My Vision of the First Vision

I just read Mormon Heretic's Wheat and Tares post about Joseph Smith's First Vision accounts.

I think it's important to examine a couple of points in the 1838 vision:

Joseph Smith History 15  ...immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.

When I was on my mission, we napped often in the middle of the day (It was the mission policy in Chile Santiago mission under Elder Bradford). After a while, i kept having lucid dreams -- dreams where my conscious mind was aware of dreaming, and still within the dream state. I experienced in this state a type of sleep paralysis, which often was quite uncomfortable, and if the dream was very nightmarish, I was unable to speak or move and it was terrifying.

Note in Joseph's case, that he went into a state where his tongue was bound, he felt doomed, oppressive darkness fell about him, and he was unable to respond. This is extremely similar to the feelings I had in lucid dreams.

This is not to take away from the reality of the first vision. I believe, and Section 88 of the doctrine and covenants gives me support in this, that natural processes are always involved in all things in this world: even and especially visions and miracles. A recent prophet said that visions often happen in the boundary between sleeping and awaking: viz., "Lucid Dreams".

Then next step, Joseph sees a pillar of light. Very very important language: this is extremely common in mystical literature. Mystics have often talked about being enveloped with light; near death experiences talk of the 'tunnel of light', and eastern mysticism speaks of the 'third eye' -- a vision of light centered between the eyes.

My interpretation: Joseph had a mystical experience within a lucid dream.

Now let's look at the end of this experience: 

Joseph Smith History 20   When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home.

"When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back". Uhhh.... is there any doubt in reading this that "he was not himself" when this all was occurring? It was a "vision" -- he was NOT AWAKE, in the sense of normal consciousness; but he was AWARE during the dream: a perfect description of "Lucid Dream".

Speaking from my own experience, as I was experimenting with living spiritually about 15 years ago, I had a powerful lucid dream, including the pillar of light, completely being enveloped in light, and having a complete release of all worldly guilt, thought, and frustration. It was beyond my imagination, and to this day I cannot think of it but be swept up in the feeling I had at that moment. I cannot say I saw a person, two people, or anything at all -- it would be impossible to explain what I felt and saw, but it was as real to me then, and my memory of it as vivid as I'm typing. But I couldn't possible explain to anyone, and if I did, it might sound like one person, two people, all sorts of variation of my account from time to time -- because it's just the nature of a spiritual/mystical experience -- it defies explanation.

This was 15 years ago (actually, I'm not sure of the date), and while I can say my memory of it is vivid, it's not like even immediately after the fact I could recall all the details -- dreams fade in conscious memory quite quickly. Joseph's first vision was in his 15th year -- 1820, roughly. Or, according to the 1832 statement, it might have been in his 'sixteenth' year -- 1821 -- he doesn't know for sure (same as me). His first account of the vision was twelve years later when he is nearly double in age: while a lucid dream of such intensity would definitely remain in memory, it would be 'memory', which has an interesting property to it: memory needs to be refreshed if it is to stay current, so what happens, neurologically, is that the memory synapses fire, we remember, and then the memories are re-implanted in the neural network. When the memory gets re-implanted, often other aspects of the memory become implanted with it, perhaps interpretation and additional 'details' that weren't part of the original memory. The memory strengthens, and potentially morphs, each time it is told.

A mystical experience, as I noted, does not lend itself to words. So, in 1832, when Joseph is writing down the story, he puts down his verbal interpretation of a non-verbal event. His initial statements included the pillar of light and he 'saw the lord', who told him his sins were forgiven. This corresponds to a mystical vision perfectly. Let's look, as well, at another thing Joseph Smith wrote in December 1832:

(D&C 88:47-50) ...any man who hath seen any or the least of these [referring to the movements of the heavens] hath seen God moving in his majesty and power.
I say unto you, he hath seen him; nevertheless, he who came unto his own was not comprehended.
The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him.
Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound.

Joseph is describing the effect of observing the power of god as reflected in nature, then speaks of a very interesting concept: that to see this power, being aware of the "Light" within them, and when you are 'filled with light", then you have seen god: there is NOTHING here about seeing bodies. Then shall ye know that ye have seen me -- past tense -- once you come to realization of being 'quickened'. Joseph would have used the term 'quickened' to refer what happened to him in the first vision, because he said later about moses' vision:

Moses 1:11 - But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him.

