I have derived tremendous spiritual nourishment from the writings of William Arkle. Indeed, over the past couple of years I have studied his available work with perhaps more detailed attention than I have ever given to anything.
Since there were multiple examples of synchronicity pointing me at Arkle dating from 1977, how did it take me so long to engage with his work? And would it have been better (better for me) if I had taken one of these opportunities and got to know Arkle personally before he died in 2000?
It is quite possible that in failing to get to know the man I have stunted my spiritual development irrevocably. But on the other hand, by Arkle's own scheme of understanding, this may have been an example of progress by trial and error, and learning from mistakes; such that eventually my understanding will be deeper than if I had known the man, and had absorbed his teaching more directly and easily.
In particular, it seems probable that I would not have been prepared for Arkle until very recently - and that I simply could not have understood his work at any time before I actually did.
Most obviously, I was not a Christian until 2008 and would have lacked that necessary context. But even more exactly, it was not until late in 2012 that I had clarified my Christian faith to the point of realizing that I believed Mormon Christianity specifically and fully.
Once that background was in place, I was ready to receive Arkle's teachings within that framework; so that I could benefit from his many detailed clarifications, but without becoming entangled by his 'errors'. For example, Arkle's proposals of multiple reincarnations as normal and necessary for Men, or of Angels being a separate creation from Man.
(I now interpret these as being Arkle's misinterpretations of genuine revelations that were actually related to pre-mortal spirit life, the voluntary status of incarnate mortal life, and the doctrine of multiple levels of post-mortal salvation.)
I hope the above interpretation is not just Pollyanna-ish, everything-is-always-for-the-best, wishful thinking - but that in this specific instance perhaps things really did work-out as-well-as (realistically, and given my own deficiencies) they could have done.
For repentance to be fully effective, or to fully be worthy of the sacrifice made, is it right or possible for regret to remain? I mean that, perhaps in some way, it must be for-the-best?
Certainly I made great errors that seem like they should have been avoided, but the current alternative, or actual reality, has elements of infinite worth that can not be weighed in any sense against what might have been.
Post a Comment