No Coincidences

Tag: education

  • The Mis-Education of the Negro

    The Mis-Education of the Negro

    I read a book recommended by CJ (thanks CJ) that I’ve wanted to write something about ever since reading. It was such an interesting and powerful book. It proposed some thoughts I’d never considered and really opened my mind to a different way of thinking about a particular part of American history.

    The book is titled The Mis-Education of the Negro, written in 1933. When I started the book, I immediately texted CJ and said there was too much in the book and that we should start a podcast series exploring the topics. He jokingly agreed to do a podcast. As I continued to read, I noted 40 topics, each I thought would make for a worthwhile discussion.

    CJ and I are at a combined 6 children 4 years old and younger, so a podcast is definitely on hold.

    I read this book a couple years ago.

    Discussing race is difficult. I’ve debated posting this for some time. Not that I’m saying anything controversial or crazy. Just that I don’t like to think too much about race. But our race is important. It makes who we are.

    Sometimes commenting on race as a white person feels like a lose-lose situation. I’m either so positive about other races that it seems like pandering to the point of insincerity or like I’m trying to make up for something, or I’m not positive enough and come across at best not understanding and at worst a racist.

    I think this is why talking about race in America is so difficult. I’ve written about it before and it still is one of the most difficult things I’ve written. 

    And yet, I continue to hear from my black brothers and sisters say that the best place to start is to just be open about discussing it. Which led me to put this post together. Nothing profound. Just my thoughts on a good book.

    I should mention that the book was written in 1933 which led me to continuously ask, is it still that bad? I think many of the disappointing and sad truths the book lays out have improved. Not yet perfect, but improved.

    I want to list some of the topics I noted as interesting from the book. Then I’ll elaborate on one of them.

    1. The “equality” of black and white people. Are black and white people the same? No, we are different in so many ways. From upbringing, culture, background, experience, etc. And that’s ok.
    2. Black people being nominally free but economically enslaved.
    3. Has education for black people gotten better or worse since 1933? I assume it must have improved, but it was a thought this book made me consider.
    4. This is something I feel like people my age have started talking about more- why didn’t we learn how to do taxes instead of the Nina, the Pinta, and the Sante Maria? – The question I asked from reading this book, what is education good for? Why do we care about random historical facts from Europe? To be clear, I appreciate as much as anyone the importance of understanding history and where we came from. But shouldn’t I also know how to file my taxes and apply for a job? Also, on that note of “where we come from.” I remember a lot of history being taught about Europe. I don’t remember a ton being taught about Africa, Asia, or South America.
    5. The opportunities that are afforded whites because more white people own businesses, etc. compared to black people. I think this was much more prevalent in the 1930’s compared to today.
    6. I really struggled with reading this book because I passionately hate the word in the title of the book. Underlining it over and over throughout the book drove me crazy. I almost put the book down many times because I hated how a group of people was being, I felt, unfairly characterized.
    7. Competing churches taking away from impoverished areas.
    8. Why do we study the domineering, warring nations and not the peaceful, productive nations?  The answer is obvious- the winners of wars write history. But philosophically something to consider.
    9. Interesting point mentioned about former slaves avoiding using art to portray their experiences. There were so few books or art pieces made by former slaves depicting that struggle. I think we see that more embraced today with hip hop. Artists like Tupac, Ice Cube, and Kendrick Lemar come to mind as individuals that fully embrace the struggles they have experienced in life and have made great art out of it.

    I heard this not from this book but 3+3 and 2+4 are the same. Different, but still the same.

    The point I’d like to discuss a little more is point one. The author of this book pointed out that we’re so obsessed with making everyone equal that we disregard that people are different. He points out that maybe black people and white people shouldn’t be taught exactly the same. We come from different backgrounds and different life experiences. Something that resonates with me and helps me learn may not resonate or help someone else with a different culture from mine.

    Still, I think this idea is interesting. Generally speaking, a black person has a different life experience from a white person. I’m not talking about just upbringing, I’m talking about the way we see the world, I’m talking about the way we interact with the world, I’m talking about the way the world interacts with us. Black people and white people can be different. That’s not bad though. We’re not different in an inferior / superior way, just different. Good and bad. Different.

