Alles Gescheite ist schon gedacht worden.
Man muss nur versuchen, es noch einmal zu denken.
~Goethe

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Atonement: The Core of my Religious Beliefs

What follows is the text of a talk I gave in church in January. I've been meaning to post if for quite some time as it summarizes my core beliefs...

I’m very grateful to speak on the atonement, since it is the doctrine with which I have had the most experience and of which I have the strongest testimony. We were asked to share our personal feelings about the atonement, and I will do that. First, though, I need to lay out my personal understanding of the atonement from the scriptures.

Let me begin with the concept that we are dynamic beings. I see us as beings that continually grow and change, with the potential to take on ever greater abilities. In section 93 of the Doctrine and Covenants, we read in verse 29 that: “Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can it be.” This is to say that the intelligence in each and every one of us was not created by God, but is co-eternal with him. Our Father in Heaven, however, has had a lot of experience and development that makes him a being different from us in very key ways. Still the same potential realized in him lays latent in every one of us. Though we can choose to do many things with our existence, I believe there is no more rewarding task than to fully develop our potential as our Father has developed his.

What is that potential? Quite simply, I would say it is to love perfectly. Though we can do many things to separate ourselves from God, though we can choose in many ways to turn our backs to him, he, at all times, is open to us and loves us completely. Regardless of how much I may want to flatter myself, I am not capable of that kind of love right now. I have countless things that separate me from other people like fear, selfishness, ignorance, weakness and other limitations. I simply do not live with my heart open at all times to all other people.

Yet this is one of the most important things the Savior has commanded us to do. What is the one thing in the New Testament he commands that actually identifies you as his disciple? In the Gospel of John, chapter 13, verses 34 and 35 he says, “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” Love sets you apart as a true disciple of Christ.

In the Sermon on the Mount we find a passage that is well known, though not usually in context. In chapter 5 of Matthew, or chapter 12 of 3rd Nephi, Jesus is talking about the Law of Moses and his new law of the gospel. Among other things, he talks about the ancient moral precept upheld by the Israelites of loving your neighbor and hating your enemy. He says: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy.” This was the standard morality of the ancient Mediterranean world.

Almost a millennium earlier, Homer has Odysseus say that “there is nothing greater and better than this – when a husband and wife keep a household in oneness of mind, a great woe to their enemies and a joy to their friends.” In this ancient morality, there is a form of unity within the marriage, there is unity with friends, but it is also morally correct to cause pain to those deemed enemies. The Israelites had lived the same moral code and in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is now asking his disciples to transcend the ancient mindset of “us against them.” In verse 44 he commands: “But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good for them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.”

Now how does loving, blessing, doing good to and praying for our enemies make us children of our Father in heaven? Jesus goes on to explain what our Father is like: “for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.” Our Father in heaven has his heart open to everyone, and loves everyone equally, and blesses all of us. Jesus goes on: “For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans do the same? and if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the gentiles [which include all the Homer-reading Greeks] do so?” So Jesus is addressing the ancient concept contained in Israelite tradition that it is moral to love some and to hate others. He has explained how our Father has a boundless love, being no respecter of persons. Now he gives the commandment that we all know so well in verse 48: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which in heaven is perfect.”

What does “perfect” mean within the full context? I’ll avoid the temptation to discuss the Greek, as our scriptures have a sufficient explanation in the footnotes. Simply put, what Jesus is saying is to be complete in our love – to love everyone, friend and enemy. It is no longer sufficient to split the world into two camps, one of which we hate, and one of which we love. We have to be like our Father and have unconditional love for all. In that way, we would be perfect like our Father.

Thus Paul, in 1 Corinthians chapter 13 says that charity, which simply means the love God has for all of us and which we should have for all others, never fails, or that it is an eternal virtue. Again speaking of perfection as being a state of complete love just as the Savior did, Paul writes in verse 10: “When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” Now keep in mind that these verses are all being written in the context of his discussion of charity, or divine love. He goes on to say: “For now we see through a glass darkly , but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”

This last verse, verse 12, is saying volumes. The phrase that the King James committee translated as “seeing through a glass darkly” could also be rendered, staying closer in our current English usage to the metaphor of the original Greek, “looking through a mirror in a riddle” (βλέπομεν δι' ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι).

