sunday I'll get up at 5:00 am and start preparing for the 7:00 am start.
I've broken the race up into 30 minute segments that are 3.3 miles long and marked them on a course map that I have sitting on my desk next to my computer. My plan is to take the race 30 minutes at a time. I'm trying to visualize how I'll feel in each segment and what my mental mindset needs to be.
The first segment will be just getting warmed up and working through the crowds at the start. This portion of the race usually goes by really quickly and the focus is on slowing down because it's easy to get excited and take off too fast. At the end of the segment it will be time to take my first gel packet. I'll be taking a 100 calorie Clif Shot Espresso flavored caffeinated gel every 30 minutes during the race along with PowerAde from my Camelbak and fuel belt. I'll also be taking electrolyte caplets periodically to prevent cramps at the end of the race. I need to work out amounts and schedule for that.
The second segment will have the crowds thinning out and is when I'll be trying to get solidly onto my 9:09 goal pace. At the end of the first hour I should be warmed up and locked into pace. If it's cool, around this time I'll probably be shedding my gloves and hat to keep from overheating.
The next three segments should just be cruise control and should feel reasonably comfortable. The first is a straight segment and is followed by stretches that take me around Rice University and then up to the Galleria area. The end of the fourth segment comes at the halfway point 2 hours into the race just past the university. The end of the fifth segment will bring me to the 16.5 mile mark 2:30 into the race and is when I anticipate the race really beginning. It's after this point where the stress really starts to build and the effort level begins to rise in order to hold pace.
The sixth segment is critical because it is the run up to where most people, including me, hit the wall at around mile 20. The race will transition from feeling like being on cruise control to requiring continuous mental effort to overcome negative messages from my body. My legs will be complaining about fatigue. I'll want to slow down. I'll want to take a walk break. I may feel shooting pains. My hips will undoubtedly be sore by this point as my sciatic nerves get inflamed. The goal of this segment is to achieve a high level of focus and steel myself for one big push.
The seventh segment is the big push. This segment will start just before the 20 mile mark as I cross under I-610 and is where the race really begins. This is where I have to have the confidence in my preparation to push through overwhelming fatigue and soreness with a knowledge that my body can handle it. The heart rate will climb from the low 160s to the upper 160s and even low 170s. My lactate threshold is somewhere near 170 or 172, so I'll be running very near my aerobic limit. But it's just 30 minutes and only 3.3 miles. It's only a little more than 5 km. Forget about want comes after and just focus on getting through the next 30 minutes. The first goal is to get to the 20 mile mark. It's a short distance to the 20 mile marker. Then I only need to do 3 more miles. Only four 400m splits for each mile and I'll probably be taking it a quarter of a mile at a time at this point. Just reach the next split. With two down then it will just be two more to get to the next mile. After 6 splits then it's halfway done. At the 23 mile mark it's merely a tenth of a mile, less than a minute, to finish this critical segment. Finish. Finish strong. Look forward to the last segment. When this segment is done then it's just a short stretch to the end. I'll be 88% done. Heck, round up and I'll be 90% done. Almost all of the effort will be behind me and all I'll have to do is finish. So, if I feel like slowing down, pick the pace up a bit. Vary the pace a little faster, then a little slower. If in doubt, surge and pick the pace up a bit. After all, it's now less than 30 minutes until this segment is over. Don't worry about the end. Just live in this moment, here and now, and do this segment in a way that I'll look back on with pride.
The eighth and last segment is the finishing segment and my mantra will be, "Finish!" The race will be 90% behind me. I'll have come this far right on pace and if I can get this far then nothing will stop me from finishing strong and on pace. I don't have any illusions about how I'll feel at this point. I can vividly imagine the absolute fatigue in my legs and the building burning in the muscles. It may feel like I've blown everything just getting through that last segment. My mind will be going numb from the concentration and mental effort required to get through the previous segment, but now I have the advantage of knowing I got through the worst segment and am on the finishing leg. There's something about knowing that the race is almost over that allows you to dig a little deeper and find reserves where there doesn't seem to be anything left. I'll be imagining floating along, attached by an invisible bungie cord attached to the approaching finish line. I'll pretend I'm riding a bike and try to keep my feet turning the invisible crank, efficiently circling with minimal energy loss. I'll be talking to my body, encouraging it, telling it that it's going to be okay and that there is more energy in there than it thinks. Just get to mile 24 and there will be only 2 left. At 24 then just get to 25. If I can get to 25 then I can certainly gut out the last mile. Right after mile 25 I cross under I-45, bend right and then turn left. All I have to do is get to the next left, run about half a mile, and then I'll turn onto the home stretch and can stretch my legs and try to finish with a bit of a kick across the line. At this point there's no need to hold back. Who cares about the heart rate, because once I cross the line then I can stop. As I turn onto the final stretch the clock will be reading 3:55. Just 5 minutes left. As I watch the seconds and minutes count up, the line approaches, faster and faster, as I race to cross the red mats before that hour digit changes from 3 to 4. My legs pump faster, I drive with my arms, I'm breathing in and out with each step, spit is flying from my mouth with each explosive exhale, and my heart feels like it is ready to explode from my chest as I cross the line with 3:59 showing on the clock.
You know. It could happen.
I'm pretty optimistic because my runs this month have really fallen into place and my legs have started feeling really good. My only concern is my left calf, but I think that the taper will allow it to fully recover so it can withstand the race.
If you're reading this and happen to be in Houston, drop a line and maybe we can do lunch on Saturday January 12.
You see, that 20 miler marked the high water mark of my preparation for the Houston Marathon and now I'm doing what is called a taper. This week all of my runs are basically cut in half and they feel really, really easy compared to what I'm used to. I ran 1.5 miles on Sunday, 4.6 miles on Tuesday, and 5 miles (3 miles at tempo pace) on Wednesday. Today I'll run an easy 4 miles and tomorrow or Sunday I'll run an easy 8 miles. Next week I'll only run 3 easy miles on Tuesday, a light 5 mile tempo run on Thursday, and 3 easy miles on Friday. The goal is to do just enough running to maintain my fitness level and stay sharp while letting my body recover from all the training so that on Sunday the 13th I can finish the Houston Marathon in under 4 hours.
I'll drive down to Houston on Friday night and check into a nice hotel downtown. On Saturday all I have to do is pick up my registration packet. The rest of the day will be spent relaxing and eating healthy food. On Sunday I'll get up at 5:00 am and start preparing for the 7:00 am start.
I've broken the race up into 30 minute segments that are 3.3 miles long and marked them on a course map that I have sitting on my desk next to my computer. My plan is to take the race 30 minutes at a time. I'm trying to visualize how I'll feel in each segment and what my mental mindset needs to be.
The first segment will be just getting warmed up and working through the crowds at the start. This portion of the race usually goes by really quickly and the focus is on slowing down because it's easy to get excited and take off too fast. At the end of the segment it will be time to take my first gel packet. I'll be taking a 100 calorie Clif Shot Espresso flavored caffeinated gel every 30 minutes during the race along with PowerAde from my Camelbak and fuel belt. I'll also be taking electrolyte caplets periodically to prevent cramps at the end of the race. I need to work out amounts and schedule for that.
The second segment will have the crowds thinning out and is when I'll be trying to get solidly onto my 9:09 goal pace. At the end of the first hour I should be warmed up and locked into pace. If it's cool, around this time I'll probably be shedding my gloves and hat to keep from overheating.
The next three segments should just be cruise control and should feel reasonably comfortable. The first is a straight segment and is followed by stretches that take me around Rice University and then up to the Galleria area. The end of the fourth segment comes at the halfway point 2 hours into the race just past the university. The end of the fifth segment will bring me to the 16.5 mile mark 2:30 into the race and is when I anticipate the race really beginning. It's after this point where the stress really starts to build and the effort level begins to rise in order to hold pace.
The sixth segment is critical because it is the run up to where most people, including me, hit the wall at around mile 20. The race will transition from feeling like being on cruise control to requiring continuous mental effort to overcome negative messages from my body. My legs will be complaining about fatigue. I'll want to slow down. I'll want to take a walk break. I may feel shooting pains. My hips will undoubtedly be sore by this point as my sciatic nerves get inflamed. The goal of this segment is to achieve a high level of focus and steel myself for one big push.
The seventh segment is the big push. This segment will start just before the 20 mile mark as I cross under I-610 and is where the race really begins. This is where I have to have the confidence in my preparation to push through overwhelming fatigue and soreness with a knowledge that my body can handle it. The heart rate will climb from the low 160s to the upper 160s and even low 170s. My lactate threshold is somewhere near 170 or 172, so I'll be running very near my aerobic limit. But it's just 30 minutes and only 3.3 miles. It's only a little more than 5 km. Forget about want comes after and just focus on getting through the next 30 minutes. The first goal is to get to the 20 mile mark. It's a short distance to the 20 mile marker. Then I only need to do 3 more miles. Only four 400m splits for each mile and I'll probably be taking it a quarter of a mile at a time at this point. Just reach the next split. With two down then it will just be two more to get to the next mile. After 6 splits then it's halfway done. At the 23 mile mark it's merely a tenth of a mile, less than a minute, to finish this critical segment. Finish. Finish strong. Look forward to the last segment. When this segment is done then it's just a short stretch to the end. I'll be 88% done. Heck, round up and I'll be 90% done. Almost all of the effort will be behind me and all I'll have to do is finish. So, if I feel like slowing down, pick the pace up a bit. Vary the pace a little faster, then a little slower. If in doubt, surge and pick the pace up a bit. After all, it's now less than 30 minutes until this segment is over. Don't worry about the end. Just live in this moment, here and now, and do this segment in a way that I'll look back on with pride.
