On Being an Agnostic Mormon

Love the title, but I wouldn't immediately say that about myself, because I hate labels...

Being agnostic is formally the very most honest way to be a Latter Day Saint.  I say this with all sincerity and accuracy.  Consider the following quote:

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.  But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

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

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 to the Corinthians, first Epistle 13:9-12)

The most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein. Latter Day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles existing, as they are made manifest from time to time.
(Joseph Smith, History of the Church, v5 p215)

Joseph Smith started his journey with the First Vision, condemning creeds and their professors, not because they said wrong things -- they did not, not really -- but because the creeds declared an orthodoxy, and that orthodoxy would get in the way of honest investigation of truth.  The professors were corrupt by virtue of the fact that they claimed to know that which was not knowable.  To say that you know something when you don't know it is both dishonest and corrupt, because it contaminates one's ability to see truth when it comes along 'from time to time'.

To say "I don't know" can be the best and is often the most honest answer.  To say "I know" and then to say either "...the church is true" or "...the church is not true", is not an accurate statement.  While some might defend the statement 'the church is not true' because the church says things it knows to be false (justified by the "milk before meat" idea), the reality is that the church addresses, through prophecy, the vast unknown.  Paul's use of the word "prophecy" is interesting -- it's a method of filling in the gap between what we "know in part" and that vast unknown.  Prophecy, as applied in scripture, is that which is given by inspiration, to the mind and heart of the prophets -- it's not a perfect, flawless process -- it's the ability to accept in faith our best, inspired guess.  It is not to know a thing. -- and in recognizing our 'not knowing', one can best sort out the truth of things.

Alma defined faith in this way: "Faith is not a perfect knowledge of things, therefore if ye have faith, ye hope for things that are not seen, but are true."  What makes faith different from belief is the explicit aknowledgement that I do not know, but am willing to trust and try something out (act on it).

Alma lays out a speciic test of any given principle: either it grows or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, and you've given it a chance, you can, appropriately, throw the seed out.  What's important about the Alma 32 experiment is that it is specific to a given principle -- "In that thing" -- and not the entire garden.  Too often, the idea to test an unknowable belief, or an entire belief structure, is not a valid test, because it goes beyond what one can know with a simple "yes, it grows" or "no, it does not grow" answer. 

For example, to test the question, "Is the church true", by Alma 32 is fraught with problems.  Being a vast set of beliefs, it is an untestable proposition by Alma 32 -- it's not specific to a specific thing, because the truth of the church is mixed with human judgment and sometimes profound errors.  So, in exercising the experiment, one can either feel good about it -- it grows, or feel nothing -- it doesn't.  If I feel good, and then conclude 'the church is true', then there is a danger of accepting a blanket orthodoxy containing both truth and the human judgment and profound errors in the church as being 'true' as well -- not wise to do.  If I don't feel good about it, the I might conclude 'the church is not true', and then reject things that really are in fact useful, helpful, and uplifting.

Instead, Alma suggests testing a specific thing:  I can test to see if a specific teaching or practice has value to me, and in so doing, I get a comfort with that principle or practice.  I can ask the question, in faith, "Does the Book of Mormon contain truth and relevant teachings for me and my family?".  It's a specific question, and in reading the book, discovering the value, and then praying about what I've read, I can come to a knowledge that the Book of Mormon has significant value to me, and teaches truths relevant to my life.  I exercised faith by reading the book because I recognized that I did not know if it had value.  I did not cast out the book because of my unbelief, in whatever form that may have taken, but I gave it a legitimate test in faith.  As a result of my test, I came to a specific piece of knowledge -- the book contains valuable, relevant truths for me.  Test complete.  Faith exercised.  Knowledge gained.  Alma 32 works in the specific. 

Alma asks, is this all there is to know?  And he says "no, you've only exercised faith in that specific thing".  You don't know at this point, whether the book is historically true.  You can ask that question, but if you don't put it to a test, including both mind and heart, acting in faith on that thing.

