LDS Conference and Faith Transformation

Something happened to my faith.

I don't believe the same things I once did.

I see things in a different light.

My perspective has changed: things like conference, once filled with magical expectation that God will reveal some new new doctrine or a significant milestone toward the second coming, no longer thrill me.

And in radically changing my perspective, lowering my expectations from a magical worldview, I longer get disappointed when the magic doesn't happen.

Conference has become a bit of a "meh" for me, probably for some time now.  I hear some good points, and some very narrow perspectives.  What impresses me is how incredibly human and mundane conference is: well-intentioned men and women trying to express the inspiration they feel from the spirit within them.

Their words point to something, but the object of their pointing is often vague.

It's an art form.

And like art, my experience with it is far more important than the intention of the artist or the form of the art itself.

My believing friends and family believe they heard a masterpiece inspired from on high.  I heard failing human words, mostly.  What I perceived as divine was not those words, nor do I think the artists were particularly inspired, but rather, I perceived something deeply human--people trying to find their Way.

As are we all.

Indeed, something happened to my faith.  But it hasn't weakened or been destroyed.

It also hasn't "transitioned" -- a word that connotes going from one "thing" to another "thing".

No.  Not transitioned.

My beliefs have died.  The God of magical intervention has gone away for me.  And with it, my magical expectations for Mormonism have died as well.

Yet, something was reborn this weekend, and not because of conference, but rather, conflict.  Watching negativity arise around me over some word or phrase, some trigger here or there, I realized that while validating the hurt we feel in losing our beliefs is real, the need for human connection is far more important.

Faith is that connection.  It's a kind of hope born in adversity and not-knowing.  It's found in the love we need, and in love we give.

Faith is about transformation, not transition.  Transition disconnects from one thing and moves to the next.  It may be necessary for many to do so, but if we do, it's not about faith, but something else.

Faith transforms.  Faith is about rising above our human frailties to embrace something more -- not an independent embrace, one where it's between me and that more and to hell with you.  No, faith is really found in the literal embrace of struggling humans discovering love beyond the words.  My faith is nothing if I am not connected.

Faith saves.  I know we say that "Jesus saves", but who is Jesus without our faith?  In saying this, faith in Christ does not seem to be believing certain things about Christ, but rather, knowing Christ...as in being connected to the source of being, the I AM.

And being connected to Christ, means authentically connecting with all around me, including my very human LDS believing friends, family, and...leaders.

This...is a different kind of faith, one that doesn't transition, but rather, abides in love.

It's not easy.

Faith is a leap into the unknown.

Yet I will try.

Thinking about the Endowment

Let me try a story here...a fable or myth that may have some bearing on why masonic symbols are in our temples.  I'm not concerned with history here -- instead, I'm doing a type of interpretive story-telling about what I consder to be deeply spiritual.   

Let's say that a million years ago an enlightened alien, a "Great Architect", came to this planet, found a bunch of primitive beings -- early humans, and decided that there was potential for these "humans" to be just like she is. Given the distances and logistics of space travel, she knew she couldn't be here to help out these beings, but knowing that they eventually would need to know some really important things, she embedded into their genetic code a set of important programs: that people would need to have communities, that communities are best if they have some sort of bond, and that bonds are made through shared traditions.

In time, the beings she left behind would create communities, but in so doing they sometimes created hostility between themselves and their neighbors The underlying programs were still working but other programs were distorting their ability to live harmoniously together.

About 2500 years ago, the Great Architect happened to be travelling through the solar system, and noted all across the world, these beings were fighting with each other and needed an update of some of the programming. given that humans by then had populated the whole earth, she decided to spread a MESSAGE through a set of messengers: they were named "Cyrus", "Ezra", "Isaiah", "Daniel", but not just them -- also: Pythagoras, Confucius, Laotzu, Gautama...many were the names of these prophets. He told them to write down the MESSAGE. One of them even wrote about this -- his name was Nephi:

"For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it."

In some parts of the world, the MESSAGE was called "THE WAY".

In another five hundred years, some wise men from the eastern lands along the Silk Road came to Jerusalem and found a very intelligent young boy who had seemingly infinite potential. As the MESSAGE had been corrupted in Jerusalem, they taught him again the MESSAGE. Most of this boy's disciples later in life would distort the MESSAGE, but because the WAY -- the principle behind he MESSAGE -- resonates in everyone, the disciples revered the boy as a God, or the Son of God.    The boy learned that the WAY was really what the Jews thought of as the Power of God...and more specifically, the boy learned that to be one with that power is to be god in very act and deed.  He told his followers that to authentically "be" is to be the "I AM".  He quoted the scriptures, speaking to all, "Ye are Gods, and all of you are children of the Most High".  When his disciples tried to get him to show them "The Father", he told them that this authenticity of being -- the I AM -- is the very father -- "If ye have seen me, ye have seen the Father".  He prayed that each of his disciples might be one with the WAY and each other, in the same way that Jesus was One with the Father.  His enlightened principle was "[the] I AM (that is the authenticity of being) [is] the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE -- laying out in the simplest terms the MESSAGE.

Go forward another 1000 years, and a group of very faithful, very sacrificing knights went to the holy land with the initial intent to reclaim the holy land from muslims, who had received the MESSAGE from corrupted teachings in a book called the "Recitation". Before these knights left, they went to get a blessing from a spiritual master named Bernard of Clairvaux. They were given "orders", or special rules, and even special tokens and signs that would help them identify a brother as they tranversed the WAY. These tokens and signs were to be kept strictly secret, in order to preserve the sanctity of the WAY and its MESSAGE, which Bernard conveyed to them.

