Those of us who chose in the pre-mortal world to come to the Earth spotted two fatal flaws in Satan’s plan to save us all.

Satan’s plan did not allow for free will and had Satan at the center. Said Satan:

“Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.” (Moses 4:1).

In contrast, Jehovah, the true Savior, said:

“Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.” (Moses 4:2).

Jehovah’s statement, which supported Heavenly Father’s plan, allowed for free choice. This meant that some people will ultimately choose not to be saved, but the Lord, in his wisdom, realizes that you cannot force people to be good. In addition, Jehovah’s plan puts the Lord at the center.

Jehovah’s plan looks like this:

Continue reading →

My wife and I were finally able to see the new temple endowment film Friday night. I was really floored by it. I cried through most of the film and as I looked around the endowment room it appeared most other people were wiping away some tears.

The introduction of the Savior was done in a way that really touched me. But the key moment was when Eve meets Adam. The look of joy on her face was so radiant that it made me see them as real human beings rather than actors just reading lines. It really brought home for me the marvelous plan of man and woman joining together in eternal marriage and how we can be part of this plan.

I really enjoyed Eve’s process of arriving at the conclusion that she must eat the fruit. There is no other way for her to have children. The tears she sheds are real, and you can see that she — and eventually Adam — must also sacrifice and go through sorrow.

The film has many meaningful pauses that help drive home doctrinal points in new ways. I will not get into all of those things now, but I will say that this temple film is like a whole new story filled with new meanings and layers of information to help us understand our purpose on Earth.

I found myself wondering how the film was made. The usual process would be for a GA or group of GAs to be involved with the filming. I am sure this film had to be approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. Did the Brethren weep also as they viewed this film?

Another thought: Lucifer is a weasel, and this movie showed this best of all. But there were also significant moments when the other actors clearly viewed him with pity and compassion. And this seems right to me.

Last note: the temple experience is sacred, and talking about it in general terms is appropriate, but there are some things that should not be discussed in a public forum. Please show some discretion.

William Hamblin’s blog posts some interesting questions here.

Feel free to comment here or there.

This article in the National Review makes it clear that the Republican Establishment and big money folks are lining up behind Chris Christie in 2016.

Yes, yes, it is absolutely disgusting that we are discussing 2016 in 2013.

Still, I am very interested in readers’ opinions: how different do you think a Chris Christie presidency would be from a Hillary Clinton presidency?

I see very little difference but am willing to be convinced otherwise. Christie might support a slightly smaller budget, but he will not make any significant cuts. He will support a money-printing Federal Reserve (just like Hillary). He doesn’t care about NSA spying (just like Hillary). He seems to be a Rudy Giuliani-type foreign policy hawk (just like Hillary). Is there any evidence he would support more conservative federal judges? (Perhaps). Is there any doubt he would mostly cave on social issues? (No doubt in my mind).

Personally, I see about a 3 percent difference between Christie and Hillary Clinton. Convince me I am wrong.

And if I am not wrong, why should any conservative/libertarian types support Christie?

On another thread here at M*, we have had a raging debate on Ralph Hancock’s talk at the FAIR Conference Aug. 1.

This talk has now been published by FAIR and can be read here.

Having read the talk several times now, I cannot understand why this talk is all that controversial. I honestly believe that many people simply do not understand it or are confused by the terms he used (such as “liberal.”)

After Prof. Hancock’s talk, however, Scott Gordon, President of FAIR, felt it necessary to clarify that FAIR’s position on the talk, something that was not done for any other talk during the conference.

Here is Scott Gordon’s explanation, as written here on M*:

I had several comments on his presentation. Some from liberals, and one of the last ones came from a very conservative republican. I have no idea if the people who made comments to me listened to the talk or not. On the way to the podium, I thought I should try to nip in the bud the idea that FAIR supported one political ideology or another. I thought my comments reflected that. I was very uncomfortable making the announcement as I was unhappy I had not thought to make that clear at the beginning of the conference and I couldn’t think of a more graceful way to articulate my thoughts.

I reiterate this point not to bash Scott Gordon and/or FAIR (quite the opposite) but to explain why this talk garnered attention. As far as I am concerned, the whole “apology issue” is not really relevant to this discussion anymore.

I would like this post to concentrate on the actual content of the talk. My personal opinion: I think it was a brilliant talk with many salient points for modern-day latter-day Saints. Prof. Hancock quoted modern-day prophets and apostles, de Toqueville and many Founding Fathers and makes his case clearly and forcefully. I honestly cannot understand why believing latter-day Saints would have a problem with it.

I am, however, willing to be convinced otherwise.

Continue reading →