The eighth and last segment is the finishing segment and my mantra will be, "Finish!" The race will be 90% behind me. I'll have come this far right on pace and if I can get this far then nothing will stop me from finishing strong and on pace. I don't have any illusions about how I'll feel at this point. I can vividly imagine the absolute fatigue in my legs and the building burning in the muscles. It may feel like I've blown everything just getting through that last segment. My mind will be going numb from the concentration and mental effort required to get through the previous segment, but now I have the advantage of knowing I got through the worst segment and am on the finishing leg. There's something about knowing that the race is almost over that allows you to dig a little deeper and find reserves where there doesn't seem to be anything left. I'll be imagining floating along, attached by an invisible bungie cord attached to the approaching finish line. I'll pretend I'm riding a bike and try to keep my feet turning the invisible crank, efficiently circling with minimal energy loss. I'll be talking to my body, encouraging it, telling it that it's going to be okay and that there is more energy in there than it thinks. Just get to mile 24 and there will be only 2 left. At 24 then just get to 25. If I can get to 25 then I can certainly gut out the last mile. Right after mile 25 I cross under I-45, bend right and then turn left. All I have to do is get to the next left, run about half a mile, and then I'll turn onto the home stretch and can stretch my legs and try to finish with a bit of a kick across the line. At this point there's no need to hold back. Who cares about the heart rate, because once I cross the line then I can stop. As I turn onto the final stretch the clock will be reading 3:55. Just 5 minutes left. As I watch the seconds and minutes count up, the line approaches, faster and faster, as I race to cross the red mats before that hour digit changes from 3 to 4. My legs pump faster, I drive with my arms, I'm breathing in and out with each step, spit is flying from my mouth with each explosive exhale, and my heart feels like it is ready to explode from my chest as I cross the line with 3:59 showing on the clock.
You know. It could happen.
I'm pretty optimistic because my runs this month have really fallen into place and my legs have started feeling really good. My only concern is my left calf, but I think that the taper will allow it to fully recover so it can withstand the race.
If you're reading this and happen to be in Houston, drop a line and maybe we can do lunch on Saturday January 12.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
December 23
For those that don't know, December 23 is an important date on the Mormon calendar. On December 23, 2005 Joseph Smith was born. By his own admission, Joseph Smith is the most important man to have walked the earth, save perhaps Jesus Christ himself. The appropriate greeting for this day when meeting a Mormon is, "Merry Smithmas to all, and to all many wives."
Thanks to RfM for informing me on the appropriate greeting.
Thanks to RfM for informing me on the appropriate greeting.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Beefcake
Okay, I know you're just dying to know how my weight loss program and marathon training has transformed the Bull's body. The pictures don't lie. Nothing much has changed...
All Healed Up
I tweaked my calf at the Dallas Half Marathon so I spent last week doing my workouts in the gym on the elliptical trainer. By Thursday I felt good enough to run a couple of miles on the treadmill after 60 minutes on the elliptical. My calf was still a little sore, but it didn't hurt my running. The big day is fast approaching so I made the call that it wasn't up to the punishment of the 20 mile run I had scheduled for last Saturday. Instead I spent 4+ hours in the gym going nowhere on the elliptical with a mile on the treadmill thrown in for good measure every hour. The only saving grace was that I can read on the elliptical so I caught up on a huge backlog of magazines I had laying around.
Yesterday I resumed running with an easy 3.5 miles. No pain or soreness so I think I'm good to resume running. In fact, my legs feel fantabulously great.
This week is a recovery week anyway so I don't have anything tough planned until Saturday. Then it's a short run, but I'll be doing a race simulation with 10 miles at my marathon goal pace of 9:09/mile. I'll warm up for a couple of miles and then do one 10.1 mile loop of Town Lake at race pace to see if the pace is doable. It better feel easy or else it will be time to reset my goals and perhaps pull out of the Houston Marathon and focus on Austin the next month.
Yesterday I resumed running with an easy 3.5 miles. No pain or soreness so I think I'm good to resume running. In fact, my legs feel fantabulously great.
This week is a recovery week anyway so I don't have anything tough planned until Saturday. Then it's a short run, but I'll be doing a race simulation with 10 miles at my marathon goal pace of 9:09/mile. I'll warm up for a couple of miles and then do one 10.1 mile loop of Town Lake at race pace to see if the pace is doable. It better feel easy or else it will be time to reset my goals and perhaps pull out of the Houston Marathon and focus on Austin the next month.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Is the Mormon Church Honest?
I grew up thinking so. After all, I believed that it was God's true church and the truth has nothing to fear. Right?
However, I grew up fully aware, and embarrassed, of how different my religion was. After all, the basic premise of the Mormon church is that it is THE one true church and that all other churches, although they may have remnants or parts of the truth,
were false. Not only are they false, the Book of Mormon very clearly states that they are the whore of the earth and the church of the devil. Some think that this refers to the Catholic church, but the Book of Mormon clearly teaches that there are only two churches: the church of the Lamb and the church of the devil. If you aren't the true church, then you are part of the other one. Needless to say this didn't go over well with other religions and still doesn't. So the church doesn't exactly go around using this is as a talking point in its missionary discussions.
Anyway, a big part of my mission was overcoming my embarrassment about the church and learning to be proud and bold about talking about the church. After all, if it is true then there is no reason to be afraid. Blacks and the priesthood? No problem. The priesthood is God's power delegated to man. He get's to choose who to delegate it to. He has chosen prophets and told them who can and can't have it. He doesn't give it to non-church members. He doesn't give it to women. And until 1978 he didn't give it to blacks. God has spoken and who am I to argue. I don't know the reason, but he must know what he is doing. After all he IS God.
Do you get the point? The point of the Mormon church, first and foremost, is that it is led by a prophet of God who tells us God's will. It's not a debating society. It's not a democracy. It's the divine source of all truth and knowledge. So, if God's word runs against current social mores then it's an indication that society has strayed. It's not for the church to conform; the world needs to pray, humble itself, and conform to God's word.
In an election year, the church has suddenly been thrust to center stage by the candidacy of Mitt Romney. They have been given an unprecedented opportunity to boldly declare their beliefs and how they differ from the other religions of the world. They have an opportunity to proudly declare their beliefs. Fox News gave them a list of questions that focused on some of the church's controversial beliefs. Check out their answers. Most of them are simple lies. For the record I'll answer the questions for them since they seem incapable.
However, I grew up fully aware, and embarrassed, of how different my religion was. After all, the basic premise of the Mormon church is that it is THE one true church and that all other churches, although they may have remnants or parts of the truth,
were false. Not only are they false, the Book of Mormon very clearly states that they are the whore of the earth and the church of the devil. Some think that this refers to the Catholic church, but the Book of Mormon clearly teaches that there are only two churches: the church of the Lamb and the church of the devil. If you aren't the true church, then you are part of the other one. Needless to say this didn't go over well with other religions and still doesn't. So the church doesn't exactly go around using this is as a talking point in its missionary discussions.
Anyway, a big part of my mission was overcoming my embarrassment about the church and learning to be proud and bold about talking about the church. After all, if it is true then there is no reason to be afraid. Blacks and the priesthood? No problem. The priesthood is God's power delegated to man. He get's to choose who to delegate it to. He has chosen prophets and told them who can and can't have it. He doesn't give it to non-church members. He doesn't give it to women. And until 1978 he didn't give it to blacks. God has spoken and who am I to argue. I don't know the reason, but he must know what he is doing. After all he IS God.
Do you get the point? The point of the Mormon church, first and foremost, is that it is led by a prophet of God who tells us God's will. It's not a debating society. It's not a democracy. It's the divine source of all truth and knowledge. So, if God's word runs against current social mores then it's an indication that society has strayed. It's not for the church to conform; the world needs to pray, humble itself, and conform to God's word.
In an election year, the church has suddenly been thrust to center stage by the candidacy of Mitt Romney. They have been given an unprecedented opportunity to boldly declare their beliefs and how they differ from the other religions of the world. They have an opportunity to proudly declare their beliefs. Fox News gave them a list of questions that focused on some of the church's controversial beliefs. Check out their answers. Most of them are simple lies. For the record I'll answer the questions for them since they seem incapable.
Q: Why do some call the Church a cult?
A: Because it meets almost all of the attributes of destructive personality cults such as the Church of Scientology. Because it exerts tremendous social pressure to exert control over all aspects of its members.
Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God?
A: Yes.
Q: Does the Church believe in the divinity of Jesus?
A: Yes
Q: Does the Church believe that God is a physical being?
A: Yes. It believes that God the Father and Jesus Christ are beings of flesh and bone and that they are perfected humans.
