Explorations In Faith

O Holy Night

2011-12-23T22:55:00.000-08:00

O Holy Night, by Adolphe Adam, is probably my favorite Christmas song. The lyrics are absolutely sublime. The last verse is my favorite because it speaks to me of the essence of Jesus' life - love, peace, and liberation.

This is also my favorite painting of Jesus - Healing at the Pool of Bethesda by Carl Bloch. I don't know what the artist had in mind with this painting but to me it speaks of Jesus showing compassion toward the outcasts, the people who have been most forgotten and neglected. I think of this painting whenever I here the third verse of O Holy Night.

This Christmas as I have remembered Jesus Christ I have come back again and again to this song and this image and it has inspired me. So I wanted to share it.

Merry Christmas

Personal and Social Righteousness

2011-11-20T22:21:00.000-08:00

The scriptures give some beautiful examples of ideal communities, in records about the past and in prophesy about the future. There was the City of Enoch where the people “were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.” (Moses 7:18) There was the community in the Book of Mormon after the visitation of Christ and afterward in which “there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another. And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.” (4 Nephi 1:2-3) Prophets have also prophesied that after the Second Coming of Christ there would follow the Millennium, a thousand-year period of peace and righteousness. It is said, “children shall grow up without sin unto salvation.” (Doctrine and Covenants 45:58) It is also said “Satan shall not have power to tempt any man.” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:28) In Revelation it is said that Satan will be “bound”. (Revelation 20:2) In the Book of Mormon, Nephi added some insight to this prophesy saying, “And because of the righteousness of his [the Lord’s] people, Satan has no power; wherefore, he cannot be loosed for the space of many years; for he hath no power over the hearts of the people, for they dwell in righteousness, and the Holy One of Israel reigneth.” (1 Nephi 22:26) It is not because Satan has no power that the people are righteous, it is because the people are righteous that Satan has no power. Why are the people righteous during these times and why are people not similarly righteous all the time?

What is interesting about such paradisiacal periods is that all the people in these societies are righteous. This is unusual. We are used to reading stories about a few righteous people living amid evil—the lone voice crying in the wilderness as it were. But for an entire people to be righteous is quite noteworthy. Is it because such a society is made up of very special people or is there something about the shared values of the society itself that helps people to be righteous?

Looking at an entire community is a different way of approaching the subject of righteousness. In our churches we focus a lot on individual behavior—and that is important since a society is made up of individuals. But in the scriptures we often read about groups of people. Nations and peoples are condemned or praised for their practices. The scriptures often approach things communally, focusing especially on the rulers: “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.” (Proverbs 29:2) “The LORD enters into judgment with the elders and princes of his people: It is you who have devoured the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses. What do you mean by crushing my people, by grinding the face of the poor? Says the Lord GOD of hosts.” (Isaiah 3:14-15) In the Book of Mormon as well the warnings are often given to entire cities: “Behold ye, the people of this great city, and hearken unto my words; yea, hearken unto the words which the Lord saith; for behold, he saith that ye are cursed because of your riches, and also are your riches cursed because ye have set your hearts upon them, and have not hearkened unto the words of him who gave them unto you. Ye do not remember the Lord your God in the things with which he hath blessed you, but ye do always remember your riches, not to thank the Lord your God for them; yea, your hearts are not drawn out unto the Lord, but they do swell with great pride, unto boasting, and unto great swelling, envyings, strifes, malice, persecutions, and murders, and all manner of iniquities.” (Helaman 13:21-22, italics added)

Thinking about these Zion communities, I think there is something fundamental about the things they value that empower individuals in them to live more righteously. They foster an environment that is highly conducive to everyone's happiness. This is important because looking at the world now there are ways that our society makes it difficult to live righteously because of the things we value as a group. A Zion society values love, peace and equality. But I find that we do not universally value these things in our society, at least not in practice.

The scriptures say to treat people the way we would like to be treated. (Matthew 7:12) But while we pay lip service to selflessness our business culture is not built upon it. Our ways of dealing with each other are very opportunistic. A man in a dire situation can be taken advantage of like when he is desperate to sell his home. We call this a “buyer’s market”. We are encouraged and rewarded for taking advantage of other people. The same mentality applies to wages and benefits. In a recession, you can pay an employee less and offer fewer benefits because he can be easily replaced and is, therefore, “expendable”. A Zion people with “no poor among them” must have a dramatically different way of thinking about people than we currently do in our society. Love and equality must be foundational values.

The media contribute a great deal to our values. In many ways the media improve our lives by allowing us to connect with the rest of the world and to learn. Indeed, I should think that the media could be a very important, uplifting influence in Zion. But many of the things valued by the media today are hardly uplifting. The media can be very adversarial, especially many “news” stations that foment anger and division over trivial matters. It reminds me of the lawyers in the Book of Mormon who would “stir up the people to riotings, and all manner of disturbances and wickedness, that they might have more employ.” (Alma 11:20) Sensationalism over controversy translates into high ratings for stations that enable them also to get gain. The system is structured in a way that you have to be negative to be successful.

The media also send many harmful messages about sexuality. There is nothing wrong with sexuality but our values regarding it can be distorted in ways that can really damage people. To women especially, the implicit message is that men only value women of a certain appearance and if you don’t look like the doctored images on the magazine covers then you will not be attractive to anyone. Sexuality is being used a commodity to be bought and sold, literally and figuratively, rather than something to be held sacred. Of course, by no means should sexuality be suppressed. It should be celebrated, but in an uplifting, respectful and sacred way founded in real love.

One of the most memorable prophesies of the Millennium is that it will be a time of peace. To describe this we often quote this beautiful passage in Isaiah: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” (Isaiah 2:4) This reminds me of something President Eisenhower said in 1953: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.” [1] I see Eisenhower’s comments as a kind of modern version of Isaiah’s prophesy. What will we be able to do when we get over our lust for war? All the science, technology and labor that we devote to weapons of destruction can be applied to building societies up instead of tearing them down.

Moving from a warlike mentality to a commitment for peace means that we need to be more inclusive in our thought. We have to include all nations, races and religion into our circle of friendship. It is not enough to just be nice, honorable people to those within our own community and family. In the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites were very loving among themselves. Jacob said of them, “their husbands love their wives, and their wives love their husbands; and their husbands and their wives love their children.” (Jacob 2:7) But even though Lamanites were loving toward one another they were still hateful to the Nephites. Being peaceful means that we widen our circle to include Muslims, Arabs, Chinese, Russians and everyone else in the world.

In our society we still value power over peace and we still glorify war. In 1976, the bicentennial year of the United States, the Mormon prophet Spencer W. Kimball said: “We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching: ‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to 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.’” [2]

It is interesting to me that President Kimball would mention that our obsession with weaponry and war distracts us from preparing for the coming of the Lord. I often hear people express a kind of resigned acceptance of the current condition of the world, expecting that God is just going to fix everything after the Second Coming. That may be true, but the point is that we should be preparing ourselves and our communities to live a more excellent way. There is nothing preventing us from adopting the values of these paradisiacal societies right now.

The values of the Gospel such as love, peace and equality are, in many important ways, different from the things we value right now in our society. Of course, here I have shown examples of problems to contrast them with the ideal of the Kingdom of God. In many ways we are doing quite well and the world is getting better. You are much less likely to die a violent death today than in any other time in history. So there is much to be pleased about. But we are still not Zion. We want to value love, peace and equality but we don’t actually do it. The Gospel really boils down to love for all people, without exception. And it requires action. It’s not just sitting on the couch or at your computer thinking nice thoughts about people. Real love involves service and sacrifice. It’s a matter of taking that seriously, in real life with real people, right now.

References

1. The Chance for Peace. http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/speeches/ike_chance_for_peace.html

2. The False Gods We Worship. http://lds.org/ensign/1976/06/the-false-gods-we-worship?lang=eng

Sufficient For Our Needs

2011-11-06T23:19:00.000-08:00

I once asked a good friend, a pastor actually, what she believed the ideal society would look like. I really liked her response: “In a perfect world everyone would have what they needed.” I like this response because it coincides with what I read in scripture concerning God’s vision of the perfect world. In the Torah, God told the people, “If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother: But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth.” (Deuteronomy 15:7-8, italics added) It seems the God too desires that all people in the world have sufficient for their needs. He also desires that we who have greater abundance should open our hands wide unto them. This requires us to recognize when we have sufficient for our needs and use the surplus to impart unto others.

In latter-day scripture the Lord established the Law of Consecration in which an individual was made to be a “steward” over his own property, “as much as is sufficient for himself and family.” The “residue”, or that which was more than needful for the needs of his family was to be used “to administer to those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants.” (Doctrine and Covenants 42:32-33) In a later revelation this residue was called a “surplus”. (Doctrine and Covenants 119) We learn an interesting story about this later revelation from Brigham Young in a talk he gave some years later:

When the revelation which I have read was given in 1838, I was present, and recollect the feelings of the brethren. A number of revelations were given on the same day. The brethren wished me to go among the Churches and find out what surplus property the people had, with which to forward the building of the Temple we were commencing at Far West. I accordingly went from place to place through the country. Before I started, I asked brother Joseph, "Who shall be the judge of what is surplus property?" Said he, "Let them be the judge themselves, for I care not if they do not give a single dime. So far as I am concerned, I do not want anything they have.

Then I replied, "I will go and ask them for their surplus property;" and I did so; I found the people said they were willing to do about as they were counselled, but, upon asking them about their surplus property, most of the men who owned land and cattle would say, "I have got so many hundred acres of land, and I have got so many boys, and I want each one of them to have eighty acres, therefore this is not surplus property." Again, "I have got so many girls, and I do not believe I shall be able to give them more than forty acres each." "Well, you have got two or three hundred acres left." "Yes, but I have a brother−in−law coming on, and he will depend on me for a living; my wife's nephew is also coming on, he is poor, and I shall have to furnish him a farm after he arrives here." I would go on to the next one, and he would have more land and cattle than he could make use of to advantage. It is a laughable idea but is nevertheless true, men would tell me they were young and beginning the world, and would say, "We have no children, but our prospects are good, and we think we shall have a family of children, and if we do, we want to give them eighty acres of land each; we have no surplus property." "How many cattle have you?" "So many." "How many horses, &c?" "So many, but I have made provisions for all these, and I have use for every thing I have got.” [1]

The system worked fine until it came time for people judge at what point they had sufficient for their needs. And it could only rely on the individuals themselves to make that judgment. The way of the Lord was not a forced redistribution but a society of love and concern for the other.

Beyond the benefit we can offer to others through our own surplus there is a great peace and happiness that comes from recognizing when we have sufficient for our needs. We live in a materialistic society, always moving forward to the next big thing: the next iPhone, the next car model, the next style of clothing. We rush around frantically to accumulate more money to buy all of these things without considering the things we already have. And always the comparisons. What do the neighbors have that we don’t? How can I compete in the workforce? There is no time, no peace. What we need is to slow down.

Brigham Young was a great organizer and built the economy of Utah from the ground up. He recognized the material needs of the Saints. But he also cautioned against the pursuit of wealth for its own sake. He consistently warned the Saints not to run off after gold during the California Gold Rush. And he recognized the wisdom in trusting in the Lord to take care of us:

This is the counsel I have for the Latter−day Saints to−day. Stop, do not be in a hurry. I do not know that I could find a man in our community but what wishes wealth, would like to have everything in his possession that would conduce to his comfort and convenience. Do you know how to get it? "Well," replies one, "If I do not, I wish I did; but I do not seem to be exactly fortunate − fortune is somewhat against me." I will tell you the reason of this − you are in too much of a hurry; you do not go to meeting enough, you do not pray enough, you do not read the Scriptures enough, you do not meditate enough, you are all the time on the wing, and in such a hurry that you do not know what to do first. This is not the way to get rich. I merely use the term "rich" to lead the mind along, until we obtain eternal riches in the celestial kingdom of God. Here we wish for riches in a comparative sense, we wish for the comforts of life. If we desire them let us take a course to get them. Let me reduce this to a simple saying − one of the most simple and homely that can be used − "Keep your dish right side up," so that when the shower of porridge does come, you can catch your dish full. [2]

We should not be so concerned about trying to fill up our own dish as much as just preparing to receive the blessings that the Lord will provide and trusting that he will do so—“Keep your dish right side up”.

Jesus was very nonchalant about material things. “Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?” Well that’s very nice but what are we supposed to do then? Jesus says, “Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” (Matthew 6:25-24)

I love this passage of scripture. It’s so beautiful. Look at nature and they way the rains provide water and the sun provides energy. God takes care of the world and He will take care of us. I especially love the line, “sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof” or in perhaps a clearer translation, “today’s trouble is enough for today.” Just take things one day at a time and don’t worry so much. Trust in God.

Before saying all of this Jesus said, “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” (Matthew 6:24) “Mammon” means riches or wealth. The point of this whole discourse is clear—you cannot serve in Kingdom of God if you are worried about material things. This is very important. Satan wishes for us to be preoccupied all the time about not having enough. He will always put the thought in our ear—“Have you any money?” “You can by anything in this world with money.”

This is the condition of our time. The prophet Mormon saw our day and he didn’t seem particularly impressed: “And I know that ye do walk in the pride of your hearts; and there are none save a few only who do not lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts, unto the wearing of very fine apparel, unto envying, and strifes, and malice, and persecutions, and all manner of iniquities; and your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts. For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted.” (Mormon 8:36-37) It is clear that Mormon compiled the records in the Book of Mormon he felt were most relevant to us and to our problems. He saw our materialism and our disregard for the poor, a loss of perspective on the things that are most important.

Paul also warned Timothy of people who would teach, “that gain is godliness”. Paul said further: “But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” (1 Timothy 6:3-10) After we have food and raiment we may be content. And the Lord has promised that the Father will provide these things if we trust in him. Just keep your dish right side up.

There is great peace in being content with our basic needs. Life is beautiful in it’s basic simplicity—love, family, friends, memories. The earth is beautiful, not for it’s resources but for it’s own sake. If we take time to slow down, as Brigham Young said, to pray and to meditate we can find that we already have much of what we need. And to those who do not have sufficient for their needs we can be a blessing to others. We can bring more people into our circle of friends by helping them. The Lord has asked us to care for one another and to give of our surplus to those who are lacking. But first we must recognize when we have a surplus. We will be tempted to neglect the needs of others, distracted by expensive toys and clothing. But the wise and proper response has always been the same—we have sufficient for needs.

References

1. Journal of Discourses 2:306-307

2. Journal of Discourses 15:36-37

The Lord's Ways

2011-10-31T22:02:00.000-07:00

This is a transcript of a talk I gave in church on Sunday, October 30, 2011.

My thoughts this morning are on our Heavenly parents and their relationship to us as well as our relationship to each other. The springboard I’ll use here is this month’s theme in Isaiah chapter 55. I want to read the scripture in its full context to see what Isaiah was saying here. Chapter 55 is a beautiful invitation to return to the Lord. It’s a message of repentance and the assurance of forgiveness. This invitation is given to all: “Ho, every one that thirstest, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price… Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David… Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:1,3,6-9)

We are asked to consider our ways and thoughts. This is an invitation for introspection, to compare our ways and our thoughts to God’s. The scriptures say that we are created in the image of our Heavenly parents. We are similar to them in our nature. But in behavior, in practice, in custom, our ways and our thoughts, we are, collectively, very different from them, even radically different. The ways of the Lord our higher than ours. The thoughts of the Lord are higher than ours. But the invitation is to forsake our ways and our thoughts. To do what? To adopt the ways and thoughts of the Lord.

So then what are the ways and the thoughts of the Lord? This is important because the way we understand and view God will influence our values and our aspirations. It is an easy thing to fall into theological idolatry and to create a god fashioned in our own image, to project our own ways and thoughts onto a god of our own vain imagination rather than to conform our ways and thoughts to those of the true and living God. In the introductory section of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord said the people “seek not the Lord to establish righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:16) Babylon, in the scriptures always stands in contrast to Zion. The people of God are to follow His law and His ways while the world follows after the ways of Babylon.

There is some low-hanging fruit here that we as Latter-day Saints can easily recognize as ways of the world that contradict the ways of the Lord: sexual immorality, pornography, drug use, alcohol and so forth. These are ways of Babylon that encroach upon us and we should not conform our ways to them. In addition to these obvious sinful actions there are ways of being and thinking that alienate us from God. The invitation is for the wicked to forsake his ways and thoughts, not only to stop doing wicked things. This transformation has more to do with who we are than what we do. Elder Dallin H. Oaks said: “…the Final Judgment is not just an evaluation of a sum total of good and evil acts—what we have done. It is an acknowledgment of the final effect of our acts and thoughts—what we have become. It is not enough for anyone just to go through the motions. The commandments, ordinances, and covenants of the gospel are not a list of deposits required to be made in some heavenly account. The gospel of Jesus Christ is a plan that shows us how to become what our Heavenly Father desires us to become.” [1]

We are invited to transform ourselves, our ways and our thoughts to conform to those of God. How shall we know the ways of our Heavenly parents? Jesus said to his disciples: “If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me.” (John 14:7-11) We know the ways and thoughts of God primarily through his Son, Jesus Christ. Biblical scholar Marcus Borg said of Jesus: “He is the revelation, the incarnation, of God’s character and passion—of what God is like and of what God is most passionate about. He shows us the heart of God.” [2]

It is through Jesus then that we can come to understand the character, the way and thoughts of God. Jesus is the way to become like God, or as he said: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but my me.” (John 14:6) Jesus is the example that we should emulate and imitate. Jesus asked the Nephites—“What manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am.” (3 Nephi 27:27). We find the path in Jesus’ life and teachings.

If we dare to study Jesus at face value we find that the Kingdom of God he preaches is a world radically different from our own. When we understand the radical difference of the Kingdom of God and the way its imminence threatens our own customs and ways of thinking it is easier to see how this preacher from Nazareth would cause so many in positions of authority to clamor for his swift execution and crucifixion. In Jesus we can see the incarnation of the premise “my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways.” Jesus stands out in history because he was so fundamentally, strikingly different. It’s very important not to domesticate his teachings to make them more palatable to our own ways and thoughts. His teachings are challenging and they should be challenging. Jesus’ teachings flip the entire way of the world upside-down. “The last shall be first, and the first last.” (Matthew 20:16) “Whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” (Luke 14:11) “He that is greatest among you shall be your servant.” It’s all backwards, flipped around, upside-down, a complete one-eighty. If we adopt the way of Jesus we are transformed, entirely forsaking our ways and thoughts for his, for God’s.

One of the first things to understand about the Lord is that he does not see people in the same way we do. We place importance on very superficial things like physical attractiveness, prestige and wealth. But the Lord sees people on a much deeper level. The scriptures say: “the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:7) If we were to see people in the way God sees them we would treat them much differently than we treat them now. But first we have to change our world-view. Our way is to alienate and devalue certain groups of people. We see light skin and dark skin, rich and poor, Republican and Democrat and we make value judgments, reasons to exclude, to demean. But in the eyes of God these divisions and barriers brake down. It’s not that this diversity no longer exists, but that all are equally invited to come unto him, “black and white, bond and free, male and female… all are alike unto God…” (2 Nephi 26:33) It is only after changing our way of seeing and thinking about others, those who we exclude from our circle, that we can truly begin to adopt the ways of the Lord.

A certain lawyer asked Jesus, “Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus asked him to answer his own question based on the written law, which says: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.” This was the correct answer and Jesus told him to go and do this and he would live. But the lawyer then asked the perennially relevant question: “who is my neighbor?” This is the critical question if the law is to be meaningful in any way. To love your neighbor is not an abstract principle. You can only love an actual person, a living, breathing individual. So who are those people that we are required to love? We have to know who they are in order to follow this law. So Jesus told him a story. A man traveled to Jericho and fell among thieves. He was beaten nearly to death and stripped of his clothing. A Levite and a priest both passed him on the road but walked on by. To Jesus’ Jewish audience the Levite and priest were the obvious neighbors; they were of the same religion and well respected members of their society. But the implication here was that for the priest or the Levite to touch a dead person would have made them ritually unclean, not permanently, but it would have been an inconvenience to them in their religious duties, too great a risk. But a Samaritan, found the man and had compassion on him, dressed his wounds, gave him lodging, and paid the innkeeper for all expenses on his behalf. The Samaritans were not nice to the Jews and course the Jews were not nice to them. They were enemies. The Samaritans wouldn’t even receive Jesus when he traveled among them, with a few exceptions. To these people, a “good Samaritan” would have been an oxymoron, impossibility. But Jesus set up the story in this way on purpose and asked the lawyer “which one was a neighbor to him that fell among thieves?” And the obvious answer was that the Samaritan was neighbor to him. (Luke 10:25-37)

This is sometimes called a Parable of Reversal—it flips things around and forces you to consider things in a way completely opposite of the way you normally do. This is the way Jesus helps us to see that his ways and his thoughts are higher than ours. We are not inclined to love all people so indiscriminately. But Jesus said, “love your enemies”. “For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?” (Matthew 5:44-45) Can this kind of universal love for all people really work in our world today?

The way we show love for God is by showing love to our neighbors. When we show compassion to our neighbors it is as though we have loved the Lord himself. “For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me… Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” (Matthew 25:40) Who are “the least”? I think we can answer that question by looking within ourselves and asking whom we devalue most. The least are the forgotten ones, or worse, the despised and rejected ones. Some of them are the homeless sleeping on the street corners, the families in generational poverty. Or maybe they are the migrant workers loitering on the street corners hoping to find a day’s labor. They are even the ones in prison, the drug traffickers, the drunk-drivers, the thieves, the murderers, the sex-offenders, people who have done harm to others, the lowest of the low. Our way is to look upon these is to judge them and, in the case of those in prison, to seek retribution and punishment, the harsher the better. But the ways of the Lord are not our ways. Jesus said that we are to look upon such and see His face, the image of God in the lowest and most depraved of all humanity. The message of the parable is that we will be judged by the way we treat these people, not by the way we treat our friends. In the eyes of God, the very things we that do to these people we have effectively done to the Lord himself. We must not forget that Jesus himself was despised and rejected of men; he descended below all things. What did this experience teach him? It gave the Son of God the perspective to understand the state of the least among us and the impulse to lift them up and redeem them, no matter how horrible their past. In the mind of the Lord, no child of God is undeserving of love and compassion. This is the way God sees.

The Lord expects a great deal from us but He is also infinitely merciful. If only we could be as merciful to each other as he is to us. It is possible to return to the Lord and become a new creature through his Atonement. When we enter into the way and the thoughts of God we are transformed and we can become a transforming force in the lives of others to bring about the Kingdom of God on the earth. Then our thoughts will be His thoughts and our ways will be His ways.

References

1. Dallin H. Oaks. The Challenge to Become. October 2000

2. Marcus Borg. The Heart of Christianity. p. 81

1875 Document on ZCMI and the Economy

2011-10-19T23:07:00.000-07:00

I recently become aware of an interesting document in the history of the church. It was a pamphlet published in 1875 regarding Zion’s Cooperative Mercantile Institution (ZCMI). I have seen excerpts of this document circulating around the Internet that include the most interesting parts. I have seen it under the title of Apostolic Circular of July 1875. Most of the websites say the complete text can be found in Edward Jones Allen, The Second United Order Among the Mormons (New York: Columbia University Press, 1936). Unfortunately, I don’t have that book. I have also seen it under the title Economic Proclamation of 1875. I liked these excerpts but I thought it would be interesting to read the document in its entirety.