The use of the past perfect tense "have seen" once we become quickened in D&C 88 indicates that event of seeing god was already completed before we have the point in time experience of being 'quickened'.

So...to sum up, I believe the events show the first vision to be characterized by the following:

1. It was a lucid dream, not a physical event.
2. In memory of the lucid dream, Joseph was trying to put into words that which defies language, hence verbal descriptions (a) do not accurately portray a lucid dream, and (b) morph over time.
3. As time goes on, the added details of the dream progressively serve the agenda of establishing the validity of the 'one true church'. This does not have to be a conscious, deceptive process, but rather, a natural cognitive feature of the neurology of memory.
4. Given the nature of memories of remote, past emotional events, relying upon the first vision account to create a doctrinal pronouncement of the nature of godhead is imprudent at best.

In short, it's a vision, a lucid dream, and should not be a source of doctrine, either of the "one true church" polemic, nor of the nature of Godhead. I would add that there is no intential deception in this.

Be kind, and be grateful that God is kind

This was a talk I gave on 12-August-2012 on the subject above in the LDS/Mormon ward where I attend.

By way of background, the talk was intended to be derived from Elder Jeffrey Holland’s April 2012 Conference Address, Laborers in the Vineyard. The theme of the meeting was from the address: "Be Kind, and be grateful that God is kind". My daughter spoke immediately prior to me.

You've just listened to our youngest of five daughters, each of which is absolutely unique and wonderful. Because each of our children is different, it's a wonder that we don't have favorites. We really don't -- we love each one of our children equally and hopefully unconditionally. Or at least we try. And it occurs to me that this idea of our Heavenly Father treating us kindly and lovingly, and in fact equally according to our individual needs, is exactly what Elder Holland is trying to say with the parable of the laborers of the field.

To summarize the parable, I will quote from Elder Holland's talk:

I wish to speak of the Savior’s parable in which a householder "went out early in the morning to hire labourers." After employing the first group at 6:00 in the morning, he returned at 9:00 a.m., at 12:00 noon, and at 3:00 in the afternoon, hiring more workers as the urgency of the harvest increased. The scripture says he came back a final time, "about the eleventh hour" (approximately 5:00 p.m.), and hired a concluding number. Then just an hour later, all the workers gathered to receive their day’s wage. Surprisingly, all received the same wage in spite of the different hours of labor. Immediately, those hired first were angry, saying, "These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day."1 When reading this parable, perhaps you, as well as those workers, have felt there was an injustice being done here.

Then Elder Holland speaks to this concern, dividing his talk into three sections:

1. God's love and mercy is given to all. Some people complained, and others benefitted, but all received "One measure" of pay. They were all 'one'.
2. He then relates the parable from the point of view of the first laborers: that we shouldn't be embittered or angry over past things where things didn't seem fair, then
3. He relates the parable to all of us, regardless of the hour of day, that it's never too late to come and receive the blessings of the Lord.

So, coming back to the first part of the parable: It's really about not second guessing. I would like you put yourselves into the place of these workers. Here we are -- working the program, but it's just not going according to plan. We can see, clearly, that there isn't enough help to get the job done. We have a choice, to work harder, to complain, or to recognize that we need help.

How does this relate to our lives? When we're working and doing what needs to be done, and it isn't according to plan, do we (a) just work harder, (b) complain, or (c) ask for help? we don't know exactly what happened here, but what ended up happening is that the workers got more help -- all the way through the day until the end.

How merciful was the owner of the vinyard -- instead of forcing us to work harder, he provided help for us. How much smarter that is than either shutting up and working harder, and burning ourselves out, or complaining and getting negative.

Then at the end, everyone got paid the same. Elder Holland points out that this was according to contract, and thank heaven's it was for all those who worked so hard, regardless of the hour they got engaged.

The reality was that the Householder was merciful and kind, but it's easy to see that the Householder may not have been the best planner. Should he have had all the laborers and sufficient help at the beginning? wouldn't that have been more fair? I mean, after all, the Lord (the Householder) is perfect, right? And his plans therefore should be perfect, and that means everything should have worked smoothely, or maybe this isn't the right plan?

How many of us expect, in the service of the Lord, that the program of the church is perfect? How many of us, in finding out that someone made a mistake, are quick to judge and second guess the program?

Which program are we following? What's the plan?