Q: If so, does the Church believe that God lives on a planet named Kolob?
A: Yes.
Update: I was wrong. Kolob is a star. All the scripture says is that it is close to God, whatever that means. In fact, read about it yourself in Abraham 3. If it makes any sense to you then you're doing better than me. Still, as far as I know this doesn't have any theological significance whatsoever to Mormons now or ever other than they claim that Abraham had a great deal of advanced astronomy revealed directly to him by God. However, as far as I know, no astronomers, not even at the Lord's university (BYU), have found that the Book of Abraham has been of any particular use in shedding light on the nature of the cosmos.
Q: Where is the planet Kolob? What significance does the planet have to Mormons?
A: They don't know, but the Book of Mormon, part of the Mormon canon, tells about it and its cosmic relationship to this world and the other worlds in this universe. It doesn't really have any theological role in the church.
Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that God and Mary had physical sex to conceive Jesus?
A: It's not part of the church canon, but one of the church's prophets taught publicly that Jesus' physical body was conceived the same way as any other naturally conceived human body. The same prophet also taught that God and Mary were plurally married. Most members are unaware of the teaching, but the church DOES teach that Jesus is the literal physical son of God the Father. In the end, does it really matter if it was copulation, artificial insemination, or immaculate conception? God fathered a son with an unmarried woman. All Christians believe that. Non-mormons just seem to object to the idea that the Virgin Mary had sex with God.
Update: Here is a pretty good link summarizing the church's past teachings on the matter.
Q: Does the Mormon Church believe Jesus appeared in North America after his crucifixion and resurrection?
A: Yes.
Q: If so, when did this happen? And under what circumstances?
A: Right after his ascension in Jerusalem. After three days of complete darkness Jesus descended in a pillar of light from heaven in America were he ministered to the people, ordained apostles, preached, instituted ordinances, and organized his church.
Honestly, this is the most perplexing answer that the church gave. This is one of their BIG selling points.
Q: Does the Mormon Church believe its followers can become "gods and goddesses" after death?
A: Yes. They believe that God is a perfected man and that all people are his children with the divine nature to rise to become gods and goddesses. This is what the church calls exaltation and it is one of the key doctrines of the church.
Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that women can only gain access to heaven with a special pass or codewords?
A: Their answer is a blatant lie. The answer is yes. The answer is also yes for men. Read Brigham Young's definition of the temple endowment. People must have the keywords, tokens, and handshakes in order to pass by the angels and enter into the highest degree of glory.
Update: Ok, first you have to define what you mean by heaven. Mormons scripture defines 3 heavens: telestial, terrestrial, and celestial. The celestial kingdom in turn has three degrees the highest of which is reserved for faithful Mormons who have been married in the temple. Mormon theology claims universal salvation for all except sons of perdition who openly, knowingly rebel against God. So, everyone, including murderers and child molesters will go to heaven although it might be the lowest. Still Joseph Smith claimed that if we knew how wonderful the lowest heaven was we'd commit suicide to get in.
Still, most Mormons aspire to the highest degree of the celestial kingdom when thinking of heaven and generally when they talk about heaven that is what they mean. Men and women need to be endowed and married in the temple and know the appropriate handshakes and passwords to get in.
Furthermore, men get to know one of the secret passwords of their wives (their new name) but the women don't know the husband's. I learned that men would use this key word to call forth their wives in the resurrection. Sort of as if the resurrection is a temple ordinance over which the men preside. I guess this is another reason why Mormon women should be hesistant about disobeying their worthy priesthood holding husbands.
Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that women must serve men on both Earth and in heaven?
A: Until 1990 women had to covenant in the temple to obey their husbands in righteousness just as they would obey God. They are NOT equal in any way in the church. They are expected to be subservient and accountable to the male priesthood hierarchy. No matter how much the church states otherwise, the church makes clear differences between men and women with women always below men.
Q: Is there such a thing as Mormon "underwear"? if so, are all Mormons required to wear it? What does it symbolize?
A: Their answer here is tactful, but correct. They are called the garments of the holy priesthood and only members who have received their temple endowments wear them. They wear them as a constant reminder of their temple covenants and as a spiritual and physical protection.
A pertinent part of this is an enumeration of the covenants that are made. Romney, if he is active Mormon, wears garments and some of his covenants could be construed to conflict with the oath of the President of the U.S.A. People should be interested in knowing exactly what SECRET oaths and covenants Romney has taken in the temple if he is to serve in high office. If he is wearing garments it is an indication that he takes those oaths seriously.
Q: Does the Mormon Church believe in the existence of another physical planet or planets, where Mormons will "rule" after their death and ascension?
A: This is a clear lie. The canon teaches that exaltation is inheriting "worlds without end". All active, studious members know that this is a lie.
Q: What specifically does the Mormon Church say about African-Americans and Native Americans?
A: This is a clear lie. The Mormon church to this day teaches that the dark skins of blacks and Indians are the result of a curse for wickedness and were given as a sign to prevent the righteous from intermixing with them. Until 1978 a Mormon with even one black ancestor anywhere in their past was denied the priesthood and the blessings of the priesthood and as a result was denied exaltation or the highest level of heaven. This doctrine has NEVER been changed. It was only modified to say that the Lord has decided that the time has come where, finally, everyone could have all the blessings regardless of color. This has only been true since 1978. But even today, dark skin is a mark of unrighteousness.
Updated: OK, a clear lie of ommission. Their answer is true as far as it goes since 1978. But is incomplete and as such is a lie because it is simply non-responsive. For rather obvious reasons they don't want to give a complete answer.
Q: What are or were the "Golden Plates"?
A: The dissimulation here is that The Book of Mormon is a history of "peoples" in the Western Hemisphere. This is a modification of the original teaching that it was the history of all the people of the Western Hemisphere.
Again, the Book of Mormon is the whole reason the church was founded and is one its key doctrinal differences.
Q: Are consumption of alcohol and tobacco prohibited or simply discouraged?
A: The Word of Wisdom was originally a recommendation that wasn't made a commandment until the 1920s. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and others were known to violate the Word of Wisdom.
Q: Does the Church also ban the consumption of "hot drinks"? And does that apply specifically to caffeinated drinks?
A: The current prophet has publicly stated that it applies to caffeinated sodas such as Pepsi and Coke.
Q: Why do Mormons go from door to door?
A: No problem here. All Christians should do the same. It's in the Bible.
Q: What do the Mormons believe about the family?
A: They forgot to state that families can be forever if the parents are married in the temple and sealed to their children. I'm surprised that they forgot this. It's only beaten into the head of every Mormon from the time they can first sing a song in Primary.
Q: Can someone who may never marry in life have eternal marriage?
A: Truthful in as far as it goes. The actual doctrine is that single women will be given as plural wives to righteous polygamists in the celestial kingdom in the afterlife. Otherwise they cannot be exalted.
Updated: Thanks for the comments from Mattman. But the answers are positively Clintonian in their parsing of words and careful phrasing and reliance on ambiguity and misunderstanding of how Mormons have redefined the common meaning of words such as "heaven" without revealing how they are interpreting the word in a way that they know the questioner didn't intend or doesn't understand. It's obvious that these questions are intentionally probing into weird areas of Mormon theology. But that some such as the question about the golden plates are core and even there they couldn't give a good answer.
The problem is that the church really IS weird. It is trying to mainstream, but to do so would require stripping it of everything that makes it unique and appealing to its believers.
Monday, December 17, 2007
An Apostle's Witness of Christ
Joseph Smith claimed that he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ. He founded the Mormon church and claimed that he received the authority to do so directly from ancient prophets including Elijah, John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, and others. His church has claimed unique authority among the worlds churches and religions to represent God and its members regularly bear testimony that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the one and only true church on the face of the earth.
The divine visitations to Joseph Smith are very important to Mormons because they are central to Joseph's claim of prophetic status. Joseph's successors have continued to claim a prophetic mantle and the current presidency of the church and its twelve apostles are all sustained by the church members as prophets, seers and revelators. The apostles also claim the role as special witness of Jesus Christ.
Their is an aura of reverence and secrecy surrounding those claims. I can never recall a modern church leader claiming to have seen God face to face as a man, but church members assume that they have. Part of the belief is that it is too sacred to speak about. But the assumption is there and it is carefully cultivated. After all, if an apostle's faith is no different than a rank and file member's, then what makes his witness "special"? The "special" aspect is assumed by most members to be a personal visit by Jesus that allows them to proclaim his divinity with a certainty denied to those that must live by faith.
If you read the above church article you'll see how carefully the apostles choose their language to give the impression that their knowledge is different than that of a normal member. This is how Howard Hunter describes the role of the ancient apostles:
The only reason I bring it up is that he gave this talk on October 30, 1983 and only a little over a month later, while in the Missionary Training Center, I heard this same man during the Church's Christmas Devotional Broadcast explicitly state that he had never seen Jesus Christ and that his "special" witness was a spiritual witness that he felt was stronger than if he'd actually seen him. Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't seem like that is the impression he was trying to give or that apostles continue to try to give today.
So, I'll give him credit for actually publicly answering the question although I can't find any transcripts of that talk.