As it turns out this document caused a bit of a stir online with an opinion piece by Orson Scott Card in the Deseret News back in September of 2008. Someone sent him an excerpt of this document and it came under the title “Brigham Young's Proclamation on the Economy”. Though he like what he had read he was skeptical of its authenticity. After an associate found the original he learned that it was a real document but that many parts were left out when quoted online. Also, it was more of a specific pamphlet regarding ZCMI rather than a general statement on the Economy. Card wrote a scathing piece calling out the many websites that had promulgated what he saw as a heavily redacted version of the document.

I’m not really interested in that controversy. But one good thing that came out of it was that Card included in his opinion piece the text of the entire document. I think it’s a very interesting historical piece but also an interesting doctrinal piece, especially since it was signed by such prominent Mormon leaders as Brigham Young and Lorenzo Snow. I especially like the first paragraph.

So without further ado, here is text as found in the Messages of the First Presidency:

-------------------------------------------

Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution, July 10, 1875

1875-1879

1875-July 10-Pamphlet on file in Church Historian's Office, Salt Lake City

According to B. H. Roberts (CHC 5:220) Zions Co-operative Mercantile Institution began its operations March 1, 1869, and became incorporated as a company under the laws of Utah in 1870. This pamphlet might he considered a five-year report. The signatures include not only the First Presidency but other prominent General Authorities of the L.D.S. Church. This pioneer merchandising institution has continued operations down to the present (1965) and until fairly recent times was officered by members of the First Presidency and other General Authorities of the Church.

For additional background see: CHC 5:216-225; RCH 2:453-456. Also see: Gustive Larson, "Outline History of Utah and the Mormons," pp. 187-202 and Leonard Arrington, "Great Basin Kingdom," pp. 292-322.

ZION'S CO-OPERATIVE MERCANTILE INSTITUTION.

TO THE LATTER-DAY SAINTS:

The experience of mankind has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice. Among the chosen people of the Lord, to prevent the too rapid growth of wealth and its accumulation in a few hands, he ordained that in every seventh year the debtors were to be released from their debts, and, where a man had sold himself to his brother, he was in that year to be released from slavery and to go free; even the land itself which might pass out of the possession of its owner by his sale of it, whether through his improvidence, mismanagement, or misfortune, could only be alienated until the year of jubilee. At the expiration of every forty-nine years the land reverted, without cost, to the man or family whose inheritance originally it was, except in the case of a dwelling house in a walled city, for the redemption of which, one year only was allowed, after which, if not redeemed, it became the property, without change at the year of jubilee, of the purchaser. Under such a system, carefully maintained, there could be no great aggregations of either real or personal property in the hands of a few; especially so while the laws, forbidding the taking of usury or interest for money or property loaned, continued in force.

One of the great evils with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers contended so steadfastly and courageously, and which they bequeathed to us as a priceless legacy, are endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful corporations. By its seductive influence results are accomplished which, were it more equally distributed, would be impossible under our form of government. It threatens to give shape to the legislation, both State and National, of the entire country. If this evil should not be checked, and measures not be taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and want among the poor, the nation is liable to be overtaken by disaster; for, according to history, such a tendency among nations once powerful was the sure precursor of ruin. The evidence of the restiveness of the people under this condition of affairs in our times is witnessed in the formation of societies of grangers, of patrons of husbandry, trades' unions, etc., etc., combinations of the productive and working classes against capital.

Years ago it was perceived that we Latter-day Saints were open to the same dangers as those which beset the rest of the world. A condition of affairs existed among us which was favorable to the growth of riches in the hands of a few at the expense of the many. A wealthy class was being rapidly formed in our midst whose interests, in the course of time, were likely to be diverse from those of the rest of the community. The growth of such a class was dangerous to our union; and, of all people, we stand most in need of union and to have our interests identical. Then it was that the Saints were counseled to enter into cooperation. In the absence of the necessary faith to enter upon a more perfect order revealed by the Lord unto the church, this was felt to be the best means of drawing us together and making us one. Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution was organized; and, throughout the Territory, the mercantile business of the various Wards and Settlements was organized after that pattern. Not only was the mercantile business thus organized, but in various places branches of mechanical, manufacturing and other productive industries were established upon this basis. To-day, therefore, cooperation among us is no untried experiment. It has been tested, and whenever fairly tested, and under proper management, its results have been most gratifying and fully equal to all that was expected of it, though many attempts have been made to disparage and decry it, to destroy the confidence of the people in it and to have it prove a failure. From the day that Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution was organized until this day it has had a formidable and combined opposition to contend with, and the most base and unscrupulous methods have been adopted, by those who have no interest for the welfare of the people, to destroy its credit. Without alluding to the private assaults upon its credit which have been made by those who felt that it was in their way and who wished to ruin it, the perusal alone of the telegraphic dispatches and correspondence to newspapers which became public, would exhibit how unparalleled, in the history of mercantile enterprises, has been the hostility it has had to encounter. That it has lived, notwithstanding these bitter and malignant attacks upon it and its credit, is one of the most valuable proofs of the practical worth of cooperation to us as a people. Up to this day Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution has had no note go to protest; no firm, by dealing with it, has ever lost a dollar; its business transactions have been satisfactory to its creditors; and yet its purchases have amounted to fifteen millions of dollars! What firm in all this broad land can point to a brighter or more honorable record than this? During the first four years and a half of its existence it paid to its stockholders a dividend in cash of seventy-eight per cent, and fifty-two per cent, as a reserve to be added to the capital stock, making in all a dividend of one hundred and thirty per cent. The Institution declared as dividends, and reserves added to the capital stock, and tithing, during those four and a half years, upwards of half a million of dollars. So that the stockholder who invested one thousand dollars in the Institution in March, 1869, had by October 1st, 1873, that stock increased to $1,617.00 and this without counting his cash dividends, which in the same space of time would have amounted to $1,378.50! In other words, a stockholders who had deposited $1000.00 in the Institution when it started, could have sold, in four years and a half afterwards, stock to the amount of $617.00, collected dividends to the amount of $1,378.50, thus making the actual profits $1,995.50, or within a fraction ($4.50) of two hundred per cent, upon the original investment, and still have had his $1,000 left intact! This is a statement from the books of the Institution, and realized by hundreds of its stockholders. And yet there are those who decry cooperation and say it will not succeed! If success consists in paying large dividends, then it cannot be said that Z. C. M. I. has not succeeded. In fact, the chief cause of trouble has been, it has paid too freely and too well. Its reserves should not have been added, as they were, to the capital stock; for, by so doing, at the next semi-annual declaration of dividends a dividend was declared upon them, which, as will be perceived, swelled the dividends enormously and kept the Institution stripped too bare of resources to meet whatever contingencies might arise.

It was not for the purpose alone, however, of making money, of declaring large dividends, that Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution was established. A higher object than this prompted its organization. A union of interests was sought to be attained. At the time co-operation was entered upon the Latter-day Saints were acting in utter disregard of the principles of self-preservation. They were encouraging the growth of evils in their own midst which they condemned as the worst features of the systems from which they had been gathered. Large profits were being concentrated in comparatively few hands, instead of being generally distributed among the people. As a consequence, the community was being rapidly divided into classes, and the hateful and unhappy distinctions which the possession and lack of wealth give rise to, were becoming painfully apparent. When the proposition to organize Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution was broached, it was hoped that the community at large would become its stockholders; for if a few individuals only were to own its stock, the advantages to the community would be limited. The people, therefore, were urged to take shares, and large numbers responded to the appeal. As we have shown, the business proved to be as successful as its most sanguine friends anticipated. But the distribution of profits among the community was not the only benefit conferred by the organization of co-operation among us. The public at large who did not buy at its stores derived profits, in that the old practice of dealing which prompted traders to increase the price of an article because of its scarcity, was abandoned. Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution declined to be a party to making a corner upon any article of merchandise because of the limited supply in the market. From its organization until the present it has never advanced the price of any article because of its scarcity. Goods therefore in this Territory have been sold at something like fixed rates and reasonable profits since the Institution has had an existence, and practices which are deemed legitimate in some parts of the trading world, and by which, in this Territory, the necessities of consumers were taken advantage of-as, for instance, the selling of sugar at a dollar a pound, and domestics, coffee, tobacco and other articles at an enormous advance over original cost because of their scarcity here-have not been indulged in. In this result the purchasers of goods who have been opposed to co-operation have shared equally with its patrons.

We appeal to the experience of every old settler in this Territory for the truth of what is here stated. They must vividly remember that goods were sold here at prices which the necessities of the people compelled them to pay, and not at cost and transportation, with the addition of a reasonable profit. The railroad, it is true, has made great changes in our method of doing business. But let a blockade occur, and the supply of some necessary article be very limited in our market, can we suppose that traders have so changed in the lapse of a few years that, if there were no check upon them, they would not put up the price of that article in proportion as the necessities of the people made it desirable? They would be untrue to all the training and traditions of their craft if they did not. And it is because this craft is in danger that such an outcry is made against co-operation. Can any one wonder that it should be so, when he remembers that, from the days of Demetrius who made silver shrines for the goddess Diana at Ephesus down to our own times, members of crafts have made constant war upon innovations that were likely to injure their business?

Co-operation has submitted in silence to a great many attacks. Its friends have been content to let it endure the ordeal. But it is now time to speak. The Latter-day Saints should understand that it is our duty to sustain cooperation and to do all in our power to make it a success. At a meeting of the stockholders of the Institution at the time of the General Conference a committee of seventeen was chosen to select and arrange for the purchase of a suitable piece of ground for a store and to proceed to erect upon it such a fireproof building as would answer the purposes of the Institution. The objects view in this proceeding were to concentrate the business and thereby lessen the cost of handling and disposing of the goods and to decrease rents and insurance. The saving in these directions alone, not to mention other advantages which must result from having such a store, will make a not inconsiderable dividend upon the stock. A suitable piece of ground has been secured, and upon terms which are deemed advantageous, and steps have been taken towards the erection of a proper building. But the Institution, to erect this building and carry on its business properly, needs more capital. The determination is still to sell goods as low as possible. By turning over the capital three or four times during the year they can be sold at very low figures, and at but a slight advance over cost and carriage, and yet the stockholders have a handsome dividend. To purchase goods to the greatest advantage the Institution should have the money with which to purchase of first hands. To effect this important result, as well as to unite in our mercantile affairs, the Institution should receive the cordial support of every Latter-day Saint. Every one who can should take stock in it. By sustaining the Co-operative Institution, and taking stock in it, profits that would otherwise go to a few individuals will be distributed among many hundreds. Stockholders should interest themselves in the business of the Institution. It is their own, and if suggestions are needed, or any corrections ought to be made, it is to their interest to make them.

The Institution has opened a retail store here within a few weeks, one of the old-fashioned kind, in which everything required by the public is sold. This should receive the patronage of all the well-wishers of co-operation. In the settlements, also, (T)he local co-operative stores should have the cordial support of the Latter-day Saints. Does not all our history impress upon us the great truth that in union is strength? Without it, what power would the Latter-day Saints have? But it is not in doctrines alone that we should be united, but in practice and especially in our business affairs.

Your Brethren,

BRIGHAM YOUNG, CHARLES C. RICH, GEORGE A. SMITH, LORENZO SNOW, DANIEL H. WELLS, ERASTUS SNOW, JOHN TAYLOR, FRANKLIN D. RICHARDS, WILFORD WOODRUFF, GEORGE Q. CANNON, ORSON HYDE, BRIGHAM YOUNG, JUN., ORSON PRATT, ALBERT CARRINGTON.

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TERRITORY, JULY 10TH, 1875.

(James R. Clark, comp., "Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75), 2: 267-72.)

Korihor and Social Darwinism

2011-10-07T16:57:00.000-07:00

The Book of Mormon contains the teachings of three great heretics or Anti-Christs. The most famous of these is probably Korihor, the Anti-Christ who confronted the prophet Alma. Here is a quick recap of the story. Korihor taught that there was no need for Atonement, there was no God and that whatever a man did was no crime. He debated Alma and demanded a sign of God’s existence. As a sign from God he was struck dumb. When Korihor was struck dumb he admitted that he had always known there was a God and asked to be healed, but was denied this request. He ended his life pitifully, trampled down among a merciless crowd.

The Book of Mormon presumably includes these stories and teachings so that we may recognize these same false doctrines today. It serves as a warning. So it is important to understand exactly what false doctrine is being taught. Obviously, Korihor taught that there was no God and we usually focus on this in Sunday school. But this is not the only thing he taught. There are many atheists who are also humanists, care about others and live moral lives. But Korihor was not this kind of atheist. His teachings encouraged an immoral way of living. He had five basic teachings. (Alma 30:17)

1. “There could be no atonement made for the sins of men”
2. “Every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature”
3. “Every man prospered according to his genius”
4. “Every man conquered according to his strength”
5. “Whatsoever a man did was no crime”

In Korihor’s own view we don’t need God. We don’t need atonement for our sins because nothing we do is sinful. The supreme authority is one’s self. The only thing we have to do is climb our way to the top using our abilities, intelligence and strength.

This reminds me of a more modern philosophy called Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is a philosophy that justifies and exalts the pursuit of wealth without regard to compassion or responsibility for others on the grounds that the cutthroat business world promotes the “survival of the fittest.” This philosophy is often placed historically in the late nineteenth century but similar ideas are alive and well today. The English philosopher Herbert Spencer saw natural selection, or in his words “survival of the fittest”, working in nature and concluded that this was not only the way things work in nature, but the way they should work in all areas of life, including economics.

In Spencer’s view, predatory instincts served to "exterminate such sections of mankind as stand in the way, with the same sternness that they exterminate beasts of prey and herds of useless animals." Spencer became wildly popular among the elite industrial tycoons of America. People like to think that their way of life is moral and correct and Social Darwinism not only justified harsh business practices, it encouraged and glorified them. In response to the sympathetic feelings we might have toward those less fortunate Spencer tried to put our minds at ease:

"Those shoulderings aside of the weak by the strong, which leave so many 'in shallows and in miseries,' are the decrees of a large, far-seeing benevolence. It seems hard that an unskillfulness which with all his efforts he cannot overcome, should entail hunger upon the artisan. It seems hard that a labourer incapacitated by sickness from competing with his stronger fellows, should have to bear the resulting privations. It seems hard that widows and orphans should be left to struggle for life and death... The whole effort of nature is to get rid of such, to clear the world of them, and make room for better."

Social Darwinism today takes form in some of these commonly-held beliefs:

“If you work hard you can make it. Poor people just haven’t put forth the effort to succeed.”

“If the poor would just get up and work then they wouldn’t be poor anymore.”

“If we help the poor it will just encourage them to be lazy.”

“I worked hard for what I have. Why should I help anyone else? No one helped me.”

“This is a harsh, cruel world and some people just aren’t going to be as successful. There’s nothing you can do about it so you just have to accept it.”

“We shouldn’t create a society of dependents.”

These ideas cover a broad range of economic and political issues that I won’t try to cover here. I have my own doubts about the efficacy of government action to solve these problems. But my main concern is the philosophy of Social Darwinism and what religion has to say about it.

Korihor was very concerned with possessions. He accused the priests of taking property from the working people and living off of them. This was a false accusation but we can see that Korihor believed that the church was keeping people from enjoying their own possessions. He said that the church was keeping the people under a yoke of bondage “that they durst no look up with boldness, and that they durst not enjoy their rights and privileges. Yea, they durst not make use of that which is their own…” (Alma 30:27-28)

Korihor’s doctrine was very individualistic and meritocratic. In his view, every man prospered according to his own genius and conquered according to his own strength. A man owed nothing to God or to any other person. This was an extreme expression of ingratitude. In the Bible, the Lord, warned the people not to forget what God had done for them.

“Beware that thou forget not the Lord thy God, in not keeping his commandments, and his judgments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day: Lest when thou hast eaten and art full, and hast built goodly houses, and dwelt therein; And when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, and thy silver and thy gold is multiplied, and all that thou hast is multiplied; Then thine heart be lifted up, and thou forget the Lord thy God… And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth. But thou shalt remember the Lord thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day.” (Deuteronomy 8:10-18)

Everything that we have we owe to God. This includes our intelligence and our strength that allows us to prosper and to conquer. And God does not desire that those who have greater ability and strength than others trample the less-fortunate under their feet. Rather God desires that we impart of our substance one to another. It is true that this is a harsh, cruel world but that doesn’t mean that we should perpetuate that condition deliberately. If you are blessed with great business acumen or technical ability or any number of abilities that have enabled you to succeed the Lord expects that these abilities will be used to serve. Our talents and gifts are not to be hoarded and buried in the earth but should be used to bless the lives of others.

What of the philosophy that we shouldn’t help the poor because it will make them lazy and create a society of dependents? King Benjamin addressed this in the Book of Mormon. “Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent.” (Mosiah 4:17-18) It is not for us to judge others, ever. Maybe the beggar would just buy a beer with some change. But that doesn’t mean you can’t give him food directly. What’s even better is to work to address the social and economic conditions that led to the beggar being where he is in the first place. We have a culture in the workplace and in management that can be more employee-focused. We don’t have to depress wages and salaries to the lowest possible level to increase profits. That is the culture of Social Darwinism, not Christianity.

The essence of Korihor’s teaching was selfishness. Korihor replaced worship of God with worship of self. Korihor taught that we should use our strength, intelligence and any other advantages to conquer and to prosper over others. The Lord asks us to use our gifts and talents to benefit and bless others.

Are We Not All Beggars?

2011-10-06T23:15:00.000-07:00

Inequality Shall Cease

2011-10-03T23:23:00.000-07:00

I recently read this quote by Brigham Young and it inspired me. So I put it together with this image. Here's a more extended version of the quote:

"The earth... was made for man; and one man was not made to trample his fellowman under his feet, and enjoy all his heart desires, while the thousands suffer. We will take a moral view, a political view, and see the inequality that exists in the human family... It is an unequal condition of mankind. We see servants that labor early and late, and that have not the opportunity of measuring the hours ten in twenty-four. They cannot go to school, nor hardly get clothing to go to meeting on the Sabbath. I have seen many cases of this kind in Europe, when the young lady would have to take her clothing on Saturday night and wash it, in order that she might go to meeting on the Sunday with a clean dress on. Who is she working for? For those who, many of them, are living in luxury. And to serve classes that are living on them, the poor laboring men and women are toiling, working their lives and to earn that which will keep a little life within them. Is this equality? No! What is to be done? The Latter-day Saints will never accomplish their mission until this inequality shall cease on the earth."

Journal of Discourses 19:46-47

Religion Ten Years After 9/11

2011-09-10T17:39:00.000-07:00

When we watched images on television of the World Trade Center falling to the ground in ashes it shook us to the core. We flew flags in every yard and every window. Church pews filled up and many of us expressed revived faith in God. The long-term effects have been even more important. The United States entered two major military campaigns in the Middle East. American politics were infused with concern over terrorism and new terms like “Islamofascism”. Discussion of religion has grown more polarized, I believe, in large part due to 9/11. Some of us believe that religion provides important answers to the problems of violence and hatred. Some of us believe religion is one of the primary causes of violence and hatred. But ten years after 9/11 most of us agree on one thing—religion is important.

This realization is something we have arrived at many times before but continue to forget. In the past two hundred years thinkers like Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud have predicted the eventual decline of religion. The highly publicized Scopes Trial in 1925 brought the conflict between Evolution and Biblical Creation into the public eye. How could religion stand against the tide of scientific progress that would seemingly undermine it? I would say the answer lies in an analogue to evolutionary theory itself—applied to ideas, or memes, rather than genes. Evolutionary science teaches that genes will persist in a population where they provide favorable phenotypes, or traits, that allow an organism to survive and reproduce. Biologist Richard Dawkins proposed in his book The Selfish Gene that certain ideas could self-replicate and spread in a similar form of natural selection. In my opinion, through an interesting twist of irony religion has been able to survive through evolution by adaptation. It is naïve to expect that religion will ever disappear but it will change and adapt to become more relevant.

One way religion has adapted to modernism has been to become more extreme. Author Karen Armstrong wrote in The Battle for God that fundamentalism is not properly understood as a reversion to more archaic expressions of religion. Rather, fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon responding to modern conditions like globalization, secular government and science. It is this form of religion that is most visible today in the news. Most fundamentalists are not violent but some begin to feel so frustrated with the conditions of the world that they believe violence and force are the only effective tools to provoke change. This is the crossover into extremism and it happens in many religions. Christian fundamentalists who believe abortion is so abominable that it justifies violence may go to the extreme and bomb an abortion clinic. Muslim fundamentalists who feel trapped by their local political conditions and foreign involvement from a world superpower may feel there is no other recourse but to engage in violent acts of terrorism.

Muslims have gotten the brunt of criticism from atheists and Christians alike. Both Richard Dawkins and Bill O’Reilly voice very strong opinions about the purported dangers of Islam. The difference is that Richard Dawkins doesn’t stop with Islam. Since 9/11 we have seen the publication of books like The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens and The End of Faith by Sam Harris. These three authors have led what is now called New Atheist movement. New Atheism is the belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises. [1] Christopher Hitchens goes further than identifying himself as an atheist and calls himself an “antitheist”. Hitchens said in a phone interview “Religion is the most important argument there’s ever been, because it’s about the meaning of life… It’s much more necessary to understand this argument than anything else. It touches on all the other great matters of science and medicine and, indeed, literature, ethics and morality. Therefore, it’s the progenitor of very strong passions.” [2] If there is one thing both the New Atheists and theists agree on it is that religion is important.

Another way religion has adapted has been to place more emphasis on compassion. In a recent Washington Post editorial Karen Armstrong wrote: “Each of the world faiths developed originally in a world where violence had reached unprecedented heights.” [3] This is the thesis of her book The Great Transformation, which analyzes the religious transformation that took place in the Axial Age (900-200 BCE). Confucianism, Daoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Greek rationalism and Judaism passed through dramatic changes during this time. This was the age of Buddha, Confucius, Laozi, Socrates, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. The great insight of the Axial Age was simple—compassion works. “The only way you could encounter what they called ‘God’, ‘Nirvana’, ‘Brahman’, or the ‘Way’, was to live a compassionate life. Indeed, religion was compassion… Each tradition developed its own formulation of the Golden Rule: do not do to others what you would not have done to you” [4]

The interesting thing about these important religious revolutions was that they were often inspired by horrible violence. “The sages of the Axial Age did not create their compassionate ethic in idyllic circumstances. Each tradition developed in societies like our own that were torn apart by violence and warfare as never before; indeed, the first catalyst of religious change was usually a principled rejection of the aggression that the sages witnessed all around them.” [5] In our own day our capacity to kill and inflict pain on one another has increased exponentially. Vast scientific resources that could be devoted to improving our lives and ending human suffering are instead dedicated to developing weapons. We are living in a global village that is becoming a crowded mixture of cultures and religions and we don’t yet have an understanding of how to handle these changes. The consequences of these conditions are tragedies like 9/11. In the face of such terrifying violence many religious people around the world have responded by rediscovering the eternal principle of compassion.