What does that mean when it comes to whether the book is historical?   It means openly and honestly probing whether the book indeed has that history.  If it turns out that my test in faith does not result in mind and heart agreeing that it's history -- then I have to recognize that I do not know (unprovable), or I know it doesn't (be careful here -- requires proving a negative absolute).   As long as something is not proven to be false, I can still hope, I can still have faith, but I need to recognize that I still don't know.  So many of the Church's teachings are in this category.  Faith continues, because we recognize we don't know -- and that's just fine.

This process of defining what we believe through our own experience is actually at the core of both Joseph Smith's teachings (as noted above), and as well, in the temple endowment, in both the creation as well as garden of eden dramatization -- man was to learn through his own experience to distinguish good and evil -- and not partake of the predefined tree of orthodox knowledge of good and evil.

Unfortunately, the church through "correlation" has managed to create the appearance of an orthodoxy, enforced by things like the 14 fundamentals and other social pressure. Nothing could be further from the original purpose of the church -- I hold hard on the idea that there are no creeds -- no orthodoxy -- and only the challenge to discover "all true principles existing." In my humble opinion, suspending naive belief that too early asserts knowledge, and recognizing that we truly don't know, is the very best way to discover truth

As Lao Tzu said, "Not knowing is true knowledge".

So...perhaps being a Mormon Agnostic is not such a bad thing, when we really, honestly, don't know.

Baal Shem Tov and Joseph Smith

Baal Shem Tov, "Besht" for short, was the founder of the Hasidic movements, and was an 18th century mystic in what is now Ukraine.  Besht was to Judaism what Joseph Smith was to Christianity: he had mystical experiences, and turned Judaism upsidedown, fighting against the moribund rabbinical talmudic scholars as Joseph Smith fought against the creeds and orthodoxy.

Of all things last night, his name kept coming up in my dreams.  So, reading this morning the wikipedia entry about Baal Shem Tov this morning, I read about his teachings about god and man.  Here are some excerpts:

He declared the whole universe, mind and matter, to be a manifestation of the Divine Being; that this manifestation is not an emanation from God, as is the conception of the Kabbalah by Mitnagdim, for nothing can be separated from God: all things are rather forms in which God reveals Himself. When man speaks, said Besht, he should remember that his speech is an element of life, and that life itself is a manifestation of God 

Whoever does not believe that God resides in all things, but separates God and them in his thoughts, has not the right conception of God.
(wikipedia)

In Doctrine and Covenants 88, Joseph Smith states the same thing: that god, or at least the power of god is everywhere.  Joseph Smith thought of god as being everywhere in the beginning of his teachings, but towards the end said unequivocally, that god is a man, with material flesh and body.  Besht is panentheistic in a way that LDS might not accept, yet if we accept that the Holy Ghost dwells within us, then at least the HG is physically resident in us.  As for panentheism, consider these two verses:

D&C 88:13 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.

Moses 6:63 And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me.

My feeling is that Joseph Smith was a mystic, and did not fully comprehend his own thoughts and revelations about the integral nature of god and man.  He came as close as any Christian had done until that time, and by bringing god out of the ex-nihilo idealism of plato, Joseph Smith did much to move the needle.   Perhaps JS did understand, fully, this mystical vision, but at the time, the Saints were only ready for a conventional definition of god.  Milk before meat.

It is equally fallacious to think of a creation in time: creation, that is, God’s activity, has no end. God is ever active in the changes of nature: in fact, it is in these changes that God’s continuous creativeness consists.
(wikipedia)

Again, in section 88, the idea that the power of god is god and that it is the laws of nature within its respective kingdom.  Besht had identified three dimensions of reality similar to three kingdoms of glory.

Besht's concept of eternal creation is a marvellous concept.  Getting away from a physical point-in-time creation narrative, this idea that the act of creation, the garden of eden story as taught in temples, is not merely an historical event, but the ongoing creation narrative as humans deal with god and the world here and now.

The first result of his principles was a remarkable optimism. Since God is immanent in all things, all things must possess something good in which God manifests Himself as the source of good. (wikipedia)

This as well characterizes LDS thinking: Rather than the totally depraved world of the Calvinists and Catholics, LDS believe in the divine nature of creation, the world, and humans.  We are inherently optimistic (or at least should be).