We have the answer to that in the restored gospel. Before we were born, two plans were presented. One was the plan of perfection and flawlessness, the other was a messy plan: we would make mistakes, learn from experience, and have a savior to bail us out of the mistakes we make. Hmm. How does this put into perspective what the meaning of life is?

Let me give you a concrete example from the story of Adam and Eve. As they left the garden, God gave them commandments, that they

1. should worship (which means "Love") the Lord their God, and
2. should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord.

Now here's what the scripture says, without elaboration:

And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord.
Moses 5:5

He had no idea why he should give the first and best his flocks to the Lord. He just did it.

After many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.

And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth.Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore.
Moses 5:6-8

Notice that at the beginning Adam had no idea why he was sacrificing. Not only that, he didn't try to make up a reason. He obeyed because the Lord told him so. But importantly, there was a reason, and that reason was very much a part of the plan of salvation.

Adam's attitude is very instructive. He obeys, he doesn't make stuff up. He doesn't judge the Lord and wonder why it doesn't seem fair. Later in moses, Adam does ask questions, and wonders why, but he doesn't doubt. He has faith, without knowledge. And that power of faith without knowledge allows him to act in the name of the Lord and be sanctified.

So how does this relate to the parable? Instead of thinking that everything must be perfect when the Lord is involved, we need to be thinking about how we are hear to learn from our own experience... and THAT will involve something other than flawless execution most of the time.

The lord's standard of perfection is different than ours. We read in Matthew 5:48, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect", and sometimes we think, we need to do that of ourselves. But I would ask you "What is the 'therefore' there, for"? If we look back just a couple of verses, we read the following

I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Matthew 5:44-45

In other words, be grateful that god is kind TO ALL of his children, notice here that Jesus is comparing how the sun and the rain provide equal sustenance to all. God is complete in his grace, to give us all sunshine and rain -- god, and he uses the term 'Father' here -- loves us equally and unconditionally -- as any father would his child.

So now let's return to verse 48 where Jesus says, "Be ye THEREFORE perfect (or complete, impartial), even as (Notice this is a simile, a comparison to...) YOUR FATHER IN HEAVEN is perfect (in other words, complete, impartial, and not worried about who gets paid what).

Let me apply this to our daily walk in the church.

Because we have, perhaps, a distorted view of perfection, we think that the church of god must be without any flaws, that our leaders must be flawless, that the lord will never allow the prophet to lead us astray. We even get to the point that we think it's all or nothing. I've heard myself say that god has had his hand in every aspect of the church and kingdom from the beginning.

But having a perfectly flawless world or church organization is not God's plan of salvation for us. We learn line upon line and precept upon precept. Yes, there was a plan proposed in the premortal existence that provided for perfection -- as in flawlessness -- in everything. That wasn't the lord's plan. The Lord's plan was that we would come here to this life, make free choices, and learn from our own experience to distinguish good from evil. Such a plan of learning is messy -- people are going to make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes.

We honor Joseph Smith, Brigham Young as prophets of god, and I testify that they absolutely were, and that we have a prophet today in Thomas S. Monson. Yet they were and are human. Does the fact that they are prophet exempt them from the plan of Salvation? Did they make mistakes? YES, YES they did. But in the main, this is the work and glory of god, and the restored gospel is true.

We honor the Martin and Willey handcart companies. The sacrifice of the pioneers was beyond measure, and each one of the survivors lived lives thanking god for the miracles that occurred along the way.

The reality was that the challenges they had were completely avoidable. Somebody made a lot of mistakes along the way, leaving too late from england, leaving too late from winter quarters -- huge mistakes. Levi Savage, one of the members of the company was extremely experienced in the trek westward, and he voiced his concerns, publicly, that they were going to have serious problems - even death and getting caught in weather.

But Levi was faithful in supporting his leaders even in their mistakes. He was even condemned for nay-saying, but to the end of his life, he remained faithful, never bitter, on supporting and defending the kingdom of god.

I could look at the situation of the Martin and Willey companies one of two ways: either it was god's plan to have them go late, or it was a mess-up and proves that our leaders are wrong.

The reality is that it's both and neither. Out of 800 people in the two handcart companies, over 200 died along the way and many were maimed with frostbite and the like. Yes, this was avoidable. Yes the leaders made a mistake. But as well, we honor these pioneers and each and every one of them honored the trek and their experience in seeing the loving hand of the lord guiding them along the way. Miracles happened each and every day.

