The Harangue turned 3 years old this week (so it isn't New anymore, and how Cool it ever was is subject to debate). Happy berfday to them.

As their regular readers know, the focus of the posts there has always been trying to look beyond the mark when it comes to Mormon doctrine, theology, and scriptures. They have spent a lot of time trying to speculate wildly about the atonement of Jesus Christ, free will/agency, foreknowledge, personal revelation, eternal progression, and all sorts of other difficult theological and philosophical subjects they really know very little about. Along the way there has been a lot of contention and disagreement. Why? Because:

GeoffJ hates knuckleheaded comments.

In the middle of them speculating wildly on the atonement of Jesus Christ some numbskull (i.e., anyone who doesn't agree with GeoffJ) will come along and tell them to stop wasting their time. Not surprising, quite frankly, given some of the ridiculous things they discuss. Like Multiple Mortal Probations and wacky Atonement theory that ignores what the rest of Christendom figured out nearly 2000 years ago. No, I’m not kidding. These types of comments irritate GeoffJ to no end, because they don't dwell on how greatly enriched by these discussions he is and how he feels more knowledgeable about the things of God.

Since GeoffJ is irritated as he blogs uncharitably, I will guess about a potential reason for that kind of comment: A severe inability to live the restored gospel. Yup — worldly people are afraid that pulling back the curtain and looking hard in the mirror will reveal that they are living a sham or something (to put it in Wizard of Oz terms). Being willing to look closely at yourself takes faith that the restored gospel holds up when applied to your life and my guess is that some people are deathly afraid that looking closely at their own lives will reveal awful results.


Speculating wildly is nonsense. Studying the scriptures closely in order to know how we should act and what we should do is a good thing. The restored gospel can easily tell someone how they live their life. The scriptures certainly are not against us studying the gospel so we will know how to act:

Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection. And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come. (D&C 130: 18-19)
As this Scripture states, the knowledge and intelligence is gained through diligence and obedience, just as Jesus taught, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine" meaning if we do the Father's will then we will be filled with His doctrine. Nothing there about being ardently dedicated to speculating wildly in ignorance, just talking about living right and learning as a result of it.
The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth. (D&C 93: 36)
Yes, and taking it in context with D&C 93, when people exercise their agency to reject evil and do good, then they are filled with light and truth, which the adversary takes away because of disobedience. So, what do we need to do to be filled with light and truth? Speculate? No. Obedience? Yes.
It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance. (D&C 131: 6)
Here, Joseph makes it plain that choosing to ignore the ordinances of God will damn you, as he states:
There are a great many wise men and women too in our midst who are too wise to be taught; therefore they must die in their ignorance, and in the resurrection they will find their mistake. Many seal up the door of heaven by saying, So far God may reveal and I will believe.
All men who become heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ will have to receive the fullness of the ordinances of his kingdom; and those who will not receive all the ordinances will come short of the fullness of that glory, if they do not lose the whole (TPJS, Pg. 509)
So, the ignorance Smith is talking about is not that of esoteric bits of soteriological knowledge, but the willful ignoring of the call to repent and be baptized by an authorized servant of God. So, once again, the Scriptures do not support what GeoffJ is saying.

But, look, people can live the Gospel all they want. We are all free to choose. But there at the Harangue they are all about trying to understand what they consider to be important, and not actually living the gospel. Those who don’t like that are free to step off. (Of course GeoffJ mean that in that in the nicest possible way, which is to say, "If you aren't a rampant speculator who likes looking beyond the mark and ignoring the obvious, then don't comment there, but please still do read the blog, because he watches the stats very closely, just don't comment, because he doesn't care what you think, unless you agree with him.")

Oh and a Happy New Year to all speculators! The rest of you, who focus on living the Gospel and point out speculating is largely a waste of time, can step off. We get enough of that at Church already!

[Associated Radio Thang song: Noisepie — Hey Mr. Bighead]


Anonymous said... @ January 3, 2008 at 7:21 AM

Ah, that sweet "necessary" feedback you dole out to remind us who the real numbskull is. But don't you get embarrassed for yourself?

Snarkimus Prime said... @ January 3, 2008 at 7:24 AM

No, actually, not when idiots like you litter the Bloggernacle.

