The Body and Blood of Christ

Much of the religious experience is found in its symbols. Symbols have a special power to go beyond what words can express and have the potential to elicit spiritual growth in a way unrivaled by any other means. Paul Tillich distinguished between symbols and signs. Both signs and symbols point beyond themselves. But according to Tillich, “signs do not participate in the reality of that to which they point, while symbols do”. A sign like a red light or street sign has some meaning by simple convention and is related to its meaning as long as the convention holds. But the distinguishing characteristic of a symbol is that “it participates in that to which it points”. [1]

As symbols participate in those things to which they points, I find the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to be one of the greatest symbols of Christianity. The experience of the Sacrament is similar in many Christian religions. It is called the Eucharist, Holy Communion, Sacrament of the Table, Blessed Sacrament, and The Lord’s Supper. Since I come from the Mormon faith I will relate my experience from there. In the Mormon faith we usually call this simply The Sacrament.

Every Sunday, before participating in the Sacrament, the Priest at the table kneels and blesses the bread and water. This prayer is very interesting because it describes in detail the significance of the symbol and what it means to those who participate. The bread represents the body of Christ. The water represents the blood of Christ. The prayer also blesses the congregants who eat and drink of Christ to always remember him, keep his commandments, take his name upon themselves, and have his spirit to be with them (Doctrine and Covenants 20:77;79).

What is most striking to me with this ordinance is the way we participate and remember Christ. The bread and water (or wine) represent his body and blood. There are many ways we could use these symbols to remember Christ. We could just look at them. We could talk about them. We could pass them around and just touch them and feel them in our hands. All of these things would help us to remember the body and blood of Christ. But instead we actually consume these symbols and take them within ourselves – we eat and drink them. This is about as close a relationship to a symbol that you can get. We actually take the symbol inside of ourselves, internalizing them both physically and spiritually, literally and symbolically.

When we eat the bread and drink the water we have the flesh of Christ taken into our flesh and joined into it. His blood flows in our veins. We symbolically become one with Christ. We can take about it and write about it but actually doing it and understanding it can create a very powerful experience. The covenant is more than simple to remember him – it is to become one with him and be transformed into his image (Romans 8:29). Prior to the last supper where he introduced the Sacrament, Jesus spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood:

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world... Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you... He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eatheth me, even he shall live by me.” (John 6:51-57)

Many of Jesus’ disciples were so disturbed by this teaching that they left him there saying “This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” (John 6:60) Of course Jesus did not literally teach his disciples to eat of his physical flesh or blood. Jesus was teaching his disciples that as bread and water are the source of physical nourishment and sustenance of life, so is he the source of eternal life, the bread of life, the living water.

The body and blood of Christ are as vital and nourishing to our spirits as food and drink to our bodies. The quality of food and drink we consumes affects our physical health and countenance. Likewise, spiritual health is determined by the things we consume in our hearts. By taking in the body and blood of Christ and becoming one with Christ we are transformed to be able to see the image of Christ in our own countenance (Alma 5:14).

[1] Tillich, Paul. Dynamics of Faith. Harper & Row. 1957.

The Council of Gods, Part 2

Lehi was a prophet of the highest caliber in Ancient Israel and Nephi made sure that his record clearly demonstrated this. Lehi’s contemporary, Jeremiah had to deal with several pseudo-prophets who claimed to speak in the name of the Lord and contradicted Jeremiah’s own prophesies. It seems that Nephi, having lived in this climate where a prophet’s credentials were suspect felt the need to verify his own father’s legitimacy. Lehi was a visionary man and one night when he was lying in his bed he was “carried away”.

“And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God. And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day. And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament. And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth; and the first came and stood before my father, and gave unto him a book, and bade him that he should read. And it came to pass that as he read, he was filled with the Spirit of the Lord. And he read, saying: Wo, wo, unto Jerusalem, for I have seen thine abominations! Yea, and many things did my father read concerning Jerusalem—that it should be destroyed, and the inhabitants thereof; many should perish by the sword, and many should be carried away captive into Babylon.” (1 Nephi 1:8-13)

Here Lehi was called into the council of the gods to counsel with the gods. These gods in turn worshiped the head God as they were “in the attitude of singing and praising their God. Granted, the text here does not say “gods” but “angels”. However, I will argue that angels can themselves be understood as gods in the council of gods. Consider this psalm:

“When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet” (Psalms 8:3-6).