I'll also close by noting that just a few short years later this man became the president and prophet of the church. So, unless something changed in those years it's probable that the Mormon church is led by prophets that have never seen God despite the fact that they allow the perception to exist that they have.
Is it just me, or is that dishonest?
The divine visitations to Joseph Smith are very important to Mormons because they are central to Joseph's claim of prophetic status. Joseph's successors have continued to claim a prophetic mantle and the current presidency of the church and its twelve apostles are all sustained by the church members as prophets, seers and revelators. The apostles also claim the role as special witness of Jesus Christ.
Their is an aura of reverence and secrecy surrounding those claims. I can never recall a modern church leader claiming to have seen God face to face as a man, but church members assume that they have. Part of the belief is that it is too sacred to speak about. But the assumption is there and it is carefully cultivated. After all, if an apostle's faith is no different than a rank and file member's, then what makes his witness "special"? The "special" aspect is assumed by most members to be a personal visit by Jesus that allows them to proclaim his divinity with a certainty denied to those that must live by faith.
If you read the above church article you'll see how carefully the apostles choose their language to give the impression that their knowledge is different than that of a normal member. This is how Howard Hunter describes the role of the ancient apostles:
It is very clear from this quote that the function of an apostle was to be an actual eye witness of the resurrected Lord to those who have not actually seen him. Note that the Mormon church claims to have apostles that fulfill the same role. By implication the reader is left to assume that the modern apostles are also literal witnesses who have "handled the Lord's hands and feet." But note the careful way he states this.These twelve Apostles served a vital function in the Lord’s plan. They were special witnesses of the Savior’s divinity and of his literal resurrection. Not only did they know him during his mortal ministry, but they communed with him after his resurrection. The resurrected Redeemer appeared in the midst of his disciples in the upper room. They handled the Lord’s hands and feet and learned that Jesus was not merely a spirit but a resurrected being with flesh and bones. (See Luke 24:38, 39.)
These Apostles knew of the Lord’s divinity and of his resurrection with a certainty beyond all disputation. With this knowledge, born of experience and confirmed by the Holy Ghost, they were commanded to “be witnesses unto [Christ] both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”
In our day the Lord has again called Apostles. These Apostles have been ordained as special witnesses of Christ in all the world. They know of the reality of Christ and his redemption with a certainty born of the Spirit.Note that here he uses the cryptic statement, "with a certainty born of the Spirit." Church members are taught that mortals cannot bear the presence of God except through the power of the Spirit. So what does he mean? He quickly follows with a quote from Joseph Smith,
“For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice beating record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father.” (D&C 76:22–23.)Are you following his logic? It's seems pretty clear that he's making the claim that he, as a modern apostle, follows the pattern and has had a similar experience to Joseph Smith and the ancient apostles. Here's his special witness:
The Prophet’s witness, born of experience and of the Spirit, has been proclaimed throughout the world, and the Holy Ghost has confirmed the truthfulness of that witness in the hearts of millions who have received the word with gladness. The pattern for proving spiritual things has been reestablished in our day. And an unbroken chain of succession has ensured that the apostolic calling has been with us continually since it was restored to Joseph Smith.
As an ordained Apostle and special witness of Christ, I give to you my solemn witness that Jesus Christ is in fact the Son of God.
...The resurrected Lord has continued his ministry of salvation by appearing, from time to time, to mortal men chosen by God to be his witnesses, and by revealing his will through the Holy Ghost.
It is by the power of the Holy Ghost that I bear my witness. I know of Christ’s reality as if I had seen with my eyes and heard with my ears. I know also that the Holy Spirit will confirm the truthfulness of my witness in the hearts of all those who listen with an ear of faith.
Parse the words carefully and note the "as if." As a faithful member would this increase or decrease your belief that the apostles have actually seen Jesus Christ? Everything leading up to this point is carefully constructed to give that impression, but he comes just short of making the claim. Many members would claim that he's too humble or that the experience is too sacred.
The only reason I bring it up is that he gave this talk on October 30, 1983 and only a little over a month later, while in the Missionary Training Center, I heard this same man during the Church's Christmas Devotional Broadcast explicitly state that he had never seen Jesus Christ and that his "special" witness was a spiritual witness that he felt was stronger than if he'd actually seen him. Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't seem like that is the impression he was trying to give or that apostles continue to try to give today.
So, I'll give him credit for actually publicly answering the question although I can't find any transcripts of that talk.
I'll also close by noting that just a few short years later this man became the president and prophet of the church. So, unless something changed in those years it's probable that the Mormon church is led by prophets that have never seen God despite the fact that they allow the perception to exist that they have.
Is it just me, or is that dishonest?
Friday, December 14, 2007
What I Believe
This is a continuation of three previous posts: What is God? The Mormon Version, Seeds of Doubt, and The Roles of Faith and Science.
This all started out with someone on another forum asking what we believe now that we've left Mormonism. I posted a short answer which but as I started to post it here I realized that it really didn't make a lot of sense without some context about my original beliefs and how they have evolved to reach the point where I am now.
If you believe in an omnipotent, interventionist God then you open a whole can of worms and God becomes very capricious, helping the unworthy while letting the worthy suffer. If he does intervene it is in a manner so inexplicable to me as to be useless to explain either good or evil. I don't see any magic recipe like that promised by Mormonism where we can bind God to bless us if we keep his laws. I just see too many instances where it doesn't work out. Either that or you are reduced to calling bad things trials when they happen to good people and punishment when they happen to bad people. It's not a terribly useful world view especially when no one is totally good or bad because there is no way to disprove it and it provides no predictive power.It has always made more sense for me to believe that God set things in motion and then lets them play out according to natural laws. He created the laws and then we are stuck living with the consequences and the best we can do is to act in a way to make the world as good of a place as possible. If we want it better then we have to put in the effort. So I guess I've never put much stock in a interventionist God.
Now, I guess I mostly consider myself an atheist. If God exists I don't believe we can prove it because I don't think he interferes. And I frankly don't find magical thinking terribly useful in my personal life. To me God is the mysteries. He's the source of the universe. He defined the laws. He's order. He's the creative force.
To me Satan is the destroyer. He's the source of disorder. He's the perfect foil for God.
And I think we have the seeds of both natures in each of us. At our best we can create and organize and bring great beauty into the world. At our worst we are capable of incredible cruelty and destruction and ugliness. As Jesus said, "You are all gods."
But in the end, both are just a way to say, "I don't know." When I can't explain it and it looks like it simply can't be explained, I guess that is where God and Satan reside in my belief system. They are symbols for causes that are beyond my understanding.
I really don't pray, but I find myself hoping that ultimately good will prevail or at least will balance out evil. I find myself reaching out and trying to tap into the godly aspect of my nature and battling the evil part.
Rather than define myself as what I am not, a believer in God, I prefer to define myself as what I am, a believer in reason and evidence, a rationalist or an enlightened man.
How's that for an ambiguous answer? I'm truly not sure if any of that made any sense but it's my first attempt to express ideas that have been bouncing around in my head since I left the church.
It makes more sense for me to believe that God set things in motion and then lets them play out according to natural laws. He created the laws and then we are stuck living with the consequences and the best we can do is to act in a way to make the world as good of a place as possible. If we want it better then we have to put in the effort.
So, I guess I mostly consider myself an atheist. If God exists I don't believe we can prove it because I don't think he interferes. To me God is the mysteries. He's the source of the universe. He defined the laws. He's order. He's the creative force.
To me Satan is the destroyer. He's the source of disorder. He's the perfect foil for God.
And I think we have the seeds of both natures in each of us. At our best we can create and organize and bring great beauty into the world. At our worst we are capable of incredible cruelty and destruction and ugliness. As Jesus said, "You are all gods."
But in the end, both are just a way to say, "I don't know." When I can't explain it and it looks like it simply can't be explained, I guess that is where God and Satan reside in my belief system. They are symbols for causes that are beyond my understanding.
I really don't pray, but I find myself hoping that ultimately good will prevail or at least will balance out evil. I find myself reaching out and trying to tap into the godly aspect of my nature and battling the evil part.
Rather than define myself as what I am not, a believer in God, I prefer to define myself as what I am, a believer in reason and evidence, a rationalist or an enlightened man.
How's that for an ambiguous answer? I'm truly not sure if any of that made any sense but it's my first attempt to express ideas that have been bouncing around in my head since I left the church.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The Roles of Faith and Science
This is a continuation of two previous posts: What is God? The Mormon Version and Seeds of Doubt.
In retrospect, spiritual experiences have pretty mundane explanations once you understand a little bit about human psychology. I would highly recommend Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind for a very interesting exploration of the wonders of the mind. But I'm pretty comfortable that what I was taught were spiritual experiences caused by an external power were actually exceptional, but normal products of human consciousness.
I have always marveled and continue to be awed by the beauty and complexity of the universe and its origins are beyond my comprehension. But my life has led me to believe that even though you don't have the explanation, one can be found. Sometimes explanations are elusive. Some have taken lifetimes to find. But the history of mankind repeatedly shows that when sought, explanations to even the thorniest conundrums follow.