Anonymous said... @ January 3, 2008 at 7:35 AM

A long time ago this blog went from being a clever satire to being a cess-pool of hate and ignorance, all in the name of pretending to represent Mormon orthodoxy! Trust me, you prove Reinhold Niebuhr's observation that no one sees our virtuous deeds quite as virtuous as we see them ourselves.

Anonymous said... @ January 3, 2008 at 7:46 AM

Geoff is uncharitable, as he admits himself, to say those not interested in his brand of philosophy and discourse are weak in faith. Such an assertion is crass.

Holding this up as a rejoinder in his celebratory three year anniversary post suggests he is trying to persuade people the blog is relevant and useful, which would not otherwise be gathered had he not said so. Why argue against your critics with such uncharitable attacks when celebrating your anniversary if not trying to convince yourself and others your purpose has merit? If there were intrinsically obvious value, there would be no need to vaguely attack the nebulous bogeyman of your detractors.

This looks more like Geoff having an internal argument with himself then him silencing his critics, who would be unmoved by anything like this, as they would see this more as evidence they are right.

Snarkimus Prime said... @ January 3, 2008 at 7:52 AM

Dear Anonymouses,

So, in other words, you just hate me and SnarkerNacle, and cannot address the subject at hand. Would either of you dim-witted Snark-haters like to defend GeoffJ's position? No?

You are just here to spew exactly what you criticize me for, right? Yes. Got it.

Anonymous said... @ January 3, 2008 at 8:07 AM

There is a real rhetorical art to antagonizing your interlocutor to insult you and then claiming moral high ground in order to shift the argument away from the substance of the conversation, appearing to be the innocent victim of an unjustified attack. While you frequently attempt to employ this technique (even when people don't actually insult you in reply to your original insults), it is so obviously artificial and hypocritical for you that it has long ceased to convince anyone but yourself. I suggest that you try something new for a change. It has gotten old.

As for Geoff's argument, I think that you have misread it. He didn't say that anyone that disagrees with him is dumb. Rather, he said that anyone that doesn't think that one should think is dumb. I am quite sure that he doesn't have any problem with people disagreeing with him, as I have seen first hand on numerous occassions. The issue he raises is not with disagreement, but with self-righteous attempts to control discussions. The real people who have problems with disagreement are those who don't think that one should be able to discuss the gospel in any other way than silence or compliance. If you could only see the difference between disagreement and trying to shut people up...

Snarkimus Prime said... @ January 3, 2008 at 8:20 AM

Latest anonymous,

I am not initially antagonizing you, unless you are GeoffJ posting anonymously. Rather, various snark-haters weigh in and ignore the subject at hand and attack me. As for point that out wearing thin, I couldn't care less what you think, obviously.

I don't pretend to be innocent, never made any such claim and I don't pretend to it. I am asking for it, and I am getting. I have no problem with that.

As for what you consider to be hypocrisy and old, you have already clearly made up your mind before you ever came here. So, why should your opinion matter? It doesn't.

As for the merit of Geoff's post, I am impressed that you have actually made an attempt to defend it. But, your attempt falls flat, as you are entirely missing his point. His point is to attack the faith of those who do not agree with what he is doing. He questions their faithfulness and say they lack it and that is why they do not like what he is doing. What he is necessarily arguing is he and those like him are more faithful and have more faith and that is why they can engage in their speculations, and those who are not interested and question him are lacking in faith.

That is total crap. Complete garbage.

If Geoff doesn't want to control the discussion and shut up his critics on his blog, then why does he tell them to "step off"? He does want them to step off, off his blog, so he can do as he likes.

Anonymous said... @ January 3, 2008 at 8:38 AM

those who are not interested and question him are lacking in faith.

Again, if you could actually accurately understand an argument, it would help. He didn't say that those who aren't interested lack faith. Why would he care about those who are not interested? He doesn't say, "what I am doing is so important that everyone should read it." Nor does he say that those who question him are lacking faith. He appears to have no problem with real disagreements with his ideas. Rather, he says that those who show up on his blog and tell him that he should be talking about these things lack faith. The specific group of people he is talking about are those who say that these things shouldn't be discussed because they are a) irrelevant or b) dangerous. In his view, they lack the faith in that the Gospel can withstand scrutiny.