Now think of the picture Paul is painting. He is talking about how we deal and interact with each other, and he says that for now, it is like looking through a mirror in a riddle. Who do you see when you look "through" a mirror? Yourself, of course. In our immature, imperfect relations with each other, every attempt to see someone else becomes confused as we can’t see past ourselves. But what does Paul promise will be the way we interact with each other when our love is perfected? We will see face to face.

We will see each other directly without any selfish reflections of ourselves causing confusion. He says that we now only know in part. And indeed, how much do we know about each other, even about those closest to us? I agree with Paul that we only know each other in part. How will we know each other when our love is made perfect or complete? We will know even as we are known. And though Paul doesn’t say it, it seems clear to me that when he says we will know as we are known, he means that we will we know each other the way that we are known by our Father in heaven: completely and full of love.

Section 76 of the D&C, where Joseph recorded a vision of the three degrees of glory, describes those who live in the celestial kingdom in a very similar way. Starting in verse 92 we read: “And thus we saw the glory of the celestial, which excels in all things—where God, even the Father, reigns upon his throne forever and ever…. They who dwell in his presence are the church of the Firstborn, and they see as they are seen, and know as they are known, having received of his fullness and of his grace; and he makes them equal in power, and in might, and in dominion.”

So, one issue we have to work on is having our small, imperfect capacity for love expanded into the divine ability to openly and completely love all without condition; to see them face to face and to know them the way we are known by our Father in heaven. The other big issue, I see, is that we have to continue to open and expand our relationship with our Father until we no longer shut him out in selfishness, shame, pride, or out of whatever other cause.

In this life, we may never enjoy the actual presence of the Father himself, but the atonement can overcome the gulf that separates us from him as we live more and more continually under the influence of the Holy Ghost. We are aiming, in this life at least, to reach a state where we no longer shut the Spirit out, but live with constant inspiration and connection to God. This, of course, leads to an eternal state of living in our Father’s presence.

Once we have our hearts completely open to our Father in heaven, so that his will can be our will, and once we have our hearts completely open to all of our brothers and sisters, then we will have completed everything I can find in the scriptures that we are to do. If this seems like too simple a reduction of the entire wealth of commandments we have from Adam down to the last letter from the brethren read here at the pulpit, keep in mind that Christ does say in Matthew 22, verses 37 through 40 that: “Thou shalt love the Lord they God with all they heart, and with all they soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

Once we reach the point of perfect love for God and for all others, I’m quite sure we’ll receive further instructions. For now, these two tasks are enough to focus on. Now here is a key idea for me: we can never, ever fulfill these commandments on our own. How far are you right now from loving every soul ever born on this earth as much as our Father does? How far are you from having a perfect relationship with our Father, where you allow him to constantly inspire you and allow divine power to flow through you without compulsory means? If you are like me, you are pretty far away.

The atonement is what will get us from here to there; from childish imperfection to divine, fully inclusive love of God and of all of our brothers and sisters. At the last supper, this is precisely what Jesus prayed for. In John chapter 17, verse 19, he is speaking of the disciples at supper with him and says: “For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us…. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one. I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.”

Some saints throughout world history have actually had the faith to receive the blessings of the atonement so thoroughly that they actually created Zion in this world. We see it with Enoch in the book of Moses, chapter 7, where “the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.” Or we see it in Acts chapter 4 where the saints were also “of one heart and of one soul; neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things in common.” Or we see it again in 4th Nephi where, after the Savior’s visit, “there was no contention in the land, because the love of God did dwell in the hearts of the people… and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God.” And there were no Nephites or Lamanites, “nor any manner of –ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.”

We may not see this goal, of all human hearts open and united with each other and God, achieved in this world in our lifetime, but if we have faith and pray continually for the atonement in our lives, we will see it one day in the kingdom of our Father.


So what power does the atonement have in my eyes? The atonement is the power of God that changes every single thing that blocks us right now from having this divine oneness, this godly love for all other humans. And it is the power of God that changes every single thing that blocks us from having a fully open relationship with our Father. The atonement is about every aspect of our lives. The atonement has the power to change every single one of us in ways we would never be able to accomplish on our own. This process of change can be hard and seem dark and lonely at times. The atonement helps us to be humble and allow our Father to be closer to us to help us through what can often be heart-wrenching processes of change.