    From the book:

    “The differences of races, moreover, is no evidence of superiority or of inferiority. This merely indicates that each race has certain gifts which the others do not possess. It is by the development of these gifts that every race must justify its right to exist.”

    It makes me think about what is happening with gender. Women and men are different, and that’s ok. We all have our own skills and talents that make us who we are. The fact that I’m a man makes me different from my wife. My wife has many skills and talents I’ll never possess. Recently I heard it put this way – 3+3 and 2+4 are the same. Different, but equal.

    That said, the most important thing is that we remember we are all sons and daughters of God. White and black doesn’t mean anything to God. What matters to God is what’s in our hearts. We are all individuals. That’s ok. We should all be treated equally, of course. But we should remember that we are unique. Our uniqueness is great.

    If you want to read a book that makes you consider race and the history of education for black people, this is a great book to read. I encourage all of us to study these ideas so we can better love and understand each other.

  • My Ignorance and Further Light and Knowledge

    My Ignorance and Further Light and Knowledge

    I have an embarrassing story I’m going to share. I’m not that embarrassed by it or else I wouldn’t share. Though, part of the reason I’m not embarrassed by it is probably due to how I’ve progressed from the ignorance I had at that point.

    Early on when I was coming back to church I started meeting with the missionaries and an individual who was curious about the church. One day after months of meeting together and discussing the Book of Mormon, he sat us down for a serious chat. The friend that had been meeting with us for months informed us that it wasn’t true. That’s a story for another day.

    There was a moment that has stuck with me that I haven’t forgotten. This friend, and he is a friend to this day, talked about the unity of the Christian faith. He talked about how LDS doctrine was way off, and most of Christianity, outside of us, agreed on the most important things.

    I wholeheartedly disagreed with this and still do. I see little unity in Christianity. See my post two weeks ago, A Kingdom Divided.

    This is the embarrassing part. At that time, I believed that Godhead vs. Trinity beliefs were roughly split 50/50 in Christianity. I thought for every Trinity leaning Christian sect there was a Godhead leaning sect. This was pure ignorance on my part. I had no idea that there were basically only two sects of Christianity that believed in the Godhead, and the rest followed the Trinitarian belief.

    To illustrate the divided nature of Christianity, I used the worst example. Based out of my ignorance, I stated that the issue of the Godhead vs. the Trinity was a perfect example of an important disagreement between Christianity. This friend who was essentially a Bible scholar looked at me like I was growing a second head. It was like he suddenly realized I had no idea what I was talking about and I lost all credibility.

    He said, “You know the LDS church is one of the only Christian churches that believes in the Godhead right?”

    I really didn’t. Now I did. Of course, it’s actually not that straight forward. While the belief that Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are three separate and distinct beings is a minority belief, there are still many, many sects that believe in the Godhead.

    There was something important I learned from this experience, though. I’ll never know enough. There will always be things I don’t know. There will always be things I’m ignorant of. There will always be someone smarter than me. There will always be someone who understands history and the Bible and Christianity better than me.

    That said, if that “smarter,” “more learned,” or “Biblical scholar” doesn’t have the additional light and knowledge of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, whether they realize it or not, I will always have more than them. Even if I might not be what the world would call more learned on the subject, I’ve been introduced to truth and light from Heaven. Those that are biblical scholars are studying a dead text. The Bible is important, and wonderful, and a guider, but it is dead. It is no longer living. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Christ’s restored church , is a living church. Further revelation and knowledge will always beat studying an ancient and sometimes misunderstood text.

    I have confidence in what I know. But I am not cocky in my understanding. I know there is so much I don’t know. I know I can’t Bible bash with the best of them.

    What I can do, and I hope I do, is rely on the Holy Spirit, the living spirit of revelation, to help me to teach others the truth I know. I may not know everything, but the Holy Spirit does. As long as I have Him with me, and preach and teach with His guidance, I can be confident. I can be confident not in what I know, but in what the Spirit knows and what He can reveal to me.

    I’m grateful for that embarrassing moment. It taught me to never be cocky. It taught me who I need to rely on.

    Ultimately, you can battle over interpretations of Bible verses until you’re blue in the face. The truth is, Christianity is the thing that Christ preached against more than anything – separated, disjointed, contentious. Christianity doesn’t agree because Christianity no longer relies on the Holy Spirit for revelation and truth.