For this reason, the Besht taught, every man must be considered good, and his sins must be explained, not condemned. One of his favorite sayings was that no man has sunk too low to be able to raise himself to God. Naturally, then, it was his chief endeavor to convince sinners that God stood as near to them as to the righteous, and that their misdeeds were chiefly the consequences of their folly.
(wikipedia)

This is a lesson many of us should realize in the church, especially on the topic of church discipline, and on how to treat those who don't share the TBM point of view.

From the very beginning Besht fought against that contempt for the world which, through the influence of Isaac Luria’s Kabbalah, had almost become a dogma among the Jews.

Again, back to the idea of the sacredness of creation.  This concept of the world's inherent goodness puts perspective on the hasidic concept of tikkum olam/repair of the world into context -- we should be caring for the world, treating it with utmost respect -- an inherently green viewpoint so needed today.  Not sure I see that attitude, politically, in LDS thinking, although many prophetic teachings speak of caring for the land.

He considered care of the body as necessary as care of the soul; since matter is also a manifestation of God, and must not be considered as hostile or opposed to Him.
(wikipedia)

This is doctrinally identical to LDS thinking.  All spirit is matter.  And it adds life to the idea that the Word of Wisdom, in its original intent and not current interpretation, is to care for the body.

...he fought the rigidity and sanctimony that had accreted to strict Talmudic viewpoints while not abrogating a single religious ceremony or observance. His target was the great importance which the Talmudic view attaches to the fulfillment of a law, while almost entirely disregarding sentiment or the growth of man’s inner life.
(wikipedia)

I sense that Besht was a bit of a Middle Way Jew.

While the rabbis of his day considered the study of the Talmud as the most important religious activity, Besht laid all the stress on prayer. “All that I have achieved,” he once remarked, “I have achieved not through study, but through prayer”. Prayer, however, is not merely petitioning God to grant a request, nor even necessarily speaking to God, but rather (“cleaving”, dvekut)— the glorious feeling of ’Oneness with God Almighty’, the state of the soul wherein a man or woman gives up their consciousness of separate existence, and join their own selves to the Eternal Being of God Supreme. Such a state produces indescribable bliss, which is the foremost fruit of the true worship of God.
(wikipedia)

This.  I cannot say more or better than the above.  This is the essence of the mystical experience -- that which is achieved through revelation.  Joseph Smith said that all members "who receive the holy ghost receive revelation, for the holy ghost is a revelator" -- thus to 'receive the holy ghost' upon confirmation, is to seek revelation daily in one's life as befitting one who has received the gift of the holy ghost.  Sometimes revelation comes in words, but only rarely.  The mystical experience is a oneness with god that cannot be described in words.

I believe Joseph Smith was a mystic like Baal Shem Tov.  Besht lived a longer life, and his followers picked up much more of the mystical message than Joseph's successors, who were more inclined to create the more traditional Christian LDS church that we have today.  I, for one, love to embrace Joseph's original mysticism as a pattern for my own spiritual journey.

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

 

The Second Coming...?

There is a mainstream thinking in Christianity that the events of revelation, and all the prophecies of the New Testament respecting the Second Coming already happened with the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. This concept is called "Preterism", and is widely held by the Roman Catholic church, but completely rejected by dispensational millienialist evangelicals and, of course, LDS.

There are very good reasons for preterism. Matthew 24 starts with a foretelling of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, then talks of the fulfilling of Daniel's abomination of desolation. Importantly, the biblical version of Matthew states explicitly:

Matthew 24:34: Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Pretty clear stuff. Presuming this is intoned about 30 CE with a life expectancy at the time generally not to exceed 70 years old (average much younger due to infant mortality), indeed 70 AD would be about the time that most of that generation of adults would be passing away. And the events of the destruction of Jerusalem were as catastrophic to the Jewish people -- the ones who made up the first Christians -- as anything you could possibly imagine. Preterists say, "Timing is everything", because you can't get by this first century timing in context.