Now, if you want to actually defend this position, rather than the strawman of your own imagination, please explain why those who insist that people not discuss the gospel are actually more faithful?

CanadianCynic said... @ January 3, 2008 at 8:46 AM

Shorter Snarky: This are serious blog! Speculate, blah blah blah, Knucklehead, blah blah blah, Orthopraxy, Orthodoxy, Blah, Blah, Blah [BIG WORD ALERT] soteriological [/BIG WORD ALERT]

Comments: Idiots! This are serious blog! Blah, Blah Blah! I personal attacks righteous are!!

Snarkimus Prime said... @ January 3, 2008 at 9:00 AM

Now, if you want to actually defend this position, rather than the strawman of your own imagination, please explain why those who insist that people not discuss the gospel are actually more faithful?

Talk about straw men, you have fabricated a nice one there. The issue is not generically discussing the Gospel, as that is clearly not what Geoff and his band of Merry Men are doing. They are wandering off into strange and weird places that make little or no sense to most people (Multiple Mortal Probations anyone?). And, when people come onto his blog and question the efficacy of what he is doing, he hates it. It irritates him. So, he wants to silence them, he wants them to shut up, and step off his blog. That is why he told them to "step off."

Absolutely nobody is saying we should not discuss the Gospel, not me, not his critics, not anyone. What Geoff's critics are saying is that what he and his Merry Men are doing is a foolish exercise and largely a waste of time, and Geoff hates that, so he is attacking them by impugning their faith. Which is absurd. The crap that Geoff et al. peddles is tangential weird nonsense relegated to the periphery of Mormon speculation. It is in no way essential for salvation, it is in no way what the Scriptures are referring to as "light and truth" and it in no way requires faith to study it, and the rejection of it in no way impugns one's faith.

Geoff is attacking his critics as lacking faith. Period. What you have created in your mind to defend him is nonsense. Nobody ever said to not discuss the gospel.

Anonymous said... @ January 3, 2008 at 9:27 AM

Step off!

Anonymous said... @ January 3, 2008 at 9:34 AM

If you don't see the atonement and the nature of the eternal soul as relevant to the Gospel, please look closer. There is a long intellectual tradition around both of these topics both within the LDS faith and within Christianity in general. Now, you may not agree that their discussions are "central" to your brand of the gospel, but so what? They are also probably not necessary for salvation, but again, so what? I am confident that 100% of what you write isn't necessary to anyone's salvation (and is most likely damaging your chances :) ). I hardly think that "necessary for salvation" is the standard to which any blog aspires or should be held to. The fact is that when you predefine the Gospel to exclude the discussions with which YOU disagree, you are telling people not to discuss the Gospel.

Anonymous said... @ January 3, 2008 at 10:29 AM

I"m not sure why anybody engages the Snarker anymore. Here is what always happens:

Engager: Hey, Snarkimus, you're being mean! Stop it, because you're really hurting people's feelings, and that's not righteous!

Snarker: But telling me I'm unrighteous is unrighteous too, you stinkin' snark hating hypocrite!

Engager: But I'm trying to at least live the gospel, while you are just being mean! Mean and nasty, I tell ya!

Snarker: I know you are, but what am I? You are a TROLL! And now, DKL, you're BANNED! Everybody is BANNED! You can't tell ME I'm wrong, and nobody asked you to come here anyway, so if you don't like it, you can STOP READING, you stinkin' hypocrites! But wait, don't leave, I'll open comments again just so I can make sure that people are reading me, because the Bloggernackle needs me to tell them what jerks they are.

Sheesh, it's like arguing with a 2 year old.

Dan said... @ January 3, 2008 at 10:36 AM

But wait, don't leave, I'll open comments again just so I can make sure that people are reading me, because the Bloggernackle needs me to tell them what jerks they are.

I think he's concerned about stats. I bet he pumps them up just so he can feel better about his lame blog.

Snarkimus Prime said... @ January 3, 2008 at 10:36 AM

That is such total crap, you know it is crap as you type it. You are just trying to gracefully bow out of an argument you have lost. You say that Geoff is interested in discussion not in telling people to shut up, which is clearly not the case. You say people don't want want to discuss the gospel because they lack faith, which is clearly not the case. Now you say that generic discussion of the Atonement and the nature of the eternal soul is a germane part of the gospel, when nobody has said anything otherwise.

