Ok it was brought to my attention I did the number one no no in blogging. I switched blogs and didn't even tell you guys. I'm currently at word press. Check it out.
http://justapunkkid.wordpress.com/ or just click on the title.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Sunday, April 12, 2009
What the Book of Mormon means to me
As I mentioned in the past I've tried to make one post about the Book of Mormon, or Mormonism in general becuase I was challenged to and inspired to in one of my religion classes at BYU.
I recently finished reading the book and thought I'd share some of my thought on it. The Book of Mormon is a book which has changed my life. It changed my life because it's the only book which I know the message is true becuase I have felt it by the power of the Holy Ghost.
What does that mean? Considering a lot of our cansual reading is usually done for fun, and many of those books, aside from being fun, amusing and entertaining, don't usually have any significant message it is odd to say "I know this book is true," or in other words, "I know the message of the book is true."
Some books in this world do have meaning. Philisophical books like Plato's The Republic, or Marx's Capital or Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. Each of these books has a distinct and faily clear message. But how do you know which message is truth?
Another example is when you read a history book or a newspaper. History and current events have meaning. As you read different newspapers or different history books, you might find the same events covered in two different ways.
The Book of Mormon is a literal history of an ancient people who lived somewhere on the American continent. This people had prohhets who taught the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ himself visited them after his death, resurrection and ascension to heaven.
The message of the Book is that Christ lives. The authors of the book (which are many) testify that they know this with absolute certaity becuase they've seen him. It teaches that he was the literal Son of God sent to earth, the suffer, bleed and die for the sins of mankind, and conquer death by his resurrection, and that in and by his grace all mankind can be saved if they have faith in him.
That's the message. It is historicaly, philisophicaly, and spiritualy true. Though it is not a perfect book it is the most correct book on this earth and you and I can come closer to God by reading and obeying the teachings of God more than we can any other book. And that best part is that if you don't believe me you can read it for yourself and know.
That's how I can say I know the Book of Mormon is true. I have read it many times, prayed about it and felt myself get closer to God and seen the fruits of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
I recently finished reading the book and thought I'd share some of my thought on it. The Book of Mormon is a book which has changed my life. It changed my life because it's the only book which I know the message is true becuase I have felt it by the power of the Holy Ghost.
What does that mean? Considering a lot of our cansual reading is usually done for fun, and many of those books, aside from being fun, amusing and entertaining, don't usually have any significant message it is odd to say "I know this book is true," or in other words, "I know the message of the book is true."
Some books in this world do have meaning. Philisophical books like Plato's The Republic, or Marx's Capital or Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. Each of these books has a distinct and faily clear message. But how do you know which message is truth?
Another example is when you read a history book or a newspaper. History and current events have meaning. As you read different newspapers or different history books, you might find the same events covered in two different ways.
The Book of Mormon is a literal history of an ancient people who lived somewhere on the American continent. This people had prohhets who taught the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ himself visited them after his death, resurrection and ascension to heaven.
The message of the Book is that Christ lives. The authors of the book (which are many) testify that they know this with absolute certaity becuase they've seen him. It teaches that he was the literal Son of God sent to earth, the suffer, bleed and die for the sins of mankind, and conquer death by his resurrection, and that in and by his grace all mankind can be saved if they have faith in him.
That's the message. It is historicaly, philisophicaly, and spiritualy true. Though it is not a perfect book it is the most correct book on this earth and you and I can come closer to God by reading and obeying the teachings of God more than we can any other book. And that best part is that if you don't believe me you can read it for yourself and know.
That's how I can say I know the Book of Mormon is true. I have read it many times, prayed about it and felt myself get closer to God and seen the fruits of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Some Thoughts on General Conference
Perhaps my favorite message of the confernce so far has been Elder Hales talk of provident living. Recently I've been reading some of the Pauline epistles and in one Paul explains to members of the church that not only are the commanded not to steal, but the gospel requires them to live a higher law.
The law of Moses forbade stealing, but Paul encouraged the members to work and use their extra to feed the poor. Elder Hales talk seemed an eco of that Pauline admonition. Another talk which seemed to echo that sentiment was also President Eyrings talk when he pointed out that the Lord commands even those, like myself, who would not be considered "wealthy" (which I believe Websters Dictionary 2009 defines as "Any individual making over 250,000 dollars or an individual who recieved a bonus from a company who was bailed out with taxpayer funds.") but that all are encouraged to live modestly and to give graciously. Both men connected giving to finding true meaning and happiness in life.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
The law of Moses forbade stealing, but Paul encouraged the members to work and use their extra to feed the poor. Elder Hales talk seemed an eco of that Pauline admonition. Another talk which seemed to echo that sentiment was also President Eyrings talk when he pointed out that the Lord commands even those, like myself, who would not be considered "wealthy" (which I believe Websters Dictionary 2009 defines as "Any individual making over 250,000 dollars or an individual who recieved a bonus from a company who was bailed out with taxpayer funds.") but that all are encouraged to live modestly and to give graciously. Both men connected giving to finding true meaning and happiness in life.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Just a Quickie
Just a little thought from some of my reading in Hebrews. It's one of my favorite epistles. I love in particular how the Apostle Paul begins his letter by explaining the graduer of Christ. He explains that he was the Son of God, that it was by him that all the worlds were created and that there was nothing created but by him.
But after examining Christ's power and majesty, he then focuses on Christs humanity. Paul writes, "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."
It is always incredible to try to imagine how the creator of the universes came down volutarily and lived the humblest of lives and truly submitted to the will of the Father.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
But after examining Christ's power and majesty, he then focuses on Christs humanity. Paul writes, "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."
It is always incredible to try to imagine how the creator of the universes came down volutarily and lived the humblest of lives and truly submitted to the will of the Father.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
A Thought on Big Love
The HBO show big love has caused a stir due to decision to include in an episode a scene in which one of the main characters goes through a temple session. As a reaction many LDS saints have threatened to boycott sponsors of the show.
Understandably those not of the LDS faith are slightly perplexed by what is considered a pretty dramatic reaction. HBO feels that they used the scene in good taste and claims it didn't wish to offend anyone and many others ask what it is that Mormons have to hide.
First, what goes on inside Mormon temples, though not discussed Mormon's themsleves outside of the temple, are by no means secrets. Obviously the U.S. government is not going to allow a religion with millions of members across the United States go into a secret place where no one knows what goes on inside. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints disclosed a fairly detailed discription of what takes place in temples to U.S. library of congress years ago.
Plus, prior to a temples dedication anyone can enter to see for themselves what it looks like. Although these temple "open houses" (as they are called by Church members) don't teach about ceremonies which take place inside.
So a logical question to this is why? Why not simply let everyone know what takes place inside? Why the secrets?
To reiterate my first point, technically no part of the temple ceremony is secret. There is a discription in the library of congress as well as a number of other books which do objectively discuss temple endowment sessions. But despite the fact that this information is available you LDS neighbor probably isn't going to sit down and go through the "play by play" of what they do in a temple.
They will probably instead give a general overview of what takes place. But why be so vague? Why not just go into detail and that way nobody has any questions?
And that is the real question. Not why do Mormons keep secrets but why is it that when something isn't secret Mormons still are reluctant to go into great detail?
This is a difficult question to answer. I suppose the closest thing I could compare it to would be a very emotional experience. These emotional experiences I am speaking of could be a whole array of different possibilities.
It could be when you had your first child, falling in love, having a special moment with a family member, perhaps you had a best friend that you shared a lot of experiences and yourself with. Even though others may be aware of these events often times to go into great details with others makes one feel a little odd. And for there are just some experiences we as human beings don't just walk around sharing becuase of how special and inexplicable these experiences are.
At times perhaps we will talk about these experiences in more detail, but generally its with someone who has been through a similar experience. (i.e. had fallen in love, recently had a child, had a relationship to a best friend similar to you.) It just generally feels instictively odd to us as human beings to share experiences which to us are so special and wonderful which others may laugh at, not care about, be confused or perhaps even creeped out and offended. We as human beings genrally have topics which aren't secrets per se, but we just don't go into great detail with any given person.
And that would be my closest analogy to why we members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are a little annoyed with HBO's choice to air the episode. I believe that HBO had good intentions and by no means is trying to make a mockery of what is sacred to me. But here are a few things to consider:
1) Ceremonies performed by Mormons in temples are very symbolic. Unless someone is explained what the ceremony is and means it would look a little odd, and turn, once agian, something which is considered so special that Mormon's don't discuss it much out side of the temple into a specticale. It seems highly unlikely that as part of the episode of Big Love that there is going to be a segment trying to help viewers understand why Mormons do these ceremonies and what the ceremonies mean. Without explaining either what is sacred to me will be made to look wierd. Perhpas unintentionally, but it look wierd either way.
2) The temple itself is a very peaceful and spiritual place. It is impossible for viewers to understand how it feels to be inside a temple. It is a very peaceful and spiritual place. It's a place where I and others go to pray, feel God's love and learn about our purpose on earth. So once again, viewers will not be able to understand what is going on becuase they will not be able to have the experience of being in a temple.
I suppose both of the reason why so many Mormons are annoyed with HBO's decision to air the episode is in short it will make, what to us, is a very spiritual, special moment of worship into... well entertainment. Since afterall that's what television is.
On a personal note, I am against boycotting (not just on this issue but in general as well.) People don't usually respond well to threats or force and boycotts are both. HBO has a right to air the show. No law was broken. So I would hope you understand that although I support their right to free speech I would hope that in the future such controversies could simply be avoided by perhaps keeping in mind the thoughts and feelings of others.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Understandably those not of the LDS faith are slightly perplexed by what is considered a pretty dramatic reaction. HBO feels that they used the scene in good taste and claims it didn't wish to offend anyone and many others ask what it is that Mormons have to hide.
First, what goes on inside Mormon temples, though not discussed Mormon's themsleves outside of the temple, are by no means secrets. Obviously the U.S. government is not going to allow a religion with millions of members across the United States go into a secret place where no one knows what goes on inside. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints disclosed a fairly detailed discription of what takes place in temples to U.S. library of congress years ago.
Plus, prior to a temples dedication anyone can enter to see for themselves what it looks like. Although these temple "open houses" (as they are called by Church members) don't teach about ceremonies which take place inside.
So a logical question to this is why? Why not simply let everyone know what takes place inside? Why the secrets?
To reiterate my first point, technically no part of the temple ceremony is secret. There is a discription in the library of congress as well as a number of other books which do objectively discuss temple endowment sessions. But despite the fact that this information is available you LDS neighbor probably isn't going to sit down and go through the "play by play" of what they do in a temple.
They will probably instead give a general overview of what takes place. But why be so vague? Why not just go into detail and that way nobody has any questions?
And that is the real question. Not why do Mormons keep secrets but why is it that when something isn't secret Mormons still are reluctant to go into great detail?
This is a difficult question to answer. I suppose the closest thing I could compare it to would be a very emotional experience. These emotional experiences I am speaking of could be a whole array of different possibilities.