    This led to mass confusion and misunderstanding in Christianity. The things “Christianity” are often the most consistent on (like the Trinity) were decisions made by men who had rejected God and His guidance.

    We need God to reveal truth to us. If we push Him out, He’ll let us fumble about. We’ve seen Christianity fumble about since it rejected Christ’s apostles and started to have their debates and creeds.

    The more I study the Nicene Creed and how the Trinitarian belief came about, the more confused I get. It’s something I hope to write about. But honestly, not sure I ever will because it’s such an ambiguous and ridiculous process that led to this “unanimous” belief.

    We need answers from heaven or we are lost. Christ’s church isn’t dead. It is living. Without that living church, we are lost.

  • The God Question: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and God

    The God Question: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and God

    This is a version of an essay I wrote for a science and religion course. That’s why it has such an “official” tone, and the headlines. I don’t share this because I think it’s an extraordinary essay. But I do think I made some decent points about the “God issue” in science. When you spend this much time writing an essay that fits the theme of your blog, it’s just gotta be shared. So here’s my essay on intelligent design, evolution, and God.

    Intelligent Design and Evolution

    God is the center of the debate between science and religion, and in particular the debate between the theories of evolution and intelligent design. To claim any other conflict ahead of the question of whether God exists is to distract from the root cause that separates these theories. If the question of God’s existence could be solved one way or another, then evolution and intelligent design could coexist and potentially benefit one another. Unfortunately, the existential question of God will never be solved by science. Therefore, with God being the center of the issue, exploring the “God issue” between evolution and intelligent design is the best way to help the two theories reconcile with one another, even if the true question, “does God exist?” is never answered.

    The God Question

    Believers of evolution and believers of intelligent design have more to agree upon than is often realized. However, there is one topic or question that creates a gulf between the two fields. That question is: Does God exist? When evolutionists and intelligent design proponents come to understand this as the main question that separates them, it may be possible to relate and coexist, and therefore grow as fields of knowledge alongside one another. It is the loud voices of ardent atheist evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett who pronounce aggressive disbelief in God, and it is the loud and passionate voices of creationists who oppose belief in the undeniable evidence of evolution that create this void (Wolf, 2006). The milder, middle-of-the-road voices get drowned out by the louder minority. The believer in intelligent design who accepts the facts of evolution and the believer in evolution who can see the merits in intelligent design theory are the voices that bring these two fields to an agreement that benefits both. Intelligent design need not deny many aspects of the theory of evolution. Evolution need not devalue the merits of the theory of intelligent design. At the root of the conflict is the belief in God. Coming to understand God as the major issue and question can bring both sides into more agreement, or at the very least, a middle-ground of mutual understanding.

    Historical Belief in God

    The thinking of the world has transitioned aggressively from a belief in God. While there has been a movement away from God, especially in scientific communities, as can be illustrated in countless scholarly writings such as The God Delusion (Dawkins, 2006) and Why Intelligent Design Fails (Young & Edis, 2014), a large portion of the world still believes in some higher power, some creator that put humans on this earth. It is nearly impossible for a firm believer in God to remove that innate belief from their consciousness.

    In the book The 5000 Year Leap, Cleon Skousen (2011) discusses John Locke’s famous Essay Concerning Human Understanding. “In it Locke pointed out that it defies the most elementary aspects of reason and experience to presuppose that everything in existence developed as a result of fortuitous circumstance. The mind, for example, will not accept the proposition that the forces of nature, churning about among themselves, would ever produce a watch, or even a lead pencil, let alone the marvelous intricacies of the human eye, the ear, or even the simplest of the organisms found in nature. All of these are the product of intelligent design and high-precision engineering” (Skousen, 2011, pp. 95-96). Locke’s thinking agrees with the teleological argument of intelligent design put forth by William Paley in the 1700s (Crashcourse, 2016). Locke continues to expound on this topic by pointing out how a man can come to know God exists. Skousen concludes with Locke’s thinking, “And because any thoughtful person can gain an appreciation and conviction of these many attributes of the Creator, Locke felt that an atheist has failed to apply his divine capacity for reason and observation” (Skousen, 2011, p. 97).