You are full of crap, and so is Geoff when he says that people who aren't interest in his particular brand of speculative bullcrap are lacking in faith. What they are lacking is an interest in peripheral, weird, tangential stuff that borders on nonsense (i.e., what NCT is all about).

And now you judge me as jeopardizing my salvation, with a smiley face yet? Had I done any such thing on yourself or Geoff you would railed against me as judgmental.

Thanks for being you. You make SnarkerNacle what it is.

Snarkimus Prime said... @ January 3, 2008 at 10:46 AM

latest Anonymous and Dan,

If you two hate the blog so much and it is so predictable, then stop reading. How hard is that? It isn't. You people whine about how much the blog sucks, and just keep coming back for more. Cognitive dissonance, anyone? Or are you just angry that someone is kicking you in the head?

Pointing out hypocrisy is fair game. Whenever anyone brings up something substantive, we address it. Most of the time it is just pointless accusations, like this one. So what are we to do, act like the 2 year old and say "You suck! We hate you too!" like you do? OK, whatever. Say something intelligent and you will get an intelligent response. Say the same old bull, and you get the same old response.

Dan, if anyone pays attention to their stats, it is you. Correct me if I am wrong, but the lat time you got snarked here you thanked us for sending you more traffic. Oh, yeah, oops. If I cared about stats, I wouldn't do what I do. Think about it, Dan.

curious said... @ January 3, 2008 at 10:53 AM

how many of the anonymous comment-makers are NCT permas?

Anonymous said... @ January 3, 2008 at 2:05 PM

"If you two hate the blog so much and it is so predictable, then stop reading. How hard is that? It isn't. You people whine about how much the blog sucks, and just keep coming back for more."

Ahh, right on cue.... You are nothing if not consistent, Snarkernackel.

I don't hate Snarkimus Prime, I'm just wondering why anybody bothers to engage. You jsut get the same record, again and again.

Oh, and here's your cue to tell me I'm a hypocritical troll, to stop reading, and then BAN ME FOR LIFE. Or tell me I'm a T&S sycophant. I like that one, too.

Dan said... @ January 3, 2008 at 2:53 PM

If you two hate the blog so much and it is so predictable, then stop reading. How hard is that? It isn't.

Which is really funny coming from a man whose sole purpose in blogging is to pick on blogs he hates to read. What a dope. And unfunny too.

Snarkimus Prime said... @ January 3, 2008 at 5:30 PM


Just like with the last post that hit Kaimi and the DAMU, it was Kaimi and the DAMU striking back. Now NCT gets hit, so they strike back with their crowd in tow. Natural human behavior.

latest Anonymous,

When you don't say anything different, then what do you expect? You are just like all of the other faceless morons who whine, so you get treated like all the other faceless morons who whine.


I see you dropped the stupid rant about stats. Stupid blogs I hate to read, yes, that would be an outstanding description of "The Good Democrat" which I also do not read, but which people complain about to me and when they do with something clever you get snarked. Newsflash Dan: I don't read most of the crap that gets snarked. I don't read FLAK, FMH, TftC or most of the bilge that the Bloggernacle survives on. The egregious crap floats to the surface, people spot it, and then complain about it, and I snark it. Welcome to SnarkerNacle, genius.

Anonymous said... @ January 4, 2008 at 9:21 AM

SnarkerNacle is funny!!

(Unintentionally, but still.)

The comments are even funnier. Snarky gets all wound up and I picture steam coming out of his pointy little ears while he stomps his foot and pounds on his keyboard. Rumpelstiltskin?

All this to protect Mormonism's good name?

Mark N. said... @ January 4, 2008 at 10:14 AM

Hello, knucklehead here.

I'm not sure I can add anything here to what I've already said at the "Cool Thang" site, except to point out that I'm apparently being censored there now; my responses on the thread in question are no longer adding to the response count, and my name isn't showing up in the "recent posts" listing on the right sidebar.


Todd Wood said... @ January 4, 2008 at 10:33 AM

I just read somewhere recently.