I was raised in a Mormon church that coexisted comfortably with science and knowledge and as a result I was always encouraged to ask questions. The truth has nothing to fear from questions and careful probing because it has nothing to hide. Errors and falsehoods can't hold up to inquiry, but the truth has nothing to fear. The church of my childhood was fearlessly and unapologetically true. My church heroes were James E. Talmage and John A. Widtsoe, educated and thoughtful men who fearlessly sought and defended the truth.
I highly recommend B. H. Roberts' book, Studies of the Book of Mormon. B. H. was a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, the church historian, editor of The Comprehensive History of the Church, and author of many volumes that explained and defended the history and doctrines of the church. His unofficial title was Defender of the Faith. A person sent a letter to the church with some questions about the Book of Mormon. The questions were given to Mr Roberts to answer. Initially he assumed that it would be easy to answer these questions in a manner that would confirm the plausibility of the Book of Mormon as a history of the Indians. However the more he studied the more he realized that the facts were simply inconsistent with the story in the Book of Mormon. He was so concerned by the implications that he petitioned to discuss the issues with the highest leaders of the church. His concerns were dismissed. But he documented his concerns in the above book which was published posthumously. It is interesting that he concluded that there was good evidence that the Book of Mormon was a product of 19th century America and that Joseph Smith was capable of producing the book. While he never renounced his religion or his testimony, it becomes clear that he had serious doubts/concerns and that he felt that the questions were legitimate and that they needed to be addressed by the church. This is clear example of an honest man who understood that the truth needed to provide answers and not ask people to just have faith and ignore evidence against their beliefs.
The book is also interesting because the questions are really only problematic if you believe that the Book of Mormon is the history of the principle ancestors of the American Indians (the so-called hemispheric model). Modern apologists deal with the questions with a modern Mormon invention called the limited geography theory that states that the Book of Mormon is only the history of a portion (possibly quite small) of the original Americans that was possibly limited to an unknown, small geographical area which they suppose is in meso-America. Never mind that this directly contradicts the public teachings of every single Mormon prophet starting with Joseph Smith and the beliefs of most Mormons to this day; the educated Mormons realize that the hemispheric model is strongly contradicted by all available evidence and so the limited geography theory is the only plausible explanation unless you want to deny mountains of scientific evidence. B. H. Roberts was about as educated and knowledgeable as any person in the church in the early 20th century. If he had known of or accepted the limited geography theory or some variant thereof he would have mentioned it. But the fact that he didn't is pretty good evidence that he and others in authority in the church believed what the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith taught: the American Indians are direct descendants of Lehi and the primary ancestors of the hemisphere. Yet today's Mormon apologists pretend as if this is a simple misunderstanding of the church's founder and followers and that this is not and has never been doctrinal.
My point is, I was raised to believe that a belief in God and a belief in science are mutually compatible but somewhere I got the heretical belief that when faith and science are in conflict that science should win. Faith is belief without evidence, so when evidence conflicts with faith then the evidence should win out. My definition of faith was always a belief in things not proven that are true. If they contradict evidence then they are not true and thus can be rejected as true faith. I think that this is still a good definition to work with. I still believe in faith. I don't know everything, so I find faith very helpful.
The Mormon church today seems to have retreated into an intellectual siege mentality where the current president of the Quorum of the Twelve and next man in line to succession to the presidency has declarde that there are things that are true that aren't particularly useful and that those facts should be suppressed and that church members that publish those facts should be punished. Needless to say, this is not characteristic of the church of my youth and is not consistent with what I consider to be true faith. It is the worst form of dogmatism: blind belief.
Ultimately, I expanded my horizons and allowed myself to consider facts that contradicted my life long beliefs about the church. My core beliefs about faith and science didn't change, but they did force me to abandon my belief in the truthfulness of the Mormon church. In the end, its claims simply don't hold up to close scrutiny and its efforts to hide the facts just make it clear that it knows the facts aren't on its side.
In retrospect, spiritual experiences have pretty mundane explanations once you understand a little bit about human psychology. I would highly recommend Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind for a very interesting exploration of the wonders of the mind. But I'm pretty comfortable that what I was taught were spiritual experiences caused by an external power were actually exceptional, but normal products of human consciousness.
I have always marveled and continue to be awed by the beauty and complexity of the universe and its origins are beyond my comprehension. But my life has led me to believe that even though you don't have the explanation, one can be found. Sometimes explanations are elusive. Some have taken lifetimes to find. But the history of mankind repeatedly shows that when sought, explanations to even the thorniest conundrums follow.
I was raised in a Mormon church that coexisted comfortably with science and knowledge and as a result I was always encouraged to ask questions. The truth has nothing to fear from questions and careful probing because it has nothing to hide. Errors and falsehoods can't hold up to inquiry, but the truth has nothing to fear. The church of my childhood was fearlessly and unapologetically true. My church heroes were James E. Talmage and John A. Widtsoe, educated and thoughtful men who fearlessly sought and defended the truth.
I highly recommend B. H. Roberts' book, Studies of the Book of Mormon. B. H. was a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, the church historian, editor of The Comprehensive History of the Church, and author of many volumes that explained and defended the history and doctrines of the church. His unofficial title was Defender of the Faith. A person sent a letter to the church with some questions about the Book of Mormon. The questions were given to Mr Roberts to answer. Initially he assumed that it would be easy to answer these questions in a manner that would confirm the plausibility of the Book of Mormon as a history of the Indians. However the more he studied the more he realized that the facts were simply inconsistent with the story in the Book of Mormon. He was so concerned by the implications that he petitioned to discuss the issues with the highest leaders of the church. His concerns were dismissed. But he documented his concerns in the above book which was published posthumously. It is interesting that he concluded that there was good evidence that the Book of Mormon was a product of 19th century America and that Joseph Smith was capable of producing the book. While he never renounced his religion or his testimony, it becomes clear that he had serious doubts/concerns and that he felt that the questions were legitimate and that they needed to be addressed by the church. This is clear example of an honest man who understood that the truth needed to provide answers and not ask people to just have faith and ignore evidence against their beliefs.
The book is also interesting because the questions are really only problematic if you believe that the Book of Mormon is the history of the principle ancestors of the American Indians (the so-called hemispheric model). Modern apologists deal with the questions with a modern Mormon invention called the limited geography theory that states that the Book of Mormon is only the history of a portion (possibly quite small) of the original Americans that was possibly limited to an unknown, small geographical area which they suppose is in meso-America. Never mind that this directly contradicts the public teachings of every single Mormon prophet starting with Joseph Smith and the beliefs of most Mormons to this day; the educated Mormons realize that the hemispheric model is strongly contradicted by all available evidence and so the limited geography theory is the only plausible explanation unless you want to deny mountains of scientific evidence. B. H. Roberts was about as educated and knowledgeable as any person in the church in the early 20th century. If he had known of or accepted the limited geography theory or some variant thereof he would have mentioned it. But the fact that he didn't is pretty good evidence that he and others in authority in the church believed what the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith taught: the American Indians are direct descendants of Lehi and the primary ancestors of the hemisphere. Yet today's Mormon apologists pretend as if this is a simple misunderstanding of the church's founder and followers and that this is not and has never been doctrinal.
My point is, I was raised to believe that a belief in God and a belief in science are mutually compatible but somewhere I got the heretical belief that when faith and science are in conflict that science should win. Faith is belief without evidence, so when evidence conflicts with faith then the evidence should win out. My definition of faith was always a belief in things not proven that are true. If they contradict evidence then they are not true and thus can be rejected as true faith. I think that this is still a good definition to work with. I still believe in faith. I don't know everything, so I find faith very helpful.
The Mormon church today seems to have retreated into an intellectual siege mentality where the current president of the Quorum of the Twelve and next man in line to succession to the presidency has declarde that there are things that are true that aren't particularly useful and that those facts should be suppressed and that church members that publish those facts should be punished. Needless to say, this is not characteristic of the church of my youth and is not consistent with what I consider to be true faith. It is the worst form of dogmatism: blind belief.
Ultimately, I expanded my horizons and allowed myself to consider facts that contradicted my life long beliefs about the church. My core beliefs about faith and science didn't change, but they did force me to abandon my belief in the truthfulness of the Mormon church. In the end, its claims simply don't hold up to close scrutiny and its efforts to hide the facts just make it clear that it knows the facts aren't on its side.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Running With Friends
I did something a little different over the weekend and ran the Dallas Half Marathon with some friends. The running part wasn't different, but this time I wasn't running for a personal best but just to accompany them and enjoy the run. This wasn't just their first half marathon; it was their first race ever! Congratulations to them both for the great accomplishment. It was great to get together again, enjoy each others' company, and share a running milestone.
The only drama for me was that about 6.5 miles into the race I felt a little pop in my left calf that immediately hurt a bit and then got progressively worse even though I was just jogging along at a pretty slow pace. At 10 miles I picked up the pace from the 10:45 pace we were running and dropped down to the 8:00-8:30 range and my calf felt better. I actually felt really good. The weather has been so warm in Austin this year that it's been difficult for me to judge my fitness, but I was able to run the last 3.1 miles significantly faster than I would have guessed so I think I'm actually on track to be able to try to run under 4:00 in the marathon.