When these knights went to Jerusalem, they found another group of people who had exactly the same understanding of the WAY and the MESSAGE. They were called "Sufis", and while they accepted the book of the recitation, they understood the MESSAGE behind the text, and found unity with the Knights. That unity was based in the Temple at Jerusalem -- a nexus of worship where Sufi and Knight could worship together. They had, together, uncovered the great secret of the Temple -- that the MESSAGE and the WAY are the very power of the universe, and to become one with that WAY is to be one with all that is. The Knights of the Temple abandaned their desire for conquest, and found the WAY to live in harmony -- They understood that oneness is to be of one heart and one mind, and to care for the poor so that there are no poor among the city of god.

In the next two hundred years, these Knights, operating as one heart and one mind became the backbone infrastructure of almost all good that was done in the society of europe. Their covenants and obligations -- they were completley obedient, they sacrificed themselves, they lived in harmony with the Gospel of all truth as they understood it -- they were rigorously chaste, and they consecrated all they had to the order.

And they prospered exceedingly. They set up the first banking system throughout europe, their financial holdings exceeded that of the Church and kings -- so much so that one of the kings, in an underhanded dealing with head of the church, conspired to have all the knights arrested and tried for heresy on the same day throughout the land Friday the 13th.

The purge of the Knights was nearly completely successful. The entire body of Knights was destroyed except for two places at the western and northwestern extremes of Europe. Nothing was heard of again of these noble Knights except for a very remarkable uprising about seventy years after the first purge.

About three hundred years later, in Scotland, in the northwestern extreme of Europe, a group of people, perhaps men in the building trades, felt the call again of the MESSAGE and the WAY. They formed lodges where they could organize their efforts.  While it seems like there was no direct connection between the Scottish rite and the earlier Knights, they adopted many of the Knights' WAY.  At the same time, Catholic Jesuit missionaries returning from Asia, hearing the MESSAGE and the WAY from their converts in China and India, inspired a type of questioning of the Church that had a lock on the hearts of europe. They called this new way of thinking, patterned after eastern words for the same -- "Enlightenment".

The members of the lodges had discovered within the MESSAGE that the WAY is not the creedal "god" -- that is, all-powerful, all knowing, and all good, everywhere but personal, etc., but rather, that the WAY was a legacy left behind by an inspired builder, a Great Architect of the Universe.   Rather than worshipping the Great Architect, they decided to serve mankind in harmon with the WAY. Yet, because the Church was very powerful, and would reject this humanist approach to service, the members of lodges, "Masons" as they were called after the trade of perhaps some of the original members, needed a way to identify each other -- signs and tokens to protect the integrity. They were also under strict oaths of obedience, sacrifice, living in harmony with the Gospel, and of course, he willingness to become one in all things.

THe message of enlightenment, humanism, and deism embodied by the Masons attracted a specific group of scottish and english intellectuals and leaders, some of whom found their way to this new land, America, a promised land, where the principles of enlightement and secular humanism could be practiced. One of the principle leaders of the masonic movement was a man named George Washington, who established a lodge in Alexandria, near his home in Mount Vernon. As well, his guiding hand behind the scenes among his fellow masons helped guide this new-found land of opportunity. And because of this influence, the MESSAGE of teh WAY found itself into the founding documents of a great nation that would house the restoration of the full MESSAGE at the right time.

I think you can finish this story on your own.

Yes, the Temple Endowment is heavily based on the Masonic ritual. And while, historically the link to the Knights Templar is weak, and there is no real link to the Temple of Solomon as claimed, the reality, to me, is that there is a deep spiritual link between the LDS temple and the MESSAGE that has been embedded into all the great and noble systems of the past.

The masons were and are not an evil organization -- but rather enlightened in many ways. when we go to the temple, and participate in the tokens and signs, we are giving homage to those who came before Joseph Smith as humble guardians of the MESSAGE, whether they were the founding fathers who were masons, the leaders of the Scottish Enlightement who gave us our freedom and economic systems, or the spiritual foreberers -- the Knights Templar, who understood, under the influence of Bernard of Clairvaux, the divine order, tokens and signs, and covenants we share today in the temple.

And to understand the true origin of these rich rituals, I invite you to recall that Bernard of Clairvaux, "Saint Bernard", the founder of the Trappist monastic tradition, is the author of arguably the most sacred hymn in the LDS Hymnbook: Jesus the Very Thought of Thee". This hymn emboides the MESSAGE adn the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE. In one verse in the latin, not translated intoo english in our hymnbook:

Nec lingua valet dicere, - No tongue can speak it
nec littera exprimere: - No words can express it
expertus potest credere, Only through experience can we know
quid sit Jesum diligere. the love that Jesus offers.

Perhaps rather than thinking of the temple as weird and quirky, which it seems to be for all of us at first. Perhaps we should embrace the reality that we are walking in the footsteps of some very great individuals -- Masons, Knights Templar, and holy Saints -- who sacrificed all to give us what we have today.

My responses to an apologist

You probably know by now that I don't think much of apologetics.  I had some conflicts with a noted LDS apologist last month, for which I regret some of my reaction to his antics.  I lowered myself to his level, and that's a bit embarrassing. So I need to leave these things aside. I apologized on webpages I can no longer access, he refused to acknowledge it, so that is life.