A few days ago, Lutheran minister Nadia Bolz-Weber sent out this tweet: “Question of the day: why didn't people KEEP Going to churches after 9-11?” My own answer to that question is that people went to churches looking for something and they stopped going because they didn’t find what they were looking for. After 9/11 we felt that there was something seriously wrong, a disease that needed to be cured. People went to church looking for answers. Unfortunately, some of the answers we heard were remarks like this from Jerry Falwell: “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen’”. [6] The tragedy of 9/11 was used as a prop in the culture war. The culture war is not a war of bombs and guns (though it often supports those too). The culture war is a war of words and emotions and it is toxic. When we were looking for enlightenment we heard a lot of the same old thing—divisiveness and intolerance, even from the pulpit. If these are the things people get from their churches then I think these words of Louis Cassels are appropriate: “If you persist in handing out stones when people ask for bread, they’ll finally quit coming to the bakery.” [7]

I believe that religion does have the answers to the problems of violence and hatred but it cannot answer with more violence and more hatred. Real religion, the gutsy, hard-core religion that inspires real transformation responds to hatred with love and to violence with peace. This is the kind of religion that dares to take seriously the teaching of Jesus: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven.” [8] It is of paramount importance for Christians not to tame or domesticate Jesus to fit our nationalism or culture. Jesus’ offensiveness is what makes him so powerful. In response to the violence of 9/11 religion can answer with peace.

As a Mormon I believe that Heaven is open and that God continues to speak to people today. I have found inspiration and enlightenment of the prophetic words of many Latter-day Saints as they reply to the threat of violence and hate. In 1976, the bicentennial of the founding of America, LDS church president Spencer W. Kimball warned: “We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching: ‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to 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.’” [9]

After 9/11 LDS Apostle Russell M. Nelson said from the pulpit in General Conference shortly before the invasion of Iraq: “Now, as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, what does the Lord expect of us? As a Church, we must ‘renounce war and proclaim peace.’As individuals, we should ‘follow after the things which make for peace.’We should be personal peacemakers. We should live peacefully—as couples, families, and neighbors. We should live by the Golden Rule.” [10]

Religion is something we cannot afford to ignore. Our lives are saturated with it. To take a note from Latter-day Saint scripture, God is “above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him”. [11] We cannot escape religion or pretend that it doesn’t affect our lives or our world. The question is what kind of religion we will practice and what we will do with it. Ten years after 9/11 I hope we can look back on this and dig deep within ourselves and choose compassion.

References

1. http://articles.cnn.com/2006-11-08/world/atheism.feature_1_new-atheists-new-atheism-religion?_s=PM:WORLD

2. http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/nothing_sacred.html

3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/time-for-religion-to-be-a-force-for-good/2011/09/08/gIQADmrHCK_blog.html

3. Karen Armstrong. The Great Transformation. p. xviii-xix

4. ibid. xix

5. Remarks to Pat Robertson after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on The 700 Club (13 September 2001) (audio recording); more at "Falwell and Above" at Snopes.com

6. Christianity Today, Oct. 23, 1970. Quoted here: http://lds.org/ensign/1973/01/spiritual-famine?lang=eng and http://lds.org/ensign/2004/11/prophets-seers-and-revelators?lang=eng

7. Matthew 5:44-45

8. http://lds.org/ensign/1976/06/the-false-gods-we-worship?lang=eng&query=false+gods+we+worship

9. http://lds.org/ensign/2002/11/blessed-are-the-peacemakers?lang=eng

10. Doctrine and Covenants 88:41

The Mormon Way of Doing Business

2011-08-24T23:18:00.000-07:00

A recession has a way of bringing the fundamental problem of economics into sharp relief—the fundamental problem of scarcity. Scarcity is always a problem but it’s even more visible now when the things we need and want are even scarcer. How do we distribute limited resources? Is it based on need? Is it based on merit? The answers to these questions drive our basic economic and political philosophies. I am interested in the place religion plays in answering these questions. Religion is powerful, it gets to the heart of who we are, what we believe is most important. The problem of economics, the distribution of scarce resources, is one of the most important problems we face. It can be the difference between life and death for some the world’s poorest people. If these problems are so important, surely religion will have something to say about them. To quote historian Leonard Arrington, “religion, as with all social institutions, must be judged according to its usefulness in attacking the ageless problems of humanity.” [1]

Perhaps the best example of a religiously motivated economic system in America is the network of Mormon settlements in Utah during the nineteenth century. Mormons, under the leadership of Brigham Young, sought to establish the Kingdom of God on earth after the pattern of the early Christians as recorded in the Book of Acts: “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul; neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common” (Acts 4:32). The Latter-day Saints called this the Law of Consecration, among other names. Mormons have a tendency to look back on the experiments in these communities ultimately as failures. But this would short-change the broad diversity of economic experiments developed during this time. Some communities and institutions were quite successful for some time. Furthermore, it is important to realize that one major reason for the ultimate failure of many of these endeavors was persecution by the federal government.

Perhaps the best historical research on this time period was done by Leonard Arrington in his book Great Basin Kingdom. Arrington observed that the peculiar economic ideals of the Latter-day Saints were likely responsible for their survival in the arid environment of the Great Basin. When the Saints arrived in the Great Salt Lake Valley they found farming very difficult. Crops failed, crickets ate what little they had. The first years in the Valley were times of intense poverty. But Brigham Young and the church were able to organize the people to ration what little they had, to share with each other and ensure their survival. Even after these days of total depravity, this ethic of cooperation continued.

One of the most important programs of this time was the Perpetual Emigration Fund. This fund provided funds to bring people out of their impoverished conditions in Europe and live in the Great Basin with the Saints. When the emigrants arrived they were expected to use their labor to pay back to the fund so that more emigrants could follow after them. During especially hard times, the church innovated and created handcart companies in order to transport people across the plains at a fraction of the cost of wagons.

In the 1870s church leaders began to experiment with new economic ideas to increase collective prosperity. One such movement was the cooperative movement and included the formation of Zion’s Cooperative Mercantile Institution or Z.C.M.I. Eventually this expanded into more extensive communal efforts like the Brigham City Cooperative and many United Orders. In the Brigham City cooperative Lorenzo Snow had established a community in which all residents had shares in a mercantile cooperative. Brigham City was largely self-sufficient and nearly completely insulated from the Panic of 1873. This community so inspired Brigham Young that he may have used it as a case example when he began to establish United Orders in St. George and other locations.

The United Orders most closely approached the ideals of the Law of Consecration and the early Christians in the Book of Acts. There were various models of United Orders. Leonard Arrington broke them down into four groups.

1. St. George-type Orders—people contributed all their property to the order and received differential wages and dividends depending on their labor and property contributed.

2. Brigham City Plan—did not involve consecration of all property or labor but an increase in community ownership and cooperative enterprises.

3. Modified Brigham City Plan—Adapted to wards and larger cities. In areas with many people who weren’t Mormons complete economic reorganization was not possible. But a single cooperative or corporation was still organized and financed by ward members

4. Communal Plans—Everyone lived together in communes and shared everything. The most famous example was in Orderville.

It is important to understand that the support for all of these economic developments came from the Saints commitment to their faith, to their God and to each other. This faith had powerful effects in developing the Great Basin, starting with a section of the West that no one wanted and creating a prosperous community.

This temporal Kingdom was not able persist however as the United States federal government passed legislation to dissolve the church and confiscate its assets. The Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 forcibly brought an end to the church’s direct influence in the local economy, or at least drastically reduced it. It was the opinion of Leonard Arrington that the anti-Mormon legislation had as much to do with opposition to the church’s cooperative economics as it did with polygamy. “The campaign against Mormonism was part and parcel of the rising national campaign for private property, the free market, competition, and unrestrained enterprise.” [2]

The Restoration of the church began in the Age of Jackson when the country was brimming with concern for the common man. The Mormons were not alone in their brand of economic experiments. However as they moved West, isolated from the rest of the country they continued in this spirit of concern for the community while the Eastern United States developed a new spirit of laissez-faire capitalism. “The Mormon response to the problems imposed by the settlement of the Great Basin—a response which becomes ever clearer in succeeding decades—suggests that Mormon economic policies bore a greater resemblance to those of the ante-bellum northeast than did the economic policies of the West during the years when the West was won. Isolated as they were from American thought-currents after 1847, and under the necessity of continued group action to solve the many problems which plagued them, the Mormons were not affected by the growing accommodation to the private corporation, rugged individualism, Social Darwinism, and other concepts which account for the rise of laissez-faire after 1850.” [3]

It is true that many of the United Order communities fell apart under their own weight due to internal divisions, back-biting, and selfishness. However, many of the church's cooperative organizations were doing quite well before “The Raid”. The United Order in Orderville had gone through some restructuring before the Edmunds Act but it was this legislation that drove many of the leaders of the community into hiding and made the order’s continued existence impossible.

In the end, the government was able to dissolve, along with polygamy, many of the Great Basin’s most admirable institutions and qualities. In fact that may have been part of the motivation behind of the legislation. Leonard Arrington remarked, “It may be conceded that the well-publicized conflicts and differences between Mormons and other Westerners and Americans were not so much a matter of plural marriage and other reprehensible peculiarities and superstitions as of the conflicting economic patterns of two generations of Americans, one of which was fashioned after the communitarian concepts of the age of Jackson, and the other of which was shaped by the dream of bonanza and the individualistic sentiments of the age of laissez-faire.” [4]

That’s a sad ending to an interesting example of religiously motivated economics that was ultimately thwarted. But while it lasted the cooperative culture of the Utah Mormons was an excellent example of the power of religion to motivate people to take care of each other. The Gospel has a unique answer to the problem of economics, the problem of scarcity. How do we allocate scarce resources? The Mormons found answers in their faith. They believed that Zion could only be established if they were of one heart and one mind and had no poor among them. If they were not one in earthly things they could not be one in heavenly things. Zion, the ideal society, could not exist until everyone had what they needed. It’s a different economic system then either free-market capitalism or communism. But I believe it is a system we ought to acknowledge and evaluate.

References

1. Arringon, Leonard. Great Basin Kingdom. p. viii

2. ibid., 174

3. ibid., 63

4. ibid., 63

Beyond Self-Reliance

2011-07-29T21:26:00.000-07:00

Welfare is kind of dirty word in some circles, especially during a government budget crunch, so I approach it with some trepidation. A discussion of the pros and cons of a welfare state or any form of government welfare in general would certainly be interesting but it is not what interests me at the moment. My interest is in the kind of welfare, or care for the poor, that comes from voluntary sources. These could be contributions made from one individual to another or perhaps through some organization. They could be secular or religious. The welfare program I am most familiar with is the welfare program of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Latter-day Saints can help to care for the poor through fast offerings or humanitarian funds. And of course, we can share of our substance directly to those in need, whether they are family, neighbors, or strangers.

I have been very pleased to see those donations put to use providing aid to people in disaster-stricken areas like in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and in Haiti after the massive earthquake. These are just a few examples of the many ways we as a church help to care for the poor and needy. One thing we especially emphasize in our welfare program is the goal of self-reliance. It’s the basic idea of teaching someone to fish rather than just giving away fish again and again. This is a very noble goal and I certainly would not argue against someone working toward self-reliance. But I do think the Gospel provides an even nobler goal that we could emphasize beyond just self-reliance. When we teach a man to fish he can certainly feed himself but he can also feed others. He can teach others to fish and they can feed others and then they can teach those to fish. And the process can continue exponentially. Self-reliance is great, but why stop there? We can reach further and aim to live to serve others. The next step beyond self-reliance is service and consecration.

Of course, we already teach this. As I understand, many Bishops ask people on church welfare to serve in the cannery or some other area of service. But I still think we can make this a little more explicit. I am afraid that some of the conversation about self-reliance may be more reactionary than constructive. The reaction is probably to an underlying fear that people will get lazy. If I can get money and goods just sitting at home then why should I go work? Where is the incentive? It’s this fear of freeloaders. I don’t deny that this is problematic. But I think it is more inspiring to teach someone to work so he can serve and be a blessing to others rather than just to avoid being a freeloader.

Another thing to consider is that no person is truly self-reliant, no matter how much he may believe it. Hugh Nibley taught this many times in his speeches. “Remember that everything you have is a free gift from God: You had nothing and he gave you everything.” [1] It is nearly an unquestioned edict that there is no such thing as a free lunch. It even has a fancy acronym: TANSTAAFL, “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” But Jesus said “Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them.” [2] Hugh Nibley also cautioned: “Never get the idea that you have earned what you have.” [3] Then quoting Deuteronomy, “And thou say in thine heart, my power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth. But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth…” [4] In the Book of Mormon, King Benjamin taught the people to remember that they were wholly dependent on the God who had created them: “And now, in the first place, he hath created you, and granted unto you your lives, for which ye are indebted to him. And secondly, he doth require that ye should do as he hath commanded you; for which if ye do, he doth immediately bless you; and therefore he hath paid you. And ye are still indebted unto him, and are, and will be, forever and ever; therefore, of what have ye to boast?” [5]

In addition to our dependence on God we all rely on each other in a vast social network to sustain ourselves. Even the smallest bands of hunter-gatherers, which have much less complex networks of interdependence, still work together in groups to survive. No person is an isolated, independent unit. Strict self-reliance without the help of other humans would be extremely difficult. Without the blessings of the earth provided by God it is absolutely impossible.

When we talk about self-reliance, I doubt we mean the extreme kind of independence or isolation I have illustrated above, at least if we think it through. So what are we talking about? Rather than removing oneself from this network of community we want all to participate in it fully and help to lift each other. This is the vision beyond simple self-reliance. We want to lift people to the point where they can join in the work and lift others.

Wealth itself is not the goal. If self-reliance is understood as just hoarding enough in the bank so that you don’t have to ask anyone for help anymore then we have completely missed the point. In fact, the hoarding of wealth is part of the problem. It is one of the disturbing facts of the world that some people have more than others. What’s more, some have great abundance while others starve. In a revelation to Joseph Smith, the Lord said: “But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.” [6] What are the wealthy supposed to do then? One wealthy man asked Jesus what he should do and Jesus said: “Go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor.” [7] That seems a little extreme doesn’t it? Yes, it does.

Jesus said: “But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you.” [8] Of this verse Hugh Nibley commented: “It has become customary to interpret this as meaning that one should first go on a mission or get a testimony some other way, and then turn to the business of getting ahead in the world. But the word for first, proton, means first in every sense—first and foremost, before all else, in preference to all else, and so on. It usually refers to time, but not in this passage. We are not told to seek first the kingdom and then seek “all these things”; nothing whatever is said about seeking them except the explicit command not to seek them. There is no idea of a time sequence here: Does one ever stop seeking the kingdom of God and his righteousness in this life, or was there ever a time before, during, or after a mission when one did not need food and clothing? We are not to seek them ever, for God supplies them ever.” [9]

I do know of one passage of scripture where seeking riches is condoned and does refer to the seeking of riches in more of a temporal sequence. But there is an interesting condition attached. In the Book of Mormon, Jacob chastised the people because they had been “lifted up in the pride of [their] hearts”. They had begun to wear costly apparel and to think they were better than their brethren. But Jacob taught them: “But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God. And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.” [10] In my own interpretation, the reason you must seek for the kingdom of God first is because the only legitimate reason to obtain riches is to build up the kingdom of God. This is the only reason some people have more than others—so they can give it away. It is natural that some people are more skilled than others and better able to use the resources of the earth or their hands and minds. But that doesn’t mean they have a right to keep a greater share. The only reasons to obtain riches are those listed in the Book of Mormon:

1. To clothe the naked

2. To feed the hungry

3. To liberate the captive

4. To administer relief to the sick and the afflicted

This is what the person receiving aid or welfare should strive to do. It’s not about just getting enough for yourself so that you don’t need help from anyone else anymore. The greater goal is to be able to help others. This is a communal work that requires help from everyone. We all need each other. We are all here to serve and to be served. The step beyond self-reliance is service; it is consecration. It is to “lift up the hands which hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees.” [11] It is to “impart of the substance that [we] have one to another.” [12] To be ZION is to be of one heart and one mind, to dwell in righteousness, and have no poor among us. [13]

Notes

[1] Hugh Nibley. Approaching Zion. p. 213. In his address Work We Must, But the Lunch is Free.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=119

[2] Matthew 6:26

[3] Nibley. p. 213

[4] Deuteronomy 8:17-18

[5] Mosiah 2:23-24

[6] Doctrine and Covenants 49:20

[7] Matthew 19:21

[8] Matthew 6:33

[9] Nibley, p. 233

[10] Jacob 2:18-19

[11] Doctrine and Covenants 81:5

[12] Mosiah 4:21

[13] Moses 7:18

The Expansive Mormon Views

2011-06-25T08:37:00.000-07:00

Thomas Paine, according to his own account, realized soon after writing Common Sense, “that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion.” [1] He had observed that the “adulterous connection of church and state” was effectively employed to limit religious discussion and exploration by means of the established creeds. He also believed that if this connection were dissolved “a revolution in the system of religion would follow.” [2] Paine was prophetic in maintaining that a religious revolution would come, though this revolution was not a widespread conversion to Deism, as he might of hoped. The America visited by Alexis de Tocqueville years later was teeming with religious fervor. The religion of America was not some stale, second-hand observance but a dynamic driving force impelling people’s lives. De Tocqueville reported: “The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live.” [3]

It was at this time that Joseph Smith burst onto the American religious scene seeking “to lay a foundation that [would] revolutionize the whole world.” [4] Joseph Smith, like Paine, resisted the constraints of creeds. He thought himself a prophet and spoke with confidence as one having authority that transcended creeds. Like Moses, he wished enter into the very presence of God to receive knowledge directly from its eternal source. “I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further;’ which I cannot subscribe to.” [5] Joseph Smith was willing to push the boundaries of religious innovation further than most would dare. “Thy mind O man if thou wilt lead a soul into salvation must search into and contemplate the darkest abyss and the broad expanse of eternity, thou must commune with God.” [6]

Joseph understood that during his short ministry he was sliding fast into heterodoxy, at least relative to the creeds of established Christianity. And he often felt frustrated that his followers were not able to keep pace. “But there has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle. Even the Saints are slow to understand. I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions.” [7] I can certainly sympathize with the Saints for being slow to accept Joseph’s more radical teachings. But I also admire Joseph’s tenacity in pushing religious ideas to a more expansive vista of possibilities.

One of Joseph’s followers, Parley Pratt, was nearly as intrepid. In his great work Key to the Science of Theology, Pratt celebrated “an age of progress, of change, of rapid advances, and of wonderful revolutions.” [8] He was especially enchanted by the discoveries of science and technology. Yet he, like Joseph, was frustrated with the comparatively slow pace of religious development. “While every science, every art is being developed; while the mind is awakened to new thought; while the windows of heaven are opened, as it were, and the profound depths of human intellect are stirred—moved from the foundation on all other subjects, religious knowledge seems at a standstill. The creeds of the Fathers seem to have been cast in the mold of other ages, to be adapted to a more narrow sphere of intellectual development, and to be composed of material too much resembling cast iron; or, at least, not sufficiently elastic to expand with the expansion of mind, to grow with the growth, and to advance with the progressive principles of the age.” [9]

This time was a veritable Pentecost for the early Saints. The heavens were opened and the Spirit surged forth among them as a rushing wind, “as pure intelligence” generating “sudden strokes of ideas.” [10] This spirit led to new and innovative views. There are certain ideas from this movement that I would call expansive. They were expansive because of the freedom with which they were explored and also because of their immense implications. I have thought of ten ideas or doctrines taught to one extent or another in the history of the Latter-day Saint movement that I think best exemplify this expansive spirit

1. Revelation

2. Free Agency

3. Rejection of Original Sin

4. Pre-mortal Existence

5. Materialism

6. Universal Salvation

7. Law of Consecration

8. Heavenly Mother

9. Eternal Marriage

10. Mortals Can Become Gods

While some of these ideas are not unique to Mormonism, taken together they constitute perhaps the most dramatic restructuring of Christian doctrine in all of history. The pioneers of Mormon thought did not settle for a tidy systematic theology beginning with creation and ending with the final judgment. Rather, they probed further past the veil into the eternal past and eternal future. What was going on before creation? What are even being saved for? Joseph had a vision of eternity that extended far beyond playing harps in the clouds. What could be more expansive than to progress from one state to the next for all eternity, creating and designing as God, attaining all power and all intelligence?

Religious ideas matter. They impact they way we see the world and each other. They affect the way we treat each other. What is the impact of seeing people not as fallen creatures, stained with sin from birth, but rather as divine beings, gods in embryo? What if we took the Law of Consecration seriously and strived to build Zion with no poor among us? We hear a lot of people telling each other they are going to Hell. What if instead we told each other we were all going to Heaven and started creating Heaven on earth now? There is power in these ideas and I believe they are worth exploring.

References

[1] Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (from The Thomas Paine Reader, Penguin Classics) p. 401

[2] Ibid

[3] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, (New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851) p. 335

[4] History of the Church 6:365

[5] Ibid, 6:57

[6] Ibid, 3:295

[7] Ibid, 6:184-185

[8] Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology (Deseret Book) p. vii

[9] Ibid, vii-viii

[10] Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 151.

Women in the Early Church

2011-05-08T22:59:00.000-07:00

Emmeline B. Wells

This is the written version of a talk a gave in church on Mother's Day.

I have been asked to speak about the positive influence of righteous women of the early, restored church. I was quite excited to speak about this topic because it so happens I have been interested in this subject for some time. Heather and I have taken an institute class covering the history of the church in Utah in the nineteenth century. It is fascinating history and perhaps not so well known among members of the church. This is especially true when it comes to the history of women. This isn’t true only with Mormon history but history in general. Whether it’s Roman history or American history the story of men tends to dominate but we forget about half the population. There’s a lot more going on if you take the time to look for it.

The nice thing about Mormons is that they have tended to write things down. And this has been very helpful for going back to learn about the early church and the settlement of Utah. And even just regular people would often keep journals. That’s where we get a lot of the really interesting stories.

Some of these stories are actually pretty funny. I just love learning about life on the frontier. This is a story from the diary of John D. Lee.

“One day when Lee was away from home, John Lawson, one of his neighbors, and George Dodds, Lawson's son-in-law, commenced to chop down the trees and willows that grew along a creek that ran through Lee's property. This was just behind the house occupied by Emma and Ann, Lee's two youngest wives. They both went out and asked Lawson to stop, stating that they needed the shade for their ducks and chickens. But Lawson paid no attention to their protests, so they sent for their husband. Lee and his son Willard came on the run, took Lawson's axe away, and ordered him off the place.

“Early the next morning Lawson returned with additional help and began once more cutting away the brush from the creek bed. This time Ann had no time to send for help. She filled a pan with boiling water and when Lawson disregarded her protests, she threw it at him. She was so far away that it fell harmlessly in front of him, and he said, "Pour it on," and continued his chopping. Desperately, Ann ran back to the house and returned with Emma and a pan of hot water each. Seeing that they were determined, Lawson held up his ax, and told them to stand back. Emma threw her water at him, and when his attention was diverted, Ann sprang at him and grabbed the arm that held the ax. They both fell, with Ann on top. ‘When I with several others reached the scene of action," wrote John D. Lee in his diary, I found them both on the ground & Ann with one hand in his hair & with the other pounding him in the face. In the mean time Emma returned with a New Supply of hot water & then pitched into him with Ann & they bothe handled him rather Ruff. His face was a gore of blood. My son Willard finally took them off him.” [1]

These women out of the frontier really had to be pretty self-reliant and they had certain tenaciousness so that when they wanted things done a certain way they got done. I use this humorous story as an example of a theme I have found reading about all these pioneer women. When I read about the women in the early church the thing that sticks out to me is a common drive to action. Mormon women saw opportunities, both big and small, to make a difference in the church and in their communities. I find this over and over. Issues like poverty, education, women’s suffrage, they were all over that stuff. And they came up with plans do something about them and they were unstoppable.