It could be when you had your first child, falling in love, having a special moment with a family member, perhaps you had a best friend that you shared a lot of experiences and yourself with. Even though others may be aware of these events often times to go into great details with others makes one feel a little odd. And for there are just some experiences we as human beings don't just walk around sharing becuase of how special and inexplicable these experiences are.
At times perhaps we will talk about these experiences in more detail, but generally its with someone who has been through a similar experience. (i.e. had fallen in love, recently had a child, had a relationship to a best friend similar to you.) It just generally feels instictively odd to us as human beings to share experiences which to us are so special and wonderful which others may laugh at, not care about, be confused or perhaps even creeped out and offended. We as human beings genrally have topics which aren't secrets per se, but we just don't go into great detail with any given person.
And that would be my closest analogy to why we members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are a little annoyed with HBO's choice to air the episode. I believe that HBO had good intentions and by no means is trying to make a mockery of what is sacred to me. But here are a few things to consider:
1) Ceremonies performed by Mormons in temples are very symbolic. Unless someone is explained what the ceremony is and means it would look a little odd, and turn, once agian, something which is considered so special that Mormon's don't discuss it much out side of the temple into a specticale. It seems highly unlikely that as part of the episode of Big Love that there is going to be a segment trying to help viewers understand why Mormons do these ceremonies and what the ceremonies mean. Without explaining either what is sacred to me will be made to look wierd. Perhpas unintentionally, but it look wierd either way.
2) The temple itself is a very peaceful and spiritual place. It is impossible for viewers to understand how it feels to be inside a temple. It is a very peaceful and spiritual place. It's a place where I and others go to pray, feel God's love and learn about our purpose on earth. So once again, viewers will not be able to understand what is going on becuase they will not be able to have the experience of being in a temple.
I suppose both of the reason why so many Mormons are annoyed with HBO's decision to air the episode is in short it will make, what to us, is a very spiritual, special moment of worship into... well entertainment. Since afterall that's what television is.
On a personal note, I am against boycotting (not just on this issue but in general as well.) People don't usually respond well to threats or force and boycotts are both. HBO has a right to air the show. No law was broken. So I would hope you understand that although I support their right to free speech I would hope that in the future such controversies could simply be avoided by perhaps keeping in mind the thoughts and feelings of others.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Reading above the lines
(Not as funny as the Car Czar, but hey, I tried)
It’s a pretty cliché to hear a friend say, “Oh, the book was so much better than the movie.” So I stopped reading books. Movies are becoming dull, repetitive and senseless as it is, I don’t need books to ruin it for me now!
Recently I’m applying that same philosophy to newspapers. The news story is never anywhere near as exciting as the headline. It’s too… well detailed, true and boring.
But you don’t have to read the fine print in the newspapers to know this country is headed for hard times. If fact, in many cases the headlines say it better themselves.
The Deseret Morning News ran a Bloomberg story under the headline “Schwarzenegger to ax thousands”. Wow, that’s when you know the economy is bad.
I suppose it kind of makes sense. Pelosi originally tried to use millions of federal dollars for contraceptives to stimulate (among other things) the US economy. I mean if there are less people then the government (in theory) spends less.
Apparently Schwarzenegger not only liked the idea but jumped at the opportunity to grow a stache a play the real life part of Jack Torrace. “Heeeeeerreee’s Arnie!”
Well, it’s either that or Governor Schwarzenegger is axing down thousands of trees in hopes that the state will cut billions out of their annual energy forest fire cost.
But never fear tax payers! The Salt Lake Tribune says, “Matheson tackles Tax Reform at summit”. Well it’s about darn time. Politicians talked a lot about Mr. Reform for some time, and how much the Little Guy needs him. But Mr. Reform was ever so elusive.
But not anymore! Congressman Matheson apparently used his Mormon b-ball skills to tackle the nimble Tax Reform before he could get away. I hope he gave him a wedgie and put him in a headlock (like the woman who ran down a car burglar a few weeks back) that’s how we roll here in Dutch oven state.
And just how vicious is it getting out there? The tribune also reported “Marriage bureaus nationwide, in Utah shoot down same-sex couples”. That’s awful!
I thought California was the only state that was considering cutting back on population in order to cut spending. (Of course it were California it would have read “Marriage bureaus ax down same sex couples.”)
I fully expect this excessive use of violence to reignite the gun control debate. Families of the victims and perhaps victims who were just severely wounded will be marched up to testify that guns of the horrific atrocities done to them by the gun industry.
Of course the NRA will think of some catchy slogan like, “guns don’t people, marriage bureaus kill people,” to their defense.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
It’s a pretty cliché to hear a friend say, “Oh, the book was so much better than the movie.” So I stopped reading books. Movies are becoming dull, repetitive and senseless as it is, I don’t need books to ruin it for me now!
Recently I’m applying that same philosophy to newspapers. The news story is never anywhere near as exciting as the headline. It’s too… well detailed, true and boring.
But you don’t have to read the fine print in the newspapers to know this country is headed for hard times. If fact, in many cases the headlines say it better themselves.
The Deseret Morning News ran a Bloomberg story under the headline “Schwarzenegger to ax thousands”. Wow, that’s when you know the economy is bad.
I suppose it kind of makes sense. Pelosi originally tried to use millions of federal dollars for contraceptives to stimulate (among other things) the US economy. I mean if there are less people then the government (in theory) spends less.
Apparently Schwarzenegger not only liked the idea but jumped at the opportunity to grow a stache a play the real life part of Jack Torrace. “Heeeeeerreee’s Arnie!”
Well, it’s either that or Governor Schwarzenegger is axing down thousands of trees in hopes that the state will cut billions out of their annual energy forest fire cost.
But never fear tax payers! The Salt Lake Tribune says, “Matheson tackles Tax Reform at summit”. Well it’s about darn time. Politicians talked a lot about Mr. Reform for some time, and how much the Little Guy needs him. But Mr. Reform was ever so elusive.
But not anymore! Congressman Matheson apparently used his Mormon b-ball skills to tackle the nimble Tax Reform before he could get away. I hope he gave him a wedgie and put him in a headlock (like the woman who ran down a car burglar a few weeks back) that’s how we roll here in Dutch oven state.
And just how vicious is it getting out there? The tribune also reported “Marriage bureaus nationwide, in Utah shoot down same-sex couples”. That’s awful!
I thought California was the only state that was considering cutting back on population in order to cut spending. (Of course it were California it would have read “Marriage bureaus ax down same sex couples.”)
I fully expect this excessive use of violence to reignite the gun control debate. Families of the victims and perhaps victims who were just severely wounded will be marched up to testify that guns of the horrific atrocities done to them by the gun industry.
Of course the NRA will think of some catchy slogan like, “guns don’t people, marriage bureaus kill people,” to their defense.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Charity Never Faileth: The Book of Mormon on love
One of my favorite scriptures of all time is 1 Corithians 13. In this chapter Paul gives his great discourse on charity or love. (Depending of course on which translation.) I grew up with an old King James version of the Bible, and was always familiar with this word charity being used in this chapter.
As I got older and started reading different translations of the bible I discovered a great many which used the word love instead of charity. As someone who speaks two languages it made perfect sense. There are some words that either don't translate directly or could translate to have more than one meaning.
Well this year I'm taking a new testament class and just a few weeks ago we discussed this chapter. My Proffessor, Dr. Draper, put a number of words on the board which in greek could be translated to the english "love". The words stergos, eros and agape.
Stergos: An emotional bond between people who share something in common. This word could be used to discribe the love between family and really close friends.
Eros: A desire to possess. When people fall in love, this is the word the which they would use in greek.
Agape: A word that was actually hardly used initially because it had such a vague meaning. To the greeks the word originally wasn't very strong or specefic which is why the Christians (in this case Paul) took it and made it their own. It connotates love for everyone. Not just for ones peers, or people who treat us nice, but even the people who mistreat us.
That's why this word for love is sometimes translated as charity. Certainly love and charity are nearly synonomous. But charity seems to carry a conotation of giving without being able to get repayment. Hence, when you help the poor it's considered a charitable act whereas loving your family isn't considered charity.
The Book of Mormon also helps us understand what this agape, charity, and/or love really is. The prophet Mormon who lived during one of the most vicious, violent, and vendictive eras of manking gave perhaps one of the most sublime sermons on love.
At the climax of his discourse he states, "Wherefore, cleave unto charity, which is the greatest of all, for all things must fail—But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him."
So agape, or in the biblical tense love, or as some translations have it charity is the pure love of Christ, which is the greatest of all and endures forever. Mormon finishes his discoure explaining how we can obtain this kind of love by saying, " Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen."
So it can be had by all of us who follow him sincerly and pray to the Father with all energy of heart to obtain it.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
As I got older and started reading different translations of the bible I discovered a great many which used the word love instead of charity. As someone who speaks two languages it made perfect sense. There are some words that either don't translate directly or could translate to have more than one meaning.
Well this year I'm taking a new testament class and just a few weeks ago we discussed this chapter. My Proffessor, Dr. Draper, put a number of words on the board which in greek could be translated to the english "love". The words stergos, eros and agape.
Stergos: An emotional bond between people who share something in common. This word could be used to discribe the love between family and really close friends.
Eros: A desire to possess. When people fall in love, this is the word the which they would use in greek.
Agape: A word that was actually hardly used initially because it had such a vague meaning. To the greeks the word originally wasn't very strong or specefic which is why the Christians (in this case Paul) took it and made it their own. It connotates love for everyone. Not just for ones peers, or people who treat us nice, but even the people who mistreat us.
That's why this word for love is sometimes translated as charity. Certainly love and charity are nearly synonomous. But charity seems to carry a conotation of giving without being able to get repayment. Hence, when you help the poor it's considered a charitable act whereas loving your family isn't considered charity.
The Book of Mormon also helps us understand what this agape, charity, and/or love really is. The prophet Mormon who lived during one of the most vicious, violent, and vendictive eras of manking gave perhaps one of the most sublime sermons on love.
At the climax of his discourse he states, "Wherefore, cleave unto charity, which is the greatest of all, for all things must fail—But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him."
So agape, or in the biblical tense love, or as some translations have it charity is the pure love of Christ, which is the greatest of all and endures forever. Mormon finishes his discoure explaining how we can obtain this kind of love by saying, " Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen."
So it can be had by all of us who follow him sincerly and pray to the Father with all energy of heart to obtain it.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Monday, March 2, 2009
The Second Great Awakening and the roots of Mormonsim
As I'm sure pretty much all of you know I am a Mormon and this year I've had the privilege of taking as US history class which covers the years 1815-1850, or in other words the same era the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was founded.
It is a fascinating class. It is amazing to see how much of my beliefs are really a product of early 19th century America.
For those unfamiliar with the origins of Mormonism here is basically Mormon history (as told by a Mormon) in a nutshell:
In 1820 the effects of religious freedom were in full swing. Many were coming to believe that all the answers of truth were to be found in the bible, and that anyone could read the bible and learn the truth for themselves.