The atonement is what changes us, brings us to be more at-one with God and with each other. The atonement gives us beautiful strength and comfort throughout this difficult process. Next to our lives, the atonement is the greatest gift we’ve ever been given, and it is always there, and always infinitely powerful. Every time we decide to work something out on our own, we forsake a lot of power and never come nearly as far as we do when we pray for the atonement in our lives.

click post TITLE for full text and comments

Friday, October 9, 2009

The Nobel? Really?

Are you as confused as I am?...

That is, if anyone is still checking in after my prolonged break. I don't understand why the President received the Nobel Peace Prize. What has he done that deserves it? I understand that he has drastically changed the tone in Washington and pulled a 180 (people often say 360, but that, of course, puts you right back where you were) in foreign relations. But does someone deserve the Nobel just because they helped their country to stop giving the bird to the rest of the world?

I like the guy, I voted for him in large part because he is cooperative rather than belligerent, but I see nothing that deserves a Nobel prize. He may well have earned one by the end of a term or two, maybe, but right now?

I think the Nobel committee and the prize itself have just lost a lot of credibility.

click post TITLE for full text and comments

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Towards an LDS Epistemology

How do we Mormons know what we know and why do we consider it truth?...

As noted in the King Benjamin post, I am planning on engaging soon (within the next couple years, that is) in a systematic study of the Bible. I’ve been thinking about how I should go about it, what tools I should use, what presuppositions I should allow, what outside sources I should consider, etc.

One thing I’ve been examining to this end is Joseph Smith’s attitude towards the study of the Bible. No president of the church spoke as freely and with as much confidence on what the Bible says and means than Joseph did. All subsequent church authorities usually rely on him in their own approach to the Bible when they appeal to anything beyond their own reason and right to inspiration. But I’ll discuss this in a later post.

Part of what I’ve been trying to determine with Joseph – and it’s a question I’ve been working on for quite a while in general – is what LDS epistemology is. How do we know what we know, and why/when do we consider that knowledge truth? I have no good answer, but I'll offer one model right now as preparation for my reply to Anna on why discussion can sometimes be difficult in church classes. This post also looks forward to my post on Joseph Smith’s view(s) on reading the Bible.

Before I discuss LDS epistemology as I see it, let me give you a couple of examples of epistemologies. Rationalism and empiricism were the two dominant epistemologies in early modern philosophy, if you’ll allow me to take Descartes as the beginning of modern philosophy.

Rationalism takes first principles that it believes are beyond doubt and combines them through logic to arrive at other propositions. It maintains that the mind alone is capable of arriving at the truth through a mathematical combination of ideas. Empiricism trusts the physical senses. It assumes that all knowledge begins with the data gathered by the senses. Even if one goes on to use this sense data to arrive at further propositions through reasoning, empiricists believe that all true knowledge begins with sense experience.

Mormonism is happy to use either or both epistemologies (as well as others). Appeals to sensory experience and to logical (or quasi-logical) argument are found everywhere from Luke’s account that the disciples actually saw the resurrected Christ and Abraham’s reasoning that if there is one thing more intelligent than another that a third could exist more intelligent than both to examples and arguments found in the most recent conference talks.

It seems quite clear to me that more than any other principle, however, revelation from God is the basis of the supreme epistemology for LDS. The senses can be fooled and reasoning can be faulty, but if something comes directly from God, it is beyond doubt.

This would seem to make things simple, but I’m afraid it doesn’t. At least not in my experience. At this point I should admit that I have no idea what kind of epistemology any other LDS really relies on. In my many conversations with other LDS since at least my mission, but more especially in recent years, I have seen that every Mormon has a unique relationship to their beliefs, that they all arrive at them in differing ways, and that the set of things each Mormon holds to be absolutely true differs from person to person.

So as I talk about an LDS epistemology, I am really only talking about the epistemology I used to depend on and about the new epistemology that I am currently working with (the latter won’t be discussed in this post). Both of my LDS epistemologies hold revelation as the trump card and are open to other ways of forming/finding truth as long as revelation didn’t contradict them. What revelation is and how to use it is what divides my current approach from my former one.

Looking back, I think my concept of truth was something like a massive board with millions of tiles on it. The tiles were blank on the side facing me but had a concept, or an explanation of a concept on the side hidden from me. Or maybe I should describe it as being like countless cards that are all laying face down like in the game Memory. Or maybe you should picture a massive board of white rectangles like the one on Wheel of Fortune just waiting for Vanna to spin them around.

