Jesus said that in comparison to the faith Thomas had, people who believed what they could not plainly see were “more blessed.” The divine witness God gives of truth can be a greater blessing than seeing with our own eyes or understanding with our own logic.

I believe that God purposely keeps certain evidence and answers from us sometimes, to give us opportunity to regularly choose whether we will become someone that trusts in Him, or someone that leans on his or her own understanding.

I’m regularly reminded of the time Jesus taught that people must eat his flesh and drink his blood to be saved. Many people logically concluded that cannibalism is wrong, so they didn’t follow Him anymore. I think the apostles didn’t understand him either. But Peter’s faith was not reliant on his own logic: he knew that the words were from God, even if he didn’t understand why they were true.
​
Today there are many who turn away from the divine witness they received of what is true, simply because they cannot see how it can be true. These can come to recognize that his new chosen path will not bring the fulfillment of purpose and joy that they have experienced in the past. I hope and pray for more spiritual moments for those in my own life who no longer follow the Savior, to help them remember the happiness that is possible when we do it God’s way despite our own understanding.

A certain Master had two apprentices. The first apprentice had a natural talent for farming, and learned this trade with proficiency. The second apprentice had a natural talent in art. Both apprentices had difficulty learning the skill of the other, and despite focused and careful study, progress was slow. Frustrated with his training, the second apprentice determined to try farming in his own way, by planting seeds in bowls of other seeds instead of in soil. This plan seemed to make more sense to him than what he had been taught, as he found seeds full of life but had yet to see beauty in soil. He put aside his art, tossed aside his struggling farmland and focused his attention on this new path.

Though he found no initial success, he desired the joy of farming the first apprentice had so readily found. Unwilling to return to his old training, he convinced some of his friends that his new way of planting seeds was a valuable way to farm.  Soon many others in the community started planting seeds in piles of other seeds. Some educated friends argued on his behalf, saying that others had done this before, and even that some animals were known to have tried to plant seeds in this way. So loud and convincing were their arguments that community leaders decreed that both ways of farming were equal to one another, and followers of the second apprentice punished any unwilling to support the decree.

When the first apprentice reminded him that planting seeds in other seeds did not allow them to sprout, the second apprentice decided that perhaps sprouting seeds wasn’t really an important part of farming. After all, many of the seeds the first apprentice planted the traditional way never sprouted either. And, if the second apprentice wanted plants he could buy then from someone else, perhaps even have another farmer sprout his seeds for him.
Desiring to share the happiness he had, the first apprentice offered to help the second return to his original training. Convinced he had already discovered the joy of farming, the second apprentice spoke of his fulfilling and happy life, and accused the first apprentice of ignorance, bigotry, hatred, and fear of new ideas. Yet he often felt unfulfilled, as though he was missing something. Always helping others understand the evil nature of the first apprentice and others like him seemed to help him feel better at times, but he could never seem to convince enough people—at least, not to his satisfaction. The resentment and anger he felt toward the first apprentice grew each day.

One day while scanning his purchased plants, his former Master came to see him. The former apprentice  tried to hide his sorrow and anger, yet the Master seemed to know exactly how he felt, almost as if he had experienced it himself. Not having spoken to the Master since he left, the former apprentice assumed the Master would be angry with him. Instead the Master spoke of happy times in the past and also in the present, of how he desired to share those happy times with his former apprentice. The apprentice saw in the Master the joy he had always desired. The Master revealed that it was He who had sent the first apprentice to offer help and advice after they had separated.  The Master told him he had saved his former farmland, and if he would come back and push on despite his natural limitations, he would help him become a master farmer. After a long embrace, the Master went home.

​Though he did not fully understand how or why, the former apprentice knew the Master lived the life of joy and love that he himself hadn’t been able to obtain. Though he knew that returning to his Master’s training would be challenging and full of difficulty, he left behind all he had become, and was welcomed back to his Master’s home. 

Everywhere I go I see people who think their own reasoning is the pinnacle of intellectualism, and therefore everyone else clearly hasn't thought it through, is full of bias, or is some sort of *phobe, and/or must be a total idiot. Sometimes I am tempted to make these conclusions about others and their beliefs.
​
The more logical approach to life is to recognize that my own bounded rationality means it impossible for me to know everything. Thus, even though an idea seems wrong to me, I should give room for the possibility that I simply don't understand everything about it yet.

Permanently rejecting an idea that cannot be disproven seems little different than blind acceptance of an idea that cannot be proven. More often than not, the best answers I can give right now are "I don't know" or "I'm not completely sure."

There is One person who does know everything. When I am certain we know something in His heart, of that thing I can be perfectly confident.

Life has more than one meaning. In most cases, we think of human life as breathing and a heartbeat. Christ often talked about a different kind of life--a spiritual life. Those who lack this type of life are not necessarily dead or dying physically, but they lack contentment, lack a sense of fulfillment, of purpose, of power, of destiny, of virtue. When we continually seek after and completely give ourselves over to Christ, we live in a state of continual joy, peace, love, and fulfillment. Christ came that we might have such life, and that we might have it more abundantly. I interpret this to mean, deeper joy, love, and fulfillment as we increasingly live as He did. If we prove that we are willing to do all things He asks us, we will be awarded with life that is so deep in its richness, it can be referred to as eternal life.