When the psalmists said “a little lower than the angels” he actually says “me’at me’elohim” which means “less than the gods”. The Hebrew word for angels is “mal’akhim” while “elohim” is the word for gods. Perhaps it is not so incorrect of the English translators to use the word “angels” instead of “gods”. But whether mal’akhim or elohim, the angels with whom Lehi counseled were divine beings.

That Lehi had such an experience prior to his public ministry is important. As a prophet in Ancient Israel, an invitation to the council of gods was requisite. Jeremiah had many rivals. While Jeremiah warned Israel of impending destruction, others said “Ye shall have peace”. To these would-be prophets Jeremiah asked:

“For who hath stood in the counsel of the LORD, and hath perceived and heard his word? who hath marked his word, and heard it?... I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings.” (Jeremiah 23:18-22)

Here the phrase “counsel of the LORD” is a translation of the Hebrew “sod Yahweh”. The word “sod” means both “counsel” and more especially “council”. Strong’s Dictionary defines it as “a session, i.e. company of persons (in close deliberation); by implication intimacy, consultation, a secret”. So the direct meaning of “sod” is a council, as in a group, but it is a more intimate and special group where important counsel is given. It is the kind of counsel a prophet receives.

Not only is prophet called to be such only by the convocation of the council of gods but Yahweh himself is also constrained to warn his people through this council before he does anything. The prophet Amos said:

“Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7)

The word “secret” here is a translation of the same Hebrew word, “sod”. The verse could be translated this way:

“Surely the Lord, Yahweh will do nothing, unless he reveals his counsel/council to his servants the prophets.”

The basic idea here is that Yahweh will not work his wonders until he has called a prophet into his council to counsel him. And this pattern is seen several times. Consider the prophet Isaiah. He was called in a time of international threats similar to Jeremiah and Lehi. He too was caught into a heavenly council to stand before the presence of Yahweh.

“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts. Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged. Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.” (Isaiah 6:1-8)

This is a very interesting example of a divine council which bears a strong resemblance of Lehi’s own experience. Some things I find interesting here are the seraphim who present the Lord to Isaiah through their song of praise, “Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.” The seraphim also present Isaiah to the Lord through purification. Then while sitting in council the Lord asks “Whom shall I send”? Isaiah as a participant in the council responds “Here am I; send me.” It is clear here that Isaiah and Yahweh are not the only ones in council. There are seraphim as well. Presumably, if Isaiah were the only one present, the Lord would not have to ask whom he should send. It has the feel of a formal meeting in which all the lines are previously written and in turn the participants give their prepared statements. But the council is important, the Lord must ask and the servant must offer himself. This is all very similar to what may be the most famous council of gods in Mormon theology, the premortal council.

The premortal council is recounted in Moses 4 and Abraham 3. In this council the Lord also asked who should be sent. The premortal Christ offered himself. This meeting also has the feel of a formal meeting with prepared statements, but Lucifer didn’t quite catch on to the protocol. The Father was supposed to ask the question and Christ was supposed to offer himself, but Lucifer jumped in and started offering his own ideas—and it didn’t go so well. Anyway, Christ was accepted and the plan of the council was put into motion. In Abraham, the council is composed of the “noble and great ones” of whom the Lord says “these I will make my rulers”. It appears here that many members of the council of gods were premortal spirits. Though they are not called gods here, the next chapter recounts the implementation of the very plan formulated by these noble and great ones.

“And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.” (Abraham 4:1)

This account of the creation is actually similar to the account in Genesis. The first verse of Genesis could be translated the usual way:

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

But since the word here translated “God” is “elohim” the verse could also be translated:

“In the beginning the gods created the heaven and the earth.”

Scholars may argue over whether this is the plural form of “eloah” meaning god or if it is referring to the head God. Certainly the word “elohim” is used in other places to refer to a single being. But on the other hand, the creation account quotes Elohim speaking to someone using the first person plural:

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26).
“And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil” (Genesis 3:22).

To whom was Elohim speaking? The idea that Elohim was addressing a council of gods makes a lot of sense. The divine council was not uncommon in the Ancient Middle East. In fact, the divine council was a very common motif. Readers of the Bible who have a strict monotheistic background are accustomed to the idea of one single god or maybe three at most. But this idea, while common today, would be quite unusual in ancient times. Another surprising void in the modern, monotheistic conception of god is the omission of any female deity. It is in contrast to this void that we find what may be one of Mormonism’s most radical yet least explored doctrines: a Mother Goddess or Mother in Heaven. But this topic deserves its own post, next time.

