I am vacillating somewhat now on my stance. I have spoken with many people about it and there is just something about actually doing an act that changes the dynamic. I have been thinking about this scripture a lot for the last couple of days and I think there is something to it that has to do with this situation I have been pondering about. Here is the scripture:
2 Ne. 2: 21
And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents.
Now I know this scripture isn't exactly the same, but for some reason I was thinking this has a lot to do with what I was pondering about. Let me give an example of the trouble that I was having mentally.
Let's say you have two men. They have been raised exactly the same, same opportunities, same everything. Both of the men want to have an adulterous affair. I am not talking about the thoughts that pop into anyone's head and they can't control those type, I am saying those random thoughts pop up in their head and the dwell on them and they actually want to cheat on their spouse. Now let's say that one of them does, and the other one wants to but never has the chance. Is the one that actually did it in more trouble? If they are standing before God is God more lenient on the one that didn't do it because he couldn't find an opportunity to than he is the other? I have a hard time saying he is more lenient just because the guy couldn't find the opportunity. I was thinking that if God condemns the person who didn't just as much as the person that did commit the act then it couldn't really be the act that was the determining factor, it had to have been the attitude.
But I don't know if I agree anymore with myself :) I was thinking about this last night (after a two hour conversation with my father-in-law) while laying in bed and I realized I think it is different. The reason I do is because of that scripture--the person who didn't commit the act still has days left in his probation--HE HASN"T COMMITTED the act, so there is still hope (not that there isn't HOPE if he did, but you know what I mean). He can still avoid the act. Now granted, that does change the scenario with my two theoretical guys because the premise is that they both WANT to commit the act. But I just have to acknowledge that when you commit the act the situation is different--for some reason. My point before was that it was the heart of the perpetrator that is at issue with God, and I still think that is true, but something changes when you actually commit the sin.
I really don't know how to put into words what I am thinking. I really wanted to be right--spiritually--on this point, so I have been praying a lot about it lately and asking God to help me recognize the truth. Maybe this is what Joseph Smith meant when he said something to the effect of "revelation is when your heart tells your mind something your mind does not know." I think that is what I am feeling now--there is something significant about actually doing the act. I still have all the troubles with making my impression and my thoughts meet, but that is what I think.
If anyone has any insights I would love to hear them. The problem is I can't articulate what I am thinking enough to make it make sense to others. For some reason it is coming off that I am trying to justify action, when I am actually saying thoughts are as condemning as actions (although this whole post is that I don't really believe that anymore). But help me out, if you can. I would love to talk about it in person if that can be arranged with anyone.
Either way, I think the Spirit has whispered to me that action changes the game, even though your heart might want to do something, actually doing it makes it even worse. That makes sense when I write it, but for some reason thinking about it makes it so it doesn't make sense. Posting on this has made me realize more about revelation. I think this is the first time when my mind REALLY didn't think something but I just know the truth is the opposite of what I am thinking.
Interesting...
Love you guys
3 years ago
4 comments:
So we're back to this again. Good. (I promise I won't freak out at you this time...as long as you don't catch me on a really bad day...lol)
Funny thing - I've been thinking, and thinking hard, about the role of motivation and the state of the heart in juxtaposition to deeds. Really, and I think that stuff deserves more credit than I was giving it. Although I still hold to my original thought on the whole thing - it isn't about attitude OR action, it's attitude AND action... I really think that separating them is what causes the intellectual problem. But when you place them in a relationship of mutual influence, it changes the whole picture. I think that's what Bishop Clare was getting at when he said that every thought is also an act... still thinking about that one.
As for your example - and maybe I just read this weird, so correct me if I did (for real). Here's the thing: the word "opportunity." Does that mean like, one guy just couldn't find a woman willing to have an affair with him (which would be odd, seeing as how there are plenty of women who get paid to do just that)or does it mean that he did have the "opportunity" and just didn't do it (out of guilt or fear or whatever)? Because those are two different things. I think if a dude was trying his hardest to cheat on his wife, and for whatever bizarre reason just couldn't find someone, he should be in just as much trouble as the guy who actually cheated. But if he had the opportunity, and REALLY wanted to, but just didn't (despite his motivations) perhaps the one who acted did something a little bit worse... Does that make any sense at all?
As for motivation - what I've been thinking so deeply about is how much the Savior hated hypocrisy. People who do great things and "pretend" to be righteous when really they aren't. That matters A LOT. The state of your heart when you do things is eternally important. I think you had a totally valid point there. I wonder, and really is just an "I wonder" not an "I think" - I wonder if the reason so much emphasis is placed on action is because it is harder to "undo" action than it is to change your heart and attitude. Because when you're changing your heart, it's mostly something that happens between you and God, whereas undoing actions can sometimes be impossible, because they have hurt somebody else. And that other person may not wish to forgive, or may have been damaged so deeply that it's changed who they are, or whatever. In that case, all you can really do is rely on the atonement.