Isn't there a huge paradox in this thing? It was not God's will to lose over 200 people, and had the leaders listened to Levi Savage, such loss would have been avoided. But they didn't. And on the other hand, the faith of the members in supporting their leaders and moving forward even in the adverse circumstances sanctified the mistakes, overcame huge difficulties. And in the end, the church and city of Zion is stronger because of the sacrifice of the pioneers.

Blessed, honored Pioneer.

We are on a trek today. We are pioneers at a unique point in our history. Until today, the Church has been that fringe that the gentile world readily dismissed. And, as a result, we've had a sort of siege mentality of the outside world versus our own, and we've more or less kept to ourselves.

No longer. We are in the world, visible, public, and under the greatest degree of scrutiny ever. Our foibles and history as members of the church are becoming readily available for everyone to see, and in so doing, people have uncovered some of the more "human" aspects of our church history and culture.

And I can guarantee you, that if you go out on the internet, if you even read official church history, you will find that our leaders have made mistakes large and small from the very beginning. And why should this be a surprise? Why should we allow the humanity of the lord's church and kingdom to shake our faith, faithfulness, and loyalty?

Recently, there was a prominent director in the Church Educational System who discovered some aspect of church history that he thought wasn't the way it should be. He and his wife allowed that to question the 'it's all true or it's all false' premise that sometimes we get. within months, he and his wife left the church, his job, everything, to pursue what he considered was 'intellectual integrity', and to be united as a family in this 'cause'. Now, a few months later, they are getting a divorce, and nothing in their life is going well.

In this case, they allowed the increased scrutiny of the world to affect their faith and faithfulness in the gospel and church. And instead of putting things into perspective, they jumped to the conclusion that it was 'all wrong'. In my impression, that is the great lie we hear today. we even say it to ourselves: expecting flawlessness to be the Way the lord works, and in fact that is the 'other guys' plan. And when we buy into 'false perfection' instead of 'perfect unity', we are on the wrong track.

To me, this isn't about that they made a wrong choice. It's about making a choice without proper regard to the whole truth and an enlightened understanding of the Lord's plan, the plan that involved messy humanity in all we deal with. Those who are stuck on the concept of perfect flawlessness will have problems in an imperfect world and church. "All true or all false" is not the Lord's plan. We must be able to deal with the necessary human failings in every institution with love, kindness, and an understanding that Heavenly Father forgives us our shortcomings.

This last thursday night, Jon Stewart invited Joanna Brooks, an LDS scholar who recently published a memoir called "Book of Mormon Girl" to his show. Joanna came of age during the 80s and 90s at a time when some of our more liberal scholars and members were pushing the envelope of feminism. She was 21 in September 1993, when some of her professors were excommunicated at BYU due to pushing that envelope too far. She became inactive and disaffected with the church.

Yet she returned and found a place and a way to be faithful in the community of saints. She is faithful, and loyal, even if some of her opinions are unorthodox. And as Jon Stewart, a comedian who loves to poke fun of religious people, he was completely impressed by her, and positively compared today's plight of mormonism with his own Jewish ancestry.

What a difference it makes to be authentic! What a difference it makes to be kind, and faithful! We don't belong to the church because it is perfectly flawless. We belong because to us, it is the Lord's church. We don't follow the plan of salvation because it will prevent us from making mistakes. We follow the plan of salvation, including making mistakes, because it is the Lord's plan.

Joanna Brooks makes a difference because she's authentic, positive, and real. She has learned from her own experience that it's not fruitful to let some problem in the past get in the way of enjoying the blessings of the gospel today.

That's why, in sense, Elder Holland is saying "beware of the dark side".

You know, Yoda's explaining of the force to Luke..... But beware of the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression; the dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will..."

There is much wisdom in Yoda's statement. Whenever you feel that some aspect in the church or your family, or anywhere you are is getting you to that dark place of anger, resentment, criticism, and dark emotions. It's time to stop. to realize that we are all different, that the Lord's plan is the one where we would learn together, and no matter what happens, if we've learned from an experience, we've executed god's plan.

Paul addressed this challenge in the church, where people would be fighting and frustrated with the differences between people and their roles. He called this "diversities of gifts", and encouraged us to recognize that as we exercise our gifts, testifying of jesus christ, none of us are accursed. He said,

"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ."
1 Corinthians 12:12

How important it is to realize that as we approach Zion, we are to be of one heart and one mind. Jesus said to Joseph Smith, "I say unto you 'be one', and if you are not one, ye are not mine. (D&C 38:27) Being one, is not being the same, but rather of gifts differing, but of the same spirit.