Faith is not something that is simply obtained one day and then all is done. Just as physical fitness requires consistent effort and discipline, building strong and refined faith requires regular and consistent effort—it requires endurance training. Life is designed to be endurance training for our faith; every day we choose whether to stick with the program and how much effort we are going to put in to exercising our faith. LDS President Thomas S. Monson, whose wife died less a few months prior, had this to say about enduring during the most difficult times of life:

“When the pathway of life takes a cruel turn, there is the temptation to ask the question “Why me?” At times there appears to be no light at the end of the tunnel, no sunrise to end the night’s darkness. We feel encompassed by the disappointment of shattered dreams and the despair of vanished hopes…. We become impatient for a solution to our problems, forgetting that frequently the heavenly virtue of patience is required. The difficulties which come to us present us with the real test of our ability to endure. A fundamental question remains to be answered by each of us: Shall I falter, or shall I finish?”

Since God is truly an all-knowing individual and has a perfect love for all mankind, why doesn't he tell us everything? Why not tell us every last detail about how to best live and how to act in every situation?

God is the perfect teacher, and trains us in a manner that will make real, lasting changes to our character. That learning process requires that we learn much for ourselves, rather than simply reading it from a book or hearing it from a preacher. What we hear or read can inspire us, but what we learn for ourselves truly changes us.

Perhaps most critically, God holds us accountable for what we know. Those that do not understand a principle are not condemned for failing to live that principle. Such ignorance is NOT bliss, because ignorance also means a lack of joy or happiness as a result of living that principle. However, if we were given all knowledge that God has, all at once, we could not handle it. By "not handle it," I mean we could not live up to the high standard of knowledge we'd have, and we would be constantly under heavy condemnation as a result. To one group, he put it this way:

"Ye call upon my name for revelations, and I give them unto you; and inasmuch as ye keep not my sayings, which I give unto you, ye become transgressors; and justice and judgment are the penalty which is affixed unto my law."

Thus, our ignorance is a blessing of a loving God. Not that he wants to keep things from us--quite the opposite. But in his infinite wisdom and kindness he only reveals to us that which we are capable of living up to. Inasmuch as we are faithful to what we do know, he then adds to our knowledge little by little: "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little."

How much knowledge is God willing to impart? Multiple scriptures give us hints:

"But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day."

"That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day."

Most dictionary definitions refer to free-market capitalism as an economic system based on maximizing private profit. Critics of such a system suggest the whole system is based on greed, and Christ would never have told his disciples to maximize profit.

In reality, free-market capitalism is not driven purely by profit. If so, people would never pass up a better paying job for a job they enjoy more. Individuals would always choose more work over more family time, and charities would never receive more money than what can be gained through tax credits.

Perhaps a better definition is an economic system based on maximizing individual utility. Not all individuals who choose to work in a free market system are motivated exclusively by money. In many cases, they are also motivated by a desire to make the world a better place, job satisfaction, family time, education, etc. All of these factors influence economic markets.

Whether Christ would or would not endorse maximizing profit is questionable. If money is the end goal, we read that the love of money is the root of much evil. But He certainly endorses personal progress, including such things as education, family relationships, and charity.

In my view, if everyone in a society were striving to live as Christ would have them live, a capitalistic society would be wildly successful at eliminating social classes, providing for the needy, increasing in knowledge and wisdom, and avoiding war and worldly vices. All of this would occur because of the individual choices of the people, not because of fear of government.

Freedom is what conservatives try to conserve. Absolute freedom is a logical and practical impossibility. A person is not free to be the best basketball player in the world before he has dribbled a basketball. It takes discipline--following rules--to obtain that freedom.

Thus, authority and law are only means to build and conserve as much freedom as possible. Compulsory law and subjection to authority limit freedom; conservatives adhere to and even espouse these not because of what they limit, but because those limitations on freedom create more freedom than would otherwise be had.

Law and authority are only some of the limitations on freedom conservatives espouse--they are not necessarily always the most important or most effective methods. Thus, conservatives endorse some law and some authority, and eschew others, all with the intent of building and conserving freedom.

“We do not need to judge nearly so much as we think we do. This is the age of snap judgments. … [We need] the courage to say, ‘I don’t know. I am waiting further evidence. I must hear both sides of the question.'”
    -William George Jordan, “The Supreme Charity of the World,” The Kingship of Self-Control

“[T]he nature of marriage is not a religious question. Marriage comes to us from nature,”

“Sexual relations between a man and a woman are naturally and necessarily different from sexual relations between same-sex partners. This truth is part of the common sense of the human race. It was true before the existence of either Church or State, and it will continue to be true when there is no State of Illinois and no United States of America.”

“A proposal to change this truth about marriage in civil law is less a threat to religion than it is an affront to human reason and the common good of society. It means we are all to pretend to accept something we know is physically impossible. The Legislature might just as well repeal the law of gravity.”

"It is physically impossible for two men or two women to consummate a marriage, even when they share a deep friendship or love.... Civil laws that establish “same-sex marriage” create a legal fiction."

"Should... legislature...  [pass] a “same-sex marriage” law, it will be acting against the common good of society. We will all have to pretend to accept something that is contrary to the common sense of the human race.
Those who continue to distinguish between genuine marital union and same sex arrangements will be regarded in law as discriminatory, the equivalent of bigots. This proposed legislation will have long term consequences because laws teach; they tell us what is socially acceptable and what is not, and most people conform to the dictates of their respective society, at least in the short run."

"If we ignore in law the natural complementarity of man and woman in creation, then the natural family is undermined. Our individual lives become artificial constructs protected by civil “rights” that destroy natural rights."

-Cardinal Francis George, head of the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, in response to local legislation seeking to redefine marriage