The bad news was that after I finished my calf immediately started tightening up and getting painful. Last night I was having trouble walking and couldn't raise up on my toes. I was a little worried, but this morning I'm walking without a limp and it's just sore. I'll get a massage tonight and take a week off from running to let it recover. In the meantime I'll hit the elliptical trainer hard so I can keep building fitness.
Last week I ran 41 miles. This week was planned to be a recovery week anyway. I plan on doing my first 20 miler of the year and a 22 miler this month and be ready to taper for the first couple of weeks of January in preparation for the Houston Marathon on January 13.
The only drama for me was that about 6.5 miles into the race I felt a little pop in my left calf that immediately hurt a bit and then got progressively worse even though I was just jogging along at a pretty slow pace. At 10 miles I picked up the pace from the 10:45 pace we were running and dropped down to the 8:00-8:30 range and my calf felt better. I actually felt really good. The weather has been so warm in Austin this year that it's been difficult for me to judge my fitness, but I was able to run the last 3.1 miles significantly faster than I would have guessed so I think I'm actually on track to be able to try to run under 4:00 in the marathon.
The bad news was that after I finished my calf immediately started tightening up and getting painful. Last night I was having trouble walking and couldn't raise up on my toes. I was a little worried, but this morning I'm walking without a limp and it's just sore. I'll get a massage tonight and take a week off from running to let it recover. In the meantime I'll hit the elliptical trainer hard so I can keep building fitness.
Last week I ran 41 miles. This week was planned to be a recovery week anyway. I plan on doing my first 20 miler of the year and a 22 miler this month and be ready to taper for the first couple of weeks of January in preparation for the Houston Marathon on January 13.
Seeds of Doubt
This is a continuation of my previous post entitled, What is God? The Mormon Version.
I had a couple of powerful experiences that convinced me that God existed and loved me. I also had many experiences where the church's teachings seemed so right and resonated with my soul. I felt strongly that if the world would just embrace the gospel as taught by the church then most of its problems would simply go away.
However, beyond that I never observed anything that I found miraculous in the sense that I believed that God had intervened. I never observed miracles or anything that defied a natural explanation and required a supernatural explanation. Growing up I heard accounts of miracles, but for some reason I never found them very compelling. For example, there was the tearful testimony by a man who blessed a person with cancer. Subsequently the cancer went into remission and the person was cured. However, I knew that not only did many non-Mormons and non-religious people spontaneously remiss from their cancers, I also knew that many people received blessings and subsequently died. From what I could tell, blessings had little effect beyond comforting the sick person. Beyond that, nature ran its course and the best choice for the sick was to receive the best medical care they could obtain.
This train of thought carried over to historical events that I read as a church member. One that stands out was the account of Joseph Smith miraculously healing the sick in the malaria ridden settlements of early Nauvoo. It was hard for me to see anything terrible miraculous because I knew that there was a terrifically high mortality rate. It seemed more like everyone got blessed and then the church cherry picked the cases where people were healed and recorded them as miracles. What about those that died? If God healed some, why did he let so many other people die? It was much easier for me to believe that God wasn't that capricious and that what people chalked up as miracles were just random chance; some people get better, and some don't.
I can't explain some other experiences. But I also know that just because I can't explain them doesn't mean that they can't be explained and doesn't mean I must accept the supernatural. For example, my father once told me a story about a troubled family that he was visiting as a church home teacher. Apparently this family had many problems and my father thought that there was something satanic going on there. He told me that one time he was on the phone at home sitting on his bed and while talking to them he felt the whole bed shaking and coming off the floor. My mental picture was like something out of the exorcist. Did it really happen? If so, that would be pretty tough to explain. My father isn't prone to fabrication but I've learned that his beliefs strongly color his perceptions of everything so maybe his account is an accurate description of his perceptions of something that was less incredible. I'm willing to say I don't know and I'm not too proud to admit I could be wrong. It just seems extremely unlikely.
I've also had very vivid dreams, usually in the twilight of sleep where the mind is awake but the body is still slumbering. I first remember these during my mission where I was immersed in religion and religious reading. While I was reading Jesus the Christ I had a vivid dream of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane coming to his slumbering disciples. This was a strong confirmation of my beliefs, but I was troubled when later in my mission I had a similarly vivid dream that my father, who was a member of the bishopric at the time, was having an affair and cheating on my mother. I awoke and remembered every detail of the dream and it had a palpable sense of reality. I was distraught because I just knew that it was true. I knew it every bit as much as anything else religious that I'd experience. I have never asked my father about it. Part of me is afraid to discover that it might be true. If so, maybe the dreams really are true and I need to reconsider my current lack of faith. But, I was fairly certain then and am more certain now that that particular dream wasn't true and this led me to doubt some of my earlier spiritual experiences since it seemed that they could be equivocal. Part of me knew that my spiritual experiences could have more mundane explanations, but I didn't want to believe that.
I attended Brigham Young University which is the crown jewel of the Mormon church's educational system. I received a top notch education in engineering and enjoyed almost every aspect of my college years. Strangely, for me at least, the low points of my college experience were the religion classes I was required to take. Some of the classes were good, but some were incredibly bad. The worst ones were not the ones taught by random professors who were not part of the religion department; the worst ones were taught by the faculty of the religion department. Ironicly, Mormonism is founded on a deep seated distrust of professional religionists and my experiences at BYU confirmed those beliefs.
While a missionary, a member had smirkingly (I thought) asked whether it was true that Joseph Smith had 23 wives. I admitted that I had no idea although I thought it could be possible since Joseph received the church's revelation allowing polygamy so it made sense that he would have been the first person to practice it. Even if he did, I didn't think it was a problem. After all, all the other Mormon prophets from Brigham Young to Heber J. Grant had practiced polygamy openly. That means that out of 15 church presidents, 7 of them were polygamists and they governed the church for 115 years of its 177 year history.
One of my last purchases in Utah before graduation from BYU was Mormon Polygamy: A History by Richard S. Van Wagoner. When I saw the book in Deseret Book (I think) I immediately picked it up because it was the first treatment of the topic I'd ever seen. I wanted to know more. Given the importance of the practice in 19th century Utah and the central part it had in the church's revelation on celestial marriage it had always struck me as strange that it was never really discussed in church. Part of me believed that if there was nothing wrong with it, then there was nothing to be ashamed of. But the silence on the topic created a suspicion that something was being hidden and I wondered what the story was and whether the church was hiding something. I made it part way through the book, but I never finished it. I had trouble reconciling the details with what I'd been taught about the character of Joseph Smith. I could easily see how the doctrine might have been introduced as a justification for Joseph Smith's lusts and desires and it became apparent why the church didn't have Sunday School lessons about the origins of polygamy in the church. I came away with a belief that the church was embarrassed by polygamy and just wanted to bury the topic.
Around this time I also read an article in the church's magazine, The Ensign, written by Milton V. Backman, Jr. Bushman that included the different versions of Joseph Smith's First Vision along with an apologetic explanation that while the stories were different they were substantially the same and that if they had been more similar then it would be evidence of a fabrication. I remember thinking, "Those stories aren't substantially similar at all. They are completely different. The only similarity is that he had a religious experience."
I had doubts, as I've no doubt most Mormons have had, but I'd done with them what I had always been taught to do; I put them on a shelf with confidence that at some point, perhaps in the next life, all my questions and doubts would be explained. After all, I'd accepted my spiritual witnesses as evidence that the church was true. It it was true, then there must be an explanation even if I didn't have it.
This process came to a skidding halt in 1990. The bishop announced from the pulpit in sacrament meeting that all temple endowed members should make arrangements to go through the temple as soon as possible. Changes had been made and due to the sacred nature of the temple he obviously couldn't say what they were, but he promised that they were wonderful. I wondered what could change. What could they have added? I'd always found the temple endowment disturbing and perplexing. My wife and I went and I was amazed to find that they hadn't added anything. Instead they'd removed many of the parts that I'd always wondered about. How could this be? The church teaches that its ordinances were given by revelation from God and that they couldn't be changed. If the endowment was the highest and most sacred ordinance, they how could it be changed? If God revealed it, then it should be correct. If it wasn't, then maybe it wasn't really from God. If the prophet can't get the most sacred and holy ordinances right, then what could he be trusted to get right? God is supposed to be unchangeable, so why would the covenants of the temple need to be changed. Furthermore, it seems like the ordinances had been changed because they were found to be offensive by some members. If the ordinances were from God, wouldn't that indicate a problem with the members taking offense? Shouldn't they humble themselves and accept what God was requiring? If God and church members face off, shouldn't God win? Why was the church changing God's revelations in response to public sentiment? The rather obvious answer, to me, was that the temple ordinance must not be from God. From that point on the underpinnings of my religious belief were undermined because here was a clear contradiction. I simply couldn't reconcile this with everything I'd been taught about the church and God.
It took another 13 years to finally dig deeper and go beyond strong doubts and look for more evidence of deception. But once I looked it became crystal clear that I had been deceived my entire life.
I had a couple of powerful experiences that convinced me that God existed and loved me. I also had many experiences where the church's teachings seemed so right and resonated with my soul. I felt strongly that if the world would just embrace the gospel as taught by the church then most of its problems would simply go away.