The sad thing is that I don’t think we really know much about the women in our church history. I think we know the names of Lucy Mack Smith and Emma Smith, maybe Eliza R. Snow. But probably fewer people would be familiar with Emmeline B. Wells, Susa Young Gates, Aurelia Spencer Rogers, Louisa Lula Greene, and Sarah M. Kimball. These are really names we should all know because they shaped the church from its early days. And I have to emphasize that this is not history that just women should know. For us men in the church it’s important to realize how the early women of the church have shaped our heritage.

I think to start off I’d like to talk a little about the Relief Society. This is an interesting story. And what’s interesting about it is that this was maybe the first big move in the restoration of the church that was led by women. They asked Joseph Smith to organize them officially but the idea started with the women of Nauvoo. The first person to really move in this direction was Sarah M. Kimball. I’m going to read her version of the story as she wrote it in an autobiographical essay in the Woman’s Exponent in 1883. First as background to this story, Sarah M. Kimball had been working with a seamstress named Margaret A. Cook and they wanted to make shirts for the men working on the temple. This is how it all started. Sister Cook said she would love to do it but she didn’t have the material to make the shirts so Sarah M. Kimball told she would provide that. From this they decided that it might be good to get a lot of the women in the city together to work together on this and they eventually decided to form a Ladies’ Society. Now I’ll read from her account.

“The neighboring sisters met in my parlor and decided to organize. I was delegated to call on Sister Eliza R. Snow and ask her to write for us a Constitution and By-laws, and submit them to President Joseph Smith prior to our next Thursday’s meeting. She cheerfully responded and when she read them to him he replied that the Constitution and By-laws were the best he had ever seen. ‘But,’ he said, ‘this is not what you want. Tell the sisters their offering is accepted of the Lord, and he has something better for them than a written Constitution. I invite them all to meet with me and a few of the brethren in the Masonic Hall over my store next Thursday afternoon, and I will organize the women under the priesthood after the pattern of the priesthood.’ He further said, ‘The church was never perfectly organized until the women were thus organized.’ He wished to have Sister Emma Smith elected to preside in fulfillment of the revelation which called her an Elect Lady.” [2]

The object of the Relief Society was nothing less than “the relief of the poor, the destitute, the widow and the orphan, and for the exercise of benevolent purposes.” That’s a big mission and a very noble one. These wonderful Nauvoo sisters saw a problem and they banded together to do something about it. Joseph Smith wrote afterward, “Our women have always been signalized for their acts of benevolence and kindness.” [3] What I have found in reading back into all of this is that these women, along with Joseph Smith is seems, truly viewed the organization of women in the Relief Society to be an essential part of the Restoration of the Lord’s church. I found an interesting line in the first issue of the Woman’s Exponent, published in Utah in 1872. Eliza R. Snow wrote a brief sketch of the organization of the Relief Society. She said: “According to authentic testimony, an organization, of which the present Female Relief Society is a fac-simile, has always existed when the Church of Jesus Church [Christ] has been fully organized. ‘Elect lady,’ as it occurs in the New Testament, has direct reference to the same—alluding to one who presided over this Institution. See 2d Epistle of John, 1^st verse.” [4]

So to further consider the impact of righteous women in the early restored church I invite you all to think about your church experience, especially as youth. In addition to the Sacrament meeting and Priesthood meeting we have Relief Society, Young Men, Young Women, and Primary. The remarkable thing is that these organizations that have probably been so crucial in our spiritual growth also have their roots in the initiative of faithful women.

The Young Women organization used to be the Young Ladies’ Retrenchment Association and was started by Brigham Young. This organization has an interesting history and a really fun church video made sometime back in the seventies I think. The basic idea was to encourage simplicity and frugal living. Eliza R. Snow played a huge role in running this organization as she traveled from ward to ward. While she did this she found many bishops distressed by the behavior of the young men. She started suggesting that a similar organization be set up for young men. During one of her visits she asked all the girls to bring their boyfriends to the meeting and warned all the young men that if they did not “have off their drinking and tobacco, where were the young girls to get husbands?” It seemed she struck a nerve with these young men and it was said that they were after their bishop before the next morning to get them organized like the young women. [5] And so it went on. The historian Maureen Ursenbach Beecher was of the opinion that the Young Men Mutual Improvement Organization was organized in part resulting from indirect but persistent pressure from Eliza R. Snow. So it seems that to a certain extent, even the Young Men organization that many of the brethren here grew up with arose out of the initiative of the faithful Latter-day Saint women.

The beginning of the Primary is interesting. It started off very simply as a local organization in Farmington, Utah. It was organized by Aurelia Spencer Rogers. Once again Eliza R. Snow was involved in this too and encouraged sister Rogers to do this. Eliza R. Snow wrote that Mrs. Rogers “expressed a desire that something more could be effected for the cultivation and improvement of the children morally and spiritually than was being done through the influence of day and Sunday Schools. After consulting together a few moments, I asked Mrs. R. if she was willing to take the responsibility and labor on herself of presiding over the children of that settlement, provided the Bishop of the Ward sanctioned the movement. She replied in the affirmative.” [6] Well, the Bishop was very enthusiastic about the idea and so the Primary began, just from the desire of one woman to do some good in her ward. I keep seeing this again and again that these women just saw a need and did their best to fill it.

This drive to do some good extended to very broad areas as well. The Mormon women in Utah recognized that the way their sisters around the world were treated was not right. The 1870s were tough times for members of the church. The rest of the nation was pressing down on the church and its members and women bore a huge share of this treatment. Women had had the right to vote in Utah since 1870 when the territorial legislator granted them suffrage by unanimous vote. However, in 1887 the United States Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which, among other things, specifically took the vote away from women. However, Utah was a hotbed of Latter-day Saint women no longer content to live below their privileges. In a religion that taught them that they would be queens and priestesses to the most high God, they could not allow the world to treat them as anything less. I think there is an important lesson in this example.

The best information I have found on the thoughts of feelings of Mormon women during this time period is a biweekly newspaper called the Woman’s Exponent, which I have quoted previously. In its later issues the newspaper carried the subtitle: “The Rights of the Women of Zion, and the Rights of the Women of all Nations.” This newspaper basically functioned as the newspaper for the Relief Society, though it was officially independent. The founder of the paper was Louisa Lula Greene, afterword, Emmeline B. Wells was editor for most of the paper’s history.

Even as a modern reader, the positions taken by the authors in the Woman’s Exponent seem to me remarkably bold. I would like to read from an article from the first installment titled “Women’s Rights and Wrongs.”

“The agitation of the woman’s rights question aims at obtaining a broader recognition for the rights of women, as a moiety of the social structure, now deprived of many privileges it is contended they should enjoy, and refused rights which it is claimed they should possess equally with men… There are many rights which woman should possess yet of which she is denied by custom and by statute law, but more especially by the former. She should have the right to live, and to live purely, and not be compelled by the force of custom and fortuitous circumstances to seek a living death that the physical body may be sustained. And to secure her this right, she should have access to every avenue of employment for which she has physical and mental capacity… Custom also says that if a woman does as much work as a man, and does it as well, she must not receive equal pay for it, and herein a wrong is inflicted upon her by the deprivation of a right to which she is justly entitled… In the application of manhood suffrage a wrong is inflicted upon the women of these United States, as States—one which the women of Utah do not have to bear… women are deprived of it, simply because nature qualified them to become mothers and not fathers of men.” [7]

The women of Utah stood shoulder to shoulder with the great names of the Women’s movement in the United States such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. Emmeline B. Wells, later President of the Relief Society, could be considered on of the great women’s rights advocates in United States history. Sisters Wells herself represented the state of Utah when she spoke at conventions of the National Woman Suffrage Association and the National and International Councils of Women. Emmeline B. Wells had the opportunity to speak on behalf of women around the world in front of Congress and the President of the United States. When Utah was granted statehood in 1896 women’s suffrage was restored along with full access to political office. Thus women in Utah enjoyed the right of the vote twenty years before the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment made that right universal throughout the country. Mormon women like Emmeline B. Wells and Susa Young Gates continued to advocate the rights of woman along with many other faithful sisters working behind the scenes.

I think in this way and many more ways the women in the early church fulfilled the commission the Relief Society for “the relief of the poor, the destitute, the widow and the orphan, and for the exercise of benevolent purposes.” These were go-getters who got things done and I think they are a great example to every one of us.

The historian Claudia L. Bushman has said that it’s important to remember that history is more than just studying the lives of the most prominent members of society or of the church. History is really lived by the regular people. Today I have talked a lot about some of the more prominent women of the church, mostly because I don’t think we know enough even about them. But there are also the stories of our ancestors and the women who lived more quiet lives that can give us just as much inspiration. I’d like to share two examples from an article by historian Leonard Arrington.

“The first is found in the diary of Christina Oleson Warnick. It is evident from this diary that Mrs. Warnick helped build her house, being primarily responsible for the fireplace and chimney. She dug irrigation ditches; she plowed, planted and fertilized the land while the men put in the dam; she cut the 'wild hay along the river bottoms and stacked it for the cows for winter; she grubbed the brush and sheared the sheep; she took in washings and spun and wove cloth; and she always walked from one village to the next with her knitting in her hands.

“A second example comes from the diary of Mary Julia Johnson Wilson. She tells the story of a young man who was leaving in one week on a mission, but had no suit to wear. When the neighbor women heard of this, they went to work with the result that ‘one Sunday the wool was on the sheep's back, but by the next Sunday it had been clipped, cleansed, corded, spun, woven, and made into a splendid suit and was on the back of the missionary as he delivered his farewell address in the little church house.’” [8]

I really like this last story. Here was a missionary standing before the congregation in his new suit. But the story behind it is these many women in his ward that made that suit for him and got him on his mission. On this Mother’s Day I invite you all to think about the women like this Mary Julia Johnson Wilson who have made it possible to do the things that you do every day. Every part of the restored church we enjoy today has been touched by faithful women.

References

1. Arrington, Leonard. “Blessed Damozels: Women in Mormon History.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. Vol 6, Num 2 (Summer 1971): 24

2. Sarah Granger Kimball. "Auto-Biography." Woman's Exponent. Vol. 12, Num 7 (September 1, 1883): 51 (Available here)

3. History of the Church, 4:567

4. Eliza R. Snow. “The Female Relief Society.” Woman’s Exponent. Vol 1, Num 1 (June 1 1872): 2 (Available here)

5. Beecher, Maureen Ursenbach. “Eliza R. Snow” from Mormon Sisters. Edited by Claudia L. Bushman. (1997) p. 29

6. Beecher, Maureen Ursenbach. “Eliza R. Snow” from Mormon Sisters. Edited by Claudia L. Bushman. (1997) p. 30

7. “Women’s Rights and Wrongs.” Woman’s Exponent. Vol 1, Num 1 (June 1 1872): 5

8. Arrington, 23

Forgiving bin Laden

2011-05-02T00:41:00.000-07:00

My title here is meant to be provocative. So if it worked a little too well, I’m sorry. I anticipate reactions along the lines of—“are you freakin’ kidding me?” Or perhaps some similar thoughts with more colorful language. The guy who paddles against the current of emotion runs the risk of being the sanctimonious, overly pious snob who annoys everyone and edifies no one. That’s not my intent. In fact, I join most of the world in being quite relieved that Osama bin Laden is dead. I think it was necessary and justified. Sometimes people just need to be killed for the safety of everyone else.

Bin Laden was a dangerous man, perhaps even more dangerous for his ideas than for his role in al-Qaeda. Bin Laden’s god was a god of Hate—and I am not speaking of Allah, the God of Islam. I do not believe that was the god he worshipped any more than I believe the god of the Westboro Baptist Church bears any resemblance to the true God. The true and living God literally is love, as defined in Christian scripture (1 John 4:8). And this God is worshipped not just by Christians but also by billions around the world.

Unfortunately, there are many people who worship the god of Hate. But most of these do not deserve to be killed just for that. Hate is not defeated through hate but through love. However, in a few cases, some take their hatred to violent extremes that become very dangerous. Osama bin Laden was one of these extreme cases. I believe his death was necessary.

But Osama bin Laden also represents a great human tragedy. The tragedy was not his death but his life. We usually mourn people after they die because they are no longer living. Now bin Laden is no longer living and the world celebrates. That is the mark of a truly tragic life. And when I think of it in that way it is really quite sad.

We are coming to a kind of closure on Osama bin Laden. His shadow has loomed over us for ten years. Now he is dead. So is that it? I believe there is still a very important thing we must do to really move on. And this is the hardest thing of all. I believe we need to find a way to love Osama bin Laden. As I type it I find myself cringing at the thought. His very name elicits in me emotions of disgust and bitterness. How can we love our greatest enemy? I don’t know yet. But Jesus said that we should do it and I believe it. I’ll have to figure it out I guess.

Perhaps I am too naïve to suggest forgiveness. After all, how much has Osama bin Laden affected me personally beyond the inconvenience of airport security? I don’t feel qualified to talk about forgiveness to the families of 9/11 victims or of dead soldiers. So I’ll rely on the example of Jesus for this. Jesus was able to say in the very moment they nailed his hands and feet to a cross “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).

Forgiveness is an interesting concept. As a nation of laws we can’t just “let things slide”. Sometimes we have to lock people away to protect everybody else. And then there is deterrence, making a punishment fit the crime to discourage criminals. I don’t think forgiveness means acting like something was “no big deal”. It does no good to say “Oh that’s OK” when it clearly is not. Forgiveness makes more sense to me as loving someone even when they have done something wrong. And if we love people we will probably be more just. Legal penalties will only be as harsh needed, not excessive simply to satisfy our sense of vengeance. And then capital punishment, like the kind bin Laden received, will only be used when absolutely necessary. Capital punishment will be viewed as one of the tragic necessities of this harsh world we live in, a sad failure of our ability to reach people through reason and persuasion.

My belief is that the greatest transcendence we can experience comes from unconditional love and compassion. And this is a belief in the true sense—I’m not sure yet that it is true. But it is my spiritual experiment. Can I find peace by loving my enemy? Will love overcome hate? I hope so.

Radical Nonviolence in the Book of Mormon

2011-02-13T23:18:00.000-08:00

The Book of Mormon can be read as a story of two brothers—Nephi and Laman. It begins with the family of Lehi, which is constantly divided between the influences of these two sons. The brothers ended their lives as enemies, separated from one another and the rest of the history of this family was a constant struggle between these two groups, the Nephites and the Lamanites. After hundreds of years this bad blood and intense hatred boils over into destruction of epic scale.

The Book of Mormon is written from the perspective of the Nephites and their perspective of the Lamanites is often less than flattering. Historian Richard Bushman has speculated what the history would have looked like if Lamanites had written it. [1] The two groups had many prejudices toward each other, which they had carried down from their parents.

The Lamanites taught their children that Nephi had cheated Laman of his inheritance and sought to rule over his people and had stolen all of their records. The Lamanites also taught their children “that they should hate them, and that they should murder them, and that they should rob and plunder them, and do all they could to destroy them; therefore they [had] an eternal hatred towards the children of Nephi.” [2]

For their part, the Nephites didn’t have a very high opinion of the Lamanites either. When the four sons of the King, Mosiah, intended to go to the land of the Lamanites they were mocked by their fellow Nephites. They said of the Lamanites that their “hearts delight[ed] in the shedding of blood.” Some even suggested violence as the only solution: “Let us take up arms against them; that we destroy them and their iniquity out of the land, lest they overrun us and destroy us.” [3]

But the four sons of Mosiah did go the land of the Lamanites and their first experiences among them did much to confirm the prejudices of the Nephites. They were treated very harshly. Ammon was bound and taken before the local leader. Luckily, he was able to win over the king, Lamoni. His brothers were not as lucky, and they were beaten and thrown into prison. But eventually, relations started to ease and many of the Lamanites began to change. They had been murderous and bloodthirsty, but when they learned of the Gospel they began to see the error of their violence.

Some of the Lamanites began to change in ways so radical that we might even think unwise. They still lived amid the danger of invasion and attack but their hearts were so transformed that they had no more desire to fight.

Their king said to his people: “Now, my beloved brethren, since God hath taken away our stains, and our swords have become bright, then let us stain our swords no more with the blood of our brethren… Oh, how merciful is our God! And now behold, since it has been as much as we could do to get our stains taken away from us, and our swords are made bright, let us hide them away that they may be kept bright, as a testimony to our God at the last day, or at the day that we shall be brought to stand before him to be judged, that we have not stained our swords in the blood of our brethren since he imparted his word unto us and has made us clean thereby. And now, my brethren, if our brethren seek to destroy us, behold, we will hide away our swords, yea, even we will bury them deep in the earth, that they may be kept bright, as a testimony that we have never used them, at the last day; and if our brethren destroy us, behold, we shall go to our God and shall be saved.” [4]

So they buried their weapons, promising never to raise them again. They were indeed attacked and began to suffer a mass slaughter. And they just gave up their lives, because “they buried the weapons of war, for peace.” [5] As the other Lamanites were killing them they saw that they didn’t fight back. “Now when the Lamanites saw this they did forbear from slaying them; and there were many whose hearts had swollen in them for those of their brethren who had fallen under the sword, for they repented of the things which they had done. And it came to pass that they threw down their weapons of war, and they would not take them again, for they were stung for the murders which they had committed; and they came down even as their brethren, relying upon the mercies of those whose arms were lifted to slay them. And it came to pass that the people of God were joined that day by more than the number who had been slain.” [6] This radical nonviolence by the Lamanites was more disarming than retaliation. But many died in the process. It was a heavy cost but the result was a dramatic transformation of an entire people.

In modern times nonviolence has been extremely effective in bringing about dramatic change. Mohandas Gandhi used nonviolence to end the occupation of India from British rule. Martin Luther King, influenced by Gandhi, used nonviolent protest in his struggle for civil rights for African Americans. But these men have been criticized by some who believed that nonviolence was weak and ineffective. George Jackson, a member of the Black Panthers, said, “the concept of nonviolence is a false ideal. It presupposes the existence of compassion and a sense of justice on the part of one's adversary. When this adversary has everything to lose and nothing to gain by exercising justice and compassion, his reaction can only be negative.” [7]

But the enduring impact of Martin Luther King and Gandhi seems to vindicate and validate their nonviolent practices. For one thing, the former oppressors have for the most part admitted their wrongdoing much as the murderous Lamanites recognized their own sin. Had Martin Luther King encouraged violence, civil rights for Africans Americans might not have the widespread acceptance it has today.

The practice of nonviolence is not only effective to win people’s rights and freedoms. It also brings people together. The dream of Martin Luther King was not only that black Americans would enjoy the freedoms of white Americans. Rather it was that “all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing…” And who could argue with that? Why would we not all want that? At its heart, nonviolence appeals to the desire of every man and every woman for peace and love, that’s why it touches us all. To quote the Book of Mormon one more time: "the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else." [8]

Notes

[1] Bushman’s essay is titled The Lamanite View of Book of Mormon History. It can be read in his book Believing History: Latter-Day Saint Essays.

[2] Mosiah 10:17

[3] Alma 26:24-25

[4] Alma 24:12,15-16

[5] Alma 24:19

[6] Alma 24:24-26

[7] Jackson, George. Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson. Lawrence Hill Books, 1994

[8] Alma 31:5

Evolution Weekend: A Mormon Perspective

2011-02-12T13:07:00.000-08:00

Evolution is one of those charged words that get people’s attention. It almost immediately causes you to lock and load to get ready for a battle. Discussions of evolution often devolve into battles, which I think is very unfortunate. To science, evolution is one of the most beautiful and important discoveries in history. It forms the foundation of modern biology. The evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky put it well: “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.” [1] But sadly, evolution is something we are taught to be afraid of. It has been blamed for a slew of things from the general moral decay of society all the way to the Holocaust. [2] But none of that is true. Evolution is not something scary or evil. For the past few years, some churches have participated in Evolution Weekend or Evolution Sunday, held on the weekend nearest the birthday of Charles Darwin, February 12. The goal is “to demonstrate that religion and modern science are compatible.” [3] This is my own contribution to Evolution Weekend from a Mormon perspective. My belief is that evolution is not only harmless to religion but can even enhance and deepen it.

It would be dishonest of me to pretend that all Mormon leaders have been gung-ho evolution enthusiasts. That is certainly not the case. The most famous condemnation of evolution was by Bruce R. McConkie (a brilliant man by the way, whom I admire very much). In a talk at BYU he listed evolution among the “seven deadly heresies”. [4] That’s a pretty strong statement. But it is important to remember: “on the subject of organic evolution the Church has officially taken no position.” [5]

Other, less known, statements by church leaders have been more positive of evolution. Hugh B. Brown, also speaking at BYU more than 20 years earlier said the following: “But while very little was written originally on the details of the creation of the world and man’s advent upon it, it should be observed that God is the author of two accounts of the creation, one is written in the Bible and amplified by modern revelation and the other was written in the strata of the earth… Some scriptures in which we believe were written by the finger of God and given to Moses on tablets of stone, and other scriptures were dictated by the Lord to his prophet scribes, both in ancient and in modern times, and here we find the world’s greatest literature. Also there is no more fascinating story—nor one more accurate, when properly interpreted and understood—than that written, also figuratively by the finger of God, on the stony pages of the earth’s crust.” [6]

Students at BYU may be surprised when they attend biology class and learn about evolution. It would be hard to teach biology in any serious way without it, so this should not be a shock. In fact, BYU has employed many very respected scientists like Bill Bradshaw and Daniel J. Fairbanks who are both quite gifted teachers of evolution. There are plenty examples of other great Mormon scientists who were very devout in their faith and very comfortable with evolution.

One example is renowned chemist Henry Eyring, father of President Henry B. Eyring of the First Presidency. He wrote about evolution in his book, Reflections of a Scientist: “Some people object to the slightest hint of being related to the rest of the animal kingdom, particularly the hairy apes. The idea is right next to the three "s's"—spiders, snakes, and sharks—on their list of things beyond the pale. I've never had that particular aversion. In fact, I've kind of enjoyed what little I've seen of them… Animals seem pretty wonderful to me. I'd be content to discover that I share a common heritage with them, so long as God is at the controls.” [7]

I already mentioned Daniel J. Fairbanks, former dean of Undergraduate Education at BYU. He wrote one of the best books out there on evolution titled Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA. Fairbanks said in his book: “Those who sincerely seek both scientific and spiritual understanding would do well to abandon the dichotomy [that one must choose between science and religion]. Denying the evidence of evolution, including human evolution, is honest only in ignorance. The incredible diversity of life on Earth, the many fossils unearthed, the varied yet similar anatomical features among species, the obvious hierarchical arrangement of life, and the literally millions of ancestral relics in our DNA—all undeniably attest to our common evolutionary origin with the rest of life. If someone can believe that all living organisms share the same creator, why not consider that all living organisms share a common genetic heritage? Indeed, we can find wonder, even comfort, in embracing our biological relationship with all living things. As Darwin understood, ‘[T]here is grandeur in this view of life.’” [8]

Then of course, I can’t leave out LDS mathematician and computer scientist David H. Bailey. Bailey is a prolific writer and among his articles are many discussions of science and religion, particularly in an LDS context. He is the editor of the website Science Meets Religion, which I highly recommend. It is jam-packed with resources on this subject. [9]

Spending time defending evolution is not the way I enjoy talking about the subject. It’s just the beginning. What is really interesting is getting into what it actually means. Most of my interest is scientific. But an appreciation of evolution can also enhance your view of all life on earth. If there is a religious message in all this I would say this—we are all connected. In scripture one of the most important symbols is the Tree of Life. Science has a Tree of Life too, first drawn by Charles Darwin in the Origin of Species. It shows that all living things are related to each other and part of a huge family. This gives me a deep reverence for life and every living thing on earth. It makes me appreciate animals and plants and bacteria and the complex ways we interact with each other. It also makes me want to be a better steward of this Garden of Eden, the Earth.