Yet this apologist continues to blog about me -- I think it must be a bit of an obsession for him to have someone who tries to live a faithful Middle Way -- it does not compute in his worldview. Here is his post:

I ran across [sic] the following pseudonymous comment on a Mormon-focused message board dominated by formerly active members of the Church who are now atheists and agnostics. It comes from an outspokenly atheist former Mormon — an exceptionally bright one, though one who is seldom fair in his remarks — and is addressed (sincerely, I think) to another pseudonymous poster who had been wondering, given her own unbelief (I’m simplifying here; her position is somewhat obscure and perhaps incoherent), whether she still belongs in a church in which nasty people like me insist so firmly on the literal deity of Christ, his physical resurrection from the dead, and the literality of Joseph Smith’s First Vision and of the visits from Moroni. I’ve corrected the punctuation very slightly:

The Church just got rid of its official apologetics outlet and turned it into a Mormon Studies outlet. Mormon studies allows anything, from creative apologetics to existentialism and atheism, and is a huge win for people like you. They [Mormon apologists, specifically including me] know this, blog quite openly about it, and now have even more reason to make you the enemy, so why are you so disheartened? Today is the day for you, my friend. The field is ripe.

Worthy of reflection, I think, even though the Church, as such, played no role whatever in the recent purge.

I responded as follows:

In doing a little research on your post here, I believe I am the "pseudonymous poster..." you refer to above.

I love the Gospel of John. In it, a well-educated, rational Jew named Nicodemus interprets Christ's words literally that we must be born again. He asks, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?" After which Jesus explains that there is a difference between heavenly things and earthly things, and that spiritual things are equally real even if not physically so. That's why Jesus taught in parables -- the truth is the normative value of the story, not the physical literalism thereof. ."

Nicodemus continued to be caught in a literalist mindset, so Jesus asks, "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?"."

I have stated that it is possible to be a fully faithful member of the Church in good standing and not have a literal belief in certain claims. Faith is distinct from belief, in that faith recognizes explicitly the difference between knowing something, and hoping for and acting on something while not knowing it is true. Belief is passive, faith is active. Belief does not recognize the difference between knowing and not knowing, but simply claims to know. Belief does not distinguish whether something is true or not: faith in something not true, by Alma's definition is not faith at all. ."

To recognize that someone can have faith in something without knowing it is true seems to be entirely consistent with Alma 32's definition of faith. This is and has been my position. I hold this position because by not anchoring on the literal, my faith can withstanding the knowledge, for example, that the Book of Abraham was not a translation of the Papyrus as Joseph Smith claimed, or that the Book of Mormon is not a literal history of the native americans as a whole as prophets have claimed up until recently. ."

To be specific, I do not know that Jesus physically resurrected from the dead -- I neither believe it nor disbelieve it -- there is no *reason* to believe it -- meaning that it defies logical proof ("reason") -- yet I know through personal experience and testimony that He lives. How is an honest self-appraisal of the lack of valid empirical evidence for something an obscure or incoherent position? Yet you and others "insist so firmly on the literal", implying that those who are honest and sincere about their lack of knowledge are somehow lesser Mormons than you. Your colleagues have gone so far as to call those who don't believe 'anti-christs', and having asked you to repudiate this, you have firmly stood behind it.."

I consider you, Dr. Peterson, a master of Mormon Israel. How is it that you do not know these things?

I am not surprised, but my response did not survive his moderation. His terms of "dialog" are always to do so in a safe environment where he can have his say without thoughtful response...

At the same time as I posted -- knowing he was responding to other comments, I noted that this apologist saw "Les Miserables", being grateful that it promotes "religious faith".  I responded as follows:

Like you, I find the message of Les Miserables sublime and clearly faith promoting.  I'm not sure I would agree that such faith is 'religious' per se.  The message of forgiveness, of redemption, and of walking the right path is clearly in common among many religious and non-religious.

To me, the lesson of Javert is an extraordinarily important one.  Javert represented the best of righteousness and justice - his integrity was impeccable.  Yet, Javert could not accept that there was another way to be acceptable to god other than through the exactness of obedience: Justice must be served.  He could not accept that Jean Valjean was a redeemed person, that although they may have believed differently with respect to the law and justice, that both were indeed good and righteous people.

This is the beauty and irony of Javert: perfect goodness can also be perfectly evil.

We find in the Church today many who believe in a very specific and rigid definition of mormonism.  They claim that anyone who believes differently, particularly those who have a non-literal belief, to be "anti-christ", citing specifc scriptures out of context.  These are the "Javerts" of the church -- their testimony is strong, their righteousness is unquestionable, their integrity the highest of all -- yet because they fail to understand the real principle behind "atonement" -- that is, "If ye are not one ye are not mine" -- they lose track of the "more excellent way" of Godly love.

"Take my hand, and lead me to salvation,
Take my love, for love is everlasting,
And remember the truth that once was spoken:
To love another person is to see the face of God."

It is my hope and prayer that in this new year, we can lay aside the conflicts of the past and embrace one another in full fellowship.  That, to me, is to love another person.  That, to me, is what Jesus asks us when he says, "I say unto you 'be one', and if ye are not one, ye are not mine."  That, to me, is to see the face of god as we welcome diversity of spiritual gifts without judgment and exclusion.

Can we walk this Way together?

I'm not sure this will have any effect. I doubt it will survive his moderation. But it truly is my hope that such 'defense of mormonism' that causes such antipathy be done away.

And in another post, this same blogger quotes Bertrand Russell out of context claiming that the atheist worldview provides no comfort to mourners. He fails to recognize the purpose of Russell's charge to focus on the present rather than on a powerful god that is supposed to make things right, because in Russell's view, the universe doesn't seem to care in the least about humans. Instead, he charges us to make the most of today -- a very different message than the caricature of Russell's beliefs by quoting Russell out of context. Here is what I wrote:

By quoting Bertrand Russell out of context, it certainly paints a bleak picture. But the title of the article is "A Free Man's Worship", and while he certainly paints a bleak picture of death, his purpose is to enhance the free man's ability to make the most of the present -- to establish morality and goodness amidst what he views as the cruelty of the omnipotent universe. This is what Russell's point was:

"Let us learn, then, that energy of faith which enables us to live constantly in the vision of the good; and let us descend, in action, into the world of fact, with that vision always before us."