Relationship with God

In 1643 the English Parliament summoned the "learned, godly and judicious Divines", to meet in Westminster Abbey to produce a statement of faith, a creed for the Church of England. The English clerics produced several declarations over a period of five years, defining and refining the doctrines and beliefs of their church. The most influential of these declarations was arguably the Westminster Confession of Faith. Of note is the passage in Chapter II, titled “Of God, and of the Holy Trinity”. It reads:

“There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his won glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty.” [1]

This passage is cited frequently in Mormon literature to contrast its declarations with the doctrine of the Restored Gospel. Perhaps we have been a bit too hard on the English clergyman who drafted the Confession of Faith. They were very knowledgeable in theology and the history of Christian thought. Indeed, their statements above were consistent with doctrines of deity accepted in the Western Church since the days of Augustine. But I should note some contradictions in the above passage. The Confession states that God is without “passions” yet also states that he is “most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering...” To me, these seem like token “passions”. The word “passion” comes from the Latin word “patior” which means “to suffer or endure”. It is in this sense that Christ’s suffering is sometimes called “The Passion”. Passion can also be understood more generally to mean emotions such as love, grace, mercy, long-suffering, etc. I don’t think the contradiction in the Westminster Confession was something that the clerics simply overlooked—I suspect they were well aware of it—rather it was a simple example of an age-old case of Christian indecisiveness.

The indecisiveness within Christendom is the desire to have two, seemingly contradictory things in one God. We want God to be strong, stronger than we are. We are limited by our emotions: fear, anxiety, sadness, even love. Fear keeps us from doing things that may be necessary but frightening. Even love can stand in the way of duty, keeping us from doing what is “right” because it may cause pain to a loved one. We don’t want God to be so encumbered by emotions like us. Yet we still want a personal God, we want him to comfort us and love us. We want him to listen to our prayers and have mercy on us. So we have a God without passions who is also most loving, gracious, merciful, and long-suffering. Sterling McMurrin explained the two sides of our conception of God saying: “The God of the theologians has no passions. But the God of religion is compassionate.” [2]

The appropriate theological term here is “impassibility”. Impassibility is the doctrine that God does not experience pain or pleasure from the actions of another being. The doctrine of Impassibility does not necessarily entail that God be without passions—it simply means that his emotions cannot be altered by the actions of humanity. For example, God may have infinite joy and not even the immense suffering and sin of all mankind can in the least part diminish that joy. God is the ultimate constant—the same yesterday, today, and forever. However, this doctrine runs into a problem in the person of Jesus. I find this happens in the case of most doctrines pertaining to the character of God in Christian orthodoxy. The theological constructs work great, they are aesthetic and logical, but then we have to explain Jesus. If Jesus is one with God the Father and as such, divine, how do we deal with the fact that Jesus was a person, a man, experienced pain and felt sorrow over the sins of his people?

In early Christianity, there were several sects that approached this problem in unique ways. The Gnostics accepted a doctrine called Docetism. Docetism is derived from the Greek word “dokeo” meaning “to seem”. They believed that Jesus made himself to seem as though he were mortal, to seem as though he had a body, and to seem as though he suffered when in fact this was all an illusion. To the credit of the Gnostics, this doctrine could be consistent with Impassibility and scripture (interpreted very liberally) and thus seemingly solves the problem. But the Gnostics had tough luck and the doctrine of Docetism was deemed heretical by the majority of Christianity. (Interesting note though, the Qur’an suggests a form of Docetism when speaking of Jesus’ crucifixion in Sura 4:157).

One of the major problems with the God of the theologians is that he is not always the God of the scriptures. The God of the scriptures is not impassible. Yahweh is very emotional and not afraid to show it. Even more passionate is Jesus himself. Jesus is often moved with compassion, forgiving sinners, healing the sick, teaching his disciples to love one another. The scriptures indeed portray God as powerful and strong but he is not unmoved by the pains of his people. Indeed in the Book of Mormon, the suffering of Christ is shown to be a source of his redemptive power.

“And he 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)

The Atonement of Christ is the formation of a relationship, a relationship with a personal being, Jesus Christ. His power to redeem comes from his compassion, his empathy, as he has felt what we fill and suffered what we suffer. His passion, or suffering, is “compassion” which is derived from Latin, meaning “to suffer together with”. It is important to remember that the relationship is indeed a relationship and not simply a one-man show. It takes two people to form a relationship and requires our involvement. Even in the LDS church there is a tendency to say things like “God doesn’t really need us” and “He could get along just fine without us”. But these kinds of ideas seem to me very callous and misdirected. I believe he does need us.