The result was the democratizing of religion. Many Christian churches started during this time period. As different religious groups began to form they began to quarrel amongst themselves as to who had the truth.
The Smith family, who lived in Palmyra New York, was caught in the midst of this war of words. Neither the father, Joseph Smith, nor the Mother, Lucy Mack Smith were staunch converts of any particular sect. But Lucy Mack did attend the Presbyterian sect pretty frequently.
One of their children, Joseph Jr., was particularly concerned over which church he should join. Joseph was in his early teens and attended meetings when he had the time. He also did what most people across the United States were doing at that time... reading the bible to find the truth.
But Joseph found that “the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.”
But one day Joseph Smith Jr. stumbled across James 1:5 which reads, " If any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God" (Italics added)
He later wrote of that moment, "Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did."
Joseph then decided to go into the woods near his house and prays to find which out which church the true church was. As he prayed he saw a light above his head and in the light he beheld two people: God the Father and Jesus Christ.
He asked which church he should join and was told none of them, but that he would be used to restore the true church of Christ.
He was fourteen when his first vision took place. He did not receive another vision for three years when an angel appeared to him in his room and told him about an ancient book hidden in a nearby hill. The angel showed him where that book was in a vision.
The next day Joseph climbed the hill and found the record which was written on plates made of gold. The angel, appeared and informed Joseph that he was not yet ready to receive the plates, but to come back once a year for the next four years. Joseph followed the instructions and four years later was given the ancient record more commonly known as simply the gold plates.
Joseph was then given a gift from God to be able to interpret the book, because it was written in an ancient language. This book is called The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ as is a book of Holy Scripture equal to the bible. During the translation of the Book of Mormon God sent John the Baptist as well as Peter, James and John to give Joseph Smith the power and authority from God known as the Priesthood.
And though there is certainly more that is sufficient for me to go back to my original point. As anyone who has studied US history in the early 19th century knows it was not uncommon for young boys to say that they had seen God. There was a lot of talk of visions and spiritualism in that day and age.
But it should be noticed that there were differences between Joseph and his contemporaries and this is what I thought was so interesting.
In several different papers we read in class on early evangelicalism it noted that among other things the Mormon Church was different because it claimed direct authority from God and the Book of Mormon. And even secular historians who may not say that the Book of Mormon is Holy Scripture do credit the Mormon Church’s success to that book.
Historians say one reason why the Book was so successful is because it played right along with the anti-elitist movement going around the US at the time. Most people considered themselves judicious enough to tell truth from error and did not need verification from an expert.
So a historian would say that the Book of Mormon was so successful because at the time it was introduced it played right into the culture of the early 19th century.
Though that is certainly true in part it begs the question “well than why is the Book of Mormon such a convincing missionary tool almost 200 years later?”
The answer, I think, lies in one of my favorite scriptures in the New Testament. “For this is life eternal, to know thee the one true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”
I know that God can be known to anyone, and he wants us all to know him. It’s not merely something which 19th century Americans thought they could do. It’s something which men and women of all ages and ethnicity can do.
I know the Book of Mormon is true, and I have seen many people have similar experiences as my own as they have read the Book of Mormon and prayed about its message. It is something which they experienced for themselves, and which I have experienced for myself.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
It is a fascinating class. It is amazing to see how much of my beliefs are really a product of early 19th century America.
For those unfamiliar with the origins of Mormonism here is basically Mormon history (as told by a Mormon) in a nutshell:
In 1820 the effects of religious freedom were in full swing. Many were coming to believe that all the answers of truth were to be found in the bible, and that anyone could read the bible and learn the truth for themselves.
The result was the democratizing of religion. Many Christian churches started during this time period. As different religious groups began to form they began to quarrel amongst themselves as to who had the truth.
The Smith family, who lived in Palmyra New York, was caught in the midst of this war of words. Neither the father, Joseph Smith, nor the Mother, Lucy Mack Smith were staunch converts of any particular sect. But Lucy Mack did attend the Presbyterian sect pretty frequently.
One of their children, Joseph Jr., was particularly concerned over which church he should join. Joseph was in his early teens and attended meetings when he had the time. He also did what most people across the United States were doing at that time... reading the bible to find the truth.
But Joseph found that “the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.”
But one day Joseph Smith Jr. stumbled across James 1:5 which reads, " If any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God" (Italics added)
He later wrote of that moment, "Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did."
Joseph then decided to go into the woods near his house and prays to find which out which church the true church was. As he prayed he saw a light above his head and in the light he beheld two people: God the Father and Jesus Christ.
He asked which church he should join and was told none of them, but that he would be used to restore the true church of Christ.
He was fourteen when his first vision took place. He did not receive another vision for three years when an angel appeared to him in his room and told him about an ancient book hidden in a nearby hill. The angel showed him where that book was in a vision.
The next day Joseph climbed the hill and found the record which was written on plates made of gold. The angel, appeared and informed Joseph that he was not yet ready to receive the plates, but to come back once a year for the next four years. Joseph followed the instructions and four years later was given the ancient record more commonly known as simply the gold plates.
Joseph was then given a gift from God to be able to interpret the book, because it was written in an ancient language. This book is called The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ as is a book of Holy Scripture equal to the bible. During the translation of the Book of Mormon God sent John the Baptist as well as Peter, James and John to give Joseph Smith the power and authority from God known as the Priesthood.
And though there is certainly more that is sufficient for me to go back to my original point. As anyone who has studied US history in the early 19th century knows it was not uncommon for young boys to say that they had seen God. There was a lot of talk of visions and spiritualism in that day and age.
But it should be noticed that there were differences between Joseph and his contemporaries and this is what I thought was so interesting.
In several different papers we read in class on early evangelicalism it noted that among other things the Mormon Church was different because it claimed direct authority from God and the Book of Mormon. And even secular historians who may not say that the Book of Mormon is Holy Scripture do credit the Mormon Church’s success to that book.
Historians say one reason why the Book was so successful is because it played right along with the anti-elitist movement going around the US at the time. Most people considered themselves judicious enough to tell truth from error and did not need verification from an expert.
So a historian would say that the Book of Mormon was so successful because at the time it was introduced it played right into the culture of the early 19th century.
Though that is certainly true in part it begs the question “well than why is the Book of Mormon such a convincing missionary tool almost 200 years later?”
The answer, I think, lies in one of my favorite scriptures in the New Testament. “For this is life eternal, to know thee the one true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”
I know that God can be known to anyone, and he wants us all to know him. It’s not merely something which 19th century Americans thought they could do. It’s something which men and women of all ages and ethnicity can do.
I know the Book of Mormon is true, and I have seen many people have similar experiences as my own as they have read the Book of Mormon and prayed about its message. It is something which they experienced for themselves, and which I have experienced for myself.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Friday, February 27, 2009
What the Heck Have I Been Up To?
TO MY MILLIONS OF UNDYING, OBSSESIVE, and WONDERFUL FANS:
Great question. I've been busy with school and work and... well many things. I wrote this between everything and submitted it to the BYU political review. So we'll see if they publish it. (When I submited the Car Czar article which is my favorite they said they liked it and would publish it and then just "forgot" I suppose. Oh well, the publishers of the BYU political review try to make it more of an intellectual read, so I wasn't sure my Car Czar article really fit in anyway.)
The Libertarian’s Manifesto
As I speak with people about libertarianism the first thing they say is something like, “You mean the people who want to legalize drugs and do away with taxes?” This and similar comments tend to define a general philosophy by a faction of its' supporters
Libertarianism, like any philosophy, has many different factions. Many people instinctively associate a libertarian with an anarcho-capitalist as is the case above. Although there is certainly an anarcho-capitalist wing of libertarianism, there are many other factions like the socialist wing of libertarianism as articulated by intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky.
But, most likely if someone says they’re a libertarian they aren’t an anarchist, anarcho-capitalist or communist. They probably fall in the school classic liberalism.
Classical liberalism, unlike most other forms of libertarianism, believes that government is necessary to preserve freedom of conscience and choice, as well as protect property and life.
That these rights precede and supersede the state.
Although the state is necessary, strict limitations must be placed on its powers so that the autonomy of individuals and their rights are respected.
Although I could imagine exceptions in which an emergency would require emergency powers to be given to the government, that scenario would be just that: a rare exception.
If you believe the following then you are probably a libertarian:
The right of privacy is essential in a free society. No person, group of people, or government has the right or the authority to enter your home without your permission. Whether that entrance be physical, or via wiretap, surveillance or hacking into your computer etc.
In extreme threats to security or to maintain law and order unauthorized searches, seizers and even wiretapping are ok…as long as you have a warrant. If we accept that bureaucracies can wiretap without any supervision… but only to catch bad people like criminals and terrorists, how do we verify if the government is really only ease dropping on “the bad guys?” Warrants protect us from the police state.
No one runs my life better than I do. I know my circumstances, challenges, weaknesses and strengths better than any government. My success is up to me and failure is my mentor and teacher to success.
Everyone has the right to free speech and no one is unpatriotic for questioning the government. Everyone gains from decent because it allows us to see weaknesses and imperfections in the status quo.
Taxes are necessary and to a degree good. How else do we pay for roads, education, military? However, the purpose of taxation should be to pay for necessary government functions and not redistribute wealth.
And ideally taxes should be as low, simple, and flat as possible. When the guy technically in charge of the IRS can’t properly file his taxes you know there is a problem. The US tax code unnecessarily horrifies many Americans and makes a criminal out of people who are otherwise law abiding citizens.
The treasury is not a goody chest and the President of the United States is not Santa Clause.
To maintain liberty a strong military is needed to keep the peace. However, the strategy should be peace through strength, not peace through conquest. Ronald Reagan summed it best when he said, “The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression — to preserve freedom and peace.”
Religious freedom is precious. Everyone has the right to worship (or not worship) God according to their own conscience, so long as those practices don’t cause any direct harm. Religious organizations should not get any money from the government in order to maintain the separation of church and state.
America’s borders should be as open as possible for those who wish to work and study here. As we became a nation which turned away the tired the poor and the huddled masses yearning for freedom we also turned away the adventurer, the brilliant and the visionary who also yearned for that same freedom.
Americans are not defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or even place of birth. Throughout this nation’s history people of different nationalities, races, ideologies and religions have gathered to live and defend the ideals of liberty as established by the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and the teachings of our founding fathers.
We are all libertarians in one way or another. Everyone cherishes their own liberty as something sacred and precious and that’s because it is.
Liberty is God’s greatest gift to us next to life itself. And to maintain our liberty we will “bear any burden, meet any hardship…”
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Great question. I've been busy with school and work and... well many things. I wrote this between everything and submitted it to the BYU political review. So we'll see if they publish it. (When I submited the Car Czar article which is my favorite they said they liked it and would publish it and then just "forgot" I suppose. Oh well, the publishers of the BYU political review try to make it more of an intellectual read, so I wasn't sure my Car Czar article really fit in anyway.)