Now, that's not to say that changing a human heart is easy - in fact, I think it may be easier for the Lord to forgive sins once they're repented of than it is to get the person to repent. However, when an action has influenced somebody else, getting that person's heart to change may become even MORE difficult because now they have someone else to blame... so the process is further complicated.
The idea, I guess, is that we don't live in a vacuum. What we do can eternally affect others, as well as ourselves and so we have to keep that in mind as we're making choices and stuff. Incidentally, this also REQUIRES a pure heart - the desire to do good things.
So here's my (hopefully relevant) example: My mother has an affair. Bad. Bad choice. Why? Oh, probably for a lot of reasons. Many of which deal with the state of her heart and her personal relationship with God(it was selfish, it was weak, it was disobedient, it was breaking eternal covenants, etc.) However, the act can be forgiven. Her heart can change (and has...). She can be rebaptized, have her temple blessings restored, and through the atonement and the repentance process, actually become a new, even better, person. And she has. She's awesome.
However, there were ramifications of that choice for others over which she has no control (then or now). That action involved somebody else (so now we have double the sin) - and was an affront to another person's god-given gift of virtue. (Not, of course, that she's held accountable for his sins, that would sort of wipe out the second article of faith) but it is something that should have been considered. Furthermore, she changed the lives of her children, lost respect in a lot of ways that's a beast to try and get back, and her choice made my dad one of the most bitter men I know. She had no idea that it would affect him the way it did. When you talk to her about it, even now, she says, "I couldn't just leave him - I had to make sure it was my fault so that he wouldn't hate himself forever" and boy did she get her wish. Can my mom do ANYTHING to repair the damage done to my dad's heart? No. Is his heart his problem, yeah. I don't think she'll be held accountable for his anger or his bitterness, but I do think that the Lord is going to have to work much harder to get him to where he should be than he would have if my mom had "just left." So the way our actions influence others is important not because it places accountability on us for how they respond, but because if we are all really in this thing together (and I believe we are) we need to consider how what we do might affect the eternal journey of another. Does that make sense?
I guess, in a nutshell, after this way too long response, I think hearts matter for the sake of individual salvation. Actions, in that sense, are usually representations of where our hearts are, and in that sense may be "less" critical (though I still think they go hand-in-hand). However, actions are influential in the lives of others, and may cause problems (or, on the bright side, may really influence others for good)that may change the state of that person's heart, which may affect their road to salvation.
AND... one final thing (I promise)in the second to last paragraph you say that what you were originally getting at is that thoughts can be as condemning as actions. I think, actually, that you're right. Because a thought IS an action - it is not a motivation. Motivation is abstract... so when King Benjamin says that "if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish" I think he actually stuck it all together. What matters not that thoughts appear, but what happens once they do. A person with unrighteous motivations, attitudes and desires will respond differently than a person with righteous motivations, attitudes and desires. Therefore, thoughts CAN be just as condemning as actions - depending, of course, on what where the state of our heart is when we respond to them.
I also suddenly have a lot to say about "continuing in the faith" but since I've hogged a ton of space with this comment already, perhaps I'll transfer those thoughts to MY blog, and let YOU respond. :)
Good response Makayla, not that I am grading them :) but I liked it.
You touched on my problem exactly. If the one guy wants to have an adulterous affair but never has the opportunity (theoretical, of course pretty much anyone could) I think he is just as condemned as someone who wanted to and actually did it. I think to God it would be the same thing, they both had the same desire and the one would have done it had he had the chance.
But my problem, that I eluded to, was that for some reason my heart doesn't think that. My brain does, but my heart doesn't. I think there is just something about actually committing the sin. Anyway, I just wanted to clarify that in my hypothetical situation the man wanted to, he just couldn't because of situation. Maybe he was on a remote island, who knows :)
But I agree with you, it seems as though they would have the same condemnation, which would also mean that the act wasn't the determining factor, it was the desire.
But my heart doesn't agree with me.
You wrote a lot, I will respond to that later, I have too much homework!
I think that actually committing the act would hurt the wife and children more(and extended family and friends). I think that's what makes the difference. I think that the wife and children would hurt either way. However, once the act has been committed a whole new set of emotions will come upon the family. Chirst didn't just suffer for our sins, he suffered for those sins committed against us. That is kind of saying the same thing, but just a different way of looking at it i guess.
I’ve read your entry and this thread with interest. I’m not sure what I think. But I just re-watched an episode of House (the source of all wisdom for me at the moment (lol), and House said something that might be relevant. He said, “An error is as significant as its consequences.” Maybe that’s true for sins as well. Murder is more consequential than a murderous heart. Even though the attitude is identical, the results are different. And though both are sins, one is a heck of a lot tougher to repent of. In that sense, one is—practically speaking—more serious than the other.
Post a Comment