Notes

[1] T. Dobzhansky, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” American Biology Teacher 35 (1973): 125-29.

[2] Seriously. Ben Stein implicated Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection in the Nazi Holocaust. It was a big part of his movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_Sunday (retrieved Feb 12, 2011).

[4] http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6770&x=40&y=3 (retrieved Feb 12, 2011). The talk was given June 1, 1980.

[5] That’s according to David O. McKay. An image of the original document cited can be seen here: http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/lds/lds-articles/mckay-evolution.pdf (retrieved Feb 12, 2011).

[6] Brown, Hugh B. Continuing the Quest. Deseret Book Company. 1961 pp. 206-207. An mp3 is available here: http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=112 (Retrieved Feb 12, 2011). The talk was given March 25, 1958.

[7] Eyring, Harden Romney; Eyring, Henry (1983). Reflections of a scientist. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co.

[8] Fairbanks, Relics of Eden, 170.

[9] http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org

The Charter for Compassion

2011-01-28T16:23:00.000-08:00

It’s very simple and maybe even obvious but that’s kind of what I like about it. I think most people would agree with the general spirit of the charter even with all our diversity of opinion and belief. The Charter for Compassion was the idea of author Karen Armstrong. She won the TED prize in 2008 and got to make a wish from the organization (Technology Entertainment Design, TED). So she asked for help in promoting and propagating a Charter of Compassion.

The website for the charter is a place you can go to read it and endorse it if you like. Over 60,000 people have affirmed it so far. The website is http://www.charterforcompassion.org

Here is the text of the charter:

“The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves. Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the centre of our world and put another there, and to honour the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.

“It is also necessary in both public and private life to refrain consistently and empathically from inflicting pain. To act or speak violently out of spite, chauvinism, or self-interest, to impoverish, exploit or deny basic rights to anybody, and to incite hatred by denigrating others—even our enemies—is a denial of our common humanity. We acknowledge that we have failed to live compassionately and that some have even increased the sum of human misery in the name of religion.

“We therefore call upon all men and women ~ to restore compassion to the centre of morality and religion ~ to return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate ~ to ensure that youth are given accurate and respectful information about other traditions, religions and cultures ~ to encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity ~ to cultivate an informed empathy with the suffering of all human beings—even those regarded as enemies.

“We urgently need to make compassion a clear, luminous and dynamic force in our polarized world. Rooted in a principled determination to transcend selfishness, compassion can break down political, dogmatic, ideological and religious boundaries. Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential to human relationships and to a fulfilled humanity. It is the path to enlightenment, and indispensible to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community.”

I think that puts it very well. Compassion is essentially what it’s all about. Compassion is more than just feeling sorry for someone. “Com-passion” means to feel a union with another person. In my understanding of Christian theology this is the most important teaching we have. It’s akin to the Greek agape, or love, Paul spoke of to the Corinthians.

“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. And if I have prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my goods, and if I give my body to be burned, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love suffers long; is kind; love is not envious; love does not vaunt itself; is not puffed up; does not behave unseemly. It does not seek its own; is not provoked; does not keep record of wrong; it does not rejoice in evil, but rejoices in truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.” (1 Corinthians 13:1-8)

Two Ways of Seeing One Reality

2010-11-22T22:24:00.000-08:00

One of my favorite works of music is the Sonata quasi una Fantasia by Ludwig van Beethoven. The first movement is best known as the Moonlight Sonata. I’ll give a brief description of it.

The piece begins with three pitches produced simultaneously. Each pitch is produced by a hammer striking a string. When the hammer strikes the string it causes it to vibrate. In the case of the Moonlight Sonata, the first three pitches vibrate at frequencies of 69.2957 Hertz, 138.591 Hertz, and 207.652 Hertz. The frequencies at which these strings vibrate are determined by their length, thickness, and tension. These pitches are produced at about 50 decibels. The strings producing the two lower frequencies remain undamped for the first measure continuing to vibrate while the string at the highest frequency it damped by a damper as another string is struck, vibrating at 277.183 Hertz. This string is then damped and replaced by another string vibrating at 329.628 Hertz. The three pitches at 207.652 Hertz, 277.183 Hertz, and 329.628 Hertz are played in succession four times for equal values of time. Each “triplet” lasts 1.154 seconds. This is the first “measure” of the piece.

The beginning is hauntingly soft, so soft it is almost imperceptible. The repeating treble line lulls you into peaceful stillness as the bass notes descend slowly. The tone is distinctly minor and then shifts briefly into major chords as the intensity increases and falls back into the repeating minor chords. Finally the slow melody breaks the monotony of the repeating patterns. The melody is slow and soars over the substructure of the supporting broken triplet chords. The melody follows the same minor chord pattern but then begins to surge forward into major chords and receding back like a wave. Each time the melody pushes forward with greater intensity, climbing toward immanent resolution and falling back into the same repeating cadence.

Both descriptions I have presented of this piece of music represent reality. However, their approaches are markedly different. The first, objective description was actually easier to write, although more technically rigorous. Music has measureable, physical properties. Music is sound and sound has frequency and amplitude. Sound waves can be measured, quantified, and characterized. These sound waves can be plotted with respect to time and give a completely accurate demonstration of what the music is. But the second approach is the subjective relation of the experience of the music. The physical properties explained in the first description are the same whether or not any person is listening or not. But the emotional and sensational effects of music depend on the person hearing it. These effects, while real, are much more difficult to describe. But it is because of the emotional and sensational effects of music that we even bother to produce and listen to it.

These are two ways of seeing one reality. Reality is the same regardless of how we choose to look at it. One definition I like was put forward by Phillip K. Dick: “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” If I am listening to the Moonlight Sonata there are real sound waves traveling through the air and entering my ear. From there, the sounds are interpreted via various chemical processes in my brain. The emotions produced in my brain are just as real as the sound waves that led up to them. Emotions can be explained by chemistry but I don’t generally bother to think about them that way. I just feel them. All these things comprise the whole sum of reality, which is vastly more complex than we can ever take in at any one time. There are so many ways to look at a single reality but I group them into two categories.

The first way I think of looking at reality is the way of science, including logic, mathematics and so forth. Everything in the universe can be reduced to the particles that make up matter, their vectors of motion, the forces acting on them, and their configuration with each other. Science is able to explain a great deal, and even with its obvious limitations it is quite probable that those things that cannot now be explained are at least explainable.

The second way of looking at reality is to see things as whole things, in entirety. While a person is indeed a complex configuration of particles organized in a living body, a person can also be viewed as a person as such. A person can be loved in a way that particles in their body cannot. Or to use my example of music, the Moonlight Sonata is more than a series of combined sound waves. It is also a beautiful work of art.

The most interesting description of these two methods I know of was written by Martin Buber (1878-1965). He said, “The world is twofold for man in accordance with his twofold attitude.” He described these two attitudes in accordance with two basic words, or word-pairs.

1. I-It

2. I-You

The I-It attitude is the way we relate to an object. These objects can be people or things. The difference between the I-It and the I-You is not the specific parties involved but the attitude we take toward them. The I-It view is not bad or wrong. In fact, the I-It is the way we usually live. In order to survive we need to understand the general order of things and find our place in that order. We live in a universe of cause and effect, and the better we can understand this pattern the more successful we will be. This is the attitude of analysis and in its formal application, science. The objects we experience in the I-It relationship are seen as the sum of their components rather than as whole entities. This is the dissection of the sonata into its physical description and it is one way of looking at Beethoven’s music.

The I-You attitude is the way of encounter with our whole being. The “You” can be a person but can also be inanimate, even a sonata. If I relate to you as an “I” to a “You” I see you not as the sum total of the particles that make up your body but as “You”, your whole being. This encounter (Buber describes it as an encounter as opposed to experience) is acutely centered in “You”. For that moment the entire universe as far as I am concerned is centered in “You”. Rather than the dissection of the sonata into physical descriptions, The I-You encounter with the Moonlight Sonata is a relationship to the music as a whole. It is seeing the reality that transcends the sum of its parts. I believe it is the way Beethoven viewed his music, which is why he was such an exceptional artist.

How is it possible to be spiritual in the wake of the tremendous successes of science? Science can so accurately describe the universe. To live in the life of the spirit can almost seem superfluous. But the two world-views are not different explanations of the universe. Rather, they are two unique ways of seeing the same universe, two ways of seeing one reality. Both are correct and both are important. The Moonlight Sonata is a collection of sound waves. But it is also something more, and to know what that something is you have to encounter it for itself. The first view is necessary in order to live successfully in the world. But it is the the second view that really makes life worth living.

Knowing and Doing Good

2010-11-08T23:29:00.000-08:00

Humans are a curious group. We worry about some of the strangest things when compared to other creatures. Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, noted that a simple question like, “What should we have for dinner?” is quite a curious question when you think about it. A koala doesn’t have to preoccupy itself with what to eat—there is only one thing to eat anyway. A koala just occupies its time getting the food. But we humans have so many options. Beyond food we also think about how build a well-ordered society, how to build specialized devices, how to work out bargains and agreements between each other. It’s amazing that we can keep track of all these things. Maybe to the animals it all seems superfluous. More likely they never give our peculiarity any thought. I’m particularly interested in our sense of morals. Words like “should” and “ought” are especially curious. We don’t just do things simply by instinct. We think about what things we should do, that is, what things are morally right to do.

Now I wouldn’t say that animals don’t have any moral sense. Having spent a lot of time with dogs I can tell that they have some sense of guilt or shame when they do something there aren’t supposed to. Animals that run in herds, packs, or prides definitely have some kind of system going on there with certain boundaries. But that’s another topic, interesting as it may be. I’ll stick with humans. Where does the idea of right or wrong come from? Why do we even care?

The Ten Commandments in the Bible lay out some of the very basic laws of conduct. The scriptures don’t have an explanation of the laws or reasons why they are important. Perhaps many of them are quite obvious and don’t need any explanation: don’t murder, don’t steal, and don’t lie. But if one may be so bold as to ask this question—why did God decide that these things were bad. Or another question—is it bad because God says so, or does God say so because it’s bad? Could God reverse these laws if he wished to? Could he make murder, stealing and lying good? If not, why not? Might there be some source of morality that God uses to pronounce what is right or wrong? I don’t think that God can make murder, stealing or lying right. Rather, God declares what is right because it already is right.

So makes something right or wrong? How can we know it? This is the question of ethics. The question is not as simple as it may sound. In many situations the right choice may not be clear. Even if you want to do the right thing you may not know what it is. But what about the people who don’t want to do the right thing? What about people who deliberately want to be bad? There is even a more basic question. Why be good at all?

I’d like to break it down into two basic questions:

1) What is good?

2) Why do good?

I have two different ways of responding to these questions—reason and choice. The first, what is good, can be answered by the use of reason. The second, why do good, is a choice. The better reason is able to answer the first question the easier it is to make a choice for the second question.

Since the eighteenth century, the word “reason” seems to conjure ideas of rebellion against God or a kind of secular arrogance. I won’t say that fear is entire baseless, but that should be no cause to eschew reason. Reason is one of the greatest gifs God has given us. Reason is not a replacement for revelation. Revelation comes through reason and the mind. In fact, reason is the way to distinguish true revelation from false revelation. In 1831 when the Saints in Kirtland, Ohio were going all crazy with wild manifestations, the Lord said in a revelation: “Let us reason even as a man reasoneth one with another face to face. Now, when a man reasoneth he is understood of man, because he reasoneth as a man; even so will I, the Lord, reason with you that you may understand” (Doctrine and Covenants 50:11-12). By employing the faculties of reason to understand right from wrong we come to understand why God commands what is right or wrong. It is not arrogance to seek the mind of God. It is not to replace but to join God, to be united with him.

We give the concept of “good” an ultimacy that is quite unique and frankly unusual among other concepts. Words are symbols that we use to describe things in the real world or to describe abstract concepts. When I say “elephant” people know what I’m talking about. Of course, I could be referring to and African elephant or an Indian elephant, but we accept that both animals are labeled by this word. The word “beauty” is less definite. What may be beautiful to one person may be uninteresting to another. We don’t get very worked up over this discrepancy of opinion. We just accept that people have different tastes. We could define beauty as something that inspires admiration, desire, and etcetera. We can basically decide for ourselves what is beautiful. But we usually treat the word “good”, at least in the moral sense, much differently. Good is something “out there”. It’s not just “good for me” or “good in my opinion”. Goodness, though an abstract concept is understood to have reality in some way.

This way of thinking goes back to Plato (428-348 BC). The thing that is “out there” is called a form, nowadays called a Platonic form. In its heyday it would have been applied to things like elephants and beauty, though we don’t think this way much anymore. Most people today are nominalists—that is we don’t think of some perfect elephant form “out there” after which all elephants are imperfect shadows. But in a way, when it comes to the concept of good there are vestiges of realism—goodness is a real thing. In this sense I am not a realist (that sounds kind of weird to say). I don’t believe that goodness actually exists as something “out there”. Rather, “good” is a word, a concept we use to describe certain moral actions.

Now on the other extreme there is moral relativism. Though I am a nominalist as regards to the concept of good I am not a moral relativist either. I don’t think the question of whether it is right or wrong to stone your sister for dishonoring your family depends on what culture you come from. The word “good” or “right”, that general moral concept must be defined. But just because we define it doesn’t mean it is arbitrary. Even the word “beauty” is not arbitrary. You can’t call something “beautiful” if it causes you to feel complete revulsion and disgust—unless the word becomes completely meaningless. The concept of “beauty” is by its very nature subjective because it refers to an effect on the individual. But I believe that “good” can be defined in a way that is meaningful, while perhaps not completely specific.

I recently attended a debate at Arizona State University over the role of science in determining right from wrong. Sam Harris, author of The Moral Landscape, argued that science can and should be used to answer moral questions of right and wrong. Lawrence Krauss argued further that moral questions could not be answered without science. Harris uses the word science rather broadly to include scientific thinking, which I just call reason. Harris says that morality must relate to the well-being of conscious creatures. The concept of well-being is not especially well defined but Harris notes that the concept of health is not well defined either—and that doesn’t stop us from trying to be healthy. We seek after well-being in our morals much like we seek after health. A non-conscious being like a rock has no sense of well-being and so there really isn’t anything wrong you can do to a rock. But a person with sensations and emotions has a very keen sense of well-being as opposed to suffering.

I think we already understand “good” and “right” in this way. It’s a little nebulous but I think people would know what is being described. Causing people physical or emotional pain is not conducive to their well-being. Science can, to a certain extent, evaluate these effects on the body or the brain. Whether or not neuroscience can yet analyze these things in detail is not the issue. They are certainly discoverable even if the ability is not yet there. Yes, a person can say that decreasing a person’s well-being, causing pain, sorrow, suffering, etc is “good” but only at the expense of allowing the word any meaning at all.

Cases such as torture, rape, murder and other violent acts seem very obvious. But it should be noted that there are physical effects observable by scientific means to show that these acts harm the well-being of individuals. But there are less obvious moral questions where we really get down into the science to make moral arguments. For example, the debate over Global Warming really centers on the science. Why is this? The claim is that human activity is causing the global temperature in the troposphere to increase, especially in the Arctic and that this will cause environmental affects that will be harmful to humanity on a huge scale. If the science and the projected effects are correct there is a huge negative effect on the well-being of millions or billions of people. We all know this. So if it is true then we feel we must do something about it (if possible). But we are unsure about the science. Here is an example of a case where science is being used to sort out a moral question of right and wrong.

The benefit of reason is that it doesn’t matter what culture you come from or what moral standards your family had growing up. Through reason we can look at the world around us, make observations and think about them. I’ll go back to the example of honor killings. In some cultures, it is thought that killing a girl who has had sex with the wrong person is a morally good thing to do. This is a cultural or religious belief. But if we use our reason to look at this situation we can see the effects of this action on the well-being of everyone affected. First, and most importantly, is the effect on the girl who is killed. There is a huge decrease in well-being from life to death. Death is the lowest possible state of well-being, i.e. not being at all. Then of course, there is the suffering leading up to death, especially if it is from stoning. This kind of pain is not an illusion, it is a scientifically verifiable phenomena. What about the well-being of all around her? What about her mother, sisters, friends? There is likely emotional trauma here, a physical effect in the brain. There is no moral relativism that can weasel out of this. If we accept the definition of moral good in a way that correlates to the well-being of conscious creatures than we can make reasoned decisions about moral behavior irrespective of cultural biases.

Whether we use Harris’ definition or some other way to pin down the concept of “good”, reason can lead us to figure what is good. But then there is the question following that—why be good at all? This is the question behind the question, the real issue at the heart of ethics. And it seems that reason cannot penetrate beyond this point. But that shouldn’t discourage us from acting morally.

This is the Is-Ought problem expressed by eighteenth century philosopher David Hume (1711-1776). In his work, A Treatise of Human Nature he wrote: “In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.”

Here, Hume called into question the possibility of deriving any ought-statements from is-statements. This has become one of the basic questions of ethics. How can you make the jump from facts to values? How can you go from what is to what ought to be? To use an example, it is demonstrable that if you shoot a bullet into a person’s head they will die or at least be severely injured. Most people agree that death or severe injury is undesirable, so it follows that one should not shoot bullet into anyone’s head. But this already presupposes that death and injury are undesirable. This itself is another ought-statement. Why are death and injury themselves undesirable? Trying to answer this question seems fated to lead to an infinite regress of similar ought-statements. Thus it seems that a moral conclusion cannot be derived by deduction from facts.

At the debate I attended, Patricia Churchland conceded Hume’s assertion that an ought cannot be derived from an is by deduction. But then she asked, "But what about induction?" We generally operate on inductive reasoning in our daily activities. For example, why do we drink water? We probably drink water because we know from experience that if we don’t we will get thirsty and after prolonged deprivation become dehydrated. We don’t really need to justify this action by deduction because we have knowledge from experience.

We can use reason to understand that certain actions will lead to certain effects. We can also determine through observation and reason what actions do and do not relate to the well-being of conscious creatures. But how can we make the jump from seeing these things to deciding to do what is good? We do exactly that—decide. It is a choice. It is similar to health. Why eat healthy food? Eating healthy food leads to better health. Why should I want better health? I just do. I choose to be healthy. Moral good is also a choice. You can choose to be bad but must accept the consequences.

Reason reinforces the ability to make moral choices. Most people already want to do good, they just need to determine what is good in order to do it. Reason is a tool that they can use to figure these things out. Some people may not want to do good. They may in fact want to do evil. But if these people also employ the use of reason it is more likely that they will be convinced to do good because in the process of reasoning they will see the effects of doing good. But ultimately, it is a choice for every person.

Atonement Theory, Part 2: In Christ

2010-10-16T22:02:00.000-07:00

If there is one thing to understand about Jesus it is that he was a man, a real human being. Jesus did not float above the ground as he moved form place to place. He walked like anyone else and his feet got dirty. He did not have a halo hovering over his head but looked like everyone else around him. He got dirty, tired, hungry and thirsty. Sometimes in our efforts to emphasize Christ’s divinity we gloss over one of his most important attributes—his humanity. I believe that to understand the Atonement it is crucial to understand that Jesus was a real human person just like us.

The Book of Mormon says: “And he [Jesus] shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people. And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities. Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me.” (Alma 7:11-13) I believe this passage from the Book of Mormon is the most complete and descriptive explanation of the Atonement anywhere. Jesus, the man, learned in the experiences of mortality how to succor his people.

Earlier, I reviewed some of the historical theories of Atonement. They can all work very well as analogies. But with the exception of Ostler’s Compassion Theory they all seem to be using the Atonement as an answer in search of a problem. My main critique here is of the Penal Substitution Theory because I think it is the most common and because it is the understanding of Atonement I grew up with. The critical question is this: why can’t God just forgive sins? Why are death, blood and suffering required? Many of the theories construct elaborate conceptual scaffolding around the issue to make the suffering of Christ seem more necessary. But these explanations are generally extra-scriptural; making the issue more complicated then it needs to be.

Here I’d like to invoke the insights of William Ockham (1288-1348). The famous principle of Ockham’s razor states: “Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate” meaning “Plurality must never be posited without necessity”. The basic idea is that you generally should not add additional layers of complexity to explain something; rather a simple explanation is more likely correct. Ockham was one of the earliest nominalists, maintaining that universals like “Justice” do not exist as actual entities but rather are descriptions of common traits held by particulars like a just man or a just God.

Something held in common with the Satisfaction Theory, the Governmental Theory, and the Penal Substitution Theory is the use of some universal like Honor, Law, or Justice. Justice is almost personified as an entity more powerful than God himself. Since this ethereal entity of Justice is so unbending even to God, he must sacrifice his Son to meet its demands. This relates strongly to the Problem of Universals. When Justice is understood as an actual entity it’s as though the conservation of mass and energy apply: all this sin and guilt have to go somewhere, so Christ absorbs it for us.

The way I learned the Penal Substitution Theory was something like this. We are sinners and have offended God and deserve his punishment. God cannot deny justice or he would cease to be God (Alma 42:13). So God sent Jesus to suffer for our sins to fulfill the demands of justice. Therefore, Jesus suffers the penalty for our sins so we don’t have to. This allows God to satisfy both Justice and Mercy. Justice is satisfied because Christ has paid the penalty. Mercy is satisfied because we are not punished for our sins.

This theory seems to work pretty well with scripture. But it also begs certain questions. The first question, again, is why does God have to punish somebody at all? Why can’t he just forgive? This gets into the question of what justice actually is. Another question is this—how is it just to punish someone for a crime they didn’t commit? Isn’t that the very epitome of injustice? Then again there is the Problem of Universals. Is Justice actually something that exists in itself, independent of the particulars it describes? Does it actually have power over God? My own experience is that I can simply forgive someone who has offended me. I don’t have to require punishment. I would never even think of punishing a person for someone else’s crime. And I don’t believe that Justice, as a universal, as an entity, actually exists. Rather, justice is a word used to describe just things and just people.

Of course, all understanding of the Atonement is going to employ analogy and metaphor to some extent. This is why I don’t want to disparage the classical theories of Atonement, because they have good insights that we can learn from. The idea of Christ taking the punishment for us is very emotionally compelling. But I think there are other ways to understand the Atonement that work better with scripture and with our most basic moral sensibilities.

In the Book of Mormon, Amulek explicitly contradicts idea of Penal Substitution: “Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto, Nay. But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world” (Alma 34:11-12). I believe this verse, if taken at face value, rejects the Theory of Penal Substitution.

Now, one could object that Christ wasn’t really a man, so this condition doesn’t apply. The divine and human nature of Christ, the hypostatic union, has been a hot topic in Christian history. However, I believe there is a wealth of scripture to support the real, actual humanity of Christ.

Another objection could be that punishing one man for the sins of another is normally not allowed, but since the Atonement of Christ is infinite, it is an exception. In other words, an infinite atonement is super special and will directly contradict the other imperative in this verse—that no person can be punished for the sins of another. But first, this doesn’t sit well with me simply because of the direct contradiction. More importantly, there is no evidence in scripture that this is what “infinite” means. The word “infinite” is never used to mean something capable of making the impossible possible. Rather, in this verse, the word “infinite” is used in the same way it is always used. It means without limitation, duration, or bounds. The Atonement is infinite in its scope—it is “infinite for all mankind” (2 Nephi 25:16). The Atonement is infinite in love, mercy, and compassion. It reaches all who have ever lived and all who ever will live.