The Libertarian’s Manifesto
As I speak with people about libertarianism the first thing they say is something like, “You mean the people who want to legalize drugs and do away with taxes?” This and similar comments tend to define a general philosophy by a faction of its' supporters
Libertarianism, like any philosophy, has many different factions. Many people instinctively associate a libertarian with an anarcho-capitalist as is the case above. Although there is certainly an anarcho-capitalist wing of libertarianism, there are many other factions like the socialist wing of libertarianism as articulated by intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky.
But, most likely if someone says they’re a libertarian they aren’t an anarchist, anarcho-capitalist or communist. They probably fall in the school classic liberalism.
Classical liberalism, unlike most other forms of libertarianism, believes that government is necessary to preserve freedom of conscience and choice, as well as protect property and life.
That these rights precede and supersede the state.
Although the state is necessary, strict limitations must be placed on its powers so that the autonomy of individuals and their rights are respected.
Although I could imagine exceptions in which an emergency would require emergency powers to be given to the government, that scenario would be just that: a rare exception.
If you believe the following then you are probably a libertarian:
The right of privacy is essential in a free society. No person, group of people, or government has the right or the authority to enter your home without your permission. Whether that entrance be physical, or via wiretap, surveillance or hacking into your computer etc.
In extreme threats to security or to maintain law and order unauthorized searches, seizers and even wiretapping are ok…as long as you have a warrant. If we accept that bureaucracies can wiretap without any supervision… but only to catch bad people like criminals and terrorists, how do we verify if the government is really only ease dropping on “the bad guys?” Warrants protect us from the police state.
No one runs my life better than I do. I know my circumstances, challenges, weaknesses and strengths better than any government. My success is up to me and failure is my mentor and teacher to success.
Everyone has the right to free speech and no one is unpatriotic for questioning the government. Everyone gains from decent because it allows us to see weaknesses and imperfections in the status quo.
Taxes are necessary and to a degree good. How else do we pay for roads, education, military? However, the purpose of taxation should be to pay for necessary government functions and not redistribute wealth.
And ideally taxes should be as low, simple, and flat as possible. When the guy technically in charge of the IRS can’t properly file his taxes you know there is a problem. The US tax code unnecessarily horrifies many Americans and makes a criminal out of people who are otherwise law abiding citizens.
The treasury is not a goody chest and the President of the United States is not Santa Clause.
To maintain liberty a strong military is needed to keep the peace. However, the strategy should be peace through strength, not peace through conquest. Ronald Reagan summed it best when he said, “The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression — to preserve freedom and peace.”
Religious freedom is precious. Everyone has the right to worship (or not worship) God according to their own conscience, so long as those practices don’t cause any direct harm. Religious organizations should not get any money from the government in order to maintain the separation of church and state.
America’s borders should be as open as possible for those who wish to work and study here. As we became a nation which turned away the tired the poor and the huddled masses yearning for freedom we also turned away the adventurer, the brilliant and the visionary who also yearned for that same freedom.
Americans are not defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or even place of birth. Throughout this nation’s history people of different nationalities, races, ideologies and religions have gathered to live and defend the ideals of liberty as established by the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and the teachings of our founding fathers.
We are all libertarians in one way or another. Everyone cherishes their own liberty as something sacred and precious and that’s because it is.
Liberty is God’s greatest gift to us next to life itself. And to maintain our liberty we will “bear any burden, meet any hardship…”
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Knowing The One True God
Perhaps my favorite scripture is John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
It has always seemed logical to me that the first principle of the gospel was that one must come to know God. How can one that God exists? And if one came to knowledge of the existence of God wouldn't that be an acquaintance? Perhaps not an intimate acquaintance, but at this point this individual could say, "I don't know God well, but I know he exists."
In other words I know of him. But even after God's existence is confirmed why do we need to believe in him? How are we any better off knowing that there is a God than we were when did not believe or uncertain in our belief of God?
Most answers fail to answer the great importance of this question. A few include:
1. If people didn't believe in God there would be no morality.
This argument is easily disprovable. After all, I know a lot of people who one day decided they didn't believe in God and they didn't go haywire and start wacking people that same day. People don't turn into animals the minute the reject the idea of a God. (I would argue because they are spiritually his children and that whether they acknowledge him or not it is that heritage which separates us from the animals. But choosing not to believe does not take that heritage from us.)
2. If people don't believe in God then life has not meaning.
Though knowing God has added meaning to my life, once again, just because someone doesn't believe in God doesn't mean that their lives are meaningless. And just because someone believes in God doesn't give their life meaning. Meaning is, after all, a choice. Our lives mean what we choose them to mean.
Since I'm running out of time I'll make the rest of this snappy. One cannot nor should not believe in something which they themselves have not come to know through either reason or experience. And the same goes with God.
If I don't know God I have no reason to believe in him anymore than I have to believe in the boogey man.
But as I come to know God, not only to know he exists but know who he is my perspective on life changes.
Mormons believe that truth is knowledge of things as they are were and are to come. I believe that joy in life comes from finding, learning, knowing, loving and living life in accordance to truth. When I learned for myself that there was a God a lot of things changed. As I came to know who he was I came to learn who I was.
And as I learned who I was and who he is that changed the meaning of my life. Though people can be moral and have meaningful lives without knowing God, in my experience coming to know the one true God has only increased my strength to live a good and moral life and given life deeper purpose.
Where I had questions before, I now have perspective. I used to feel alone, now I know I have a constant companion. And truly one of the most important experiences in my life has been my gradual and slow acquaintance with the only true God and Jesus Christ who he sent.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
It has always seemed logical to me that the first principle of the gospel was that one must come to know God. How can one that God exists? And if one came to knowledge of the existence of God wouldn't that be an acquaintance? Perhaps not an intimate acquaintance, but at this point this individual could say, "I don't know God well, but I know he exists."
In other words I know of him. But even after God's existence is confirmed why do we need to believe in him? How are we any better off knowing that there is a God than we were when did not believe or uncertain in our belief of God?
Most answers fail to answer the great importance of this question. A few include:
1. If people didn't believe in God there would be no morality.
This argument is easily disprovable. After all, I know a lot of people who one day decided they didn't believe in God and they didn't go haywire and start wacking people that same day. People don't turn into animals the minute the reject the idea of a God. (I would argue because they are spiritually his children and that whether they acknowledge him or not it is that heritage which separates us from the animals. But choosing not to believe does not take that heritage from us.)
2. If people don't believe in God then life has not meaning.
Though knowing God has added meaning to my life, once again, just because someone doesn't believe in God doesn't mean that their lives are meaningless. And just because someone believes in God doesn't give their life meaning. Meaning is, after all, a choice. Our lives mean what we choose them to mean.
Since I'm running out of time I'll make the rest of this snappy. One cannot nor should not believe in something which they themselves have not come to know through either reason or experience. And the same goes with God.
If I don't know God I have no reason to believe in him anymore than I have to believe in the boogey man.
But as I come to know God, not only to know he exists but know who he is my perspective on life changes.
Mormons believe that truth is knowledge of things as they are were and are to come. I believe that joy in life comes from finding, learning, knowing, loving and living life in accordance to truth. When I learned for myself that there was a God a lot of things changed. As I came to know who he was I came to learn who I was.
And as I learned who I was and who he is that changed the meaning of my life. Though people can be moral and have meaningful lives without knowing God, in my experience coming to know the one true God has only increased my strength to live a good and moral life and given life deeper purpose.
Where I had questions before, I now have perspective. I used to feel alone, now I know I have a constant companion. And truly one of the most important experiences in my life has been my gradual and slow acquaintance with the only true God and Jesus Christ who he sent.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The Power of Faith
One reason why I am a Mormon is becuase as a church we don't necessarily see a gulf between faith and reason; but believe that both are necessary in order to achieve knowledge. After all, would reason alone have permitted the Wright brothers to invent the air plane? Or would reason and thinking alone have aloud Edison to invent and array of inventions which radically changed the world?
In fact, Edison could be one of the greatest examples of why faith and reason are essesnsial for true genius. Certainly had Edison not had reasonable ideas, or done ridiculous things on the premise that, "hey I have faith that's all I need," none of these events would have been brought forth.
By equal measure, Edison could have spent his whole life reasoning if it were possible to light a room with electric light, however, without the faith to percieve the unseen and to dare to try, and try and try as Edison did until he achieved success, the world would still be dark.
It is in this context which I, just a punk kid (i.e. I'm no biblical scholar) that I've always understood Heb 11:3 when Paul said, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
Many use this scripture to argue that the "stuff" that this world was made of was non-existent and God spoke and poof! However, in the context of my Edison example, the way I understand this verses is that when God looked over the universe and saw raw elements and space, he took the elements and made worlds so beatiful that we couldn't have comprehended them before. He percieved in his mind what he wanted and what could be achieved, though the end of his goal was unseen.
And like wise the Book of Mormon and other scritptures teaches that God can do like wise in our lives if we have faith in his son Jesus Christ. Though our lives may be miserable and painful today, we are able to look forward with a steadfastness of hope, knowing that God is able to the wilderness into a garden, and replace our sorrow with great joy.
And as we see the fruits of our faith, we have all the more reason to believe.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
In fact, Edison could be one of the greatest examples of why faith and reason are essesnsial for true genius. Certainly had Edison not had reasonable ideas, or done ridiculous things on the premise that, "hey I have faith that's all I need," none of these events would have been brought forth.
By equal measure, Edison could have spent his whole life reasoning if it were possible to light a room with electric light, however, without the faith to percieve the unseen and to dare to try, and try and try as Edison did until he achieved success, the world would still be dark.
It is in this context which I, just a punk kid (i.e. I'm no biblical scholar) that I've always understood Heb 11:3 when Paul said, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
Many use this scripture to argue that the "stuff" that this world was made of was non-existent and God spoke and poof! However, in the context of my Edison example, the way I understand this verses is that when God looked over the universe and saw raw elements and space, he took the elements and made worlds so beatiful that we couldn't have comprehended them before. He percieved in his mind what he wanted and what could be achieved, though the end of his goal was unseen.
And like wise the Book of Mormon and other scritptures teaches that God can do like wise in our lives if we have faith in his son Jesus Christ. Though our lives may be miserable and painful today, we are able to look forward with a steadfastness of hope, knowing that God is able to the wilderness into a garden, and replace our sorrow with great joy.
And as we see the fruits of our faith, we have all the more reason to believe.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Solid Ground
(If it seems random to some of you that I am posting thoughts from the Book of Mormon lately, it was because of a recommendation of one of my Proffesor's or religion at BYU)
This week was particularly busy week for me. There seemed to be more homework then I had time, and I just had from one thing to the next to the next. And beyond the stress of going to school and work, there is another stress which everyone is probably feeling right now and that is the stress of uncertainty.
Where will the economy be in a year? Will I have a job? What does the future hold for me, my family and my community?