I would hardly think this charge to have faith in a way that leads to action for good is a message at odds with what we as LDS believe. To seek a world of 'fact' is to embrace the gospel as it was meant to be taught: all truth is circumscribed into one whole, to have faith in something proven to be not true is no faith at all.

Well, this is often the Way of apologetics -- to defend one's beliefs regardless of the truth or objectivity of the matter. I always liked the late Rodney King's response to all the polemics following his beating by the LA police: "Why can't we just get along?"

Update: Our "Apologist" has posted his response onto Mormon Dialogue and on his own blog. Evidently, his blog server lost all three of my entries above, or so he claims. Uh-huh...right.

The Mormon Truth Heuristic

This is a work in process -- I'm posting to save it and get initial thoughts.

Mormons often state in their testimony, "I know the Church is true".  It's a remarkable claim, full of hope, passion, and certainty.  To those outside the culture, particularly from other, competing faiths, it seems to be arrogant as well.  It isn't intended to be, but rather, it intends to be a confession of faith (not knowledge) that the Church (what Mormons call their religious organization, culture, and everything else with it) is true and relevant to testifier, personally.  Those may not be their words, but that is the intent. 

Those of us trained in critical thinking and in epistemology find the statement also to be deeply problematic.  To know something is to have justified true belief in it -- proof from evidence that the thing being testified to is indeed 'true' and not in any way false.  Yet the statement of 'knowing' something to be true when there is no proof has deep precedent:

Examine Job's claim:

 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

Job 19:25-27

This powerful witness is Job's prophetic utterance: he 'knows' by some means that an unseen being exists, will stand on the earth, and that after death, in the flesh, Job will see his redeemer.  This "I know" (hebrew "yada", and in the Septuiguint "oida") is quite certainly "knowledge".  From the point of view of evidence, of epistemological validity, Job has no basis, not justification for this belief, therefore he has no "knowledge" of it, yet he says he "knows".

Moving forward to the Gospels, both Peter and Martha are found to testify that about something that is not apparent from the evidence.  They do not use the term "know" but it is quite certain language:

Jesus saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 16:15-17

Although Peter isn't saying he knows, he makes a propositional, definitive truth cliam, "Thou art the Christ".  How can he make this claim?  He makes it not through tangible evidence, but through exclusively a spiritual kind -- the witness of the "Father which is in heaven."  Again, the critical thinking epistemologist may not be satisfied, because such an intangible witness might as well be a personal feeling of certainty.  While valid and important to Peter, it does not provide evidence except to the Peter himself. 

 

In the case of Martha, she states unequivocally the following to Jesus upon the death of Lazarus:

Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.
John 11:27

The critical thinking epistemologist might approve of the term 'believe' in this case.  Even moreso, the writer of John uses the verb "πιστεύω"/pisteuo, which means more of "faith" rather than belief.  This expression is quite distinct from Job's "yada"/"oida" of certain knowledge, but it is also not "belief".  Pisteuo involves a working trust in something: more like "I trust (accept, agree, hope) that thou art the Christ".  As evidence of that trust, she was finished with the conversation expressing her concerns about Lazarus' death, and went back to her business.  She acted on her faith by turning over her concerns to Jesus and moving on, trusting that he had things under control.

 

These three ways of expressing faith-based knowledge -- Job in saying "I know", Peter in making a certainty proposition, and Martha in expressing faith -- all are part of the way religious people confess their faith.  It should be no surprise that Mormons make similar claims about their own faith.  But how do Mormons form their truth claims?  

 

The Mormon Truth Heuristic -- Short Form

 

There are two terms in this that need to be defined: Truth, and Heuristic.  First, from Joseph Smith:

Truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.
Doctrine and Covenants 93:24

A remarkable statement: simple, precise.  It is controversial in using the term 'knowledge' in it, but whatever is that truth of things as they are, were, and are to come is ineffectual unless we know about them.  Truth is simply things as they are.  Truth in history is things as they were.  Truth in the future?  if we say with certainty that X will happen, and we have justified belief that it will happen, and it happens, then for purpose of this discussion, it is true.

 

The second term, heuristic, literally means the means to find something out.  In modern use, especially in the field of computability, a heuristic solves problems with a short-cut, a trial-and error method, when a finite, deterministic algorithm is impractical.  By using the term "truth heuristic", I mean how LDS explore truth through a specific trial and error testing process, and the tendency to use that method to short-cut an exhaustive investigation of truth.

 

The first version of the truth heuristic is encountered in the very first missionary discussion, where missionaries present the Book of Mormon, and encourage investigators to ready, ponder, and pray.  Here is the "Moroni Challenge" universally accepted as the means to test the truth of the Book of Mormon:

I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, ... and ponder it in your hearts.

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

Moroni 10:3-5

So the investigator is to read, ponder 'it', and pray, and the outcome is that teh truth of 'it' will be manifest by a feeling of certainty that Mormons call, "the Holy Ghost".  I have emphasized 'it', because the term is non-specific.  'it' could refer to what is read, or the entire book.  'it' could refer to the spiritual 'truth', symbolic in nature of what is read, or that the events in the book literally happened as reflected.

 

Reading, pondering, and praying about something to assess whether it has spiritual value to you as a reader is certainly a valid test.  But as for whether the events in the book literally happened, or whether the book as a whole can be proposed as 'true', meaning without material flaw, accurate, god-given, etc., 'it' becomes a bit problematic.