One of the twentieth century’s foremost philosophers, Martin Buber, spoke quite poignantly about our relationship with God: “You know always in your heart that you need God more than everything; but do you not know that God needs you—in the fullness of His eternity needs you? How would man be, how would you be, if God did not need him, did not need you? You need God, in order to be—and God needs you, for the very meaning of your life.” [3] God does really need us and would be very affected without us. His work and glory is to bring about our immortality and eternal life (Moses 1:39). Above all things he wants to enter into a relationship with us and needs us to accept the invitation that he constantly offers. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) This is a God who knows us and loves us and a relationship with him can be the fullest and most complete relationship possible.

References

1. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Westminster_Confession_of_Faith (Retrieved March 2, 2010)
2. McMurrin, Sterling. The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion. Signature Books. 2000. p. 132.
3. Buber, Marin. I and Thou. Charles Scribner’s Sons. 2nd ed. 1958. p. 82.

What Is Our Message?

Has anyone ever asked you point blank “what do you believe”? It can be a very halting question. One reason for this is that it is so personal. When people ask me “what do Mormon’s believe?” there is at least a degree of separation. I find that sometimes people are more comfortable talking about what their church believes and what they were raised to believe. But when you are the center of attention and asked what you believe that can be a little scary. It is important to look within and know how to answer: “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15).

What does it actually mean to believe? A modern definition of the word is “to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so.” This is an acceptable definition though I don’t find it satisfactory. The reason I don’t find it satisfying is because it doesn’t really describe my personal experience with belief. Is my belief a confidence in truth? Sure, but is that it? No, I feel there is more to it than that. The English verb “believe” was translated in the Bible from the Hebrew “munah” and the Greek “pistuo”. These Hebrew and Greek words mean something more than the modern English definition. But before the sixteenth century the verb “believe” had a slightly different meaning which more closely matched the Hebrew and Greek concepts.

“Modern German usage of ‘belieben’ still means ‘to cherish’, or ‘to hold dear,’ and the modern German term for faith (Glaube) can be traced back to common roots with a family of Old English words ‘leof’, ‘liof’ (dear, beloved) that formed the verb ‘geleofan’, ‘gelafen’, ‘geliefen’, ‘to hold dear, to love, to consider valuable or lovely’; this parallels the Old High German ‘gilouban’, which has the same meanings. This word developed into ‘glauben’ (to have faith).” [1]

The original meaning of our verb “believe” might be better stated “belove”. Your belief is what you value. The Hebrew and Greek concepts of faith and belief were not of confidence in the truth of God’s existence, that was taken as a given. Rather faith or belief in God is a dedication to God. That Latin word “credo” translated “I believe” can be broken down into two components: first, “cor” or “cordia” meaning “heart”; second, “do” meaning “put, place, set” also “give”. So in Latin, saying “I believe...” is another way of saying “I set more heart upon...”

What do I believe? I believe in atonement with God. This is the best way I can express in English the core of my belief. This requires some explanation as well. To “atone” is usually understood to mean “to make amends”, but this is not a satisfactory definition. You can make amends for damage you cause to someone’s car in an accident and never enter into a relationship with that person. You may not even like that person. That is not atonement. To atone is to make “at one”. It is a neologism created by William Tyndale, but it was a brilliant creation. Atonement is a complete reconciliation, unification of heart, mind, and will.

I understand the whole of the Gospel of Jesus Christ through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. In the Book of Mormon when Christ came to the Nephites and Lamanites he gave a sort of definition of his gospel: “this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me. And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works... Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day. Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel...” (3 Nephi 27:13-21) Notice here how Christ says that he draw all men unto him and invites all to come unto him. There is an effort on both ends to be brought into unity, atonement. “Draw near unto me and I will draw near unto you; seek me diligently and ye shall find me; ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:63)

When in mortality Jesus taught his disciples that they should “abide” in him. “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman... Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.” (John 15:1-7) I love this image and find it to be one of the most moving explanations of unity and atonement in all scripture. Jesus here describes an intimate and organic connection of two living entities actually existing and living as one organism. When we are brought into unity with Christ we are able to bring forth good fruit because we are part of him. Alma described this unity in a way that our very image and appearance is transformed to reflect the image of Christ (Alma 5:14,19).