And in teaching this, Paul went one step further, saying that above all this, there is a more excellent way. And that way is love.

I testify to you that god loves you. It is never too late to come to him. He says to us, as he did to the nephites in the darkness, "O Ye that are spared, will ye not now come unto me, repent of your sins, and be converted, THAT...I....MAY....HEAL....YOU!" (3 Nephi 9:13)

He stands at the door and waits, he is just and kind, and I am deeply grateful that he is kind, because without Him, I am nothing.

God lives, Jesus is the Christ, the Gospel is all truth necessary for us to be happy today, and supremely happy in that world to come.

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.

The Middle Way is not 'lukewarm'

One objection I hear over and over again is that the Middle Way is wrong because it is 'lukewarm'.  People cite the following scripture as rejecting the Middle Way:

"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.  So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth." (Revelation 3:15-16)

What an unfortunate scripture.  The King James translators were gracious in this translation -- the greek word more accurately translates into 'vomit' instead of 'spew'.  I wonder, though.  Does this "proof text" mean what people think it means? is it really talking about "middle ground" or rather, indifference?

The Middle Way I subscribe to is by no means indifferent.  It's hard work and it's decisive: One must decisively establish what one believes, and be confident enough in it so as to not be bothered by others' beliefs.  This is not lukewarm.

If you are an independent voter, and carefully vote based upon issues and what you feel to be right, does this mean you are indifferent? lukewarm?

I believe the Middle Way is to objectively seek the truth in things, recognizing that truth has many dimensions.  That a myth is not literally true does not mean it does not contain moral truth.

The Middle Way is also one of love, of harmony, of listening to other viewpoints and being willing to share what we have in common.  Because we have gifts differing, each one of us has a slightly different view of life.  While some things are provably true or false, many other things are subject to our opinions and thus are not really debatable in a meaningful way.  Can we not find a middle ground to share what we feel? 

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).

How we connect, spiritually

If you have ever watched a flock of birds prepare to migrate, they start chaotically, but eventually, they begin to operate with one mind.  Hence the addage: birds of a feather, flock together. 

How this works is very subtle, varies in mechanism from species to species, but in all cases, there is a subtle nonverbal communication between them whereby the individual bird connects nonconsciously with the flock.  And, because the mechanism and signals are species specific, only birds of the same species recognize and are comfortable with these signals.

Humans are no different.

There is within us and birds another mind, located and driven by the brain's limbic system, that is capable of communicating and connecting with others at an emotional level, without our conscious mind's awareness.  I am going to call this other mind "our spiritual mind", because it really is about something our conscious mind cannot do.  It's like having a full-time companion with you.
So, when we interact with others, sometimes we 'connect', meaning that we really do communicate together, and other times we don't. When we connect, the reasons for connection are not obvious to us. What's really at play is that our spiritual, limbic mind is actually having a non-verbal conversation with the spiritual, limbic mind of the other person. 
How does this happen?

Within the limbic mind is the amygdala, the seat of our emotions.  Our eyes, ears, and olifactory are connected to our minds in two distinct neural pathways: one connected to our cerebrum--the seat of our conscious mind, and the other to our limbic system, the seat of our spiritual mind.  As well, our facial muscles are dually controlled by parallel pathways to both our conscious and nonconscious processing centers.  The center of primal emotion, our amygdala, uniquely manages our hypothalmus, the master control center of our body's internal systems.

Our conscious minds are connected with our limbic, non-conscious minds through our senses (sharing sensory input through dual paths), through our memories, and through our emotions.  Through these three means, our two minds can 'talk' to each other, but not really in 'thoughts'.  Ideas may present themselves, and emotions tell us that something going on with the other person is right or wrong by your own emotions. 
But our limbic minds do more than just express feelings within our brains.  Because the limbic system is connected to our face, eyes, and to our entire endocrine system through the hypothalmus connection to the pituitary gland, it communicates outward our innermost feelings.  In effect, when we feel stress, our body rhythms change, we sweat, we emit odors, we express emotions in our face -- the vast majority of which cannot be controlled by the conscious mind.  Our internal feelings about the other person and things we're talking about are being expressed to the other person through our very subtle signs.  And the other person is not consciously recognizing these subtle signs, but his or her own limbic mind is.  In other words, no matter what we might try to hide, we are going to reveal our emotions to the other person, and vice versa.  Our limbic minds, operating completely independently from our consciousness, will betray us, if we are not authentic and connected within ourselves.