Revelation was the process of flipping the tiles/cards over so that I could see what was on the other side. As I read the scriptures and studied the teachings of current authorities, concepts and their explanations would continually be revealed to me in a simple and direct way. More and more of the overall scheme would be revealed to me as I came across each individual piece. Often the pieces were in the right place after being flipped, but sometimes I had to move them so that they lined up with other concepts. Sometimes this process relied on reasoning. Other times, a statement from a prophet clued me in to the fact that two concepts I used to think were unrelated actually belonged right next to each other and worked together.

My task as a gospel learner, then, was to keep scouring the scriptures and conference reports so that I could flip as many cards as possible and get them all lined up correctly. The more diligently I studied the scriptures, the sooner I would discover more of what was on the other side of the tiles/cards. One day I would finally have flipped every card and produced a giant mosaic. I would then be able to step back and see the image of truth in all of its coherence and beauty.

So why do I say that this used to be my LDS epistemology? It seems so nice, so clean, so simple – why give it up? Well, in my zeal to flip all of the cards I kept finding places where revelations (spots in the scriptures, modern statements, etc.) would contradict. Sometimes a modern teaching would contradict an ancient one. Or one modern authority would contradict another modern authority. Or, my favorite, where one authority would contradict himself.

How do you resolve these contradictions? What do you do with the cards of your big picture once you've flipped them and found these contradictions? The easiest thing is to deny they are contradictions, but these kinds of apologetics often produce some fairly ridiculous intellectual contortions that do more harm than good. If one man of revelation contradicts another – both in the act of revealing – then how do I choose who is right? Do I appeal to a third man offering a revelation to tell me which of the other two men offering revelations was wrong?

Elder McConkie addressed this issue in his famous letter to Gene England from 1981. Gene had been teaching that God continues to learn throughout eternity (a rather justifiable interpretation of the LDS concept of eternal progression). Being a BYU prof, what Gene England taught was not of small consequence to the Church hierarchy. Elder McConkie disagreed with the teaching (a position that is equally well justified by an appeal to scripture) and wrote Gene a cease and desist letter.

Before addressing the idea of whether God is already omniscient, or whether he can continue to learn, Elder McConkie addresses Brigham Young’s Adam God Theory as an example of how Gene may be going wrong:

“Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. 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 in the Standard Works.

“Yes, Brigham Young did say some things about God progressing in knowledge and understanding, but again, be it known, that Brigham Young taught, emphatically and plainly, that God knows all things and has all power meaning in the infinite, eternal and ultimate and absolute sense of the word. Again, the issue is, which Brigham Young shall we believe and the answer is: We will take the one whose statements accord with what God has revealed in the Standard Works.

“I think you can give me credit for having a knowledge of the quotations from Brigham Young relative to Adam, and of knowing what he taught under the subject that has become known as the Adam God Theory. President Joseph Fielding Smith said that Brigham Young will have to make his own explanations on the points there involved. I think you can also give me credit for knowing what Brigham Young said about God progressing. And again, that is something he will have to account for. As for me and my house, we will have the good sense to choose between the divergent teachings of the same man and come up with those that accord with what God has set forth in his eternal plan of salvation.”

So here a member of the Twelve points out where a President of the church contradicts himself and then goes on say which of the two views is the true one. If I were still flipping and arranging the cards of my giant gospel mosaic, would I take what Elder McConkie here says as authoritative? He was never a President of the church and this idea is found, after all, in a letter to an individual. Brigham, the prophet, was speaking over the pulpit in the tabernacle when he made his pronouncements. And finally, Elder McConkie is making no claim to revelation in this letter. Is what he is teaching a “revelation” of any kind?

I’ve never been too worried about the Adam God cards, but what if I wanted to flip and arrange my cards relating to eternal progression and knowledge for a celestial being (a topic I do find crucial)? Can I confidently move forward? Elder McConkie gives some advice that partially helps and partially adds to the confusion:

“Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They become the standards and rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord.”

So the standard works are literally the “canon” (from a Greek word signifying a measuring stick) by which we can measure the doctrinal claims of modern prophets. In the passage I quoted earlier Elder McConkie twice says that we should believe teachings of modern prophets that are in harmony with the Standard Works and a third time says that we will believe “those that accord with what God has set forth in his eternal plan of salvation.”