This transformation must be very powerful because as mortal beings we are much different than divine beings now. We know we are of the same kind as God, even after the same image. But there is still a great difference. After, Moses saw God in the mountain he was left to his own strength and was completely famished. He reflected within himself saying, “Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed.” (Moses 1:10) Yet, a little while later he was shown a glorious vision of the universe and the history of this world and asked for what purpose they were created. God responded saying “this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” (Moses 1:39) Just after learning of the nothingness of man, it was revealed to him that the plan of God was to grant man immortality and eternal life—to transform this mortal man that can hardly withstand the presence of God into a new creature like unto God himself.

The essential question to ask is the same question Enos had: “how is it done?” (Enos 1:7) The answer is the same as it was for him—through faith in Jesus Christ (Enos 1:8). “...Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself...” (2 Corinthians 5:17-19)

This is, according to my understanding, the meat and core of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God has come after us and sought after us because of his desire to dwell in unity with us. Though we were separate from him by our imperfect nature, sin, weakness, frailty, and death, the Atonement of Jesus Christ brings us together, to be “at one” with God. This is our message: at-one-ment with God through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

References

[1] Fowler, James. Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning. Harper Collins. 1981. p. 12

The Body: Sacred Or Profane?

One of the early Christian sects, the Gnostics, believed that the human body was evil. They even saw the human body as a prison for the soul and that salvation consisted, in part, of escaping the confines of this mortal shell. The pleasures of mortality were especially reprehensible and those who indulged in the pleasures of this world could find their souls continually imprisoned even after death, never to return to God. The Gnostics were not alone in their negative views of the human body, nor are these ideas confined to ancient times. It is quite common today for people to have negative views of the body and these sentiments are not exclusively from religion. The Buddhist concept of the body doesn’t malign the body per se but sees the escape from samsara, the cycle of birth and rebirth, as the ultimate goal. This escape is Nirvana. In the Pali language “Nibbana” means “blowing out”, that is to say a blowing out of the fires of greed and hatred. Here also, is the ultimate goal of escape from the body.

In the Bible and in Christian discourse, the flesh, the body is sometimes synonymous with corruption. Here are some examples:

“With the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” (Romans 7:25)

“That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.” (Romans 8:4-5)

“So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:8)

“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” (1 Corinthians 15:50)

It can be seen from these scriptures why Christians have developed a negative view of the body, or “the flesh”. But is the body really what is corrupt? What are we to do with the body? How should we view it?

Joseph Smith taught a very different doctrine about the body. He said: “We came to this earth that we might have a body and present it pure before God in the celestial kingdom. The great principle of happiness consists in having a body. The devil has no body, and herein is his punishment.” [1] Historian and biographer Richard Bushman said: “Joseph had little sense of the flesh being base. In contrast to conventional theologies, Joseph saw embodiment as a glorious aspect of human existence.” [2] Furthermore, Joseph Smith understood the salvation of the soul to consist of saving both the spirit and the body. “The perfection Joseph sought was physical as much as spiritual. The September priesthood revelation [Doctrine and Covenants 84] had said priesthood holders would be “sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies... The underlying idea of the ‘Word of Wisdom’ was not to escape the physical, as hermetic and mystical philosophies taught, but to preserve and purify the flesh. Joseph’s religion made the body essential to human fulfillment and godliness. The exaltation revelations had told the Saints that ‘the spirit and the body is the soul of man,’ and only when joined eternally could a person receive ‘a fulness of joy.’ ‘When separated, man c[a]nnot receive a fulness of joy.” Joseph exalted the body rather than seeking to free the spirit from the flesh. Dead souls considered ‘the long absence’ of their spirits from their bodies ‘to be a bondage.’ The highest reward for a worthy spirit, the ‘Olive Leaf’ [Doctrine and Covenants 88] had said, was to receive a ‘natural body.’ [3]

Joseph not only taught that the body is something good and holy but he also taught that God the Father has a body. “That which is without body, parts and passions is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones (John 5:26). As the Father hath life in himself, even so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. God the Father took life unto himself precisely as Jesus did.” [1] Later, in the now-canonized Doctrine and Covenants verse he taught: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22)

On August 8, 1901 B.H. Roberts delivered a lecture before the conference of the Mutual Improvement Associations of the Salt Lake Stake of Zion. The title of his lecture was “The ‘Mormon’ Doctrine of Deity. In his lecture he stated:

“I take it that we may classify under three heads the complaints here made against us with reference to the doctrine of Deity.