    These examples from Locke are used to illustrate a point. It was not long ago that disbelief in God was deemed a ludicrous proposition. It wasn’t long ago that these theists were the louder voices. Historically, those with no belief in God have been discriminated against and ridiculed similarly to how science ridicules belief in God today. Ridicule of the belief of God is as counterproductive today as the ridicule of not believing in God has been throughout history.

    Attack on God

    An outspoken opponent of theism in the scientific community is Richard Dawkins. One of the basic attacks Dawkins uses against God is comparing belief in God to belief in any number of mythical creatures. Dawkins often refers to belief in God as being similar to believing in a Flying Spaghetti Monster (Dawkins, 2006). Dawkins says that because people believe in something ridiculous like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, doesn’t mean he has to accept it. This analogy is not close to comparable. There aren’t books handed down for centuries about belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There isn’t a majority of the world population believing in Flying Spaghetti Monsters. We don’t have any support for the existence of Flying Spaghetti Monsters. This is just one example of an unfair attack from the “militant atheism” that Dawkins proposes (Dawkins, 2008).

    Scientists like Dawkins ignore the evidence that does exist out there because it doesn’t suit their needs or beliefs. This is the opposite of scientific progress and something Dawkins is “militantly” opposed to. There are many unexplained phenomena with adequate scientific evidence behind that scientists like Dawkins disregard simply because it’s phenomenal and they can’t understand it. Take, for example, near-death experiences. The catalogs and books being put together of people of different cultures, ages, demographics, and backgrounds all detailing a similar experience is dismissed out of hand. Science is based on observation. If any other phenomena like gravity or momentum had as much documented support as near death experiences that have been cataloged, scientists would explore further, not dismiss automatically.

    Another main critique of intelligent design is that the theory mentions design without defining who the designer would be. The reason intelligent design refuses to mention the designer is obvious. The mere mention of God is liable to get extreme backlash from the scientific community. Furthermore, it leaves the concept open to the many interpretations of the nature of God and who the creator may be across varying religions. This is an example of why the attack on God is counterproductive. It creates the dynamic where intelligent design theory talks about an ambiguous “designer” without simply stating that the designer is a theorized divine creator. God is the answer to the question of who the intelligent designer would be, and yet because of the aforementioned loud minority, God is not specifically mentioned. The issue is that while so many believe in this designer, in and out of the scientific community, no one can say the name for fear of being criticized.

    Intelligent Design within Evolution

    There is plausible proof of many elements of evolution. However, this does not remove the possibility of the influence of intelligent design. That is to say, it is conceivable that the world can evolve while also having the influence of an intelligent designer that planned for this evolution and progression. The two theories need not be at odds with one another. Intelligent design and evolution both have holes and flaws in their theories as Darwin himself admitted (Leddra, 2010). Neither theory is perfect. If either theory were perfect, there would be a definitive answer. That’s why they are still classified as theories. The conflict really comes down to one question: is there a God? This is where the entire conflict between intelligent design and evolution lies. That question will not be answered decisively by either science or religion.

    Science will not answer whether God exists. That will always be a matter of faith. If that question is answered it will mean that God has revealed Himself and His purpose, as science will never disprove God. This is obvious, for you cannot prove that something does not exist. If there is a God and He reveals Himself and His purposes, designs, and methods to humanity, then the conflict between intelligent design and evolution will instantly become a moot point. Humanity will know for a fact how living things came to be. The question of if they evolved, how they evolved, and God’s role in it, and these debates between intelligent design and evolution will become null and void. 

    Conclusion

    These examples showing the change in how God is perceived in both society and science, and how science has changed in the attack on God, go to show the underlying cause of all the controversy. It is ultimately about the existence of God. We can conclude, then, that it is extremely important for religion and science, and their respective theories, to consider how they can coexist with one another. By rejecting even the possibility of a God, science limits itself and its ability to explore the universe. By rejecting evolution, the theory of intelligent design limits its ability to coexist with science. Science will benefit by cooperation between the theories of intelligent design and evolution. This cooperation ultimately hinges on finding a way to reconcile the question of God, for the ability of all theories to progress to their fullest potential, and the furthering of knowledge for humanity.