 

This is where the heuristic becomes a short-cut.  When missionaries return for a second visit, they ask about the experience the investigator had about the verses they were asked to read.  These verses are spiritually powerful in the text, and many investigators, if open minded, will have a positive, comforting experience with the text.  Because many who grew up believing the Bible to be the word of God tend to relate to King James English as being 'scriptural', they may even have had a very powerful emotional and spiritual experience with the material.  At that point, the missionaries describe these feelings as the "Holy Ghost" telling them that the Book of Mormon is true.  Without being specific, they have taken spiritual value associated with specific verses and generalized that evidence to the entire book and by implication, its history and divinity. 

 

Now that the heuristic has determined that the Book of Mormon is true and divine, then the means whereby the Book of Mormon came about must also be true and divine.  After all, it is impossible for a thing of God to come out of anything other than a true Prophet.  In glowing terms, the story of Joseph Smith and his position of Prophet of the Restoration is laid out.  The investigator learns of the miracle of a farm-boy with very little formal education translating this divine book by the gift and power of god.  The investigator is asked, "Could any man have written this book?", and the the investigator remembers the spiritual feelings and believes that Joseph could not have been a normal man, but indeed a true Prophet.  And from there, a True Church -- the ONLY true and living church -- because that was the content of the First Vision.

 

So from a very basic and essential spiritual test of whether the Book of Mormon has spiritually valid content, the investigator inductively concludes that the Church as presented by the missionaries is "true".  Having had a spiritual awakening, the associated bond to the missionaries, the Book, and to the Church is complete, and the investigator becomes a member.

 

Conversion is an emotional/spiritual process.  Seldom does anyone become converted by virtue of logic and reason.  Yet, the disturbing part of this short-cut heuristic is that the conclusion of truth of the whole is inductively derived from a specifc test of a specific reading of the Book.  In making the inductive leap from that specific test to the truth of the whole is glossed over. 

 

The heuristic itself is valid, when it applies to investigating a specific issue, to working it through in one's mind, and then to seek spiritual guidance as to whether that specific issue has merit, is true, or is relevant.  The outcome of this is a type of experiential knowledge -- a justification that the belief is true.  What is invalid is the movement from specifc to the general, from a subject claim of value to an objective claim of truth.

 

What really happens with the short-cut heuristic

 

Before going in to what is happening in the mind with conversion, it is important to recognize that to LDS thinking, all spiritual reality is material as well.  Thus, the spiritual processes of conversion are coupled with physical processes in the brain.  To investigate what is happening physically with conversion does not minimize the spiritual reality thereof, but it does help us understand why it happens, and what it means to be converted.

 

When the missionary asks the investigator to ready, ponder, and pray, the reading creates a set of mental pictures from the narrative, as we would get from any book with a narraative story.  As we form these mental images in our short-term memory, our mental processes need to stop input and process the information in order to commit it, place it, into our long term memory.  Moroni's promise asks us to ponder, not just what is read, but also, a deeply embedded narrative in Western culture:

Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
Moroni 10:3

The narrative of the mercy of God to the children of men is deeply embedded in every active Christian from early childhood.  These stories have a parallel emotional context in the child's brain -- emotions of security and how god protects them from fear.  The "emotional context" is found in another part of the brain than logic: it forms the limbic system of the brain, where primal fears and desires are located.  By bringing into the Book of Mormon context the emotional context from a Christian's childhood, the investigator is planting a seed of associations between the visual images of the Book of Mormon narrative and the emotional context of scripture stories.  Even the use of King James English re-enforces this religious/emotional context.

 

By pondering these things together, the investigator is triggering an event within the nonconscious part of the mind -- that which helps us implant long-term memories through dreams and other mechanisms.  After pondering, and perhaps stepping away from the Book and sleeping on it, the nonconscious mind makes neural associations between the act of reading the Book, the visual images, and the positive experiences from the investigators' youth about biblical stories.  As the investigator prays about this, particularly after some time for the non-conscious mind to extend the neural associations, the investigator feels a spiritual comfort about the Book of Mormon.  That comfort is located in the limbic mind, in the amygdala, right in the same general location as "love", "comfort", "happiness": it is a feeling of knowing that something is true -- an emotion, not a logical construct. 

 

It's as if the investigator has fallen in love with the Book of Mormon, and all things associated with it.  And quite similar to falling in love, the objectivity of the cerebral cortext -- the locus of conscious, rational thought, takes a secondary seat to the feeling of knowing and love for all things Mormon.  This feeling of knowing, of comfort, can be extraordinarily powerful.  It creates a strong dependency of all things mormon to and through the primary emotional chain that started with an emotional/spiritual experience after reading, pondering, and praying, to the core truth claims of the church, to the existence and relevance of the entire church structure and teachings.  By falling in love, and making a deep, personal commitment, the limbic mind creates a bond between the investigator and the church -- one that is very hard to break.

 

While this may sound illogical to make such a life choice based upon an emotional bond, the origin of this bond in evolution is quite critical to the survival of species.  Humans are social animals out of necessity: the survival of individuals is greatly enhanced in the extent to which humans are part of a tribe, flock, or group of people.  The emotional bonding of the investigator to the Church is by no means a bad thing -- the Church is a very suitable tribal structure, with extensive support for the survival of the individual who fully commits to it.  The need to be part of such an organization is vital to any human, as it has been for millions of years. 

 

So there is benefit to joining the Church, tremendous benefit.  But maintaining the same type of short-cut truth heuristic for all decisions within the Church is deeply problematic.