When confronted with such questions, some choose to think upon and look to happier days and thoughts. They may distract themselves with more trivial desires like movies, sports, shopping, anything to keep their mind off of these and many more unanswered questions.
However, the day comes when these questions are answered. And sometimes to our disliking. This week as I was reading through the Book of Mormon I read through one of my personal favorite chapters in the book of Heleman.
In this particular chapter there is a lot of corruption in society. The head of state, who in the Book of Mormon is the Chief Judge, is a righteous man and a prophet of God. However, even he, this great prophet, becomes concerned for what the future holds for his people. He knows that if the people continue in their corrupt ways they will not be able to be governed by law and will fall in to total chaos or if they were governed by the law it would be to their own destruction.
In this trying moment this prophet remembered something that his father told him as a child. His father said, "And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall."
I know that if we wish to have a sure future and foundation we must build that foundation on our Redeemer and his teachings. Without that foundation nothing in life is certain, with it, few things are certain. But one of those few things is that we can know for certain is that if we hold true to the teachings and doctrine of Christ that despite chaos, confusion, storms, trails and a myriad of other things that we will not fall.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
This week was particularly busy week for me. There seemed to be more homework then I had time, and I just had from one thing to the next to the next. And beyond the stress of going to school and work, there is another stress which everyone is probably feeling right now and that is the stress of uncertainty.
Where will the economy be in a year? Will I have a job? What does the future hold for me, my family and my community?
When confronted with such questions, some choose to think upon and look to happier days and thoughts. They may distract themselves with more trivial desires like movies, sports, shopping, anything to keep their mind off of these and many more unanswered questions.
However, the day comes when these questions are answered. And sometimes to our disliking. This week as I was reading through the Book of Mormon I read through one of my personal favorite chapters in the book of Heleman.
In this particular chapter there is a lot of corruption in society. The head of state, who in the Book of Mormon is the Chief Judge, is a righteous man and a prophet of God. However, even he, this great prophet, becomes concerned for what the future holds for his people. He knows that if the people continue in their corrupt ways they will not be able to be governed by law and will fall in to total chaos or if they were governed by the law it would be to their own destruction.
In this trying moment this prophet remembered something that his father told him as a child. His father said, "And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall."
I know that if we wish to have a sure future and foundation we must build that foundation on our Redeemer and his teachings. Without that foundation nothing in life is certain, with it, few things are certain. But one of those few things is that we can know for certain is that if we hold true to the teachings and doctrine of Christ that despite chaos, confusion, storms, trails and a myriad of other things that we will not fall.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Some Thoughts from Alma 30
Since there are very few who come onto my blog consistently, I will presume that all of you know that I'm Mormon. For those who didn't you know now. One of my favorite books to read is actually the Book of Mormon. I like the book for many different reason.
The first and most important is the spiritual power which the book gives me. The second would be the spiritual insights and answers. However, somewhere, probably just below those top two answers are the philosophical and ethical answers and insights which the Book of Mormon provides.
I was recently reading Alma chapter 30. It is a narrative of a man who is anti-Christ, or seeks to destroy the testimony of Christ amongst the people. He preaches doctrines like no man can know the future and therefore no one can know that a savior of the world would come. That a man can't know that which he cannot see and that there is no life after death.
In the end, however, he gets in a debate with the prophet Alma, who testifies of the existence of God. Afterwards, Korihor is cursed by God and is struck dumb and becomes a beggar. Korihor in the end is trampled by horses as he is begging one day in the street.
The reason why this chapter has always fascinated me is because it addresses greatly the issue of free speech. The narrator of the story is the historian/prophet Mormon. He begins by explaining that the people of Nephi had been living in peace for quite some time. However, Korihor began to contend against the doctrine of Christ and went about the land trying to destroy the faith of those who believed.
At this point in the history of Korihor Mormon takes a brief pause to explain something very important.
“Now there was no law against a man's belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds.”
What does Mormon mean by putting people on unequal grounds? He continues three verses later, "For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds."
So men were "equal" in there standing before the law. Being Christian, or atheist, shouldn't put men on unequal grounds or that's to say the law should not be used to favor one group above the other.
I've always enjoyed this chapter because it shows that over two-thousand years ago there was a civilization that valued speech as much as I do today. It also shows that freedom can be a messy thing. The same freedom which ensures that prophets like Alma can teach good and uplifting things also ensures people like Korihor could mislead people.
As President Thomas S. Monson once said, "The power to lead is the power to mislead and the power to mislead is the power to destroy."
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
The first and most important is the spiritual power which the book gives me. The second would be the spiritual insights and answers. However, somewhere, probably just below those top two answers are the philosophical and ethical answers and insights which the Book of Mormon provides.
I was recently reading Alma chapter 30. It is a narrative of a man who is anti-Christ, or seeks to destroy the testimony of Christ amongst the people. He preaches doctrines like no man can know the future and therefore no one can know that a savior of the world would come. That a man can't know that which he cannot see and that there is no life after death.
In the end, however, he gets in a debate with the prophet Alma, who testifies of the existence of God. Afterwards, Korihor is cursed by God and is struck dumb and becomes a beggar. Korihor in the end is trampled by horses as he is begging one day in the street.
The reason why this chapter has always fascinated me is because it addresses greatly the issue of free speech. The narrator of the story is the historian/prophet Mormon. He begins by explaining that the people of Nephi had been living in peace for quite some time. However, Korihor began to contend against the doctrine of Christ and went about the land trying to destroy the faith of those who believed.
At this point in the history of Korihor Mormon takes a brief pause to explain something very important.
“Now there was no law against a man's belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds.”
What does Mormon mean by putting people on unequal grounds? He continues three verses later, "For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds."
So men were "equal" in there standing before the law. Being Christian, or atheist, shouldn't put men on unequal grounds or that's to say the law should not be used to favor one group above the other.
I've always enjoyed this chapter because it shows that over two-thousand years ago there was a civilization that valued speech as much as I do today. It also shows that freedom can be a messy thing. The same freedom which ensures that prophets like Alma can teach good and uplifting things also ensures people like Korihor could mislead people.
As President Thomas S. Monson once said, "The power to lead is the power to mislead and the power to mislead is the power to destroy."
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Trying to Walk Forward While Facing Backwards
When the UK telegraph says that Obama's inaugural speech was bad, you know it was real bad. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/alex_spillius/blog/2009/01/20/barack_obama_inauguration_his_worst_speech
As Alex Spillius wrote on the UK telegraph blog, "The delivery, as ever, was first class, but the message wasn't clear enough and the language not insufficiently inspiring," he continues on to write, "Obama seemed weighed down by the past, and failed to seize the moment."
That last sentence describes the problem of this entire election cycle.
Obama's speech didn't an awful lot of talking about history, but didn't amount to anything that would make it. Writing a memorable inauguration address is difficult. There have been some articulate presidents whose inaugurations are well forgotten.
Lincoln, a very articulate man, is better known for his second inaugural. And does anyone know anything about inaugural addresses given by Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, or even Bill Clinton? It really does take a lot to make a historic address.
However, Obama had all the material to make his address historic. He is coming in during a war, and economic crisis and he's the first black to hold the office of President of the United States. He can't blame the press either, as they spent to whole week talking up this moment and history, and the whole afternoon after the speech proclaiming that Obama's words would be etched in stone.
But does anyone really believe that?
No, Obama's speech fell short of what it ought to have hit. And Alex Spillius hit the nose right on the head; Obama was stuck in history and didn't seize the moment.
President Obama has spent the last four months saying that he's JFK, no he's FDR, no no, he's Abraham Lincoln... combined! Obama has the JFK Hollywood image, he's going to rebuild our infrastructure like FDR, and he came from Illinois and rode a train to Washington DC just like Abraham Lincoln. You see the problem with Obama's speech really started before he ever gave it.
It surely says something of our generation that we're always looking back, and although generations past have looked back to learn from history, they were always able to seize the moment.
Abe Lincoln wasn't impersonating anyone when he took his train to New York, FDR, though basically copying and pasting many of the Hoover administration’s policy in the infrastructure building, tried to make it sound like his own, and John Kennedy was being John Kennedy. Although each of these men must have had their role model, they were able to rise up and seize the moment by themselves.
Obama is not the only recent politian with this problem. Early in the Republican race Mitt Romney had to compare everything he did to Ronald Reagan. Mitt, I love Reagan, but two things buddy. First, you're no Reagan, and two, you're you.
And so although Obama's inaugural may not have been as good as the hype it did serve to demonstrate the dilemma that will decide the future of this nation: Are we a nation who looks back to the past nostalgically or do we have leaders living now capable of taking the moment and succeeding.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
As Alex Spillius wrote on the UK telegraph blog, "The delivery, as ever, was first class, but the message wasn't clear enough and the language not insufficiently inspiring," he continues on to write, "Obama seemed weighed down by the past, and failed to seize the moment."
That last sentence describes the problem of this entire election cycle.
Obama's speech didn't an awful lot of talking about history, but didn't amount to anything that would make it. Writing a memorable inauguration address is difficult. There have been some articulate presidents whose inaugurations are well forgotten.
Lincoln, a very articulate man, is better known for his second inaugural. And does anyone know anything about inaugural addresses given by Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, or even Bill Clinton? It really does take a lot to make a historic address.
However, Obama had all the material to make his address historic. He is coming in during a war, and economic crisis and he's the first black to hold the office of President of the United States. He can't blame the press either, as they spent to whole week talking up this moment and history, and the whole afternoon after the speech proclaiming that Obama's words would be etched in stone.
But does anyone really believe that?
No, Obama's speech fell short of what it ought to have hit. And Alex Spillius hit the nose right on the head; Obama was stuck in history and didn't seize the moment.
President Obama has spent the last four months saying that he's JFK, no he's FDR, no no, he's Abraham Lincoln... combined! Obama has the JFK Hollywood image, he's going to rebuild our infrastructure like FDR, and he came from Illinois and rode a train to Washington DC just like Abraham Lincoln. You see the problem with Obama's speech really started before he ever gave it.
It surely says something of our generation that we're always looking back, and although generations past have looked back to learn from history, they were always able to seize the moment.
Abe Lincoln wasn't impersonating anyone when he took his train to New York, FDR, though basically copying and pasting many of the Hoover administration’s policy in the infrastructure building, tried to make it sound like his own, and John Kennedy was being John Kennedy. Although each of these men must have had their role model, they were able to rise up and seize the moment by themselves.
Obama is not the only recent politian with this problem. Early in the Republican race Mitt Romney had to compare everything he did to Ronald Reagan. Mitt, I love Reagan, but two things buddy. First, you're no Reagan, and two, you're you.