So what of the man who murdereth? If the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered and will not allow another to take his place, how can this man be spared? The answer is forgiveness and mercy. I come back to the critical question: why can’t God just forgive sins? Actually, I believe that is precisely what he does. And that is what the Atonement is. Atonement is reconciliation, an at-one-ment with God. Christ came to live on earth as a man to bring us back to God. The suffering of Christ is not a substitute for our punishment, because God can’t forgive us. Rather, Christ suffers precisely because he forgives us. Entering into a close intimate relationship with broken, sinful beings like us causes him tremendous pain. All the pain and suffering of the world affect Christ just like they do everyone else. And it is through this shared experience that Christ is able to succor his people and transform them.

But the Book of Mormon does say “the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God” (Alma 42:13). But what exactly is the work of justice? One interpretation is that every sin that has ever been committed must be punished, even if the offender repents. At the end of our lives, even if we have repented we will have collected so much sin and guilt that we will be damned unless Christ takes the punishment for us. But this begs the question—why does this guilt from our past sins follow us around even after repentance? Are sins like ghosts hovering over us even after we have forsaken them? I don’t think this is correct. Alma explained the concept of justice, that for every sin there was a punishment (Alma 42:18-20). But then he says: “But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God” (Alma 42:22, italics added).

It is important to understand what Alma is actually saying. There are three operatives: law, punishment, and repentance. The problem with the Penal Substitution Theory is that it leaves out repentance. God is just to punish sinners but it would not be just at all to punish people who have repented. In fact, for the penitent, justice demands that they not be punished. It is implied that if God were to punish people after they repented he would cease to be God. Alma says “mercy claimeth the penitent” and all men are brought back to the presence of God “to be judged according to their works, according to the law of justice” (Alma 42:23). God still acts justly towards the repentant, but now justice works in their favor. “For behold, justice exercises all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved” (Alma 42:24). God is both just and merciful. He is justified to punish the sinners, but if they repent and reform he is merciful to them, and justly so. Again, I understand the personal pronouns here to be figurative descriptions of God’s attributes rather than separate entities of Justice and Mercy. However, I do like the subtle use of the masculine for Justice and the feminine for Mercy. A nice little tidbit.

Blake Ostler, in The Problems of Theism and the Love of God, writes: “God could justly punish us now for our sins, but he is merciful in placing us on probation instead and giving us time to repent before judging us. Because we will be judged at the end of this probationary period, God is both just and merciful. The entire discourse of atonement focuses on the central truth that the purpose of life is to give us a space in which we can choose to freely enter into relationship with him or reject him. The atonement is construed as God’s every mode of being in relationship with us in every moment, with Gethsemane and Calvary as the preeminent instances of a supremely loving being sharing our mortality with us. Such a view avoids the problems of the penal substitutionary view of the atonement, which I believe is a morally reprehensible way of explaining God’s love and reconciliation through atonement” (p. ix-x)

So why does Christ have to suffer? The short answer is that he suffers because we suffer. The Atonement is not about substitution; it’s about union. Christ doesn’t step out in front of our burdens and deflect them, he shares them as an intimate companion. Jesus said, “take my yoke upon you” (Matthew 11:29). The yoke is a symbol of union, being joined in our labor and finding rest in his strength. Jesus called himself the bridegroom (Matthew 25:1-13). It is helpful to think of union with Christ like a marriage. Husband and wife share in each other’s burdens and sorrows as well as their happiness and joy. Christ, as God incarnate, weeps with us, sorrows with us, and if we allow it, rejoices with us.

To be in Christ is to be in it for the good times and the bad. Paul said, “we are children of God; And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17). To be in Christ means that we suffer with him and that he suffers with us, but we will be glorified to together. This union, Atonement in Christ, is symbolized in baptism as we symbolically die and are buried in his death but then rise in the likeness of his resurrection. “Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him” (Romans 6:8). This union is completely transforming: “Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Corinthians 5:17). By the Atonement, we are actually transformed into the likeness of Christ. We are conformed to his image (Romans 8:29) and receive his image in our countenances (Alma 5:14).

To see how the Atonement of Christ is significant it is important to understand the other part of Jesus’ nature—his Godhood. The Atonement doesn’t work unless Jesus is everything that we are and feels everything that we feel. But in Christ we also see God as a man, descending to earth to live among us and to see what it is like to be one of us. Jesus showed us what God is truly like (John 1:18). God is not off in an ivory tower looking down from on high. God is down here with us. He doesn’t just send us down to live in the gutter and then wish us good luck. He is here, in it with us for the long haul. And God is on our side. “What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?” (Romans 8:31).

It is important to state here that the Atonement is absolutely necessary for us. The Atonement is essentially the union and reconciliation between God and man. If the Atonement does not happen there is no union or reconciliation and we are cut off from God forever. Furthermore, it was necessary for Christ to be born, live, and die in the world. The Atonement is Christ reaching for us and sharing his life with us. Not only is it essential for us; it is also essential for him. “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted” (Hebrew 2:18).

My understanding of the Atonement is very similar to the Compassion Theory of Blake Ostler. This theory takes advantage of additional scripture of the Book of Mormon, which I really like (we should take advantage of it). I think it is also consistent with the Bible. I totally recommend checking it out. You can read more about it in his book, The Problems of Theism and the Love of God, or in a shorter paper I have linked at the bottom. Any theological doctrine is going to be an approximation and will need further development. But that shouldn’t prevent anyone from keeping away from the discussion. The most important thing about Atonement theory is its ability to help us appreciate the Atonement in a way that is meaningful to us. Ultimately, I don’t know exactly how it happens. It defies comprehension. But I am grateful that it does happen.

Reference

Atonement in Mormon Thought by Blake Ostler

http://blakeostler.com/docs/AtonementInMormonThought.pdf

Atonement Theory, Part 1: A History

2010-10-07T00:16:00.000-07:00

It might be surprising to find out that something as foundational as the doctrine of the Atonement has been interpreted very differently throughout history. Here I would like to review the history of Atonement theory in Christianity. It would be interesting to extend this back into the history of Judaism but that is another topic on it’s own. In Reform Theology and in most LDS discussion the dominant theory of Atonement is that of Penal Substitution. However, this theory was not developed until the Reformation. There had been several other theories before this one. I’ll go through some of these theories here as well as one more modern theory. Later on, I will discuss my own understanding of the Atonement.

The Ransom Theory

According to the Ransom Theory, Christ’s Atonement was a ransom payment made to the devil to deliver our souls from Hell. Satan was tricked into thinking that he could keep the soul of Christ captive after this transaction. But since Christ is divine Satan was unable to hold him captive. Scriptural basis for the theory comes from a few sources. In Mark, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). From Paul, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time” (1 Timothy 2:5-6). This theory was promoted by Origen (185-254) as well as Irenaeus (d. 202) and Tertullian (160-220).

The Satisfaction Theory

According to the Satisfaction Theory, Christ suffered to satisfy the demands of God’s honor and merit. This theory is best understood in terms of the feudal society in which it developed. This theory was put forward by Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109). Anselm compared God to a feudal lord who had been wronged by his surfs and needed to maintain his honor. No mere mortal, or surf, could satisfy the injury to the honor of a lord. Only a lord, or God, could satisfy God’s honor. This theory emphasizes God’s justice, which must always be satisfied. It’s emphasis on justice makes it very similar to the Penal Substitution Theory.

The Governmental Theory

This theory is very similar to the Satisfaction Theory and the Penal Substitution Theory. The Governmental Theory says that God is the great lawgiver and that he must uphold the law. Whenever a law is broken there must be a punishment to sustain order in the universe. Christ thus suffers the penalty for the broken law. This Theory was developed by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) who was, incidentally, a jurist.

The Moral Theory

In this theory, Christ’s sacrifice is not so much intended to affect God the Father at is intended to affect us. The Atonement of Christ demonstrates the supreme love of God for us and thus moves us to repentance and love for God. This theory was developed by Peter Abelard (1079-1142). A similar idea was promoted by Faustus (1539-1604) and Laelius Socinius (1525-1562). They saw the Atonement was the most beautiful demonstration of God’s love. It also an example of supreme love for God, inspiring us to love God to the same degree. “To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his footsteps” (1 Peter 2:21).

Penal Substitution Theory

This is the dominant view in the Reform Tradition and probably the most common explanation of Atonement given today. According to Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, penal substitution is “the view that Christ in his death bore the just penalty of God for our sins as a substitute for us” (p. 1251). “This view is sometimes called the theory of vicarious atonement. A ‘vicar’ is someone who stands in the place of another or who represents another. Christ’s death was therefore ‘vicarious’ because he stood in our place and represented us. As our representative, he took the penalty that we deserve” (ibid. 579). This theory was largely developed by John Calvin (1509-1564).

These are the major theories of Atonement throughout the history of Christianity. However, there is one more theory I would like to mention since it is my favorite and the closest to my own view. It is called the Compassion Theory, developed by Mormon theologian and philosopher Blake Ostler in the second volume of his series Exploring Mormon Thought: The Problems of Theism and the Love of God.

Ostler defended his theory in another paper titled Atonement in Mormon Thought (see link below). In this paper he listed five questions he felt that any theory of Atonement should address:

1. How are Christ’s life, death and resurrection either necessary or uniquely beneficial to expiate or eradicate the effects of sin in our lives so that we are reconciled to God here and now?

2. Why can’t we just be forgiven without someone suffering?

3. Why does Christ’s suffering and experience atone for our sins in a way that the Father and the Holy Ghost do not?

4. How could Christ “bear our sins” or “take our sins upon him” that we commit in the here and now in a way that caused him to suffer?

5. How do the ordinances of sacrament and baptism (among others) signify what occurs in atonement?

He also proposes that any theory of Atonement should meet Abelard’s Constraint, that is to say it be “neither unintelligible, arbitrary, illogical, nor immoral.”

Compassion Theory

The Compassion Theory takes advantage of the meaning of the word “com-passion” which etymologically means “feel in union with”. In The Problems of Theism and the Love of God, Ostler says: “The purpose of Atonement is to overcome our alienation by creating compassion, a life shared in union where we are moved by our love for each other. ‘The Passion’ also refers to Christ’s suffering—and thus com-passion is to share in Christ’s suffering and he in ours, that we might share also in the unsurpassable joy of each others’ lives… The purpose of the atonement in LDS scripture is to ‘bring about the bowels of mercy’ so that God is moved with compassion for us and we are moved with gratitude to trust him by opening our hearts to him. The result of the Atonement is that we are free to choose to turn back to God, and he is free to accept us into a relationship of shared life. Atonement removes, casts out, and releases the guilt that alienates us; and it also brings us together into shared life. When we let go of our past and release the painful energy of alienation, Christ experiences that release and receives into himself the pain that we have experienced to be transformed by the light of his love. If we refuse to let go of our past histories and the pain that arises from our sins, we will continue to experience pain. If we let go of that pain; however, then Christ experiences the very pain that we release, but we no longer have to. In his Passion we find compassion. He literally feels our and pains is thereby filled with compassion for us. In this sense, Christ suffers for our sins and bears our iniquities” (235-236).

So there is a brief review of the major theories of this most important doctrine. Later, I will talk about my own understanding of the Atonement in response to scripture and in response to personal experience.

Reference:

Blake Ostler’s Atonement in Mormon Thought

http://blakeostler.com/docs/AtonementInMormonThought.pdf

Thinking About Thinking: Our Hidden Philosophy

2010-10-04T23:14:00.000-07:00

Tertullian, early father of the Christian church asked, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” What he meant was to question how appropriate it was to associate Greek philosophy with the revelations of scripture. I think this was a very good question and many people have noticed that the portrayal of God by the philosophers often bears little resemblance to the God revealed in scripture. However, it may be a mistake, I think, to give up on philosophy all together just because it has led us into errors in the past.

Humans are thinkers. We think about everything. We think about life and death, right and wrong. We think about God and the ultimate questions. Like it or not, faith is something that we think about with our heads, which is not say that it is not something we care about in our souls. Our thoughts are sometimes a tangled web of disorganized ideas. It’s easy to get lost and confused. But thinking is essential. I go along with Hugh B. Brown on this: “…one cannot think right without running the risk of thinking wrong, but generally more thinking is the antidote for the evils that spring from wrong thinking. More thinking is required…” Something what might help in thinking right is thinking about thinking. There are certain categories of thought that more or less influence the way we will tend to see things. By understanding our own hidden philosophy we can be more conscious of our thoughts and maybe even expand the horizons of our minds to see things in ways we didn’t before.

As I was thinking about this for myself I came up with seven questions to determine my philosophical outlook. I still haven’t answered them for myself but I’m working on it. I don’t think it’s necessary to make clear-cut choices on all of them but it is important to understand the differences for reasons I’ll explain. So here are the questions. My explanations may not be all that great but I’m trying to keep it comprehensible.

1. Realism or Idealism?

Realism is the view that the objects of knowledge are real independent of their being known. This is a term of epistemology (theory of knowledge). For example, a rock doesn’t just exist simply because I am aware of it. It exists whether or not anyone ever sees it or not.

Idealism is the view that the object of knowledge is a product, in whole or in part, of its being known. This view emphasizes the primacy of the mind over all reality. If this seems strange just ask yourself, “How do I know that the rock is really there outside of my own perception of it?” It’s difficult to work beyond the framework of our own perception since it is really all we have to work with.

2. Realism or Nominalism?

Realism is the view that universals are real. This is the metaphysical use of the term and is different from the epistemological term used above (in fact it’s sort of contradictory, confusing). I’ll need to define universals and particulars. A universal is an attribute treated as a noun rather than an adjective. For example, “whiteness” is a universal, a noun from the adjective “white”. The adjective describes a particular, such as a white dress, where the dress is the particular. A particular is a thing or event having existence in space and time. “Just” is the adjective describing a “just act”, in which the act is the particular. “Justice” is the universal. So a realist treats a universal like “justice” as something that is actually real.

Nominalism is the view that only particulars are real and that universals are no more than names used to describe and classify these particulars. In this view, justice is not actually real but just describes something real like a just act or a just person.

3. Being or Becoming?

Being is the static state of things. This view was taught by Parmenides, who said that change is simply an illusion. When applied to God it is understood that God is eternal and timeless.

Becoming is the changing, evolving nature of reality. This view was taught by Heraclitus, who is known for saying that you can never step in the same river twice (and I always thought it was Pocahontas). The Process Theologians apply this view to God, as a being who is always progressing. In Mormonism, Brigham Young, among others, held a similar view.

4. Monism or Pluralism?

Monism can be split up into two views (ironically). There is quantitative monism and qualitative monism. Quantitative monism is the view that all reality is one. Qualitative reality is the view that there is only one kind of reality.

Pluralism is the view that reality is a composite of more than one entity. This can also be split up into quantitative pluralism and qualitative pluralism. An example of qualitative pluralism is the idea that there is both matter and spirit.

5. Rationalism or Empiricism?

Rationalism is the belief that factual knowledge is essentially a product of reason or logic and is not necessarily obtained through sensory impressions. This belief would give more weight to theory and logic than to scientific experiments.

Empiricism is the view that factual knowledge must be grounded in or verified by sensory experience. By this view, an idea is not valid until it has been tried by experiment or observed by the physical senses or devices, etc.

6. Determinism or Indeterminism?

Determinism is the view that all events are necessarily determined causally by prior events. Sometimes this is illustrated by a thought experiment called “Laplace’s Demon”. Laplace suggested that if we knew the precise position and momentum of every atom in the universe then by determinism one could reveal the entire course of events in the universe past, present, and future. The only problem is that Heisenberg later proved that we couldn’t know the precise position and momentum of even a single particle. But although quantum physics prevents us from actually using determinism it is still possible that events are causally determined.

Indeterminism is the view that at least some events are not necessarily determined causally by prior events. This leaves open the possibility for uncaused causes so that, in principle, the universe is not totally predictable. The conflict of determinism and indeterminism is usually argued in the context of free will. The question is this, if everything is causally determined, how do we really choose to do anything?

7. Absolutism or Relativism?

Absolutism is the moral view that certain actions are right or wrong regardless of the context or consequences. For example, stealing is wrong all the time. It doesn’t matter if the stolen goods are used to feed the poor. Moral views are also independent of social views and norms of the times.

Relativism is the view that moral values are conditioned by particular circumstances. In this case, robbing from the rich to feed the poor may be good, especially if the rich are oppressive. There is no universal moral standard and such norms are usually dependent on the culture and time period.

These questions may seem really abstract and inconsequential, but if you go deeper into them and think about their consequences you may find that they are quite significant. These kinds of questions have had an important role in theology and in our understanding of God. The deeper questions of faith involve the deeper thoughts of philosophy.

Reference:

Many of the definitions above were found in The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion by Sterling McMurrin. The glossary was prepared by Trudy McMurrin.

Faith And/Or Works

2010-09-29T23:59:00.000-07:00

When I was in college I liked to pass through the main mall going by the food court and library. Sometimes I would take the long route just to see what was going on. There were usually a handful of demonstrators and preachers and it was always an interesting diversion. I remember one time I heard a preacher yell out: “for all you people who think you’re gonna get to Heaven by being nice people and doing good I’ll tell you the only way to be saved is through Christ.” The college kids weren’t responding very well. It might have been because his friend had another poster detailing why every group and subgroup on campus was going to Hell. But regardless of what people may think, college kids are pretty morally conscious, sometimes hyper-morally conscious. College kids are always getting involved in efforts to help alleviate poverty and protect the environment out of altruistic, idealistic motives. And here was a guy telling them that all these good works were a waste of time and that they should instead be focusing on Jesus.

It’s great to testify of Jesus, but why downplay the importance of good works and good character? Are good works and faith in Christ mutually exclusive? The question is often framed “are we saved by works or by grace?” This has been a big theological debate for hundreds of years. Augustine was probably the most prominent theologian to discuss it in early Christianity. During the Reformation Martin Luther brought this question to the forefront and it was continued by John Calvin. But I think this whole discussion is presenting a false dichotomy and actually distorts the meaning of faith. We don’t have a choice of either faith or works. If you have faith in Christ you have faith and works.

This whole debate seems like a distraction to me. Why worry so much about this? Doing good is never bad. It sounds silly to even say such a thing but it sometimes seems necessary. Good works, genuinely good works are never bad and they are never condemned in scripture. Scriptures only condemn pride, doing good things for glory and honor. Jesus never said not to help the poor. He just said to go and do it in private rather than make a big scene for the appearance of piety (Matthew 6:1-4). Even Paul never condemned good works. Paul just stressed that despite our efforts to do good work, we fail; but we can still be accepted by God through his grace (Romans 7:19-25; Romans 8). Paul also warned about pride: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is a gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

There is a certain nuance in the scriptures, especially in Paul. We sometimes have a difficult time with nuance. But the tension is this—we are saved by grace and not by our works, but good works are still essential. We can’t just say “I’m saved” and then live a life of sin. “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer in therein?” (Romans 6:1-2) This is nuance taught in the seminaries and is well understood by the educated clergy. But unfortunately the message sometimes get’s lost on the rest of us. It’s easier to avoid the tension and break things down into black and white—faith or works, take your pick.

Theologian J.I. Packer said: “Faith cannot be defined in subjective terms, as a confident and optimistic mind-set, or in passive terms, as acquiescent orthodoxy or confidence in God without commitment to God. Faith is an object-oriented response, shaped by that which is trusted, namely God himself, God’s promises, and Jesus Christ, all as set forth in the Scriptures. And faith is a whole-souled response, involving mind, heart, will and affections.

Reformed theologians actually had a very developed understanding of faith. They broke down faith into three parts: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

Notitia is the knowledge of the content of the gospel.

Assensus is the agreement, recognition that the gospel is true. We usually focus primarily on this aspect of faith.

Fiducia is trust and reliance in God. It is trusting that although we sin and fail at times, we can trust in the grace of God and in the Atonement of Christ. This is the element of commitment and dedication.

The idea that we don’t need God or God’s grace is the heresy of legalism. The people the get all worked up and condemn the idea of salvation by works are very wary of the doctrine of legalism. The danger of legalism is that it can be very damaging to our individual esteem. If we think we have to be perfect we are apt to compare ourselves to others and feel we are not good enough. Or we might get an inflated ego and feel like we are better than everyone else. Both attitudes are alienating God.

The opposite end of legalism is antinomianism. Antinomianism (literally “against+law”) is the idea that after we declare our faith in Christ we no longer need to abide by any rules. The dangers of this doctrine should be obvious. My big question to antinomianism is—what’s the point? So God saves a bunch of vile, wretched people who stay that way forever. That doesn’t even seem like salvation at all. There is no progress. It is eternal degeneracy. I find it hard to admire a religion that doesn’t uplift and ennoble people’s lives or somehow make the world a better place.

Going back to J.I. Packer he says: “But if ‘good works’ (activities of serving God and others) do not follow from our profession of faith, we are as yet believing only from the head, not from the heart, in other words, justifying faith (fiducia) is not yet ours. The truth is that, though we are justified by faith alone, the faith that justifies is never alone.” A good way to get a deeper understanding of faith is to observe the different comments by Paul and James. James famously said, “faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone” (James 2:17). So does James contradict Paul? Well, it’s possible that the two themselves got into arguments over this; we don’t know for sure. But even if they did, they didn’t have to. J.I. Packer said: “When James says that faith without works is dead (i.e., a corpse), he is using the word faith in the limited sense of notitia plus assensus, which is how those he addresses were using it. When he says that one is justified by what one does, not by faith alone, he means by ‘justified’ ‘proved genuine; vindicated from the suspicion of being a hypocrite and a fraud.’ James is making the point that barren orthodoxy saves no one (James 2:14-26). Paul would have agreed, and James’s whole letter shows him agreeing with Paul that faith must change one’s life. Paul denounces the idea of salvation by dead works; James rejects salvation by dead faith.”

This leads into another key concept in Christian theology—sanctification. Sanctification is “an ongoing transformation within a maintained consecration, and it engenders real righteousness within the frame of relational holiness” (Packer). The “born-again” experience is regeneration. But regeneration is just the beginning. Sanctification is the continuing process that follows. As Packer says: “Regeneration is birth; sanctification is growth.” If you stop your spiritual progress right after you’re born again you remain a spiritual infant.

So maybe someday I’ll run out to the University and start preaching “All you people out there trying to live good lives and do good works, keep it up. And don’t be discouraged when you make mistakes, God loves you anyway and wants to help you. Trust God and follow Christ and you can have a great life.” Or something like that. We don’t need to have these extreme distinctions, choosing either a life of faith or a life of good works. It’s not faith or works; it’s faith and works.

Referenced

Packer, J.I. Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs.

Children of Abraham

2010-09-21T22:48:00.000-07:00

Although it was a week ago I wanted to talk about my experience at the interfaith event in Tempe on September 11^th. The Islamic Community Center of Tempe hosted the event. The night was centered on the sacred stories of our traditions and was inspired primarily as a response to a plan by a church in Florida to burn copies of the Qur’an in mass on that same day. The pastor conducting put it well—that rather than burn books of scripture we should let the words of scripture burn in our hearts.

There was a moment of silence in which everyone stood as the Torah, Bible, and Qur’an were carried around the courtyard for everyone to see. They were then placed on the front table for everyone to look at for the rest of the evening. It turns out that this Torah scroll had a very interesting story. It came from Czechoslovakia and was confiscated by the Nazis during the Third Reich. The Nazis preserved it as a relic to be held up for contempt. After the war it was salvaged and eventually made its way to Arizona where it is kept today.