The problem with the Short-Cut Truth Heuristic

In a sense, the idea of converting to the church through a single experience with the spirit is a bit like falling in love with a person, and the moment

In sorting out truth of things, it is helpful to have a testable proposition.  Take the statement "The Book of Mormon is true": This is a testable proposition, provided we first define what the word "true" means.  One definition would be absolute truth: every word, statement, claim, history, origin in the book is exactly what it says it is - an accurate history of the Native American people, translated from golden plates written a language called "reformed egyptian", etc.   Every claim about the book needs to be true in order for the claim of absolute truth applies.

Proving an absolute claim is difficult, because it requires that all aspects of the book be shown to not have any flaws or falsehoods.  In a book with 500 pages, with a history that cannot be fully verified, the ability to prove it to be true in an absolute sense is impossible.  However, it is quite easy to prove it is not true.  A single fact that is not possible would bring down the claim.  For example, if it is not possible for a beheaded individual to sit up, struggle, then expire, then the book at least has some things in it that aren't strictly 'true'.

But most LDS will be satisfied with a feeling that it is true. 
 

 

 

 

 

truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come
D&C 93:24

 

God

Perhaps one of the most critically different things about Mormonism is the definition of God.  The problem is that the current understanding in the Church, that God is an immortal man who is unchangeable, all powerful, all knowing, all good, and able to be everywhere at once while having a corporeal, inseparably-connected immortal celestial body and can, as the father of my spirit, answer my prayers personally and directly. 

What if this definition, which seems to try to align the omni-god of the creeds with Mormon belief is just not real?  What if we really haven't come to understand god fully?

I believe that in some ways, Joseph Smith actually got the definition of god right in a moment when he wrote section 88 of the doctrine and covenants, that god is that which infuses the entire universe:

...he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.
As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;
As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;
And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.
And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;
Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—
The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.
D&C 88:7-13

He also noted that when we observe the workings of nature, we see god moving in power and glory: 

The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God.  Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power.
D&C 88:45,47

What if we realize that 'a god' is a being, any being, that is one with that power of the universe?

the Psalmist in Psalms 82:6 wrote:I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Jesus, in John 17:21-23 wrote:That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.  And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:  I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; 

Psalm 46:10 wrote:Be still and know that I am god.

3 Ne 27:27 wrote:What manner of men ought ye to be? Even as I AM

Consider the following from John Spong's talk "Beyond Theism":

“Suppose we change our God definition. Suppose we take God out of the sky and strip God of the supernatural power which we have created and placed on this divine being. And suppose we begin to think of God as a presence at the very heart of life. We have to use words, so I use these words without any sense of investing them with more than their meaning will bear.

“If God is the source of life, as I believe that God is, then God is present in all living things. God is present in you, in me, and in the whole created order. And if God is the source of life then the only way you worship God is by living – living fully, sharing life, giving life away, not being afraid, wandering out of the certain into the uncertain, out of the known into the unknown.

“If God is the source of love, as I believe God is, then the only way you can worship God is by loving, not being right, but by loving – by loving wastefully. The image in my mind is an old sink in the basement that you plug up the drains and you turn on all the faucets and the water overflows the boundaries and goes all over the floor and fills up every crack and cranny, every dirty little space and never stops to ask whether that crack deserves this living water, whether that crack deserves this love. You love because love is what you have to do, not because somebody deserves the love – you love wastefully.

“If God is the ground of being, as I believe God is, then the only way you and I can worship God is by having the courage to be all that we can be in the infinite variety of our humanity. Whether we are male or female, gay or straight, transgender or bisexual, white or black or yellow or brown, left handed or right handed, brilliant or not quite so brilliant no matter what the human difference is, you have something to offer in your own being. Nobody else can offer what you have to offer. And the only way you can worship God is by daring to be all that you can be, and not be bound by the fears of yesterday.”

None of the real questions of life can be answered with the standard definition of god, an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being who orchestrates and controls all in the universe through his conscious will. It doesn't make sense. It's a logical impossibility. The truth of god is that there is a power of god, that preceeds all that is, including the 'being' of god. When we flip the concept of god from the being of god precedes his power, and realize that the only real universal omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient thing is the 'power of god', which by very definition is not 'conscious' or 'willful', then we begin to realize that god is not so distant, but rather, within.

So, sure, if we accept the idea of a premortal existence and an afterlife, then Elohim as a 'being' would be god, in that he is one with the already-existent power of god. But to think of the being of Elohim as being the source of that power actually doesn't work if we believe that Elohim was once a man like us. By thinking of god as a 'being' who is one with the eternal power of the universe, we can attribute constancy and universality to Him by virtue of his power, but not by virtue of his being. But this and all other talk about pre-existence, afterlife, Elohim and the cosmology of gods is pure speculation, whether joseph smith said it or not. In fact, there are many definitions and conflicting speculations in JS and BY's thinking of god, so what is the truth?

In my impression, he got it right in Section 88: that the power of God is the universal, and the being of god is subject to the laws of the kingdoms. This effectively flips the definition of god around, but I would say that most people aren't prepared for the implication that a single, personal, conscious god over the universe isn't real and doesn't exist. And because, at some level, Joseph Smith taught this concept, Christians tend to reject mormonism as "Christianity" -- there is merit in that accusation, but we have lost the reason why in our correlated doctrine of today.

Once we set aside our naive, correlated, pseudo-Christian definition of god, we can come to embrace that god is not the distinct, remote big guy in the sky, but rather, "one of us", and as well, an inherent part of our being through the Holy Ghost and our divine nature. When we follow Jesus and choose his Way of Life, then we choose to be one with power of God and thus 'a god'. Then we are of one heart and one mind. Zion.

And rather than thinking of this as a remote, far-off thing in the future, when we come to embrace Dieter Uchtdorf's message that we are, here and now, in the great Middle of our Eternal Lives, then we come to realize that "I AM" is present tense. We are gods, to the extent that we are one with the power of god, and are serving one another in love. When we serve, when we love, we answer the prayers of those who need God's help, and thus we are gods here and now.