However, beyond that I never observed anything that I found miraculous in the sense that I believed that God had intervened. I never observed miracles or anything that defied a natural explanation and required a supernatural explanation. Growing up I heard accounts of miracles, but for some reason I never found them very compelling. For example, there was the tearful testimony by a man who blessed a person with cancer. Subsequently the cancer went into remission and the person was cured. However, I knew that not only did many non-Mormons and non-religious people spontaneously remiss from their cancers, I also knew that many people received blessings and subsequently died. From what I could tell, blessings had little effect beyond comforting the sick person. Beyond that, nature ran its course and the best choice for the sick was to receive the best medical care they could obtain.
This train of thought carried over to historical events that I read as a church member. One that stands out was the account of Joseph Smith miraculously healing the sick in the malaria ridden settlements of early Nauvoo. It was hard for me to see anything terrible miraculous because I knew that there was a terrifically high mortality rate. It seemed more like everyone got blessed and then the church cherry picked the cases where people were healed and recorded them as miracles. What about those that died? If God healed some, why did he let so many other people die? It was much easier for me to believe that God wasn't that capricious and that what people chalked up as miracles were just random chance; some people get better, and some don't.
I can't explain some other experiences. But I also know that just because I can't explain them doesn't mean that they can't be explained and doesn't mean I must accept the supernatural. For example, my father once told me a story about a troubled family that he was visiting as a church home teacher. Apparently this family had many problems and my father thought that there was something satanic going on there. He told me that one time he was on the phone at home sitting on his bed and while talking to them he felt the whole bed shaking and coming off the floor. My mental picture was like something out of the exorcist. Did it really happen? If so, that would be pretty tough to explain. My father isn't prone to fabrication but I've learned that his beliefs strongly color his perceptions of everything so maybe his account is an accurate description of his perceptions of something that was less incredible. I'm willing to say I don't know and I'm not too proud to admit I could be wrong. It just seems extremely unlikely.
I've also had very vivid dreams, usually in the twilight of sleep where the mind is awake but the body is still slumbering. I first remember these during my mission where I was immersed in religion and religious reading. While I was reading Jesus the Christ I had a vivid dream of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane coming to his slumbering disciples. This was a strong confirmation of my beliefs, but I was troubled when later in my mission I had a similarly vivid dream that my father, who was a member of the bishopric at the time, was having an affair and cheating on my mother. I awoke and remembered every detail of the dream and it had a palpable sense of reality. I was distraught because I just knew that it was true. I knew it every bit as much as anything else religious that I'd experience. I have never asked my father about it. Part of me is afraid to discover that it might be true. If so, maybe the dreams really are true and I need to reconsider my current lack of faith. But, I was fairly certain then and am more certain now that that particular dream wasn't true and this led me to doubt some of my earlier spiritual experiences since it seemed that they could be equivocal. Part of me knew that my spiritual experiences could have more mundane explanations, but I didn't want to believe that.
I attended Brigham Young University which is the crown jewel of the Mormon church's educational system. I received a top notch education in engineering and enjoyed almost every aspect of my college years. Strangely, for me at least, the low points of my college experience were the religion classes I was required to take. Some of the classes were good, but some were incredibly bad. The worst ones were not the ones taught by random professors who were not part of the religion department; the worst ones were taught by the faculty of the religion department. Ironicly, Mormonism is founded on a deep seated distrust of professional religionists and my experiences at BYU confirmed those beliefs.
While a missionary, a member had smirkingly (I thought) asked whether it was true that Joseph Smith had 23 wives. I admitted that I had no idea although I thought it could be possible since Joseph received the church's revelation allowing polygamy so it made sense that he would have been the first person to practice it. Even if he did, I didn't think it was a problem. After all, all the other Mormon prophets from Brigham Young to Heber J. Grant had practiced polygamy openly. That means that out of 15 church presidents, 7 of them were polygamists and they governed the church for 115 years of its 177 year history.
One of my last purchases in Utah before graduation from BYU was Mormon Polygamy: A History by Richard S. Van Wagoner. When I saw the book in Deseret Book (I think) I immediately picked it up because it was the first treatment of the topic I'd ever seen. I wanted to know more. Given the importance of the practice in 19th century Utah and the central part it had in the church's revelation on celestial marriage it had always struck me as strange that it was never really discussed in church. Part of me believed that if there was nothing wrong with it, then there was nothing to be ashamed of. But the silence on the topic created a suspicion that something was being hidden and I wondered what the story was and whether the church was hiding something. I made it part way through the book, but I never finished it. I had trouble reconciling the details with what I'd been taught about the character of Joseph Smith. I could easily see how the doctrine might have been introduced as a justification for Joseph Smith's lusts and desires and it became apparent why the church didn't have Sunday School lessons about the origins of polygamy in the church. I came away with a belief that the church was embarrassed by polygamy and just wanted to bury the topic.
Around this time I also read an article in the church's magazine, The Ensign, written by Milton V. Backman, Jr. Bushman that included the different versions of Joseph Smith's First Vision along with an apologetic explanation that while the stories were different they were substantially the same and that if they had been more similar then it would be evidence of a fabrication. I remember thinking, "Those stories aren't substantially similar at all. They are completely different. The only similarity is that he had a religious experience."
I had doubts, as I've no doubt most Mormons have had, but I'd done with them what I had always been taught to do; I put them on a shelf with confidence that at some point, perhaps in the next life, all my questions and doubts would be explained. After all, I'd accepted my spiritual witnesses as evidence that the church was true. It it was true, then there must be an explanation even if I didn't have it.
This process came to a skidding halt in 1990. The bishop announced from the pulpit in sacrament meeting that all temple endowed members should make arrangements to go through the temple as soon as possible. Changes had been made and due to the sacred nature of the temple he obviously couldn't say what they were, but he promised that they were wonderful. I wondered what could change. What could they have added? I'd always found the temple endowment disturbing and perplexing. My wife and I went and I was amazed to find that they hadn't added anything. Instead they'd removed many of the parts that I'd always wondered about. How could this be? The church teaches that its ordinances were given by revelation from God and that they couldn't be changed. If the endowment was the highest and most sacred ordinance, they how could it be changed? If God revealed it, then it should be correct. If it wasn't, then maybe it wasn't really from God. If the prophet can't get the most sacred and holy ordinances right, then what could he be trusted to get right? God is supposed to be unchangeable, so why would the covenants of the temple need to be changed. Furthermore, it seems like the ordinances had been changed because they were found to be offensive by some members. If the ordinances were from God, wouldn't that indicate a problem with the members taking offense? Shouldn't they humble themselves and accept what God was requiring? If God and church members face off, shouldn't God win? Why was the church changing God's revelations in response to public sentiment? The rather obvious answer, to me, was that the temple ordinance must not be from God. From that point on the underpinnings of my religious belief were undermined because here was a clear contradiction. I simply couldn't reconcile this with everything I'd been taught about the church and God.
It took another 13 years to finally dig deeper and go beyond strong doubts and look for more evidence of deception. But once I looked it became crystal clear that I had been deceived my entire life.
Friday, November 02, 2007
What is God? The Mormon Version
Do you believe in God? If there is a God or Gods, what are the characteristics of divinity?
I was raised to believe that Heavenly Father was a perfected man who had once been mortal, lived, died, been resurrected, and then been perfected. For some reason Christians find this to be non-Biblical and non-Christian. I'm not sure why since the Bible teaches that Jesus lived before he was born, that he was the mortal offspring of Heavenly Father and Mary, that he was killed, died, was resurrected in a perfect and immortal state, and that he then ascended into heaven to join Heavenly Father in his perfection. While the Mormon doctrine is unique and heretical to many, it isn't unreasonable even if it challenges traditional beliefs about God.
Mormon doctrine takes the next logical step and proclaims that as children of God, we have the same capacity for perfection and deity within us. Many think this diminishes God, but I always felt that this showed a truly almighty God that was secure in his perfection and willing to share it with everyone willing to follow his laws. Don't be fooled by the fact that the current Mormon prophet, "Doesn't know that we teach that." I don't know a single active Mormon that is unaware of this doctrine and in fact this doctrine is central to both Mormon doctrine and also its practice. It is for this very reason that every believing Mormon aspires to attend the temple, because they believe that it is only through completing all of the ordinances in the temple that they can hope to receive their "exaltation" which is to live in heaven with God and to become as he is.
Mormons believe in a personal God that actively interferes in the daily lives of his children. How he does this is a mystery, but they believe that he answers prayers, heals people, manipulates the weather, influences the behavior of both the righteous and the wicked, reveals truths to anyone that asks and has the spiritual sensitivity to receive the answer, and generally does anything that he needs to do to achieve his ends.
The key to receiving God's blessings is to live his commandments which have been revealed to his prophets. Joseph Smith received a revelation that tells us that God can actually be bound, that is obligated, to bless us. The revelation says that for every blessing there is an associated law. If you want the blessing then you must live the law. But further, if you live the law the God is obligated to give the blessing.