And so although Obama's inaugural may not have been as good as the hype it did serve to demonstrate the dilemma that will decide the future of this nation: Are we a nation who looks back to the past nostalgically or do we have leaders living now capable of taking the moment and succeeding.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
The unread rebuttal
Note: One of my buddy Mike makes posts on his facebook using the notes option. One time he accidently posted an email that wasn't entirely accurate. (Heaven forbid! I'm sure none of us have ever done that.) And some one kept posting post after post of, "Did you know...Did you know..." So I responded with the folliwing which was waaaaaaay to long to post as a response so I posted it hear instead. Basically I'm ditching the original article (which wasn't nearly as innacurate as it was being made out to be, but I don't want to go point for point, as it's difficult to win anyone that way, they just get confused. So instead I tried to set down a historical narrative.) It is too long but, I've worked on it for an hour and I'm done.
Mike, buddy, always love your posts. By the way did you mean to put 17 credits instead of 27 credits? If you’re taking 27 credits man, you are my hero. Well even if you’re taking 17 credits you’re my hero. I did that once, the first semester right after my mission when I didn’t have a life and I was still in freakin’ work-a-holic mode… and I still almost died. So best of luck to you.
Well, allow me to add my two cents to this post. First, I think that the post, and the responses to the post, mistreat the overall issue of religious freedom. Certainly the engravings on a building, in my humble view, do not necessarily tell us the role which religion ought to play in United States of America nor the role it played in its past.
I understand why such letters such as this have become battling points. It’s the great debate of which historical narrative is right. In one corner you have the modern evangelical movement which states that this country was founded as a perpetual Christian nation, and in the other corner you get modern ACLU and or other groups who say that this nation was founded on the principle of separation of church and state. I suggest that both of these histories are overly simplistic and create a false nostalgia from both groups.
Both beliefs are misleading because frankly, whether either side wants to admit it, we weren’t founded on either of those principles. The case could be made that the Massachusetts Bay colony was founded as a Christian nation, and the case could also be made that Rhode Island was founded on the separation of church and state.
However, in both the revolutionary war and the constitutional convention, the issue of religion was well eclipsed by concerns which united the country which were primary economic: Frustration with British control over US ports and taxation without representation in the revolutionary war and interstate commerce and the printing of a national currency in the constitutional convention.
Understanding that our founders didn’t hold their own Council of Nicaea explains two things. First, it explains the ambiguity as both sides feverishly search to prove how the country was founded. Second, it shows that the dialogue on religious freedom in the early 19th century was much different than the dialogue we have today, and in my opinion much of the ambiguity should prove that.
There was a little stir between Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry at the end of the 18th century, but this is often very misunderstood and gets Jefferson labeled anti-Christian or anti-religious. Most of us today would probably agree with Jefferson’s position. Patrick Henry wanted to use taxes to fund the local church as had been practiced in Europe for centuries, Jefferson and Madison both considered this an abuse of power. (Me too)
Jefferson’s position can be best summed up by a bill he penned in 1779 called the Bill for Religious Freedom which states, “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”
Ok, well is anybody against that? I’m not. But did Jefferson, who believed in a separation wall between church (an institution of religion) and state (an institution of force) feel there needed to be a separation of religion and state?
That case is much more difficult to make. On some occasions Jefferson seemed more indifferent, like in his famous letters to the Danbury Baptist association he wrote, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Today, many of us who feel that our religious rights are being taken by the courts use this quote in our defense. Not in contradiction for what Jefferson stood for, but in harmony. Jefferson stood for religious freedom. His big bone with religion was that it shouldn’t be state sponsored, but Jefferson showed nowhere near the antagonism of religion as the modern secular movement.
In fact in public office Jefferson invoked God and religion in many of his most famous works and speeches. The most famous of course would be the Declaration and Jefferson’s second inaugural address.
When arguing against slavery (an irony since he was a slave owner) Jefferson argued, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?” (Notes on the State of Virginia QXVIII)
In summary, though I certainly don’t believe that the United States was founded as a Christian nation (or in other words I don’t believe that our founders put a “Christians only” sign at the metaphoric front door) there certainly isn’t any proof that any of our founding fathers were anywhere near antagonistic enough religion to demand that the end of school prayer on a national level, and then attempt to even end prayers before football games. The Jefferson I know would say something like, ““The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Amen brotha! Even if you may are a Unitarian.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Mike, buddy, always love your posts. By the way did you mean to put 17 credits instead of 27 credits? If you’re taking 27 credits man, you are my hero. Well even if you’re taking 17 credits you’re my hero. I did that once, the first semester right after my mission when I didn’t have a life and I was still in freakin’ work-a-holic mode… and I still almost died. So best of luck to you.
Well, allow me to add my two cents to this post. First, I think that the post, and the responses to the post, mistreat the overall issue of religious freedom. Certainly the engravings on a building, in my humble view, do not necessarily tell us the role which religion ought to play in United States of America nor the role it played in its past.
I understand why such letters such as this have become battling points. It’s the great debate of which historical narrative is right. In one corner you have the modern evangelical movement which states that this country was founded as a perpetual Christian nation, and in the other corner you get modern ACLU and or other groups who say that this nation was founded on the principle of separation of church and state. I suggest that both of these histories are overly simplistic and create a false nostalgia from both groups.
Both beliefs are misleading because frankly, whether either side wants to admit it, we weren’t founded on either of those principles. The case could be made that the Massachusetts Bay colony was founded as a Christian nation, and the case could also be made that Rhode Island was founded on the separation of church and state.
However, in both the revolutionary war and the constitutional convention, the issue of religion was well eclipsed by concerns which united the country which were primary economic: Frustration with British control over US ports and taxation without representation in the revolutionary war and interstate commerce and the printing of a national currency in the constitutional convention.
Understanding that our founders didn’t hold their own Council of Nicaea explains two things. First, it explains the ambiguity as both sides feverishly search to prove how the country was founded. Second, it shows that the dialogue on religious freedom in the early 19th century was much different than the dialogue we have today, and in my opinion much of the ambiguity should prove that.
There was a little stir between Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry at the end of the 18th century, but this is often very misunderstood and gets Jefferson labeled anti-Christian or anti-religious. Most of us today would probably agree with Jefferson’s position. Patrick Henry wanted to use taxes to fund the local church as had been practiced in Europe for centuries, Jefferson and Madison both considered this an abuse of power. (Me too)
Jefferson’s position can be best summed up by a bill he penned in 1779 called the Bill for Religious Freedom which states, “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”
Ok, well is anybody against that? I’m not. But did Jefferson, who believed in a separation wall between church (an institution of religion) and state (an institution of force) feel there needed to be a separation of religion and state?
That case is much more difficult to make. On some occasions Jefferson seemed more indifferent, like in his famous letters to the Danbury Baptist association he wrote, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Today, many of us who feel that our religious rights are being taken by the courts use this quote in our defense. Not in contradiction for what Jefferson stood for, but in harmony. Jefferson stood for religious freedom. His big bone with religion was that it shouldn’t be state sponsored, but Jefferson showed nowhere near the antagonism of religion as the modern secular movement.
In fact in public office Jefferson invoked God and religion in many of his most famous works and speeches. The most famous of course would be the Declaration and Jefferson’s second inaugural address.
When arguing against slavery (an irony since he was a slave owner) Jefferson argued, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?” (Notes on the State of Virginia QXVIII)
In summary, though I certainly don’t believe that the United States was founded as a Christian nation (or in other words I don’t believe that our founders put a “Christians only” sign at the metaphoric front door) there certainly isn’t any proof that any of our founding fathers were anywhere near antagonistic enough religion to demand that the end of school prayer on a national level, and then attempt to even end prayers before football games. The Jefferson I know would say something like, ““The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Amen brotha! Even if you may are a Unitarian.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
A few responses
Note: Thanks Jenny, I actually had writers block today and wasn't thinking to post at all.)
Well, I've having a little writer's block today so I thought I'd respond to some recent comments. (Plus when I respond to the comments as a comment I do not believe it notifies you so a lot of times those I respond to never know.)
So Jenny, in regards to Ford F-150 story, don't misunderstand me, I don't think you should buy any car you don't want to buy, and I'm even more against the auto bailout. The point of the story was to get you to ask what's really wrong with the auto industry because according to all knowing, all seeing wizards in congress all the US automakers have to do is make a bunch of hybrids or enclosed riding lawnmowers and they'll be back in the front seat again.
It's a little more complicated than that. You hit on a big one: image. Everyone (myself included) when we think of a US car we think of how often it breaks down and how expensive it is to fix. Supposedly, (I cannot confirm this as the last American cars my family have driven are a 2001 Chevy Suburban which actually has done really well, and my grandma's 89 ford f-150) the new cars are better according to some friends and or course that what all the new commercials say. Only one problem: No one wants to gamble on a car. A car for most of us is big investment and why risks having to make repairs when you have such good experience with other car brands like Toyota or Honda.
Then you've got the issue of American cars being more expensive because or CEO's and workers and retirees make more and get better benefits than their competitors. Then you also have issues of efficiency and what Detroit needs to do to make their factories more efficient overall like that of Toyota's and Honda. So we really agree on that point.
On the issue of Obama smoking, I suppose that the President elect smoking could be portrayed as a weakness and how we don't want the President to be seen as unable to kick an addiction. However, in my opinion, Obama's memory lapses are a greater sign of weakness. I mean, that's not the Jeremiah Wright I knew, that's not the Luis Faracon I knew, that's not the Rod Blagojevich I knew, (and he hasn't even been inaugurated, and this doesn't even include the fact that Bill Richardson had to leave before being officially appointed because he's marred in scandal and his treasury secretary pick my not get confirmed either because he might not have paid his taxes.)
That's something that is of greater concern to me than whether or not he smokes. I suppose my bias could be based on the fact that I know some moral and good people who smoke but dishonest and immoral people who don't. In my view, whether a person smokes is of little concern to me (outside of the health benefits and the fact that my religion believes it to be a sin.) So I suppose I don't consider smoking to be a character flaw, so I'm more concerned with other things like lying, misleading, not sticking to promises, and incompetence.
But the media, on the other hand, has a cow! Over smoking! They'll rake this guy over the coals because he smokes but won't touch anything to do with his past. Plus, it shows that maybe we've gone a little too far on the anti-tobacco movement, which generally I consider myself a part of.
Yeah, when we have to worry about who's a secret smoker; I think we've gone a little too far. I'm satisfied with getting the facts about its effects on the body and making sure they don't smoke around me, but what they do in their own time (in regards to smoking,) is their own choice.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Well, I've having a little writer's block today so I thought I'd respond to some recent comments. (Plus when I respond to the comments as a comment I do not believe it notifies you so a lot of times those I respond to never know.)
So Jenny, in regards to Ford F-150 story, don't misunderstand me, I don't think you should buy any car you don't want to buy, and I'm even more against the auto bailout. The point of the story was to get you to ask what's really wrong with the auto industry because according to all knowing, all seeing wizards in congress all the US automakers have to do is make a bunch of hybrids or enclosed riding lawnmowers and they'll be back in the front seat again.