Reverend Reller of the United Church of Christ showed us his family Bible that had been passed down for over 200 years. He said that it looked like it had never been read but had a lot of interesting documents inside the front cover from his family history. For example, an 18^th century newspaper clipping revealed that they descended form Jewish immigrants. This Bible was given to him by his grandmother. He told story of his childhood when he asked his grandmother why she loved her grandchildren. She said that God loved them so she should love them too. Then he recounted the story of Hagar and Ishmael, ancestors of the Muslims. When Hagar and Ishmael were about to die in the desert God sent and angel to save them. Then years later when Joseph’s brothers were about to kill him they decided to sell him instead to the Ishmaelites who were passing by. So if there are too many Jews and too many Muslims we can thank the Muslims for saving the Jews and we can thank God for saving the Muslims. And since God loves them, we’re just going to have to love them too.

The Imam shared a story of a young Russian boy who participated in a competition in Dubai for reciting the Qur’an and won. The young boy told about his father and grandfather who lived under the communist Soviet Union that prohibited owning a copy of the Qur’an. The grandfather had taken this boys father to a cave in his youth where they had hidden copies of the Qur’an and taught him to memorize it. Going to and from the cave the grandfather would blindfold him so he would not know where these illegal books were hidden. This boy passed on the Qur’an orally to his son. It was found that in Russia copies of the Qur’an were often hidden in dry wall and buried in empty caskets. Decades of communist oppression were not able to wipe out the words of the Qur’an in Russia. They killed 30 million people but couldn’t destroy the Qur’an. Then the Imam said what we need to burn are candles of love and peace.

It was a really great night and it just felt great being with so many people of good will. It is easy to be depressed with all the negativity in the news about religion but being with this people just wiped all of that away. This is what America is really about.

United We Stand

2010-09-11T09:32:00.000-07:00

This is day we are called upon to remember. Remembering is important. Hugh B. Brown once said the past is the sum total of factors operating in the present. Remembering helps us to understand and live in the present time more fully. One way of accessing God is by remembering how merciful he has been (Moroni 10:3). Jesus gave us the sacrament and said “This do in remembrance of me.” (Luke 22:19) Alma asked of the people of Zarahemla: “ Have you sufficiently retained in remembrance the captivity of your fathers? Yea, and have you sufficiently retained in remembrance his mercy and long-suffering towards them? And moreover, have ye sufficiently retained in remembrance that he has delivered their souls from hell? Behold, he changed their hearts; yea, he awakened them out of a deep sleep, and they awoke unto God.” (Alma 5:6-7)

September 11, 2001 was a day that lives perpetually in our present because of its far-reaching effects. The world was changed forever. I sense that people are worried that after nine years we have forgotten it all. There was even a song written about it back in 2003 by Darryl Worley called Have You Forgotten? For various reasons people want us to remember what happened that day. I remember it all very well and I remember how I felt. It was surreal. I had visited the World Trade Center twice before and been in the top of the south tower. As the day went on and during the rest of the week the thing I remember most was the incredible unity in our country and throughout the world. Thousands rushed to donate blood. Financial donations came pouring in. Politicians for once stopped bickering. Nations put aside their differences and expressed support and love for America in its time of sorrow.

I haven’t forgotten that. For the days following the colossal terrorist attack on our innocent American brothers and sisters we were united. One phrase I remember well was “united we stand”. I remember the first time after that day when a plane flew in the sky everyone looked up and cheered. We came to appreciate each other and to appreciate the country that brings us all together.

But I’m afraid that as a country we have forgotten this unity. We are more divided by religious and political differences than we have been for quite some time. We have lost the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. Arguments are no longer sufficient until you have resorted to insults. We can do much better. Americans deserve better.

As Americans, we are proud of our country and there is much to be proud of. We share a land of freedom and inalienable rights where we recognize that all people are created equal. We can unite around these ideals in brotherhood and love. We will have differences but we are still an American family. There is also a spiritual drive for unity. Christ prayed for his people to be one (John 17:21-22). The Lord said, “if ye are not one ye are not mine” (D&C 38:27). “And 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” (Moses 7:18).

In the Book of Mormon, one of the big problems in their societies was always division. Often you can follow the money to find the source of the problem. In Ammonihah it was the lawyers: “Now, it was for the sole purpose to get gain, because they received their wages according to their employ, therefore, they did stir up the people to riotings, and all manner of disturbances and wickedness, that they might have more employ” (Alma 11:20). How often does the media give air-time preference to the sensational over the sensible for the sake of ratings? Speaking of the last days Nephi said that Satan would “rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good” (2 Nephi 28:20). Then consider this ominous passage from the Book of Mormon: “And the people were divided one against another; and they did separate one from another into tribes, every man according to his family and his kindred and friends; and thus they did destroy the government of the land” (3 Nephi 7:2, italics added).

But I find hope in the people I meet and work with every day. There is something special about America. It’s not that we’re better than anyone else. It’s a culture of friendship and respect that makes this a really great place to live. I choose to remember September 11th as a day of unity. It is a day when we can say as one, “united we stand”. What a great ideal for this world family. We are all children of God. “All are alike unto God,” black and white, rich and poor, male and female, religious and non-religious (2 Nephi 26:33).

This year on September 11th, let’s put away the caricatures we have made of each other and see each another instead as brothers and sisters in the family of God. Let’s forget the politics for one day and appreciate our different perspectives. Let’s stop yelling and start listening. Let’s take the time to learn about one another’s religions and maybe even visit a church, mosque or synagogue of another faith. Because even though in America we are all so different from one another we can still be united.

Upcoming Event: Children of Abraham

2010-09-09T23:43:00.000-07:00

The Islamic Cultural Center of Tempe is hosting an event September 11, 2010. It is called Children of Abraham: A Celebration of Our Sacred Stories. Some fliers were passed around in my fiance's ward and that's how I first heard about it. So Heather and I will be going and I will write about it afterward.

The event participants include Reverend Doug Bland, Rabbi Andrew Straus, and Imam Ahmad Shqeirat. It is a gathering of the three Abrahamic faiths--Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It should be really interesting.

Zion: A Radical Vision

2010-09-05T00:31:00.000-07:00

Jesus taught of two ways. “Wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” (Matthew 7:13-14) Lest any disciple fancy the possibility of dual loyalties Jesus said this: “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” (Matthew 6:24)

“Mammon” in both Late Latin and Greek meant “wealth” or “riches”. Mammon was personified here as another master, another god beside the Lord God. Jesus followed up by illustrating the way God cares for his creations. “Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? …But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” (Matthew 6:25-26, 33-34)

Living this way takes tremendous trust. I don’t think many of us have that kind of faith and it seems quite opposite to the way we actually live. But this is the way of the Lord God. The other way is the way of Mammon. Mammon has been a very popular god and has had very charismatic and powerful prophets. The god of Mammon promises power and influence. Worshippers of Mammon see the world in way that makes these things seem most important. All other norms and standards are contingent and can be altered and amended if needed in the drive to pursue wealth. Murder, theft, plunder, laundering, extortion and other heinous acts become virtues in a world-view dominated by the love of money. But in the way of the true God the love of money is the root of all evil.

Consider this passage from Paul. “For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness” (1 Timothy 6:7-11).

The story of Cain is a parable to us about the root of evil in this world. We have accounts in Genesis and Moses. Cain loved Satan more than God and Satan commanded him to make an offering unto God. However, this offering was not accepted and Cain was very angry. Thereafter, Cain made an unholy covenant with Satan.

“And Satan swore unto Cain that he would do according to his commands. And all these things were done in secret. And Cain said: Truly I am Mahan, the master of his great secret, that I may murder and get gain. Wherefore Cain was called Master Mahan, and he gloried in his wickedness. And Cain went into the field, and Cain talked with Abel, his brother. And it came to pass that while they were in the field, Cain rose up against Abel, his brother and slew him. And Cain gloried in that which he had done, saying: I am free; surely the flocks of my brother falleth into my hands.” (Moses 5:30-33) Cain’s reason for covenanting with Satan was to “get gain” and he murdered his own brother so that he could take hold of his flocks. The next verse is instructive. “And the Lord said unto Cain: Where is Abel, thy brother? And he said: I know not. Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Moses 5:34; Genesis 4:9). Cain’s question is an important one. Though most of us have not murdered to get gain we have neglected to be our brother’s keeper. What is the responsibility we have to our brothers and sisters in this world-wide family?

We often think of the Law of Moses as cold and unfeeling. In truth, the Law of Moses was in many ways more compassionate than the norms of our modern society and culture. Under this law, all debts were released every seven years (Deuteronomy 15:1-2). There could be the temptation not to lend near the time of the seventh year because the debt would never be repaid. But the Lord admonished thus: “If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, not shut thine hand from thy poor brother: But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth. Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and thine eye be evil against thy poor brother, and thou givest nought…” (Deuteronomny 15:7-9)

Under the Law of Moses, strangers passing through someone’s fields could eat their grapes or pluck of their corn (Deuteronomy 23:24-25). But they could not carry it away in a vessel because they would already have sufficient for their needs. Jesus reminded the Pharisees of this law when they tried to corner him (Matthew 12:1). Under the Law of Moses everyone was his brother’s keeper. “Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother. And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it unto thine own house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and thou shalt restore it to him again.” (Deuteronomy 22:1) “Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates.” (Deuteronomy 24:14) Even punishments were restricted: “Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.” (Deuteronomy 25:3) There was reservation for human dignity even for criminals. Always, in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, the people were asked to remember the mercy of the Lord upon them in the days of their captivity and so show mercy to each other. “Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Deuteronomy 10:19)

But that was the old law right? Now we are supposed to live the higher law brought by Christ. And what is this new law? It in no way frees us from our obligations to each other. In the new covenant we are brought into even closer fellowship. We are asked to become Zion—the Lord’s people. “And 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.” (Moses 7:18) In the latter days, very early on, the Lord said to “seek to bring forth and establish the cause of Zion. Seek not for riches but for wisdom, and behold the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto you, and then shall you be made rich. Behold, he that hath eternal life is rich.” (Doctrine and Covenants 6:6-7) Zion was always the vision and the goal of the early Saints. It was for Zion that they worked, suffered, and even died.

Jesus came to fulfill the Law of Moses, to complete it (Matthew 5:17). It is understood in Latter-Day Saint doctrine that the Law of Moses, though good, was incomplete. The Lord had originally wanted to give the law in its fullness but was not able to do so because of the hardness of their hearts (Exodus 34:1-2, Joseph Smith Translation; also Jacob 4:14-18). But Christ brought the fullness though most still could not receive it. We see this in a famous story.

“And, behold, one came and said unto him [Jesus], Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” Jesus said to him, “if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” “He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Arguably, the last commandment in the list was the most important and Jesus was to expand on it because the man inquired further. “All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.” (Matthew 19:16-21) The man was saddened and could not follow this commandment. Jesus was saddened to and lamented that “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24)

Hugh Nibley noted: “The word perfect (teleios) does not mean perfect digestion, perfect eyesight, perfect memory, and so on; it is a special word meaning keeping the whole law. What remained for the young man, before he could be really serious (teleious), was keeping the law of consecration. If he did not keep that, he could not be perfect in keeping the others either, in other words, the whole law, for he could not become one of the Lord’s disciples. So there was nothing but for Jesus to dismiss him—and a very sad occasion it was when they parted… The Lord did not say, ‘Come back: perhaps we could make a deal.’ No, he had to let the young rich man go. One does not compromise on holy things.” [1]

This is a radical vision and very difficult to swallow in a culture that honors capitalist virtues of self-interest and competition. In our culture the ideal is that hard work is always rewarded with material success and the lack of it is a reward for slothfulness, or so we think it. But in the scriptures our independence and self-reliance is called into question. For are all dependent upon God for all things.

King Benjamin said: “And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance onto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish. Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent… For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have? …And has he suffered that ye have begged in vain? Nay; he has poured out his Spirit upon you and has caused that your hearts should be filled with joy… O then, how ye ought to impart of the substance that ye have one to another.” (Mosiah 4:16-21)

The great cause of downfall for the people of the Book of Mormon was their treatment of the poor. To use a modern term they neglected any responsibility toward social justice. Mormon also saw our day and said this of us: “And I know that ye do walk in the pride of your hearts; and there are none save a few only who do not lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts… For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted… Why do ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick and the afflicted to pass by you, and notice them not?” (Mormon 8:36-39)

The Lord has high expectations for his people. He expects us to live the Law of Consecration, to live celestial law and establish Zion. In a revelation for our day the Lord said: “But behold, they have not learned to be obedient to the things which I required at their hands, but are full of all manner of evil, and do not impart of their substance, as becometh saints, to the poor and afflicted among them. And are not united according to the union required by the law of the celestial kingdom; And Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself.” (Doctrine and Covenants 105:3-5)

These are piercing indictments of our time—and they are unfortunately perennial. But if we would be Zion the Lord expects greater things of us. I in no way endorse or support communism or aggressive seizure of wealth—this is not consecration. Consecration is the “association with the sacred”. It is voluntary and it is brought about by pure love. If Zion is to be established it will be on the principles of love and fellowship. There are ways in place to impart of our substance—through fast offerings, charities, or general alms. The true Saints of God are those who have a grand vision of what the world could be like. To say “Jesus is Lord” is to envision a world in which Christ is king and the present rulers of the world are not. It is a world of unity where the Lord’s people have “one heart” and “one mind”. It is a world in which we “lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees.” (Hebrews 12:12) It is a world of peace in which the swords are beaten into plowshares and the spears into pruning hooks. (Isaiah 2:4) When these things are realized and lived the Lord can again call his people ZION.

Reference

1. In Hugh Nibley's speech "Law of Consecration" found in his book Approaching Zion.

Feisal Abdul Rauf

2010-08-23T00:19:00.000-07:00

I have been reading an excellent book titled, The Faith Club. In this book, three women, a Muslim, a Christian, and a Jew engage in conversation about their religions. They explore the tensions and commonalities between their religions and each explore their own faith journeys. In this book, the Muslim, named Ranya Idliby, is frustrated because she wants to attend a mosque with an imam who shares her more liberal version of Islam. Ranya doesn’t wear a scarf and doesn’t want to be judged by other Muslims because of this. She doesn’t pray five times a day nor do the ritual washings. But she is still deeply committed to Allah and wants to participate in a community wear she can feel welcome.

Eventually, she does find an imam who shares her progressive views and it is none other than Feisal Abdul Rauf. If you have been watching the news lately, Feisal Abdul Rauf is the imam supporting the construction of the Islamic community center two blocks from Ground Zero in New York City. Many of the talking heads in the media have portrayed him as an extremist, insensitive, and even a supporter of terrorists. However, if you look up information about him dating prior to this big controversy you will find a completely different man.

In September of 2001, he came out strongly condemning the attacks as un-Islamic [1]. He wrote a book titled What's Right with Islam is What's Right with America. Karen Armstrong wrote the following in the introduction to his book: “Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf ... is a bridge figure because he has deep roots in both worlds. He was educated in Egypt, England, Malaysia and the United States, and his mosque in New York City is only a few blocks away from the World Trade Center. After September 11, people often asked me, ‘Where are the moderate Muslims? why are they not speaking out?’ In Imam Rauf, we have a Muslim who can speak to Western people in a way they can understand." [2] This was written back in 2005, long before this whole controversy.

In The Faith Club, when Ranya goes to meet Imam Rauf, she is worried that he might not be tolerant of her liberal views. But she begins to find some interesting things about him. His wife, Daisy Khan, is a career woman, an interior designer whose head is uncovered. Daisy Khan heads the ASMA, the American Society for Muslim Advancement. Abdul Rauf founded this group which is dedicated to creating an American Muslim identity from the multiplicity of ethnic identities and experiences of American Muslims.

When they met, Ranya mentioned to Abdul Rauf the difficulties of raising her children to develop confidence in their American Muslim identity. She told him that her daughter had once asked: “Does the Easter Bunny visit Muslim children?”

The imam looked at me. “Well, does he?” he asked.

Nervous, but never one to hold back, I said, “Yes, he does.”

Imam Feisal laughed and replied, “Aha, mothers can make anything happen.”

And that was the moment. I knew at that instant that my search had ended. I had finally found my imam!

My point is that this guy is pretty cool. I personally don’t have any problem with the Islamic community center being built where it is. I know a lot of people disagree. But please, don’t trash-talk this imam because he seems to be very enlightened and progressive. Sure, he did say that United States foreign policies have angered and embittered extremists to attack our country. But, that’s a far cry from blaming the 9/11 victims for their own deaths. He didn't justify these actions. He condemned them outright. There are plenty of other Americans who are critical of our foreign policies. He pretty much stated the obvious there. The man's stated life goal is to improve relations between the Muslim world and the West. I think that is a very noble goal. But we aren't giving the man a chance to speak and we're not listening. We are spending so much time taking "advantage of one because of his words" (2 Nephi 28:8) that we are missing a great opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue.

Former Muslim, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, has often called for moderate Muslims to step up, speak and be heard. Here is a guy who is actually doing it. In fact, this whole community center is meant to be a positive thing. It would be a tragedy to assassinate the character of a man who could a shining star for moderate, progressive Muslims throughout America and throughout the world.

References

1. http://www.islamfortoday.com/60minutes.htm

2. http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Right-Islam-Vision-Muslims/dp/0060750626/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1281221181&sr=8-1

Neither Do I Condemn Thee

2010-08-19T19:52:00.000-07:00

I would like to talk about condemnation. A nice, light subject, I know. It certainly gives the Gospel some teeth to think of all the horrible things that are going to happen to all the people who have been mean to us in our lives. It gives a kind of satisfaction when you're driving on a crowded freeway and somebody honks their horn for a really long time, cuts you off without using their blinker, or won’t let you into their lane. You can think, I bet that guy will feel really sorry when he is burning in Hell. Life isn’t fair. It’s like watching your favorite basketball team in the finals only to see repeated cheap shots by the other team and the referees never call them on it. But some day the cheaters are going to get theirs. Hell-fire and damnation are a kind of vindication.

We want so much for things to be fair. Good behavior should be rewarded with pleasure and bad behavior should be rewarded with pain. It is pleasing to think that eventually all of our patience and sustained righteousness will be rewarded. But what if bad behavior didn’t lead to endless pain and torment? It would almost take away the pleasure of our own reward. To me an apt comparison is working really hard to get a nice car, or something really slick. It takes a long time to save up to get it. Then I get the new car and I am really happy with it. But I found out that some slacker was able to get the same thing for half the price. I would get sick to my stomach. My car is still just as good but knowing someone else didn’t have to sacrifice as much for it ruins the reward for me.

There is a parable with a very similar story. The master of the house hires laborers in the morning and agreed to pay them a denarius for the day. He also went out the third hour, the sixth hour, and the ninth hour. Finally he hired laborers in the eleventh hour. When the day was done he paid them all the same. “But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more… Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. But he answered one of them and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?” (Matthew 20:1-16)

What an aggravating story! I would be really ticked off if this had happened to me. The guys who came in the eleventh hour had just been sitting around all day and got the same benefits. This is a really challenging parable. It is supposed to be. If it doesn’t challenge your sensibilities then read it again.

How can God be so gracious? It is irritating. Jonah felt this way. He went to the people of Ninevah and told them that if they didn’t repent then God would destroy them. And then something remarkable happened—they repented, so God spared them. But Jonah was furious (Jonah 3-4). In Mormonism it’s even worse, because people can repent even after death and be redeemed (Doctrine and Covenants 76:74). What kind of injustice is this? So all of these people who have done horrible things can be redeemed? Salvation can really be a very upsetting idea, not because I can be saved but because other people can be saved who I don’t want to be.

My point here is to illustrate the expansiveness of the Atonement. The love of God is greater than we understand, not because we are not capable of understanding, but because we are unwilling to understand it. This really requires a transformation of character and an extinction of pride. It is in our nature to not like certain people. And if the people we don’t like get rewarded, then Heaven is not the place for us. How could we stand it?

The truth is that God accepts everyone who accepts him. The only people who are not saved are those who refuse to be. “They are their own judges, whether to do good or do evil” (Alma 41:7). And God doesn’t refuse anyone, even the people we think he will refuse. Sometimes we think we know exactly who is going to be saved and who will not be. That is such a truncated understanding of the Atonement. “And he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile” (2 Nephi 27:33). He even remembers the heathens. So even the robbers, and drug dealers, and prostitutes are invited to come to God? What an outrageous idea. This is so much bigger and encompassing than we can imagine.

A final story. This may be one of the most important stories in scripture. The scribes and Pharisees brought a woman to Jesus who had been found in adultery. They asked him what he thought should be done to her. “Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?” Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with his finger as if he didn’t hear them. They continued pressuring him and he said “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” Then he continued to write on the ground. This is the first lesson: none of us are called upon to condemn anyone. We have no right to do so. It is not for us to say who is going to Hell and who deserves punishment. After Jesus said this, they all understood that they could not condemn her and left them both alone.

Jesus then said to her, “Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more” (John 8:1-11).

This is the second lesson. It’s a lesson for us as sinners, the accused. We are all in this situation at some point. Think of what this would be like. At one moment you are at the point of execution. And not just any execution, but an excruciating execution by stoning. Imagine what that would be like. It would be slow and the only thing around you in every direction would be disdain and hate. Then, suddenly everyone is gone and you realize that it is not the end. The only one left before you is God, the ultimate authority and judge, the only one whose judgment really matters. What will God say? Will he spare you and be merciful? Then he says. “Where are all those who accused you and hated you? Have they all gone away? Does no man condemn thee? Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

A Mosque in New York City

2010-08-17T08:26:00.000-07:00

As I mentioned (warned) in a previous post I am going to talk about something political. News stations on television, cable and radio have been buzzing about the planned construction of an Islamic community center in New York City, two blocks from Ground Zero, where the World Trade Center once stood. This is a subject of religion that has now become a very political issue and shows just how heated issues of religion can be.

The building itself is called Park51. It was purchased in July 2009 by Soho Properties for $4.85 million. Investors included the Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement. Both were founded by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Abdul Rauf said to the New York Times that the location of the mosque so close to Ground Zero was the major selling point. He said that it “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11… We want to push back against the extremists.” [1]

Abdul Rauf himself has been criticized for certain views and statements. When asked whether the U.S. deserved to be attacked Rauf said, “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. We have been an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.” [2] In June 2010 he was asked whether or not Hamas was a terrorist organization. He responded “I'm not a politician. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question… I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy." [3]

Another source of controversy over the building has been its source of funding, local or foreign, and what kinds of groups are providing the funds. Many of the families of 9/11 victims call the project insensitive. Others welcome the project and see it as an olive branch from the wider Muslim world. Recently President Obama weighed in on the issue and that has further fueled the political firestorm.

I have two ways of responding to all of this: politically and religiously.

Politically, there is little I have to say because it is really none of our business. We live in a country of not only religious freedom but also private property. They own the land, they paid for it and they have the right to use it as they please.

But from a religious perspective how are we to respond? Is this not a Christian nation? Are we being conquered by Muslims? Won’t this kind of appeasement just be seen as a kind of weakness?

It should be pointed out that the religion of Islam and its broader culture has some troubling issues. Women in predominantly Muslim countries are often treated horribly. Freedoms are severely restricted. Stoning is not uncommon. These are serious affronts to our liberal values (I use the term liberal to mean a belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights). I do not believe that these are simply excusable differences in culture. These practices are immoral. However, this is not ubiquitous among all Muslims. American values of liberalism and democracy are taking hold among Muslims, much to the distress of people like Osama bin Laden. I do think that the people building this cultural center are progressive Muslims who want to do good in their community. I think this reflects the sentiments of American Muslims across the country.