This seems pretty useful and appeals to me a lot, but again, this is coming from a member of the Twelve in a private letter – how authoritative could it be in opposition to the teachings of a Prophet (i.e. President of the First Presidency) over the pulpit? Doesn't higher authority trump lower authority in LDS epistemology? Doesn't a prophet acting as a prophet trump a G.A. in a private communication? And it seems to me that many LDS believe that the most recent statements in conference trump anything that has been said or written before, and not that modern statements need to be tested against the writings of men who lived millennia ago in completely different cultures and situations. And finally, the Standard Works don't really present an easily derived doctrinal view free of contradictions (I’ll get back to this when I talk about studying the Bible).

Because of such contradictions of revelation as the one I’ve cited here and many that are much more serious, I’ve given up on my big, coherent gospel-mosaic that is made one card flip at a time. Because of the limitations of language (problems that preoccupied Joseph Smith) and the thinking that depends on it, and because of the individual history, circumstances and worldview of every person, it now seems to me that any relationship an individual has to an absolute truth will always be limited, flawed and in need of further work until that individual comes to a point that somehow transcends all of the limitations of the particularity of the way they think and see things. I assume this for both “regular” Mormons and for General Authorities.

I am no longer flipping cards on a perfect, simple unified picture. I think what I am doing now is much more like learning to balance on a board on a lake in a storm. I’m having to constantly readjust and keep getting back up as I find out what works for me in relation to my situation. The unmistakable answer to a prayer 16 years ago means that I can’t walk away from the whole project. But at this point, I no longer count on it being as easy or straightforward as simply flipping cards. I try to find truth in both of Brigham's positions and in Elder McConkie's attitude towards them. Maybe the truth is found in the tension and not in the ideas themselves. Maybe there is truth in a prophet being wrong - I try not to throw anything away (you know, being green and all).

I’ve already gone on too long to describe my current epistemology, but it is still based on revelation as the most important principle and makes use of other epistemologies. It just has a much more flexible relationship to revelation, and especially to the way that revelation works its way through its revelators (whether they are church authorities or me in my personal study), and it puts a lot more responsibility on me to be in tune with the Spirit in general.

Soon I’ll address how the complexities of LDS epistemology affect how easily (or not) discussion is conducted in church classes.

click post TITLE for full text and comments

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Ephemera on Sustainability

I'm going to start listing them again, and I'd really appreciate your feedback...

I stopped listing the ephemera links last year when I was too busy to visit all of the pages I read for info on what's happening in the world of sustainability. I feel less stressed now with my exams over, and am feeling very out of touch with what's going on. So I'm back to reading the sustainability news and would like to provide any of you who might be interested with the stories that you'd like to see.

In case you've started reading here since I discontinued my ephemera links, they are just links to stories and sites I find that offer what I think to be important info on what is going on in the world of green building, renewable energy, post-oil living, etc.

Now I've already read every link I post (and many others), so these links aren't at all for me. I offer them for those of you who want to keep up to date but don't want to spend a couple hours a day reading just to see what's going on. So please feel free to let me know what kinds of stories you want me to link. Again, the links are for those of you who are interested, not for me. You can let me know any preferences in a comment on this post, or in a comment to my 'comments on ephemera' link. You can let me know now and/or as time goes on as you realize there are things you are interested in that you don't see me covering or not covering very often.

Some of the topics that may interest you could be:
-minor changes that will save energy in your current home
-minor changes that will save water in your current home
-major ways to save energy/water
-new building materials/practices (for renovation or new construction)
-how to produce your own energy
-ways to reshape a community to be more efficient/sustainable
-sexy new building projects (often big ones) that feature great design
-new and proposed legislation and how it will/won't actually work
-cleaner transportation (individual/mass)
-city design
etc.

This list is taken from things that interest me. Again, if you find yourself reading these links and want to steer me in a direction that will offer you more of the info you need, please let me know. Yet once again, the links are for you, not me. As long as I'm taking the time to read through so much every day, I might as well 'clip' the articles that my friends want to see.

If none of this interests you, don't worry, you can ignore the ephemera links and keep checking in for my constant, confused ramblings on politics and religion (the two things a polite person shouldn't mention, let alone blog about).

click post TITLE for full text and comments