Father's Day Thoughts

So I am up visiting Dad, and he's tired of LDS who refuse to accept evolution. so he is writing a white paper on why and how evolution is compatible with belief. He'll be 93 in September... while i may disagree with his politics, i think he's pretty cool in his NOMish ways.

so i put him onto wayfaringfool blog. he says, "who wrote all this crap?"

"do you like it?", I ask.

"this guy still believes in god"

"uh, read more carefully..."

"oh, ok, maybe he has some points..."

"oh, gee thanks dad."

about four times today he kept asking, "what was that website again..."

happy father's day, dad.

Finding Truth in All

I know that many people in specific religions privilege the sacred text of their religion as being divine, over and above all others.

For many Christians, the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant and perfect, ever word of which is imperative.  For Muslims, the Qur'an represents God's final recitation to his Prophet Mohammed, praise be unto him.  For Jews, the Torah/Law takes absolute precedence, follows by the writings of the prophets, the sacred histories, and the oral traditional commentaries of the Law known as the Talmud.  Sikhs favor the Adi Granth, the inspired writings and hyms/chants of the Gurus.  Hindus base their religion on the Veda, with the Upanishads providing additional insight.  Buddhists favor the Pali canon, Taoists the Daozang, and Zoroastrians the Avesta.  I might add the Confucians who have the confucian classics, and Mormons who have their standard works, including the Book of Mormon.  Mormons likewise open canon to ongoing revelation.  Catholics add the apocrypha to the bible, but leave canon open to at least the pronouncements ex cathedra of the Holy See. 

Every one of these texts are revered by a minority of the world's population.  One has to wonder how a single god could have been so partial as to favor only one of these texts as being true.  And if he wasn't partial, how he could be so inconsistent so as to give conflicting guidance to so many. 

One has to wonder.

Perhaps Paul was on to something in his letter to Timothy

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16)

Of course, when Paul wrote this, 'Scripture' was only the Septuagint, the greek old testament, used by early christians for their interpretation of the meaning the prophesies of Jesus Christ found therein.  But Paul used the term 'inspiration', not 'dictation', or 'recitation'.  Inspiration is a feeling, not a coherent thought, a feeling around something within the mind (intellect) and heart (emotion) of the prophet receiving inspiration.  Scripture is not precise; as inspiration, it's symbolic, mythical, and perhaps mystically beyond words; and the words conveyed are somewhat short of the inspiration.  As well, 'inspiration' often gets filtered by the bias and knowledge of the prophet receiving inspiration.

In the Mormon tradition, Joseph Smith explained 'revelation' as follows:

Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.

Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation; behold, this is the spirit by which Moses brought the children of Israel through the Red Sea on dry ground.

(Doctrine & Covenants 8:2-3)

If prophetic insight can be explained by 'inspiration', then the wide variety of differences can be explained by the fact that different people within different cultures interpreted 'inspiration' differently.  If each tradition witnesses something of the divine through the lens of their own cultural minds and feelings, then each religion points, in a way, but to discern what the Truth is behind these inspirational writings, one must look beyond the words, combining the writings of multiple traditions, to find the common thread that points more accurately to ultimate truth.

I was once told by a follower of Falun Gong that one should only commit to a single path, by a single guru.  I have a strong feeling that this 'lock-in' is self-serving.  I don't accept that a single faith has all truth.  Not anymore.  I do accept that each faith has an image of truth in its scripture and teaching. 

I have journeyed through most of the great religions, perhaps because I'm just too curious, but in my journeys, I have found so much in common. I have felt great insight, being blessed by a Catholic priest, sitting in reverent devotion in a Shaivite temple, participating in great worship of all kinds.  While individual cultural traditions are not always accessible to me, there is something behind all these traditions, something that connects us, something that inspires us.

One amazing verse coming from the Book of Mormon helps me understand this:

Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.

(2 Nephi 29:10-13)

With this in mind, Joseph Smith, the author (proprietor, or translator, depending upon what your faith tells you) of the Book of Mormon said the following:

Seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.
(Doctrine & Covenants 88:118)

And by example, Joseph Smith was syncretic, meaning he was willing to adopt his definition of truth not just from the Bible of his original traditions, but also from the best books, including his account in the Book of Mormon, as well as his adoption of Masonic ritual and teaching into his Temple ceremonies.  While some people may find problems with his adoption (or plagiarism) of other traditions, and perhaps some of what he did was pious fraud, the reality is that his adoption of multiple traditions into a single definition of truth is an example of a method for getting to a more broad, more clear understanding of Truth in all things. 

But in the process of getting to Truth, one must set aside things that aren't true.  Just because a prophet said something in the past does not mean that it forever constitutes 'Truth'.  Paul explained this very clearly in his first epistle to the Corinthians:

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

But when that which is perfect (greek: complete, and by extension, 'more accurate') is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Paul was one who had received the revelation of Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus.  He was one of those who knew the process of revelation, and yet he understood and taught clearly that revelation and prophesy is only 'knowledge in part' as if 'we see through a glass darkly'.  Strong orthodoxy, found in Fundamenatalist Christian churches or in the mainstream LDS church often have serious issues paring out falsehoods that have crept into the religion.  This creates a moribund, dogmatic belief structure that cannot grow as Paul suggests.

Thus, discernment of truth has to be part of the process of sorting through all faith traditions to find truth.  I wrote in an earlier blog about Truth, and to me, if something is true, provably, scientifically, and in action, then it should be adopted as True.  If something proves false, then it should be considered that part that is 'done away' as Paul said.  This concept of refining Truth very much is at the core of what I believe. 