“First, we believe that God is a being with a body in form like man’s; that he possesses body, parts and passions; that in a word, God is an exalted, perfected man.

“Second, we believe in a plurality of Gods.

“Third, we believe that somewhere and some time in the ages to come, through development, through enlargement, through purification until perfection is attained, man at last, may become like God—a God.” [4]

A reply was published in the Improvement Era by Reverend C. Van der Donckt, of the Catholic Church, Pocatello, Idaho. In his response, Van der Donckt presented an extensive treatment of each of the points Roberts had taught in his lecture. Van der Donckt challenged Roberts in both scripture and philosophy. His philosophical arguments against God’s corporeality were particularly intriguing.

“The ‘Mormons’ admit that God existed from all eternity; consequently, there was no time at which God did not exist. Therefore, the Eternal Being, or God, must be simple.

“A compound is, at least by nature, posterior to its component parts. If God is a compound, he is posterior to his component parts. Therefore, he would not be eternal; therefore, not God...

“Fancy a clock, an engine, a shoe, or any composite being. The parts must exist before the whole. Then to have the compound, some one or something must do the compounding, or put the ingredients or elements together. Who then did compound the Eternal?” [5]

“Several finite things cannot produce an infinite or an illimitable, as there would always be a first and a last... If one is infinite, nothing can be added to it. Finite parts could not belong to the infinite essence, else they would communicate limitations to God. Therefore, the Infinite Being is not composite, but simple or spiritual. Therefore, he is not, nor ever was, a man, who is a composite being.” [6]

To put what Van der Donckt is saying another way—if God has a body, that body is composed of many parts. For example, the human body contains approximately 50 trillion cells—it is far from simple. Even the individual cells of the body are complex constructions of many atoms into biomolecules of high molecular weight. If God’s body is similarly formed of multiple parts how can he be eternal or infinite, being himself preceded by the elements of which he is composed?

Roberts responded as follows:

“Mr. Van der Donckt himself says: 'Something is limited not because it is (i.e. exists): but because it is this or that; for instance, a stone, a plant, a man'—or a person, I suggest. For if God has personality, he is a person, a something, and hence limited,.. as he must be when conceived of as this or that, as a person for instance, then of course not infinite being; and thus my friend’s doctrine of God’s 'simplicity' is destroyed the moment he ascribes personality to Deity.” [7]

Roberts’ point here seems to be that if you ascribe any characteristic or description about God then you limit him as an infinite being. Roberts did not have much of a problem with this because he did not consider Mormon doctrine to be bound to the creedal assumption that God should be infinite or simple.

“But we have already seen that God cannot be considered as absolutely infinite, because we are taught by the facts of revelation that absolute infinity cannot hold as to God; as a person, God has limitations, and that which has limitations is not absolutely infinite. If God is conceived as absolutely infinite, in his substance as in his attributes, then all idea of personality respecting him must be given up; for personality implies limitations.” [8]

There seems to me a striking bend toward materialism in both the theologies of Roberts and Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith himself said: “There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.” (Doctrine and Covenants 131:7-8) This is a surprising idea for a religion since religions are often tasked with the realm of the “supernatural”. Joseph Smith says essentially that there is no such thing as supernatural, only natural. Granted, spirit matter must be different from most matter we are familiar with since “we cannot see it”. But if all spirit is matter than we can safely surmise that it behaves in a somewhat similar way.

If God has a physical body, it should be composed of many parts, cells perhaps. Of course, resurrected bodies must be quite different from our mortal bodies. For one thing, a resurrected body does not die. Joseph Smith also taught “all [men] will be raised by the power of God, having spirit in their bodies, and not blood.” [9] So resurrected bodies have flesh and bone instead of flesh and blood. If this is meant literally, then it means that the body of God is very different. Blood is mostly water in which nutrients, proteins, and substrates are delivered to our cells. This means that resurrected bodies may not even be water-based, while our bodies are mostly water. But putting these differences aside, I find the idea that my body is at least in the image of God’s quite appealing. The human body is a masterpiece. It is not simple—it is composed of many parts. But as Carl Sagan said, “the beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it but the way those atoms are put together.”