It's a little more complicated than that. You hit on a big one: image. Everyone (myself included) when we think of a US car we think of how often it breaks down and how expensive it is to fix. Supposedly, (I cannot confirm this as the last American cars my family have driven are a 2001 Chevy Suburban which actually has done really well, and my grandma's 89 ford f-150) the new cars are better according to some friends and or course that what all the new commercials say. Only one problem: No one wants to gamble on a car. A car for most of us is big investment and why risks having to make repairs when you have such good experience with other car brands like Toyota or Honda.
Then you've got the issue of American cars being more expensive because or CEO's and workers and retirees make more and get better benefits than their competitors. Then you also have issues of efficiency and what Detroit needs to do to make their factories more efficient overall like that of Toyota's and Honda. So we really agree on that point.
On the issue of Obama smoking, I suppose that the President elect smoking could be portrayed as a weakness and how we don't want the President to be seen as unable to kick an addiction. However, in my opinion, Obama's memory lapses are a greater sign of weakness. I mean, that's not the Jeremiah Wright I knew, that's not the Luis Faracon I knew, that's not the Rod Blagojevich I knew, (and he hasn't even been inaugurated, and this doesn't even include the fact that Bill Richardson had to leave before being officially appointed because he's marred in scandal and his treasury secretary pick my not get confirmed either because he might not have paid his taxes.)
That's something that is of greater concern to me than whether or not he smokes. I suppose my bias could be based on the fact that I know some moral and good people who smoke but dishonest and immoral people who don't. In my view, whether a person smokes is of little concern to me (outside of the health benefits and the fact that my religion believes it to be a sin.) So I suppose I don't consider smoking to be a character flaw, so I'm more concerned with other things like lying, misleading, not sticking to promises, and incompetence.
But the media, on the other hand, has a cow! Over smoking! They'll rake this guy over the coals because he smokes but won't touch anything to do with his past. Plus, it shows that maybe we've gone a little too far on the anti-tobacco movement, which generally I consider myself a part of.
Yeah, when we have to worry about who's a secret smoker; I think we've gone a little too far. I'm satisfied with getting the facts about its effects on the body and making sure they don't smoke around me, but what they do in their own time (in regards to smoking,) is their own choice.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Here Today Czar Tomorrow
Am I the only person who feels like the United States of America has fallen victim to some eastern European takeover? If it's not some kind of conspiratorial takeover than it’s at least a linguistic takeover.
Just a year ago today the world was a different place. I could breathe (my heavily polluted valley air) deeply and know that I was living in a truly free country. I could speak to my neighbors, and aside from the occasional Spanish and French lingo with words such as taco, tortilla, French fries, and Paris Hilton, we were virtually united behind the great language of English.
But just one year later all that would change. One year later we would see…the invasion of the Czars. It seems like these days we have, or will have soon, a Czar for everything. We have drug Czars, Car Czars, and Barack Obama announced today the brand new position of Global Warming Czar.
Hey President Obama, buddy, I think the term Czar died off (literally) in Russia for a reason. Maybe the government ought to look that reason up before we keep naming a new Czar for every crisis real and imagined which the government wants to fix.
Anybody remember learning about Czar Ivan the terrible? Yeah, the dude who scooped out the eyes of the guy who designed St. Basil's Cathedral, yeah, that dude. He’s a Czar. He was the first Czar of Russia and even though the rest of them couldn’t get much worse they sure didn’t get much better. It’s as if the Romanov’s have come back from the dead! (Or maybe, Anastasia did really escape.)
So what exactly do these Czars (here in the free world) do? Well according to the Wall Street Journal, “An auto czar would have broad powers to push the auto makers, their banks, creditors, suppliers and the union to give concessions to put GM and Chrysler on a path to profitability.”
What! What’s up with this “push” stuff. What do you mean he’s going to push the auto makers… their banks… their creditors… their suppliers… and last of all the union. Push! Puuusshhh!? What is this guy? The Secretary of Domestic Automotive Development? The Car Wimp? No, he’s the Car CZAR.
If we’re naming a Car Czar I was thinking something like, "there will be profitability, or there will be eyeballs rolling on the floor." (And even if there is profitability, there still might be eyeballs rolling on the floor anyway. Depends on the mood the Car Czar.)
Ahem, allow me, Wall Street Journal, to tell you the real power of a Car Czar. “An auto Czar would have the broad powers to break the arms of any wimp CEO who won’t sell his private jet, could burn down any bank unwilling to cooperate, release the blood hounds on any creditor who won’t lend, loot any supplier, and titty twist the union to give concessions to put GM and Chrysler on the fast lane to profitability and world domination.”
NOW THAT, my friends, IS A CAR CZAR!!!
Another thing I’ve been wondering, do you think Hilary is getting jealous that she’s not a Czar. Because honestly, who wants to be secretary of state, when you can be the Peace Czar. I actually like the idea of having a Peace Czar.
Can you imagine Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il sitting at the negotiation table with the American Peace Czar? Especially if that Czar is Hillary Clinton. I don’t know about you but if I were any despot or thug, the last man, or in this case woman, I’d want to negotiate with would be the American Peace Czar.
When Barack Obama said that he was willing to meet with Iran, North Korean, Cuba, Venezuela, Darth Vader, Lord Voldemort, Lex Luther, the Joker, and Shredder without preconditions... he meant it. What he didn’t tell you is that there would be post conditions. “Sign the treaty or the Peace Czar scoops your eyes out of your skull. It’s your choice foo.”
And why stop with the Drug Czar, Car Czar, Global Warming Czar and Peace Czar? Imagine, the Oil Czar: Oil’s down below 30 dollars a barrel. The Health Care Czar: Everyone gets cheap health insurance or the companies get dissolved and their building gets bulldozed witht the evil board memebers still inside. The Health Czar: Everyone eats right, doesn’t smoke, gets plenty of exercise and sleep or they get hit by a Ford Focus. (I was trying to go bigger but alas, I remembered the Car Czar.)
Man, if only our founding fathers understood government as well as we do now. They would have abandoned their medieval system of checks and balances, restricting government, seperation of powers and just let Czars run the whole thing
“If men were angels they would need no government, or if angels could descend and govern men there would be no need for checks internal or external. So we said what the heck and put Czars in place.” Jason Bentley updating the words of James Madison to the 21st century.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Just a year ago today the world was a different place. I could breathe (my heavily polluted valley air) deeply and know that I was living in a truly free country. I could speak to my neighbors, and aside from the occasional Spanish and French lingo with words such as taco, tortilla, French fries, and Paris Hilton, we were virtually united behind the great language of English.
But just one year later all that would change. One year later we would see…the invasion of the Czars. It seems like these days we have, or will have soon, a Czar for everything. We have drug Czars, Car Czars, and Barack Obama announced today the brand new position of Global Warming Czar.
Hey President Obama, buddy, I think the term Czar died off (literally) in Russia for a reason. Maybe the government ought to look that reason up before we keep naming a new Czar for every crisis real and imagined which the government wants to fix.
Anybody remember learning about Czar Ivan the terrible? Yeah, the dude who scooped out the eyes of the guy who designed St. Basil's Cathedral, yeah, that dude. He’s a Czar. He was the first Czar of Russia and even though the rest of them couldn’t get much worse they sure didn’t get much better. It’s as if the Romanov’s have come back from the dead! (Or maybe, Anastasia did really escape.)
So what exactly do these Czars (here in the free world) do? Well according to the Wall Street Journal, “An auto czar would have broad powers to push the auto makers, their banks, creditors, suppliers and the union to give concessions to put GM and Chrysler on a path to profitability.”
What! What’s up with this “push” stuff. What do you mean he’s going to push the auto makers… their banks… their creditors… their suppliers… and last of all the union. Push! Puuusshhh!? What is this guy? The Secretary of Domestic Automotive Development? The Car Wimp? No, he’s the Car CZAR.
If we’re naming a Car Czar I was thinking something like, "there will be profitability, or there will be eyeballs rolling on the floor." (And even if there is profitability, there still might be eyeballs rolling on the floor anyway. Depends on the mood the Car Czar.)
Ahem, allow me, Wall Street Journal, to tell you the real power of a Car Czar. “An auto Czar would have the broad powers to break the arms of any wimp CEO who won’t sell his private jet, could burn down any bank unwilling to cooperate, release the blood hounds on any creditor who won’t lend, loot any supplier, and titty twist the union to give concessions to put GM and Chrysler on the fast lane to profitability and world domination.”
NOW THAT, my friends, IS A CAR CZAR!!!
Another thing I’ve been wondering, do you think Hilary is getting jealous that she’s not a Czar. Because honestly, who wants to be secretary of state, when you can be the Peace Czar. I actually like the idea of having a Peace Czar.
Can you imagine Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il sitting at the negotiation table with the American Peace Czar? Especially if that Czar is Hillary Clinton. I don’t know about you but if I were any despot or thug, the last man, or in this case woman, I’d want to negotiate with would be the American Peace Czar.
When Barack Obama said that he was willing to meet with Iran, North Korean, Cuba, Venezuela, Darth Vader, Lord Voldemort, Lex Luther, the Joker, and Shredder without preconditions... he meant it. What he didn’t tell you is that there would be post conditions. “Sign the treaty or the Peace Czar scoops your eyes out of your skull. It’s your choice foo.”
And why stop with the Drug Czar, Car Czar, Global Warming Czar and Peace Czar? Imagine, the Oil Czar: Oil’s down below 30 dollars a barrel. The Health Care Czar: Everyone gets cheap health insurance or the companies get dissolved and their building gets bulldozed witht the evil board memebers still inside. The Health Czar: Everyone eats right, doesn’t smoke, gets plenty of exercise and sleep or they get hit by a Ford Focus. (I was trying to go bigger but alas, I remembered the Car Czar.)
Man, if only our founding fathers understood government as well as we do now. They would have abandoned their medieval system of checks and balances, restricting government, seperation of powers and just let Czars run the whole thing
“If men were angels they would need no government, or if angels could descend and govern men there would be no need for checks internal or external. So we said what the heck and put Czars in place.” Jason Bentley updating the words of James Madison to the 21st century.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
There are Just Some Things That Money Can't Buy... Foreverything Else, There's the US Treasury
The current run on the US treasury over the past six months of bailout mania are a perfect time to illustrate the need for personal responsibility in order to maintain freedom.
Historians Will and Ariel Durant once made the observation that, “if liberty destroys order, the hunger for order will destroy liberty.” The tragedies of ancient Greece and the French Revolution come to mind of societies in which order was destroyed and tyranny was then the applauded successor.
And for at least some time both of these societies were ruled by authoritarian governments, until some kind of order was produced for progress toward individual liberty to continue.
But what pulls society toward this engulfing chaos which can only end in the tragedy of loss of precious liberty. Though there are admittedly many complex answers, one of the biggest is the lack of responsibility.
When human kind recognizes that the primary engine toward success or failure, misery or happiness is themselves, progress and prosperity skyrocket. Place these responsibilities on the backs of others and you find yourself on nonstop one way train to tyranny.