The key to this communication is recognizing our own feelings, and to be centered in our emotions.  We might say the amygdala has a set of positive emotions: love, certainty/the feeling of knowing, and joy.  It also has a set of negative emotions: hate, cognitive dissonance, anger, sorrow.  Emotional intensity is often very closely matched with both sides: great love often turns to virulent hate when a person feels betrayed.  While it is not feasible to be emotionless, Confucius advised for us to be 'centered' in our emotions, to find the peace in the center, and from there, authentically emote as indicated.  When we are feeling strong emotion, and it is driving us to a place we don't want to go, then it's time to sit back, meditate, center the mind and heart, and then choose more cautiously the emotion that fits the situation.  While this may seem hard, through training and meditiation, it's possible.

So, when we connect with another person, we can choose to be authentic, to know our own feelings, and to express them as appropriate to the situation.  As well, we need to listen to our own emotions in the conversation.  Our limbic mind may be telling us that there is something amiss in this person, and if we follow the subtleties of feeling as our gut indicates in a conversation, real connection between people is possible.

The Wenzi text says there are three types of listening: one, listening with the ears, which is just hearing what is being said without understanding.  Two, listening with the mind, which is understanding what is being said, but does not fully embrace it.  Three, listening with the spirit, which is to really feel what the other person is feeling.  How do we do this? by recognizing that our 'spirit' is really our non-conscious mind, that is communicating with the other person, and by centering our mind, really allowing our spirit to tell us what the other person is feeling.

When we connect spiritually, we feel something amazing.  We feel a comfort with the other person, we feel happiness, and we feel love.  These are the primal positive emotions of the amygdala, the core of our emotional being.  And when we feel these things, our brains, our senses, our hearts are capable of truly understanding and being 'one' with another person. 

As I look at the flock, and the unity with which the flock seems to have a 'spirit' together, so also, when humans spiritually connect, they are one.

 

Received versus Experienced Knowledge

Thinking more of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, I am coming to realize that not a lot of people have seen the "Tree" in any other light than "all knowledge". This probably indicates that I am just not thinking about this correctly (aka "orthodox" = "correct thinking"), but being hetrodox, I just see things differently.

That's the problem with received knowledge...I am supposed to use the myths and metaphors correctly, lest I confuse myeslf and others, and lead all of us astray. But I cannot help myself: I just don't accept received knowledge without first testing it. Not any more, at least.

The effect of orthodoxy is to have exactly what you are suppose to think and do. I just think that when I accept the predefined schema I tend to automatically reject that which is disruptive to the orthodox worldview. In so doing, I think I create a division between the real world and the ideal of orthodoxy. In creating this separation: there are things that are holy and sacred, and that which is profane.

I saw a reference to a study on received knowledge in religion versus a more natural approach:

"From [Durkheim's] study of the religions of Australian aborignal tribes he concluded that the one thing all religions have in common is a division between the sacred---the realm of the extraordinary, and/or the divine---and the profane---the realm of the everyday, the commonplace, the ordinary. Durkheim claimed that the distinction between the sacred and profane is one that is socially constructed and not one that inheres in the object so designated. Thus tribal people attribute sacred meaning to a bird or an animal, designate it as their totem, and build up rituals surrounding it, and the symbol in turn becomes a source of unity."

I think this quote is very revealing. The division between good: the sacred, and the not sacred can easily devolve into the sacred being good, and all else being evil. While this can be a bit of a strawman--no Christian will agree to this characterization--the fact is that once I have accepted a given version of fiction or speculation as received knowledge, then any thing that contradicts the received knowledge must be rejected.

But to see the world in a grain of sand, or heaven in a wild flower, is to recognize that the space between heaven and earth is the body of a single being. Unity is the antithesis of duality-- to be unified in mind and spirit ("yogastah") is to experience the connection between this and that, here and there, now and then...all become one.

More thoughts on redefining the god of my understanding

I received the following comment to my previous blog entry on this topic:

How do you reconcile the fact they convicted God, but then prayed to him immediately afterwards?  Was this simply an expression of the unhappiness they had with God, while recognizing ultimately he exists and is their master?

In my impression, the god of our religious upbringing must die in order to understand that god is beyond all understanding.