One of the basic commandments is that we should fast and pray. Through fast and prayer we can come to know God's will through the Holy Ghost or Spirit. The Spirit is often referred to as a still small voice. Some people claim to actually hear voices, but I don't know any of them. Most are taught that the Spirit gives us feelings. Another revelation from Joseph Smith describes how to tell if something is true. You must pray diligently and try to work out the answer in your mind. Then you ask God if what you have formulated is true. If it is, then you will feel a burning in the bosom or a feeling of peace or rightness. This is the Spirit bearing witness. If it not right, then you will feel a "stupor of thought". This is a feeling of wrongness that will erase the thing that is not right from your mind. You can read about the process in D&C 9.
As a result of these teachings, Mormons tend to be very conscious of rules and are very focused on trying to keep the commandments to the best of their ability. Non-Mormons like to accuse Mormons of believing that salvation is through works, not grace. But this isn't true. It's just that they don't believe that God will be mocked and that simply "accepting Jesus" gets you an E ticket ride to heaven. They believe that you much accept Jesus, but the Book of Mormon teaches that people are saved by the grace of Jesus after all that they can do.
They also try to be very sensitive to their feelings and try to distinguish between those feelings that are ordinary feelings and those that may be the promptings of the Spirit. And they believe that those promptings can come regarding every aspect of their life including work, finances, and politics.
While I was growing up I had a few powerful spiritual experiences that I believed were manifestations of the Spirit. These feelings were very strong and confirmed my belief in God. I know Mormons, including my father, who have never felt a burning in the bosom. But I've had that sensation twice. My first such experience was when I was about 11 or 12. This will probably sound stupid to you, but I had spent some time one evening organizing the things I needed to do each day into a numbered list. I then put these numbers in a pocket notebook where I could put the numbers on a sheet for each day that I would check off. I guess even at that young age I was already struggling with my general lack of organization. I finished this up and was quite happy and pleased with the prospects of improving myself. I knelt down for my evening prayers and as I did I felt an intense pleasurable warmth in my chest that I instantly recognized as the Spirit witnessing with a burning in the bosom. To me it was a witness that God was aware of me and pleased with the path that I was on. It exactly fit the descriptions in the scripture.
I went to college when I was 16. I was very smart and self-reliant for my age, but I was painfully immature socially and had the paradoxical combination of a huge ego and very low self esteem. I also suffered from crippling migraines and depression. One evening I'd had a terrible migraine attack. My head was throbbing and I was terribly depressed. I felt lonely, alone, unloved, and completely unhappy with simply existing. In this state I knelt down on my knees and prayed and soon felt that comforting warmth fill my chest and expand like a pleasant wave through my body. The best analogy I can make is that it was like a smooth, non-sexual orgasm that left me comforted and reassured that someone out there loved me and that things would be ok. I got up at peace and was able to go to sleep and continue on with my life in a much better state of mind. This was an example to me of the Spirit acting as a Comforter as described in the New Testament.
While I was a freshman at the Lord's university (BYU for those who didn't know) I read the Book of Mormon from cover to cover. As I read it I felt a certain rightness and I just couldn't imagine that Joseph Smith could have possibly made it up. It seemed to be full of teachings and stories that were very helpful in knowing how we should live our lives. It beautifully describes doctrines like faith, grace, atonement, and redemption and is full of moralistic stories where bad people are consistently punished for disobedience and the righteous are rewarded for their good deeds. I interpreted the feelings of rightness as further spiritual witnesses of the truth of the Mormon church.
I continued to study church doctrines and it always seemed consistent and comforting. These feelings carried over to my church mission where I served for almost two years in Bolivia teaching the people there in Spanish about Joseph Smith and the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I was always reading church books about doctrine and history and felt that I was very knowledgeable about the church although there was always more to learn.
So how is it that I am where I am at today? This post is long enough so I'll continue this later.
I was raised to believe that Heavenly Father was a perfected man who had once been mortal, lived, died, been resurrected, and then been perfected. For some reason Christians find this to be non-Biblical and non-Christian. I'm not sure why since the Bible teaches that Jesus lived before he was born, that he was the mortal offspring of Heavenly Father and Mary, that he was killed, died, was resurrected in a perfect and immortal state, and that he then ascended into heaven to join Heavenly Father in his perfection. While the Mormon doctrine is unique and heretical to many, it isn't unreasonable even if it challenges traditional beliefs about God.
Mormon doctrine takes the next logical step and proclaims that as children of God, we have the same capacity for perfection and deity within us. Many think this diminishes God, but I always felt that this showed a truly almighty God that was secure in his perfection and willing to share it with everyone willing to follow his laws. Don't be fooled by the fact that the current Mormon prophet, "Doesn't know that we teach that." I don't know a single active Mormon that is unaware of this doctrine and in fact this doctrine is central to both Mormon doctrine and also its practice. It is for this very reason that every believing Mormon aspires to attend the temple, because they believe that it is only through completing all of the ordinances in the temple that they can hope to receive their "exaltation" which is to live in heaven with God and to become as he is.
Mormons believe in a personal God that actively interferes in the daily lives of his children. How he does this is a mystery, but they believe that he answers prayers, heals people, manipulates the weather, influences the behavior of both the righteous and the wicked, reveals truths to anyone that asks and has the spiritual sensitivity to receive the answer, and generally does anything that he needs to do to achieve his ends.
The key to receiving God's blessings is to live his commandments which have been revealed to his prophets. Joseph Smith received a revelation that tells us that God can actually be bound, that is obligated, to bless us. The revelation says that for every blessing there is an associated law. If you want the blessing then you must live the law. But further, if you live the law the God is obligated to give the blessing.
One of the basic commandments is that we should fast and pray. Through fast and prayer we can come to know God's will through the Holy Ghost or Spirit. The Spirit is often referred to as a still small voice. Some people claim to actually hear voices, but I don't know any of them. Most are taught that the Spirit gives us feelings. Another revelation from Joseph Smith describes how to tell if something is true. You must pray diligently and try to work out the answer in your mind. Then you ask God if what you have formulated is true. If it is, then you will feel a burning in the bosom or a feeling of peace or rightness. This is the Spirit bearing witness. If it not right, then you will feel a "stupor of thought". This is a feeling of wrongness that will erase the thing that is not right from your mind. You can read about the process in D&C 9.
As a result of these teachings, Mormons tend to be very conscious of rules and are very focused on trying to keep the commandments to the best of their ability. Non-Mormons like to accuse Mormons of believing that salvation is through works, not grace. But this isn't true. It's just that they don't believe that God will be mocked and that simply "accepting Jesus" gets you an E ticket ride to heaven. They believe that you much accept Jesus, but the Book of Mormon teaches that people are saved by the grace of Jesus after all that they can do.
They also try to be very sensitive to their feelings and try to distinguish between those feelings that are ordinary feelings and those that may be the promptings of the Spirit. And they believe that those promptings can come regarding every aspect of their life including work, finances, and politics.
While I was growing up I had a few powerful spiritual experiences that I believed were manifestations of the Spirit. These feelings were very strong and confirmed my belief in God. I know Mormons, including my father, who have never felt a burning in the bosom. But I've had that sensation twice. My first such experience was when I was about 11 or 12. This will probably sound stupid to you, but I had spent some time one evening organizing the things I needed to do each day into a numbered list. I then put these numbers in a pocket notebook where I could put the numbers on a sheet for each day that I would check off. I guess even at that young age I was already struggling with my general lack of organization. I finished this up and was quite happy and pleased with the prospects of improving myself. I knelt down for my evening prayers and as I did I felt an intense pleasurable warmth in my chest that I instantly recognized as the Spirit witnessing with a burning in the bosom. To me it was a witness that God was aware of me and pleased with the path that I was on. It exactly fit the descriptions in the scripture.
I went to college when I was 16. I was very smart and self-reliant for my age, but I was painfully immature socially and had the paradoxical combination of a huge ego and very low self esteem. I also suffered from crippling migraines and depression. One evening I'd had a terrible migraine attack. My head was throbbing and I was terribly depressed. I felt lonely, alone, unloved, and completely unhappy with simply existing. In this state I knelt down on my knees and prayed and soon felt that comforting warmth fill my chest and expand like a pleasant wave through my body. The best analogy I can make is that it was like a smooth, non-sexual orgasm that left me comforted and reassured that someone out there loved me and that things would be ok. I got up at peace and was able to go to sleep and continue on with my life in a much better state of mind. This was an example to me of the Spirit acting as a Comforter as described in the New Testament.
While I was a freshman at the Lord's university (BYU for those who didn't know) I read the Book of Mormon from cover to cover. As I read it I felt a certain rightness and I just couldn't imagine that Joseph Smith could have possibly made it up. It seemed to be full of teachings and stories that were very helpful in knowing how we should live our lives. It beautifully describes doctrines like faith, grace, atonement, and redemption and is full of moralistic stories where bad people are consistently punished for disobedience and the righteous are rewarded for their good deeds. I interpreted the feelings of rightness as further spiritual witnesses of the truth of the Mormon church.
I continued to study church doctrines and it always seemed consistent and comforting. These feelings carried over to my church mission where I served for almost two years in Bolivia teaching the people there in Spanish about Joseph Smith and the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I was always reading church books about doctrine and history and felt that I was very knowledgeable about the church although there was always more to learn.
So how is it that I am where I am at today? This post is long enough so I'll continue this later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)