A classic example was seen when the CEO’s of the “Big Three” meandered in front of congress to beg for money to keep their businesses afloat. Congress will eventually grant them the money “they need” in order to “save two million jobs”. But at what cost?
Well there is the obvious cost which has already come to the taxpayer, as now the working men and women of America are now being required to pay for corporate excess and error. There is the cost which will inevitably come to future generations by deficits. And this doesn’t even calculate the potential cost of inflation which will inevitably happen the Fed continues to print money as it does.
Inflation will take its toll on everyone. From fat cat CEO to factory worker, from the white collar worker to the senior citizen finding it more and more difficult to buy anything with the money received in their check.
But I’m talking more about the unseen costs which the auto industry has decided to pay. The price of dignity: Hyundai’s new slogan is “how’s that for a change---a car company that's got your back---not one that you have to back”. As if the US auto industries image couldn’t drop any lower, overnight it hit new lows with them crawling in to the capital with their hands out begging for quick cash.
The price of freedom: When the auto industry accepts its fat check of public funds it’s going to find that the check comes with a whole list of “conditions” which must be met. US auto will not be able to function independently on the basis of their own judgment, but under the direction of a Washington Car Czar.
Is liberty and dignity such cheap commodities in our society that we will sell them for money, any sum of money? Or do we Americans still believe somehow that there are some things “that money just can’t buy…” Oh wait, that’s why we have credit! Thanks master card for teaching me that.
But some of us still believe that there are things which simply aren’t for sell. Yet our politicians and special interest are running left and right to sell our liberties and dignity for temporary security.
NOTHING IS TOO BIG TO FAIL. NOTHING. EVEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ISN’T TOO BIG TO FAIL!
And who could bail out the United States if she does fail?
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Historians Will and Ariel Durant once made the observation that, “if liberty destroys order, the hunger for order will destroy liberty.” The tragedies of ancient Greece and the French Revolution come to mind of societies in which order was destroyed and tyranny was then the applauded successor.
And for at least some time both of these societies were ruled by authoritarian governments, until some kind of order was produced for progress toward individual liberty to continue.
But what pulls society toward this engulfing chaos which can only end in the tragedy of loss of precious liberty. Though there are admittedly many complex answers, one of the biggest is the lack of responsibility.
When human kind recognizes that the primary engine toward success or failure, misery or happiness is themselves, progress and prosperity skyrocket. Place these responsibilities on the backs of others and you find yourself on nonstop one way train to tyranny.
A classic example was seen when the CEO’s of the “Big Three” meandered in front of congress to beg for money to keep their businesses afloat. Congress will eventually grant them the money “they need” in order to “save two million jobs”. But at what cost?
Well there is the obvious cost which has already come to the taxpayer, as now the working men and women of America are now being required to pay for corporate excess and error. There is the cost which will inevitably come to future generations by deficits. And this doesn’t even calculate the potential cost of inflation which will inevitably happen the Fed continues to print money as it does.
Inflation will take its toll on everyone. From fat cat CEO to factory worker, from the white collar worker to the senior citizen finding it more and more difficult to buy anything with the money received in their check.
But I’m talking more about the unseen costs which the auto industry has decided to pay. The price of dignity: Hyundai’s new slogan is “how’s that for a change---a car company that's got your back---not one that you have to back”. As if the US auto industries image couldn’t drop any lower, overnight it hit new lows with them crawling in to the capital with their hands out begging for quick cash.
The price of freedom: When the auto industry accepts its fat check of public funds it’s going to find that the check comes with a whole list of “conditions” which must be met. US auto will not be able to function independently on the basis of their own judgment, but under the direction of a Washington Car Czar.
Is liberty and dignity such cheap commodities in our society that we will sell them for money, any sum of money? Or do we Americans still believe somehow that there are some things “that money just can’t buy…” Oh wait, that’s why we have credit! Thanks master card for teaching me that.
But some of us still believe that there are things which simply aren’t for sell. Yet our politicians and special interest are running left and right to sell our liberties and dignity for temporary security.
NOTHING IS TOO BIG TO FAIL. NOTHING. EVEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ISN’T TOO BIG TO FAIL!
And who could bail out the United States if she does fail?
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
My Weight Loss Plan
Studies consistently show that most people want to lose weight as at least one New Year’s resolution. (Have I actually ever read a study that said that...no, I'm pretty much calling it from the gut. But does any of my vast and immense audience have the audacity to challenge me. Didn't think so.) So returning back to the point: Everybody’s looking to lose weight this time of year and I have just the perfect plan...
Go to college.
It's funny; yesterday I actually did have a doctor’s appointment. As a routine part of the appointment they checked my weight. 162 lbs, the most I've ever weighed in my life. Am I concerned? Heck no, I've barely eaten in the last two days since school has started. Between work and school and school work and friends and activities eating seems to drop on my priorities list. 145 lbs here I come!
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Go to college.
It's funny; yesterday I actually did have a doctor’s appointment. As a routine part of the appointment they checked my weight. 162 lbs, the most I've ever weighed in my life. Am I concerned? Heck no, I've barely eaten in the last two days since school has started. Between work and school and school work and friends and activities eating seems to drop on my priorities list. 145 lbs here I come!
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Some What Ifs and Why Nots
Well, as a punk college kid, you may notice that one classes start you may see some recurring themes. This is, of course, due to the classes I take and the study I do for them. So I have just a few historical what ifs and why nots after beginning my text book “What Hath God Wrought” (excellent book by the way).
As some of you may know, I consider myself an avid student of history, with an emphasis in American history. I don’t intend on actually majoring in history or graduating with a degree on history as I consider such an idea to be absurd. There is always more to learn. Especially in regards to history, as the best historians will admit they are constantly learning. (However, don’t misunderstand, I am glad that they got degrees and have dedicated their life to the study of history, where I, will always be a student of the wonderful works they produce.)
In my study of history I have a couple of questions which I always ask. What if, and why not, or that’s to say I’m always asking what if a certain event had taken place and why didn’t it happen. In the introduction and prologue of the book “What Hath God Wrought” I was hit with two immediately.
In the prologue to the book it explains that Jackson’s army at the battle of New Orleans was one of the most diverse armies ever assembled. It included Native Americans, Frenchman, Spaniards, Americans and blacks, both slave and freeborn.
The text states that Jackson addressed these blacks as “brave fellow citizens” and that he had promised them pay and respect equal of their white counterparts. Now granted, I understand that this is only a reference to how Jackson ran his army and not necessarily that this incident made him an all out abolitionist.
But one must ask, if a blacks were brave fellow citizens in Jackson’s army, why not apply that same principle of justice and respect for human life in his politics. What if Andrew Jackson and the rest of the American public had done that right of the top, and why didn’t they?
Jackson is one of the most racially divisive presidents in US history. He was extremely pro-slavery and forced the Indians out of US land despite treaties which the Indians had the US government giving them right to their land.
I understand that culturally things were different back then. I ask myself these questions to remind myself of one thing. Nothing ever has to happen. Blacks didn’t need to be slaves. We didn’t have to discriminate against blacks for more than a century after wards. History is nothing more that the recording of ideas, beliefs, actions and consequences. All of these categories are capable of being changed; however, the last is always contingent on what goes on in the previous three.
The battle of New Orleans is a reminder to me that slavery needed not be a part of society in the first half of the 19th century anymore than injustice has to be a part of our society today. It’s a choice that we fundamentally make through our ideas, beliefs and ultimately our actions.
The other thing I read which hit me was about the second great awakening. As a Mormon I obviously have great interest in this period of time, as it was when, I firmly believe, when God finally saw that the world was ready to receive revelation and authority from heaven again, and that the gospel of Jesus Christ could be restored in its fullness.
One commentary in the book which stuck out to me was how at the time, in American, reason and revelation where not competitors, but allies in the search for truth. Evangelicals at the time embraced scientific breakthroughs, universal education, and considered them both tools for spreading the gospel.
They believed that the spread of freedom, reason, and justice would ultimately lead to (and be empowered by) the spread of Christianity. Tocqueville found this odd of course because it Europe science and reason had been at war with each other for centuries.
What if we had a similar attitude today, and why don’t we? I would like to comment a little on this last observation, however, I’m out of time, and it’s run a little long anyway.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
As some of you may know, I consider myself an avid student of history, with an emphasis in American history. I don’t intend on actually majoring in history or graduating with a degree on history as I consider such an idea to be absurd. There is always more to learn. Especially in regards to history, as the best historians will admit they are constantly learning. (However, don’t misunderstand, I am glad that they got degrees and have dedicated their life to the study of history, where I, will always be a student of the wonderful works they produce.)
In my study of history I have a couple of questions which I always ask. What if, and why not, or that’s to say I’m always asking what if a certain event had taken place and why didn’t it happen. In the introduction and prologue of the book “What Hath God Wrought” I was hit with two immediately.
In the prologue to the book it explains that Jackson’s army at the battle of New Orleans was one of the most diverse armies ever assembled. It included Native Americans, Frenchman, Spaniards, Americans and blacks, both slave and freeborn.
The text states that Jackson addressed these blacks as “brave fellow citizens” and that he had promised them pay and respect equal of their white counterparts. Now granted, I understand that this is only a reference to how Jackson ran his army and not necessarily that this incident made him an all out abolitionist.
But one must ask, if a blacks were brave fellow citizens in Jackson’s army, why not apply that same principle of justice and respect for human life in his politics. What if Andrew Jackson and the rest of the American public had done that right of the top, and why didn’t they?
Jackson is one of the most racially divisive presidents in US history. He was extremely pro-slavery and forced the Indians out of US land despite treaties which the Indians had the US government giving them right to their land.
I understand that culturally things were different back then. I ask myself these questions to remind myself of one thing. Nothing ever has to happen. Blacks didn’t need to be slaves. We didn’t have to discriminate against blacks for more than a century after wards. History is nothing more that the recording of ideas, beliefs, actions and consequences. All of these categories are capable of being changed; however, the last is always contingent on what goes on in the previous three.
The battle of New Orleans is a reminder to me that slavery needed not be a part of society in the first half of the 19th century anymore than injustice has to be a part of our society today. It’s a choice that we fundamentally make through our ideas, beliefs and ultimately our actions.
The other thing I read which hit me was about the second great awakening. As a Mormon I obviously have great interest in this period of time, as it was when, I firmly believe, when God finally saw that the world was ready to receive revelation and authority from heaven again, and that the gospel of Jesus Christ could be restored in its fullness.
One commentary in the book which stuck out to me was how at the time, in American, reason and revelation where not competitors, but allies in the search for truth. Evangelicals at the time embraced scientific breakthroughs, universal education, and considered them both tools for spreading the gospel.
They believed that the spread of freedom, reason, and justice would ultimately lead to (and be empowered by) the spread of Christianity. Tocqueville found this odd of course because it Europe science and reason had been at war with each other for centuries.
What if we had a similar attitude today, and why don’t we? I would like to comment a little on this last observation, however, I’m out of time, and it’s run a little long anyway.
Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)