The idea that God the Father is embodied and that we resemble him is not trivial. It affects the way we view God and relate to him. B.H. Roberts’ key point in proving the corporeality of God was in the humanity of Jesus Christ. Jesus was a god and he had a body. As odd as it may sound, Jesus has sometimes been troublesome to Christian theology. This is because traditional Christianity has tried to reconcile the Hebrew religion in which Jesus ministered with Greek philosophy, specifically Neoplatonism. Philosopher Blake Ostler said:

“The complex of absolutist properties derived from both Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism—immutability, simplicity, timelessness, impassibility and incorporeality—was accepted as axiomatic properties of divinity even though not a single one of these terms appeared in the Judeo-Christian writings and seemed to positively contradict much of what was found therein... The notion that God became a man in Jesus of Nazareth and saved the world by suffering with, because of and on behalf of the world was difficult to reconcile with the Neoplatonic notion of God which maintained that God was absolutely unaffected by anything that happened in the world. How could such a view be squared with the belief that Jesus of Nazareth was in fact very God? Everything the Neoplatonists meant by the word God was contradicted if Jesus was somehow a revelation of the divine nature—God was thought of as immaterial and incorporeal and yet Jesus had a material body. God did not change and yet Jesus clearly grew and changed over time. God could not suffer in any way and yet Jesus suffered.” [10]

Particularly troubling was the idea that God had a body: “For Greeks, it was unthinkable that the divine be corporeal (i.e., have a physical body). It was even more unacceptable to assert that a divine being could suffer, for the divine was simple or noncomposite and above the change and the obvious decay of order accompanying anything that could suffer.” [11] Yet while these images of Jesus did not fit into the Greek paradigm, there were still the images portrayed in the scriptures.

My view of the body is very positive. I believe that the human body is a reflection of the divine image of God. The body is not something to be despised but something to be revered and reverenced. We should take care of our bodies and appreciate them. We have the gifts of senses and sensations, joys and pleasures that come with a body and we should be grateful for them. For me, the knowledge that Jesus was both God and man is encouraging. I have something to look to and aspire to. I know the way to God because Jesus said “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father”. (John 14:9) From this I understand that the Father is a person. He is not supernatural but he is natural. He is not an ethereal vapor, or dream—that is the same as nothing. God is matter as we are matter. And we can evolve in our inborn potential to be as our Father.

References

[1] Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Covenant Communications. 2002. p. 185

[2] Bushman, Richard Lyman. Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. Vintage Books. 2005. p. 420-21

[3] Ibid. p. 212-13

[4] Roberts, B.H. The Mormon Doctrine of Deity: The Roberts-Van Der Donckt Discussion. Signature Books. 1998. p. 11

[5] Ibid. p. 51

[6] Ibid p. 53-54

[7] Ibid. p. 111

[8] Ibid. p. 126

[9] History of the Church 4:555-56

[10] Ostler, Blake. Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God. Kofford Books. 2001. p. 30

[11] Ibid. p. 421

The Fall, Part 2: Parable and Paradox

“And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God. And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient. And Adam and Eve blessed the name of God, and they made all things known unto their sons and their daughters.” (Moses 5:10-12)

“O goodness infinite, goodness immense!
That all this good of evil shall produce,
And evil turn to good; more wonderful
Than that which by creation first brought forth
Light out of darkenss! Full of doubt I stand,
Whether I should repent me now of sin
By me done or occasion’d, or rejoyce
Much more, that much more good thereof shall spring,
To God more glory, more good will to Men
From God, and over wrauth grace shall abound.”
-Adam (John Milton’s Paradise Lost) [1]

In my last post I reviewed just a few of the major points in the history of Original Sin. The doctrine of Original Sin is one way to interpret the story, one among many. Here I would like to explore some other ways of looking at the Fall of Adam and Eve. I mentioned that some of the problems with traditional interpretation of the story stem from an overemphasis on a literal understanding. It is common for people of faith to defend strict Biblical literalism and assert that everything in scripture happened just as described and that to suggest that passages are metaphorical or parabolic is demeaning to the scripture. However, as a devout believer I feel that strict Biblical literalism that eschews metaphor, parable, and symbolism misses out on the richness imbedded in the sacred text. Stories can be both literal and metaphorical and the degree to which a story is literal is not especially important. The message hidden in the parable is what impacts us and causes us to stretch our minds and to grow. It is useful in the story of Adam and Eve to place ourselves in their place. The name “Adam” is, in addition to a proper name, a Hebrew word for “mankind”. This says to me that we are meant to understand the story in relation to ourselves.