So, I find Truth in all scripture.  It's been a passion of mine for many years as I have journeyed through the various faith traditions.  Sometimes, I've been so obsessive about it, I've been dissatisfied with english translations, and I've learned enough of the original language to try my own translation.  To me, it's getting to those nuggets of truth.  As an obsession, it may not be entirely healthy to deconstruct scripture at this level of detail.  The spiritual inspiration behind the words is not really so far from us -- it doesn't require this 'down in the weeds' study of scripture.  In fact, as Jesus pointed out to the scriptural scholars of his day,

Ye search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, but they are they which testify of me (the divine reality). 

So there is something I've learned in all this.  While it may be interesting to dig for this truth in each tradition, what I've really learned is that the Truth is also right back inside of me.  In the Bhagavad Gita, there is a verse that says:

To one who is enlightened, the scriptures are like a well in the middle of a pristine lake.

So, while there is truth in all scripture, all truth is also accessible within me, if I am only able to tap into my personal sense of light and truth.

And that's the journey of a lifetime.

Finding a middle way

I think many of us who were brought up in strongly traditional religions, become disaffected when we find out that our religion, its precepts, its history, and its practice are not 'true', in the sense of being factual or even enlightened.  Disaffection becomes a disease that cancors us, so when we try to participate for good reasons, we have those face palm moments where someone will teach or preach complete fiction as if it were fact.

It becomes really insidious when those in leadership position insist on the members adopting the position of false fiction, because to do otherwise would not be faith promoting.  For example, many believe that God created the earth in a relatively short period of time, but the facts show that the earth is very old, and that evolution is very much part of the process -- and of course, this puts a lie to the mythological account in Genesis.

Some of these Church leaders insist that there is "no middle way": either you fully beleive and accept doctrine as taught, or you are not a member of the church.  Others, who become disaffected, will claim there is no middle way, for to continue to participate in a religion you know is false is to be "Intellectually dishonest".

So, is it really true that there is no Middle Way?  I think there is.

Confucius' key philosophy on how to live a rich and full life was based on something he called "the Middle Way". This is represented in one character "Zhong" (中) which means "the Middle", "Middle Way", or "the Center". The book by Confucius on this topic typically has the english title "Doctrine of the Mean", where "Mean" is used in its sense of being the average of things -- this isn't what Confucius was saying.

The Middle Way of confucius is a balanced, centered life. The explicit statement, coming from the first chapter is as follows (my translation):

The mandate of heaven is called “Nature” (性 xing),
Following nature is called “the Way” (道 Dao),
Cultivating the way is called “Learning”. (教 Jiao)

The Way cannot be departed from for a moment
If you could depart from it, it would not be ‘the Way’.
...
When one sets aside extremes, e.g. joy, anger, sorry, and pleasure; this is called ‘The Middle Way’ (中 zhong).
In the Middle Way, when one can express emotion yet remain centered, this is called “Harmony” (和 he).
The Middle Way is the root of all things under heaven.
Harmony is the realization of the Way.
When the Middle Way is actualized with Harmony, All things thrive.

To be on the Middle Way as applied to being in a religion: the True Believing aspect of our faith is one of absolutes, of extremes: If you are not with me, you are against me. It's either all true, or all fraud. Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect. "I KNOW" the church is the only true church on the face of the earth... etc.

Once a True Believing member realizes that there are profound problems with the historical and current truth claims of the church, it is highly likely that the True Believer goes to the other extreme of emotion: hatred. So one emotional extreme morphs into another: joy in the gospel that everything is wonderful turns into rabid hatred of the church. These two extremes are not on the Way as Confucius would point out. He suggests that instead of starting from a position of one pole, it's better to center your life -- to calm the mind of emotion, and find the pivot point of the Way: the Middle/Zhong. From this position of the Middle, Confucius is saying that it's ok to send out emotion, but you remain anchored in the Middle Way.

In this sense, to be on the "Middle Way" is to be balanced in one's view of the church: to be in harmony with the Spirit of the Gospel, while recognizing that the physical manifestation of that spirit is subject to a lot of human error. It is to be open minded and not strident in one's beliefs, to accept the value in both the church as well as other belief systems, while being true to one's authentic self and the truth.

There are so many writings in asian culture about this concept. Buddhism, Taoism, Japanese culture and tradition are all based upon an idea that detachment from extreme emotion allows one to be authentic in one's emotions. It's a deep paradox. Wuwei of the Taoist, Buddhiyogaad of the Hindu, Dharma of the Buddhist -- while being a bit different in extended meaning, all start from a position of detachment in order to connect.

I am truly suggesting that the Middle Way is more enlightened and divine than a position of extreme and Blind Faith in the Church and it fundamentalist-styled teachings; or, on the other hand, divorcing oneself entirely from the church in anger. I'm also saying that by adopting Confucius' Middle Way, you can better see the truth in the church, and not react to its problems through another extreme emotion: hostility. The Middle Way is to be balanced, to be centered: what the Bhagavad Gita calls "Yoga": the unity of mind and spirit.

This "Middle Way" is not a movement or an organization -- it is not anything organized at all -- it is an individual approach to life that finds the center, the pivot point of the Way, and then joyfully expresses thought and feeling from the authenticity of the center of one's soul.

Laotzu says, "名可名，非常名" - "The names that we can name are by no means constant names", meaning that labels are insufficient to accurately and completely define a thing. If we struggle for a name of something, like the "Middle Way", it's because the concept is much broader than the words imply. Confucius Middle Way is a state of sattori -- peaceful enlightenment, where emotions are at rest, and being at rest, one is free to be authentic in one's emotions and expressions. It may be better to say, "I am centered", which better implies this state of harmony (和).