Ah yes, I think it was Brother Paul's Bathroom Reader that "crap" is an LDS cuss word.

It is all very curious to me as the outsider when division abounds.

Of course, I can only imagine the descriptive words that the famous snarkimus prime would have for me.

Doug Towers said... @ January 22, 2008 at 6:31 PM

I like the post. It brings out a lot of good points. I used to comment (for a short time) on the NCT and read it. The problem wasn't so much the subjects as the logic that was used IMO. I find it looking well beyond the mark. The true answers to the issues are very wonderful and beautiful doctrines. But they seemed to take them off into strange philosophies. It seemed a case of making a simple thing into a subject for the high and mighty.

As my site would indicate, I don't mind getting into something up in the air somewhat. But when you have your head in the clouds you must also made sure your feet are on the ground, or you may find yourself getting carried away in the wind.

We should obtain as much knowledge as possible. And to obtain it requires dilligent effort. As you also point out, we must then apply it.

It can become a problem that we tend to see anyone more involved in something as being an extremist, and anyone less involved than ourselves as being lazy. I feel that the heart leads to a desire to understand, and the Holy Spirit leads to truth. If you seek to learn because you desire truth then you will learn. If you seek to know to be considered some great knowledgeable person then go to NCT.

John martin said... @ June 17, 2008 at 10:30 AM

Today many Church members are unaware that these pre Christian teachings were ever taught in the Church as a viable doctrine. The doctrine was no longer taught publicly after about 1898 when Apostle and Counselor in the First Presidency, George Q. Cannon, gave a talk before the first Sunday School conference entitled "Things which Should not be Taught in Sunday School." In this talk Cannon says he thinks it "not wise" to advocate the Adam God Doctrine, Multiple Mortal Probations,or Plural marriages.
Others disagreed, Apostle Orson F. Whitney, for example, in a 1919 article in the church publication Improvement Era, "subtly expressed his disappointment" that multiple probations weren’t taught as church doctrine.
A major reason for opposition .University of Utah historian Gae Lyn Henderson observed in her response to A recent lecture on the subject ”What we might label 'second chance theology' takes the fear out of religion, and that fear-free religion loses its power to strictly control human behavior" The teachings were dropped for various reasons -- Many feel it was to a large extent, because the church was taking so much criticism from the secular world for doctrines they were unable to understand. Another view is that the concept of Mortal Probations represents a threat to the very essence of Orthodox Christianity; The early Hebrews believed that "without the shedding of blood there could be no remission of sin." (Heb. 9:22) They accepted the primitive idea that God could not be appeased except through blood sacrifice, .therefore there was a need for Christ’s redemptive sacrifice , The Orthodox never understood that the sacrifice had to be the animal within and not some poor helpless creature without. Crucify the evil within “The Crucifix is the emblem and symbol of the Son of God, not because Jesus shed his blood upon the cross for the sins of man, but because the Christ is crucified perpetually so long as sin remains." ~The Book of Illuminations
. St. Francis of Assisi And all the creatures, which are under heaven, each according to its nature, serve, know and obey their Creator better than you. • And even the demons did not crucify Him, but you together with them have crucified Him and even now you crucify (Him) by delighting in vices and sins. ~
If we are to pay for the consequences of our sins ourselves in further lives and attain salvation through our own efforts, the sacrifice of Christ becomes pointless
I agree with George Cannon.Discover the truth and then don’t speak unless you can improve the silence I have discovered many privately accept it which publically denounce it.Many who are unfamiliar but have heard of this concept like to refer to the Mattias incident. About 1835 Joseph Smith was visited by a man, named "Joshua the Minister". "Joshua's" real name was Joseph Matthias. He claimed that he a descendant of the Apostle Matthias, and that the soul passed from father to son. Joseph Smith said that Matthias' "doctrine was of the devil" and that he was a murderer (DHC 2:304-05)
I first though this was a contradiction, but Joseph Smith was not saying the concept of mortal probations was a doctrine of the devil, but that Matthias himself was a devil, and "his doctrine" (that the soul passes from father to son) was a doctrine of the devil. It should be noted that Joseph Smith never used the term transmigration of the soul or reincarnation.
"Joshua the Minister" (Joseph Matthias) was not teaching mortal probations but a strange doctrine of the transmigration of souls from father to son.