Does that make any sense?  Not to the rational mind, it doesn't.

But there is another mind, much more primal, inside of us, deeply linked to our emotions.  it is a mind much more in touch with the Way things work at a subconscious/unconscious level.  The mind within doesn't much care for logic, but it yearns to be connected to something.  we see that connection happening throughout nature, in the flock of birds or school of fish, the underlying need to be "part of" or "one with" is always there.

In my understanding, god is not 'out there', separate, some puppet master or ideal that orchestrates what is happening here, to whom we pray for favors.  God is "I am" - "in there":being itself as reflected inside of me: the Atman.  Not the logical mind, not the passion, neti, neti. 

Even a flock of rabbis needs to connect, spiritually, to that which is beyond logical understanding.
So i pray, not for favors, not even for understanding.  I pray to connect.  Or better said, I pray and connect.  And in so doing, I pray with more meaning, more passion, and more spirituality than ever.

Thoughts on redefining the god of my understanding

Thinking about how my understanding of god has radically changed through my life, I am left to wonder how to share this with people.  Most people live in a world that god helps them make sense of it all.  Given the things I've experienced and come to understand, this doesn't work fo rme, but it does for others -- those that conform to the comforting norms of religion and society.

Sometimes I wonder if it is good idea to pop the baloon of conformity.  Not everyone responds well to it; perhaps they are walking around in the matrix as happy as can be, without wondering what is behind it.
Others of us cannot help but wonder what is behind the matrix, and somedays that isn't always a happy place. 

When the god of our religious upbringing dies, there is a hole in the support network.  From the vast history of god, gods, and religion, it didn't seem to matter that none of that was real, people of faith thought it was, and that was good enough.  filling that hole is an immense challenge.

Confucius didn't speak of faith, but he did participate in the ritual faithfully.  Here is a snippet of the Lun Yu - the Analects:

Some one asked the meaning of the great sacrifice. The Master said, “I do not know. He who knew its meaning would find it as easy to govern the kingdom as to look on this;— pointing to his palm.

He sacrificed to the dead, as if they were present. He sacrificed to the spirits, as if the spirits were present.

The Master said, “I consider my not being present at the sacrifice, as if I did not sacrifice.”

Wang-sun Chia asked, saying, “What is the meaning of the saying, “It is better to pay court to the furnace than to the south-west corner?”“

The Master said, “Not so. He who offends against Heaven has none to whom he can pray.”

Some of this language is hard to understand. The bottom line is that he did not know the nature of god (the great sacrifice), did not think the spirits or ancestors were actually present -- yet he worshipped and prayed with sincerity.  Given a choice between the furnace (symbolic of the practical aspects of life) versus the south-west corner (the area of worship in the house), he chose the place of worship -- prayer has a purpose, and to reject god entirely leaves one without a god to pray to.  So, a rational man, Confucius prayed, went through the rituals with all respect to the spirits he knew were not present.  Yet in his mind, he did the actions, and prayed to god regardless, and found personal benefit thereby. 

Elie Wiesel lost his belief in the god of his religious upbringing in Auschwitz, forced to look upon the face of a child being hung slowly to death.  His 'god' died that day.  He relates a very interesting account about why he continued to pray:

There is a story that one day in Auschwitz, a group of Jews put God on trial. They charge him with cruelty and betrayal. Like Job they found no consolation in the usual answers to the problem of evil and suffering in the midst of this current obscenity. They could find no excuse for God, no extenuating circumstances, so they found him guilty and, presumably, worthy of death. The Rabbi pronounced the verdict. Then he looked up and said that the trial was over: it was time for the evening prayer.

I'm not sure it's a geat idea to kill the god in our understanding.  In walking through the Holocaust Memorial in DC, I felt nothing at all--blackness.  The 'shoe room' brought home the magnitude of the evil of the holocaust.  The sheer efficiency and productivity with which holocaust was conducted speaks to the idea that any god who would allow such evil to occur is not worthy of worship.  My naive god died there and many other places.

Yet I still have felt the spirit after this realization as strongly as I did when I was a naive believer in the magical god of my upbringing.  Defining what I believe is defintely part of that spirit, and many times it carries me to spiritual heights.

Not this morning though.  I feel pretty lonely and worthless.  I have no happy face to put on today, probably because of god knows what.  The monster I have come to know as depression is often alive and well in me.  I once thought that was because of sin.  Now I understand it's just part of being human, and that's ok. 