The simplest way to organize anything is to divide it up into clear, distinct, well-defined categories. This approach has the advantages of being very clean and easy to understand. As an engineer I love clear and concise models, formulas and graphs. The Fall could be seen as all bad: disobedience, sin, death, etc. It could also be seen as all good: knowledge, growth, experience, etc. But the Hebrew Bible was not written in this way. It was not written by mathematicians or logicians. If the Greeks had written the Bible it would have been very different. Hebrew authors often wrote or told stories in such a way that interpretations could be more open, sometimes even paradoxical. The Fall could be viewed as good or bad. Maybe some aspects were good and others were bad. But maybe this is still too organized: some aspects of the Fall could be both good and bad. While this kind of approach is not as clear and much more difficult, it also allows you to play with it, work through it and around it, and to shape it and reshape it in several different ways. Like art, it causes you to step back and think about it and ask questions. I think that one of the major lessons from this story is that life is filled with paradox and that part of maturing and coming to grips with your world is to accept and appreciate the paradox and complexity of your universe.

Paradox in literature is defined as “an anomalous juxtaposition of incongruous ideas for the sake of striking exposition or unexpected insight.” [2] For example, in Mormon doctrine, the Fall was part of God’s plan yet he commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. I have seen Sunday School teachers and class members all trying to make sense of this and I think it is a lost cause. I will stick my neck out here and say that this just doesn’t make any sense. I don’t think it’s supposed to make sense—that’s the point. We live in a world of contradictions and opposition—not just in some things—in all things. In The Book of Mormon, Lehi said “For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things...” (2 Nephi 2:11) He then listed several things that exist in dual pairs, defined by their opposites. For example, there can be no such thing as good if there is not also evil. If evil were eradicated, good would be a meaningless term. Thus, the quality of “goodness” depends on evil. The same could be said with righteousness and wickedness, life and death, cleanliness and uncleanliness. This understanding of abstract concepts is organized by division of opposites. But at the same time these opposing concepts depend each other for their meaning.

But some things, can be both good and bad depending on a variety of factors. Lehi said of the Fall: “And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.” (2 Nephi 2:22-25) If we put ourselves in the place of Adam and Eve we see that we toil, suffer, age and die. Yet from work we progress, from suffering we become compassionate, from age we learn wisdom and the prospect of death makes us value life. From negative things we can find the good.

The latest interpretation I have discovered in this parable is one of maturation. Each person is born into a Garden of Eden. We know neither good nor evil. We don’t have to work. We are not aware of sexuality. We are innocent. But in every aspect of life there comes a time when we have to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. Life has risk and just as a child stumbles when he learns to walk, every new step holds danger and the possibility of harm. Everyone needs to spend time in the Garden of Eden. Sometimes children are pushed out of it too quickly—they have the fruit jammed down their throat. But everyone needs to eat of the fruit eventually and if they don’t they cannot function in this world. We don’t live in the Garden of Eden and we can’t live as if we did.

God was right when he warned Adam and Eve of the danger of the fruit. The fruit of knowledge is dangerous because knowledge is dangerous. But the dangers of knowledge can be resolved with more knowledge, developed knowledge. President Hugh B. Brown, First Counselor to President David O. McKay taught a similar concept about freedom: “One of the most important things in the world is freedom of the mind; from this all other freedoms spring. Such freedom is necessarily dangerous, for 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.” [3] When a child learns the concept of possession it can initially lead to covetousness and stealing. He has gained knowledge of possession but has not yet learned of rights of ownership, earning and work. More knowledge is required. A teenager matures and is no longer “naked and not ashamed” but aware and has knowledge of sexuality. This can be dangerous without the more mature knowledge of chastity and respect for the body. More knowledge is required.

As we grow, acquire more knowlege and face new dangers we must respond in different ways. The variety of situations we may come accross will require more methods than a simple, one-dimensional personality will allow. Every person has within them an Adam and Eve. Adam is our obedient, conforming, safe side. Eve is our curious, adventurous, risk-taking side. We need both sides to function in our lives. We need to be conservative and have a base where we set limits and boundaries. But we also need to recognize the times when limits are too small and break through barriers and expand. We need both parts in our psyche.

These are just a few ways to look at the parable and we can think about it and discuss it endlessly to pull out new and pertinent applications. This story is repeated in a few different places in the LDS scriptures and I think there is a reason for that. We are supposed to be learning from this parable and we can learn something new every time we approach it depending on our needs, our interests or what we are looking for. My next post will treat the Fall in relation to the Atonement and the Grace of Christ.

[1] John Milton, Paradise Lost, 12th Bk, lines 469-78

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_(literature) (retrieved January 26, 2010)

[3] Hugh B. Brown. An Abundant Life. 1999. p. 139