I do believe that it is possible to live in peace with people who are different and think differently without compromising our core values. The “broad” way of the world has been to make others agree with you through force and domination. But the more narrow way is love, patience, humility and long-suffering. This narrow way is much more difficult but it is also the way of God (Matthew 7:13-14).

I see a wonderful opportunity here for American Christians. We often call this a Christian nation. Too often this is thrown about with a certain smugness and air of superiority, as if we are the true possessors of the country, the ones who should be running things. But there could be a much better meaning to the phrase. What does it mean to be Christian? What should a Christian nation look like?

We have been wronged by al-Qaeda; of that there is no doubt. But there is also a feeling of resentment toward Islam as a whole. This resentment is festering and crippling. No good thing can come from grudges. The Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches forgiveness. “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you” (Matthew 6:14). Jesus said “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44). I’m certain this should be with the hope that enemies will become friends through this demonstration of love.

Abdul Rauf publicly stated that this project is designed to make a statement opposite of 9/11 “to push back against the extremists”. We can help make that happen by seeing this as an opportunity for building fellowship and love. Christianity is all about transformation, putting away the old man and becoming a new creature. We should be enthusiastic about this. The first, great, and new commandment is love, love of God and love of all mankind (Matthew 22:36-40; John 13:34). The secret to weapon of Christianity is the pure love of Christ.

References

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html?_r=1

2. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/70234

3. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/imam_terror_error_efmizkHuBUaVnfuQcrcabL#ixzz0rJTKPGE6

Religion and Politics

2010-08-16T17:09:00.000-07:00

I have purposely tried to avoid politics on this blog up to this point. There is one main reason I have resisted the urge to bring it up – politics is extremely divisive. I believe that faith should unite people in love and peace. Politics however is very contentious. So it is with some hesitancy that I bring up some current issues in politics as they relate to religion. My goal is to assuage the ardor and not to create more division. The problem is that the only thing that might be more divisive than politics is religion. When politics and religion are brought together it’s like mixing two extremely explosive chemicals.

So why do it? Well, over time I am becoming more convinced that faith should enter into our lives and genuinely transform us as individuals and also as societies. Faith is not only a personal matter but can be a powerful force for good in society. We don’t all have to be the same religion. But we can all honor the virtues of love and compassion.

Religion touches our lives all the time. Often its influence is very positive but there are some harmful effects too. In my explorations in faith I want to talk about these issues and discuss them in a productive way. I know that I will offend some people (unintentionally) from time to time when I bring up hot-button issues of the day. But I think it is important to engage in dialogue rather than avoid the issues entirely out of fear of confrontation.

I should mention another reason I feel like I should start talking about some current events here. In my study of scripture I have seen that the prophets and Christ himself were intimately involved in effecting positive change in their societies. Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God and what it would be like. Both Judaism and Christianity envision future societies of peace. The Book of Mormon even talks about a period in which the people truly did live in peace, love and unity (4 Nephi). In Mormonism we have a concept of Zion, which is described in the City of Enoch. In the City of Enoch the people were of one heart and one mind and there were no poor among them (Moses 7:18). I like the concept of Zion and think that it is a reality or at least a potentiality that we can strive to build.

The Wrestle with God

2010-08-14T11:49:00.000-07:00

“Is he a man?” asked Lucy.

“Aslan a man!” said Mr Beaver sternly. “Certainly not. I tell you he is King of the wood and the son of the great emperor-beyond-the-sea. Don’t you know who is the King of the Beasts? Aslan is a lion – the Lion, the great lion.”

“ooh!” said Susan, “I’d thought he was a man. Is he – quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.”

“That you will, dearie, and no mistake” said Mrs Beaver; “if there’s anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they’re either braver than most or else just silly.”

“Then he isn’t safe?” said Lucy.

“Safe?” said Mr Beaver; “don’t you hear what Mrs Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.”

From C.S. Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

One of the possible pitfalls of religious life is claiming to know too much too soon. After going to Sunday school for several years we may think we have it all figured out. We have all the doctrines down and some of us even have nice creeds to recite that lay it all out there. We know exactly what God is like and we know exactly what he wants and how he wants up to behave. God seems to be very simple and easy.

From my own encounters I have found the reality of God to be quite different. God is challenging and sometimes terrifying. The reality of God is often something that we don’t wish to accept and tend to shy away from. It was like this with the Israelites when Moses came down from Sinai. His face shined with the glory of God and the people were afraid of him. He even had to cover his face with a veil when he spoke to them (Exodus 34:29-35). They could not bear to look upon the full glory of God and preferred to cover it up. How often do we domesticate God in such a way?

The domesticated god is the god fashioned in man’s preferred image. It has been said that if you find that your god happens to agree with you on everything than you may worship a god of your own making. Encountering the true and living God entails opening yourself to the reality around you and exposing yourself to the dangers of new visions, thoughts and ideas. It is very, very likely that you may have gotten something wrong and will find that God will lead you in a direction that makes you uncomfortable. To come into the presence of God is to be transformed and transformation is as much a process of destruction as it is construction.

There are two occasions in scripture where an encounter with God is described as a wrestle. In the longer account it is a full out wrestling match that lasts all night long. The story in the Book of Mormon doesn’t actually describe a wrestling match but it was likely a very similar experience.

In the Book of Mormon, Enos begins his story by saying “I will tell you of the wrestle which I had before God, before I received a remission of my sins.” Enos was hunting wild beasts in the forests and as he was doing this the words of his father came to his mind and sunk deeply into his heart. “My soul hungered; and I kneeled down before my Maker, and I cried unto him in mighty prayer and supplication for mine own soul.” He prayed like this all day and well into the night (Enos 1:1-5)

In the Bible, Jacob wrestled with a man all night long. It is a very strange story but also very interesting. If you imagine this happening literally it is totally bizarre. Prior to this, Jacob was preparing to meet his estranged brother, Esau, for the first time in years. Then out of nowhere, we get this story: “And Jacob was left alone, and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.” No explanation of who this guy is, he’s just there all of a sudden. So dawn is coming and this man isn’t able to beat Jacob so he hits him in the hip and says “let me go”. Then Jacob says “I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.” What? I don’t ever remember hearing that in a WWF match. So this man blesses Jacob and even renames him Israel. Afterword, Jacob calls the place Peniel saying “I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” Turns out, Jacob’s opponent was no ordinary man but God himself. The name Peniel is Hebrew for the “face of God” (Genesis 32:24-32).

My guess is that the actual events that took place in these two stories were very similar but that the account in Genesis is much more symbolic. Enos sought redemption and Jacob sought a blessing. But for both the wrestling match with God was a quite a struggle though also quite rewarding.

We get the idea from the prophets that if you step into the ring with God you should prepare to be surprised and amazed. When Moses first met Yahweh he was left limp and almost lifeless and said “Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed” (Moses 1:10). This is what seeing God is like. When you see God you see everything else differently.

The wrestle with God is a process of dramatic transformation and it is both an event and a process. Centering more in God and Christ is a kind of rebirth. “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Corinthians 5:17). This is a gospel of change. All things are become new. As creatures of habit and custom, change can be uncomfortable but it is good. Like Aslan, God can be overwhelming, surprising and fearsome, but God is good.

Who Is God?

2010-08-13T00:09:00.000-07:00

It is general practice to begin a study of systematic theology with the question of God. To start, the most basic question to be answered can be put “Who is God?” Usually, Christian theologians have stuck with the tried-and-true basic attributes. For example, God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, impassible, and practically perfect in every way (did I just describe Mary Poppins?). Now, I don’t necessarily disagree with these statements, I’m just not sure they are so important. So if God is omnipotent, could he make a burrito so hot that even he couldn’t eat it? Than one even tripped up Ned Flanders. Please excuse my playful blasphemy. But I think there is something more fundamental, more scriptural, and more important to understand about God.

The strongest definitive statement I can think of in all scripture is “God is love” (1 John 4:8). To me this seems like a very simple, concise and powerful definition of God. It could even be written as an equation: God = Love. Blake Ostler is the only philosopher or theologian I know of who has begun a discussion of God from this premise [1]. And I think this is the best place to start for two reasons:

1. It is accurate.

2. It is essential.

First, it is accurate. If you want to learn of God and understand God than learn to love. Pray to be filled with this love “that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him” (Moroni 7 48). There is a lot that can be interpreted from this scripture. Is God literally love? Is this any more than an abstraction? I understand it to mean that God is loving, so loving that everything God is and does manifests pure love. This is very comforting. Proper understanding of grace and Atonement can be found in the context of a God of love.

Second, it is essential. Worshipping God means to love God and to love our fellow man. These are the first and greatest commandments (Matthew 22:36-39). This directly impacts one’s life. Worshipping a God of love is essential. I believe it is essential because to follow any god that is not love is to go after a false god. To the extent that a religion teaches hate and division, that religion is false. The more religion approaches the pure love of Christ, the truer that religion is to the one true God.

Christ himself revealed God in his own life (John 14:6-11). There is a curious passage of scripture that is often quoted but not often noticed for its strangeness. Jesus said: “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another” (John 13:34). A new commandment? Isn’t that a basic principle of the Gospel? Was this something completely revolutionary? Well, it sort of was and still is actually. It’s not that this had never been mentioned before, but the message has always been a hard sell. We have done pretty well with the God of Requirements throughout history, but we have had a harder time following the God of Love. Slaughter a lamb, cut it up in pieces, burn some parts of it, eat other parts, no problem. No beer, no smoking, no tattoos, no crazy hair-dos, no blue shirts in church, got it. But love one another? That is a new commandment, again and again, because we always forget it. But Jesus revealed to us the true God, the God of Love.

Who is God? God is love. This is the most basic and fundamental attribute of God to comprehend. It is this attribute that governs all other divine attributes. Furthermore, it is this attribute that we, God’s children, are to take upon ourselves just as we take on the name of Christ. “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). This is really hard. It’s a good thing we have a perfectly loving Heavenly Father to help us along the way.

[1] See Volume Two of Ostler’s Exploring Mormon Though: The Problems of Theism and the Love of God. The reference is from the first chapter.

Hi, I'm Todd

2010-08-11T17:53:00.000-07:00

So the LDS church has these profiles of its members up on mormon.org. I submitted a profile and I thought it would be good to post the contents and a link here.

Hi, I'm Todd

I'm working to solve the world's energy needs and help the environment. I'm a disciple of Christ and I'm a Mormon.

About Me

I am a chemical engineer working to make fuel from algae. I enjoy science, history, philosophy, and music. I also like to spend time outdoors camping or hiking.

Why I am a Mormon

I am a follower of Jesus Christ and his Gospel. When I was baptized into the Church I made a covenant to take the name of Christ upon me. I love having both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Both of these scriptures deepen my faith in Christ.

Frequently Asked Questions

How can we come to know our Father in Heaven?

We read in the Bible that we come to know our Father in Heaven through his Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me". As we read of Jesus in the scriptures we can learn of the things he did and follow him. This will lead us unto the Father. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught his disciples to pray unto the Father. As we pray to our Father in Heaven we can come closer to him.

Are Mormons Christians?

Yes. There are millions of Christians throughout the world and we all have some different ideas and practices that we follow. But what unifies us as Christians is our faith in Jesus Christ. Mormons believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God and that he is our Savior and Redeemer. It is through the Atonement of Christ that all mankind may be saved and resurrected. In fact, this is the most important teaching of our faith.

Personal Stories

What blessings have come through your faith in Jesus Christ?

There is a great power and peace that comes with faith in Jesus Christ. We have all had times of feeling guilty, inadequate, depressed, anxious, trapped, and without hope. But the message of the Gospel is that God loves us. He loves us so much that he sent his Son Jesus Christ that we might have everlasting life. Jesus is on our side and he wants us to succeed. He wants us to be happy. My faith in Jesus Christ has made brought me peace and happiness. I am no longer burdened with guilt or despair. I feel his strength lifting me up.

How I live my faith

My faith is centered in Jesus Christ. He is the way, the truth, and the life. He is my Savior. I enjoy participating in a community of faith when I go to church. There we share our thoughts and feelings as well as our faith with each other. We grow together in Christ. Centering my life and family in Jesus Christ brings me closer to him and to my family.

Original Profile

The Eternal You

2010-07-31T00:04:00.000-07:00

I have a bit of a commute to work but I actually enjoy it as long as I am not running late. I have found that some of my best moments of peace and thought are during my drive. The view is a great and I love being absorbed into it. There is so much beauty in the world if you just take the time to notice it.

Earlier this year, I attended a lecture by theologian Marcus Borg. During the question and answer session of the evening a man asked “how can we come to know God?” Borg responded that God is immanent in everything around us and that the best way to come to know God is to “pay attention”. I really like that. It is very simple but important. It reminds me of what Jesus said: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matthew 5:8). God can be seen all around if we have the ability to see.

Hugh B. Brown once said: “Awareness and aliveness are two of the fundamental requisites for this atomic age, and aliveness is in large measure determined by awareness.” [1] Think of that, what it means to live and to be alive. It is no small thing. And how much greater is the gift of life for those who understand what a gift it is? To be in this world. Awareness is a way to understand and encounter God.

God can be encountered in nature and the beauty of the universe but also and especially in other living beings like ourselves. Jesus said the greatest command is to love God with all you heart, soul and mind. And the second commandment is like unto it -- love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:36-40). How is the second commandment like unto it? I think it is because by loving our neighbor that we love God. In fact Jesus taught this principle in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. “Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me (Matthew 25:40). John also taught that “if a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love he brother also” (1 John 4:20-21).

Every encounter that we have with another person is an opportunity to come to know God. But the relationships we have must be of a certain kind. Using people to manipulate them or get something we want is not a way to truly come to relate to them. Using another person as a means is an example of an I-It relationship, as taught by Martin Buber. But a real relationship is an I to a You, an I-You relationship, a true encounter. These I-You encounters lead to a relationship with the Eternal You who is God.

“Extended, the lines of relationships intersect in the eternal You. Every single You is a glimpse of that. Through every single You the basic word addresses the eternal You. The mediatorship of the You of all beings accounts for the fullness of our relationships to them.” [2] The understanding of the encounter with God, the Eternal You, in relationships with those around me is most meaningful to me. It especially fits well into the idea of marriage as a covenant between two people and their God. But in other ways as well, this idea applies. The beggar in the street, the sick and afflicted, the lonely, all our children of God and bear the image of God. God can be encountered in these people if we are pure in our hearts to see them.

[1] Brown, Hugh B. “...Become the Sons of God” BYU Student Body, November 13, 1956.

[2] Buber, Martin. I and Thou. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. p. 123

Exegesis in the Book of Mormon

2010-07-01T17:12:00.000-07:00

On November 28, 1841 Joseph Smith met in the council with the Twelve Apostles and afterword wrote the following: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” (DHC 4:461) This quote is now found in the introduction of latest edition of the Book of Mormon, a reminder of the book’s importance to our faith.

One of the most detailed scholarly works on the Book of Mormon is written by Terryl Givens, titled By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion. Givens’ book follows the history of the Book of Mormon’s importance in the church and its impact on the religious world. One theme Givens repeats throughout is that the presence of the book itself has often been more important to believers than the actual content of the book. He proposed that “the book’s primary claim to the reader’s attention will be as a pointer to meaning, rather than an embodiment of meaning.”

“This fact is made clear in the rhetoric of conversion as expressed by virtually every convert to Mormonism. The typical conversion account would seldom include a statement such as, ‘I studied the Book of Mormon and found the doctrinal exposition of the atonement as recorded in Alma 42 especially compelling.’ The near-universal formula would read more like Mormon luminary Parley P. Pratt’s: ‘As I read, the spirit of the Lord was upon me, and I knew and comprehended that the book was true.’” [1]

Reading Givens’ book made me to consider how the practice of exegesis is applied or can be applied to the Book of Mormon the way it is done using the Bible. Exegesis, defined broadly, is the explanation or interpretation of a text. There is a rich history of exegesis applied to Biblical texts and his been responsible for most major developments in Christian theology. Biblical exegesis can be said to have had a tremendous impact on Mormon theology in particular as well considering that many of the sections in the Doctrine and Covenants were revelatory responses to Joseph Smith’s new translation of the Bible.

I will borrow an idea from Terryl Givens here, hopefully in a way he would approve, and say that Book of Mormon exegesis falls into two categories:

1. Examination of the text of the book to understand its meaning

2. Using the text as a means to receive revelation from God

Granted, both of these methods can and have been used in Biblical exegesis but I think the first has been used more especially. The strength of the Book of Mormon exegesis has usually been of the second kind. It is not bad that the Bible and Book of Mormon have been used in these ways, but there is also opportunity to develop spirituality further by trying both exegetical approaches to both works of scripture. For example, the Bible can be read in a way to feel the power of God. Readers can pray about the Bible to know by the power of the Holy Ghost if its words are true (Moroni 10:4-5). Historically, this has been seen in the practice of lectio divina. The Book of Mormon can also be read to develop a deeper understanding of atonement, agency, grace, the godhead, and the first principles of the Gospel.

These two approaches are by no means mutually exclusive and can in fact be mutually fulfilling. The Book of Mormon has been and remains the most powerful tool for conversion experience in the Mormon faith. There is a power in it that turns its readers to Christ. The Book of Mormon also contains some of the most profound lessons of any work of scripture. These lessons can be explicit in the form of sermons and doctrinal explanations. The lessons can also be woven into the stories of the lives of these ancient people, from which the deeper meaning must be deciphered. Undertaking this work of theological, literary exploration is a challenging but ultimately rewarding effort that further deepens the revelatory encounter with God just as in the first instance of conversion.

1. Givens, Terryl. By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion. Oxford. 2002. p. 235

Temple Theology

2010-05-22T23:45:00.000-07:00

In the year 70 Roman armies entered the city of Jerusalem and destroyed what was most important to the Jews they were conquering, the temple. When the temple caught fire a cry of horror arose from the city as some threw themselves onto the Roman swords or some into the flames. Once the Romans had destroyed the temple they had conquered the Jews.

The Jewish world in the time of Christ was very diverse. There was no single orthodoxy and there was an abundance of scripture and interpretations. Everybody agreed, however, that the temple was central to their faith. But not everyone had positive feelings about the temple then standing. This was the period known as Second Temple Judaism because the temple in Jerusalem was the second temple built. The Second Temple stood from 516 B.C. to 70 A.D. The first temple was Solomon's Temple which stood from 960 B.C. to 587 B.C. The Second Temple was very different from Solomon's Temple. The Second Temple lacked the Ark of the Covenant, The Urim and Thummim, the Holy Oil, and most importantly, the Shekinah. The Shekinah was the divine presence of God. The writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essenes, were very critical of the Second Temple and looked anxiously for a Restoration.

Margaret Barker, in her book Temple Theology, argues that the temple is critical to understanding the culture in which Jesus spent his ministry.

One thing has become quite clear: the original gospel message was about the temple, not the corrupted temple of Jesus' own time, but the original temple which had been destroyed some six hundred years earlier.

Barker, uses texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian gospels to support her theory that the temple was of major concern to the Jews of Christ's time and to the Jews who we now call the early Christians. The seemingly cryptic book of Revelations is much better understood when viewed from the understanding of a temple theology. But it is this temple theology which has been lacking in scholarship.

Before, many apparently non-Jewish elements in the New Testament were theorized to originate from Greek philosophy. As an example, the phrase 'On earth as it is heaven' was posited to be inspired by the concept of Platonic forms. This is no longer necessary when the Christian roots of the temple are recognized. The temple was itself understood to represent the entirety of creation. The sanctification of the Holy of Holies was simultaneously a sanctification of the earth.

Solomon's temple was completely destroyed and no archeological artifacts remain to study this ancient temple. Cultural artifacts remain however, in ancient texts and in Christian tradition. For example, the role of the royal high priest was to carry away the sin and uncleanness of the people so they could be restored to the covenant. This image is clearly seen in Isaiah 53, which is cited often in the New Testament. Two temple rituals were performed exclusively by this high priest. The first was carrying blood into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur. The second was eating the most holy Shewbread on the Sabbath. Both of these ancient temple ordinances were combined in the Christian Eucharist.

Learning about the importance of the ancient temple to the Israelites certainly gives me a richer appreciation for the temples in the LDS faith.

Theology: Who Needs It

2010-05-05T22:42:00.000-07:00

My title here is a spin-off of a speech Ayn Rand gave at West Point titled “Philosophy: Who Needs It”. The object of the speech was to answer the question “Who needs philosophy?” and her answer was that everyone needs philosophy. “Philosophy,” she said “studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man’s relationship to existence.” Philosophy so defined is something pretty important to life’s structure and meaning. I would like to make a similar case for theology. Who needs theology? Everyone.

Philosophy, as defined by Rand, is very similar to my understanding of theology. I can accept that philosophy and theology overlap but state further that theology includes the concerns that are most immediate and important to the individual. Theology is the deepest, most fundamental part of our philosophy.

Consider this list of questions by James Fowler:

“-What are you spending and being spent for? What commands and receives your best time, your best energy?

“-What causes, dreams, goals or institutions are you pouring out your life for?

“-As you live your life, what power or powers do you fear or dread? What power or powers do you rely on and trust?

“-To what or whom are you committed in life? In death?

“-With whom or what group do you share your most sacred and private hopes for your life and for the lives of those you love?

“-What are those most sacred hopes, those most compelling goals and purposes in your life?” [1]

These are questions of faith. Fowler explains, “They aim to help us get in touch with the dynamic, patterned process by which we find life meaningful. They aim to help us reflect on the centers of value and power that sustain our lives... these form the pattern of our faith.” [2]

Some people may be surprised to know they have a theology because they don’t consider themselves religious. Granted, words can be stretched sometimes beyond the point of being meaningful any longer. But I don’t think it is too much to say that everyone has religious beliefs. They are those concerns that are most important—they are foundational.

Paul Tillich actually defined God as our “ultimate concern.” Though I believe in a personal God I actually can agree with Tillich’s definition. There is no reason a personal being cannot be my ultimate concern. I have often heard this very idea expressed in Sunday school. We often say that our “gods” can be wealth, fame, power, etc. Whatever concern is most ultimate to us is in fact our god. The question then becomes whether our god will be able to perpetually enrich and satisfy us. This is the study of theology.

I believe it is better to practice theology and do it well rather than leave our faith unrecognized or unaddressed. The practice of theology is really the formulation of successful and fulfilled living. As a Christian, I say that it is the formulation of living eternally and abundantly.

The purpose of theology is to know God. We start from different places when we begin our theology because we all begin with a different understanding of God. This is fine because theology is a journey of discovery, an exploration of your faith. It is important to understand however that not all theologies are equal in value though our postmodern sentiments might lead us to feel that way. Bad theologizing is distinguished by our tendency to force God to conform to ourselves rather than conforming ourselves to God. Theologies can indeed be harmful. They can lead to oppression, hatred, sexism, racism, and other disreputable tendencies. I cannot bring myself to say that a theology of hatred is equal in value to a theology of love and compassion.

Theology must be guided by truth. Jesus said that eternal life was not only to know God but to know the true God (John 17:3). My theology is to build a relationship with God. Martin Buber would call it an “encounter” with God, an “I-Thou” encounter. It is similar to building a relationship with any other person. Relationships, to be of value, must be based on truth. A husband and wife must know each other truly to have a true relationship. If they know each other falsely then their relationship is also false. To know God is not only to know facts about God but it is also “getting to know” God in a personal encounter.

The beauty of theology is that in coming to know God we come to know ourselves. As God is our Father, we are related to him and created in his image. Knowing the manner in which God lives is the way we may live more abundantly.

References

[1] Fowler, James. Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning. HarperCollins. 1976. p. 3

[2] Ibid. p. 4