Over a period of almost two millennia, the Christian Church oppressed and brutalized millions of individuals in an attempt to control and contain spirituality.. Today we have kinder, more gentle people who control spirituality and try to explain the mysteries with opinions , assumption dogmas and doctrines. Truth has many doors waiting to open to those who knock. There is a teaching that is right for everyone according to their level of learning, or enlightenment, but as Jesus once said from the Gospel of Thomas” for he who seeks, let him find bread and not stone”.
When the Eagles are silent, The Parrots began to jabber
Michael Otter son, Director of LDS Church affairs, recently said he thought the LDS church was closest to the Unification church in Philosophy. Members of this church are called ‘Moonies’
As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.”
A Mormon Church leader in denial:, " Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about
I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it. [Emphasis added]
The soul comes from God and is destined to become as God.” These beliefs became known as the lost doctrines of Christianity. Ancient teachings that were restored by Joseph Smith. We may attempt to cut ourselves off from the philosophy of the ancients, but since they are based on true principles, we shall be forced to return. A river cannot separate itself from its source and we cannot separate ourselves from the teachings of Joseph Smith. There is no harm for the current leaders to distance itself from early church teaching,but due to the abundance of contradictory evidence, to deny is impossible
Galileo said:”The authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
Another well respected Church leader Bruce McConkie attacked the theology of the early church and Joseph Smith more directly, ridiculing the idea of plural probations. "There is no such thing as a second chance to gain salvation," he said in a 1980 church address titled "The Seven Deadly heresies”
. I entertained Bruce McConkie’s view briefly and discovered his teachings were opinions on top of assumption and flavored with dogmas McConkie’s thoughts are entertaining to those who want to be taught that God had sex with Mary to produce Jesus, or that Jesus and Satin are brothers. Many seek answers and not opinions and assumptions. The ancients taught that truth can be found in the unity of though among enlightened thinkers then it is obvious that McConkie is not Plato and Otterson certainly is no Socrates. We should listen to everyone, Always keep an open mind and let the winds of facts and evidence blow you about as though you were a leaf, with no direction of your own. . Surrender to the truth as quickly as you can.
Mormon Apostle Hugh Brown said: And while all members should respect, support, and heed the teachings of the authorities of the church, no one should accept a statement and base his or her testimony upon it, no matter who makes it, until he or she has, under mature examination, found it to be true and worthwhile; then one's logical deductions may be confirmed by the spirit of revelation to his or her spirit, because real conversion must come from within... Speech at BYU, March 29, 1958
“Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him”. Albert Einstein
Many members of organized religion are social annimals, only with the herd is he happy. He cares little if the teachings are truth, superstitions or dogmas as long as it is the view of the herd. He does not think for himself, but lets others do it for him if any unusual doctrine is presented to the typical member he will reply "If that is true why hasn’t the prophet or Pope told us?"
Concept of Christ. this is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
"You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. Jesus
`It is a startling discovery when we realize that our most all of our religious beliefs that we were taught as a child were not true. When our holy cows are exposed to the bright sunlight of truth-they melt.All that is truth should be able to withstand the assault of reason. P. C. Hodgell said: "That which can be destroyed by the truth should be."
There has been and always will be those who follow the herd and those who make trails, For each enlightened David O. McKay there has always been and continue to be a hundred dogmatic Bruce McConkies who will proclaim the enlightened teachings of Waldo Emerson, Plato and Pythagoras to be the work of the Devil. We have discovered many such as Hugh Brown, who resided on the mountain, but they are in the minority. Many others have limitations that do not go beyond faith and dogmas and they condemn the search for the truth if it departs from their own simplistic philosophy... T; I am thankful to those heretics, and free thinkers of the past because without them there would have never been any progress either scientifically or spiritually. Apostle Hugh Brown said: Only error needs to fear freedom of expression. Seek truth in all fields, and in that search you will need at least three virtues; courage, zest, and modesty. The ancients put that thought in the form of a prayer. They said, 'From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth, from the laziness that is content with half truth, from the arrogance that thinks it has all truth - O God of truth deliver us'.

Post a Comment