I think it's time to pray.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

Thinking of the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as an allegory, the woman and the man partook of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and from that point, all hell broke loose.

I'm thinking, "Why would partaking of knowledge be a sin?"

I have heard that the Tree of Knowledge is an understanding that everything has its opposite: good and evil, virtue and vice, light and darkness -- essentially laying out that the Tree of Knowledge is knowledge of dualism.

Another view interprets the "Good and Evil" from its Hebrew roots as being more of an express of 'all knowledge', as terms like from stem to stern, 'high and low' things like that -- exhaustive range of knowledge.

But again, I'm thinking, "How can knowledge be harmful?"

I have come to understand from Jean Piaget that our minds have within them a schema of knowledge -- a structure of knowledge that is based upon one relationship of a thing to another thing or concept.  Although the mind is structured in a neural network schema, there is also a hierarchal understanding of knowledge, a 'tree of knowledge' in the mind, the form of schema that attempts to organize the neural network into a hierarchal structure where one thing is dependent epistemologically on another. 

If I take the term "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" in its full meaning, I get to the point that this tree is essentially a hierarchy of knowledge judgments of what constitutes 'good' and what constitutes 'evil'.  Such a hierarchal schema would regress to essential dependencies and eventually commence with certain key root concepts.

To be specific, since we're talking about the Bible here, the root concept of biblical belief is that there is a personal god who is interested in us to a point that if we render obeisance to him, we might gain enough favors to live forever in His presence.  Failing this, we will be tortured and suffer forever in a hell of burning flesh.  Perhaps this root is a bit of a straw man, so let's just start with "there is a personal god" at the very root of the hierarchy.

But that is not enough to define the full tree -- obviously a tree of knowledge of good and evil must also have a branching between 'good' and 'evil'.  As we move up the tree, we begin to need to establish judgments, like 'the bible is the word of god'.  'Prophets tell is what to do'.  'If we follow the savior we are saved'.  'The prophet or pope will never lead us astray'.  These trunk branches of the tree of knowledge of good and evil provide paradigms to the believer as to how to distinguish between 'good' and 'evil'. 

So, as a point of definition here, a 'paradigm' is a pattern rule whereby we determine where something fits into our mental schema.  If my schema is hierarchal and dualistic between good and evil, then my paradigm is whether I think an observation of fact is 'good' or 'evil'.  Things that are 'good' are consistent with my schema.  Things that are inconsistent with my schema are rejected as false or evil.  Thus, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil becomes my way of rapidly dispatching what I sense into either confirming my knowledge, or being rejected as inconsistent with 'truth' (my schema).  The certainty and confidence I have in my Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is comforting indeed.

The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is said to be delicious to the taste, and very desirable.  It is very compelling and comforting to have certainty.  In sports, in religion, in the business environment, and in politics, the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" is pervasive.  It makes clear my understanding of what is OK and NOT OK.  My team, religion, company, and party are "OK" and the other guys are "NOT OK".  I'm overly simplifying here, but dualistic schemas tend to operate this way.  Partaking of the fruit is sometimes called "Drinking the Kool-Aid", meaning a blind and absolute acceptance of the dualistic schema.

"True Believers" are those who accept a given Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil as being absolute.  The schema of the mind created and trained by such true believing religious 'knowledge' does not allow for alteration of either the root, basic trunks, and paradigms of one's knowledge.  When a fact is in conflict with what a True Believer holds as 'truth', the fact either is rejected through denial (self deception), or causes cognitive dissonance.   To resolve cognitive dissonance, the True Believer must rationalize the fact in observation, by either categorizing it as a manifestation of evil, or by some sort of apologetics that somehow comfort the believer that the fact is still consistent with the schema.  There is a third path, and that is to re-evaluate one's own mental schema, but this is difficult, if not impossible for the True Believer.

I think it is very telling to think of partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil as equivalent to the terms "Drinking the Kool-aid".  The latter phrase comes from the story of Jonestown, where the followers of Jim Jones knowingly drank cyanide-poisoned Kool-aid because Jim Jones told them to do so.  They blindly and absolutely accepted his hierarchal schema that he, alone, could and would provide them the pathway to God.  This factual story puts into sharp relief the statement "In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."  Eating or drinking, the partaking of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is the Way of death.

Why, then, would anyone partake of this fruit or drink knowing it is poison?  Ah-- that is the big question.  Time for me to get some work done around the house...