  • Adam-God Theory

    Adam-God Theory

    I’ve heard of the “Adam-God Theory” but never looked into it. Until recently, I really didn’t know what exactly it referred to. Here is my research into the Adam-God theory for those interested and especially for those who may have concerns about this theory and its history in the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

    Before I begin, almost all my thoughts come from this link:

    https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory#Question:_What_is_the_Adam-God_Theory.3F

    It was a great resource on this topic and I recommend it if you want to learn more.

    If you want a quick, short video that sums up the whole history of the Adam-God theory, watch this video:

    Now, my thoughts.

    The Adam-God theory is the theory that Adam and God the Father are the same person. This theory was mentioned by Brigham Young.

    First – Adam is not God the Father. Adam is not who we pray to. This does not fit the teachings of the scriptures, does not fit modern revelation, is not a doctrine of the restored gospel. So why are we talking about it, you ask?

    Second – Yes, Brigham Young did make some bold statements about Adam being God. He also made countless statements contradicting that statement. Brigham Young was a convert and a prophet. Try to imagine the dichotomy of those positions. Try to imagine someone a few years into the faith trying to lead the entire church. Is it so shocking that there were erroneous statements made, especially when we consider and understand the personality and boldness of the prophet who led the saints across the rugged wilderness of the West?

    Third – Because Brigham Young made incorrect statements does not mean he was a false prophet. It means he was learning line upon line, and he made false statements. He has made statements to try to help us, the people of the church, reconcile some of his more questionable comments. For example, when speaking generally about who Adam was and proposing some thoughts about Adam, Brigham started by saying, “I propose to speak upon a subject that does not immediately concern yours or my welfare….I do not pretend to say that the items of doctrine and ideas I shall advance are necessary for the people to know, or that they should give themselves any trouble about them whatever.. (Brigham Young, Oct 8, 1851). If it does not concern our welfare, don’t get too hung up on it. The church was young and growing when Brigham was prophet. God has always worked through us, mortals, to fulfill His works. This has always resulted in fallibility. Brigham Young was a prophet, even if he made mistakes in the thousands of public discourses he gave during his learning period as a prophet/convert.

    Fourth – Because prophets are fallible does not mean we cannot trust and follow them. As The Church has grown out of its infancy, it has strengthened itself in countless ways. One of those strengths has become the checks and balances of the church organization. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles must be unanimous in any declaration of doctrine. President Nelson speaks hundreds of times a year. Not every word from his mouth (in my opinion) is scripture. It is guidance and direction from God’s anointed prophet, yes, but not scripture. But when President Nelson, the First Presidency, and the Quorum of the Twelve sign their names to a declaration, it becomes binding guidance on doctrine, church policy, etc. Such was the case with “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” for example.

    Now, the statement made by Brigham that when Adam and Eve came to the Garden of Eden they already had celestial, resurrected bodies is interesting. I more think they came with perfect bodies as they came directly from the Father and hadn’t yet been corrupted by the fall, not that they were necessarily resurrected bodies yet. Celestial, maybe, resurrected, I don’t think so. That’s all I will say on this matter, though, to support my point earlier that things that distract from our salvation should be discussed with caution. I haven’t done enough research, pondering, or praying to comment on this with much confidence and would hate for my children 150 years from now to claim I believed Adam was already resurrected when put in the Garden of Eden. See how these small comments can be blown out of proportion? Grateful I’m not a prophet.

    Another thought – the eternal nature of the plan of happiness is not something we can begin to comprehend. If it ultimately distracts us from our current efforts towards salvation, we should tread with ultimate caution. Such is the thinking about if Adam lived on another planet before he came here and countless other thought experiments that might distract from what is important, which is, Jesus Christ performed the ultimate atoning sacrifice for my sins. He died so that I can live. He suffered so I can be forgiven and can live with God, my Father, again. All other questions, while interesting and can expand our minds and thinking, if they distract from the ultimate source of our salvation – the Plan of Salvation and Christ’s personal role in it for us – should be avoided.

    Those are my thoughts on this from my research. Here are some final items to really, I hope, put this theory and any issues involved with it, to rest.

    As mentioned, Brigham contradicted himself many times on the idea that Adam was God. While he mentioned the idea a couple times in public, there are many other instances of Brigham Young speaking where he clearly separated Adam and God the Father as two separate individuals.

    BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson sums it up well:

    “Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church. Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch…. A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called “Adam-God theory.” During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don’t; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don’t know what “it” is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here…. For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and…the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly.”

    From the link above previously mentioned:

    “As far as can be determined, none of Brigham Young’s successors in the presidency of the Church continued this teaching in public, and by the presidency of Joseph F. Smith (1901–18) there were active moves to censure small groups that taught Adam-God.

    One of the earliest statements from the Church rejecting Adam-God teachings was made by Charles W. Penrose in 1902:

    ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never formulated or adopted any theory concerning the subject treated upon by President Young as to Adam.‘

    In October 1976 general conference, Spencer W. Kimball declared the Church’s official position on Adam-God:

    ‘We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.‘”

    Other statements by future general authorities refuting Brigham Young’s opinions:

    Bruce R. McConkie – “What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings of the Standard Works.”

    And Brigham Young himself – “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. … Let every man and woman know, by the whisperings of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”

    Finally, while some might consider everything said here to be a sign that the church changes and is “wrong,” I would completely refute that. The church is changing. The church is growing. The church is living.

    Doctrine and Covenants 1:30 is Christ speaking and reads “And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually.”

    While so many would criticize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for changing, the Lord describes it as living. The only living church on the face of the earth. This is a power of Christ’s church- not a weakness.

  • At Peace in the Light

    At Peace in the Light

    By Dannion Brinkley with Paul Perry

    Copyright 1995

    _________________________________

    I don’t recommend books to people often.  This book I recommended directly to a cousin.  This was a great book. I wonder if I say that about every book I read…

    At Peace in the Light is a true story of a man who has died twice.  Both times he was struck by lightning.  Both times he returned to his body.

    I guess not everyone would believe this to be a true story.  I love near death experiences. I am all in on belief in near death experiences. They often support what I believe to be true of the afterlife.

    I often joke that being struck by lighting would be the way to go.  I say that’s a clear indication that God needs you back pronto.  Dannion’s story made me rethink this slightly.  His return to his body was an excruciating experience.  His body was destroyed both times, inside and out, by the lightning strike.

    Two very interesting points from this book.

    • Dannion’s near death experience gave him special abilities.

    Dannion became famous as a psychic.  It seems whatever happened to him left him with some ability to speak or understand the souls of individuals around him.  It’s fascinating to read his description of his “powers” for lack of a better word.

    • Dannion’s near death experience led him into an interesting career change.

    After Dannion was struck by lightning he received clear instruction on what he was supposed to do.  His purpose was to setup a center to help people spiritually transition into death.  Dannion describes a major issue with our society being the fear of death.  It was his new purpose in life to help people transition into their next life.

    It’s partly for this reason that Dannion transitioned into hospice care.  To hear Dannion describe the rewarding experience of caring for the dying made me reconsider somewhat what is important in life.  Near death experience books often help me re-orient my priorities.

    We live this life to die. Ultimately, the most important moment of this life will be how we die.

    I have a new appreciation for the sanctity and importance of hospice care. The cousin I recommended this book to works in this field.

    I have had one experience with “assisting” someone (for lack of a better word) who was near death.  A friend’s mother-in law was nearing the end.  She had battled with cancer and it was time. This friend is not a member of my faith, but, in his words, “we don’t really know our priest.  We know you.”   So, he asked me to come give her a priesthood blessing.

    It was a unique, uplifting, powerful experience I will never forget.  This lady I didn’t know, had never met, was so frail.  You never know what a person is thinking in these last moments. It’s hard to understand the pain, fear, acceptance, peace; whatever emotions and feelings they are experiencing.  It was an honor to get to lay my hands on her head and let her know her Father wanted her home, and soon the pain would be gone.  Soon she would be happier than she could imagine.  Though she would miss her children here, and they would miss her, it was time for her to progress into the next part of her journey.

    This was one experience I had with a person moving on. It has impacted me ever since. It was something I’ll never forget. Imagine having thousands of these important experiences.

    For anyone that hasn’t read a near death experience book, At Peace in the Light may not be the best place to start. It kind of jumps into the topic.  I still recommend it. It may leave you asking for more.