But then again, LDS are not constrained to keep to the bible texts. If a given verse didn't fit his dispensational millenial view, the Joseph could 'translate' it correctly, and so he did:

Joseph Smith Translation, Matthew 24:34:Verily, I say unto you, this generation, in which these things shall be shown forth, shall not pass away until all I have told you shall be fulfilled.

This changes the meaning from the idea that the generation to which Jesus spoke ("this") to the generation in which "these things shall be shown forth" -- meaning that the entire elapsed time of the cataclysmic events of the second coming would happen in one generations typical lifetime -- and I guess this would be about 100 years in today's numbers.

But we also have earlier in Matthew, to my knowledge untouched by JST:

Mattthew 16:27-28: For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

"Some" is not just "one" as might be the case with John. Some equals more than one. And what was the Kingdom? The Pharisees specifically wanted to know when this kingdom would come, and in Luke we have Christ's answer:

Luke 17:20-21:And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:  Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Oops.  Uhhh. Is that really saying that there is no physical kingdom of God coming, that it's right here...within me?   Now we can deal all day long with the idea that the bible is full of contradictions (as is the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, Journal of Discourses, conference talks, Ensigns....). But when it comes right down to it, Christ taught that the "Kingdom" would come during the lifetime of those he was teaching to in the flesh, right there, that cataclysmic events would befall them, including explicitly the destruction of Jerusalem, and that to look for the Kingdom out there is futile...because at some point, you might find it within you.

This message was held by those who first preached the gospel. Paul believed he was in the end generation:

Romans 16:20: And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.

1 Cor 10:11: Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

As did James:

James 5:7-8: Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain.
Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

The 'brethren' to which James spoke were those in the Jerusalem church over which he was bishop. He, the brother of the Lord, had a pretty good understanding of the meaning of Christ's mission.

Now, whether James and others interpreted that the cataclysmic events -- accurately prophesied to happen shortly after James' death -- were also going to have a vindication of the coming of the Christ in glory, they did not have a great handle on this. Had they read the Matthew and Luke gospels, they might have seen that somehow Christ really meant a 'symbolic' coming -- the coming of the holy ghost.  But of course they didn't exist yet.

Or...perhaps since the gospels were written AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem, with no attendant second coming of Christ in glory, someone decided to revise Christ's words to say that it was all symbolic.

We may never know.  Pascal's wager, anyone?

The Message of the First Vision

Within the Middle of the First Vision, one of the personages gives Joseph Smith the core message of the first vision, found in the following:

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time.

That’s the entire Message of the First Vision, as stated in the 1838 account and part of the official History of the Church. LDS consider this statement scripture. The Personage is accepted by LDS as Jesus Christ. For simplicity, we’ll refer to the Personage as Christ and the text above as the Message.
The Message makes a number of important claims.

1. Join none of them, for they were all wrong. This is a tough statement, and very polemic. Perhaps for this reason, alone, Christians have such a vitriolic reaction to the LDS church: it starts out in its first, founding statement that the Churches are all wrong. By itself, it’s not helpful, for we have to explore the reasons for which the Personage said they’re all wrong.

2. All their creeds are an abomination in his sight. This is very tough language as well. When we look at the creeds, some of them are quite difficult to understand, but most are straightforward and uncontroversial. In fact, the first two, below, are relatively similar to the Articles of Faith. Gradually, the principles are expanded to include doctrine not consistent with LDS teaching (listed as “false doctrine”, below). Evenutally the creeds depart significantly from the original beliefs of the church as taught by Jesus. But the Message says “all their creeds”, not just the latter one. Here are the creeds:

• The Old Roman Creed (2nd Century). No false doctrine.
• The Apostles’ Creed (3rd Century). No false doctrine. A mention is made of the “Holy Catholic Church”, but this is meant to mean that there is a universal church of Jesus Christ — that the worldly organization was established by Christ.
• The Nicene Creed (325 CE). A single word of false doctrine is introduced, “ὁμοούσιον”/”homoousion”, meaning “single substance”, implementing the dogma of the trinity that there is one god in substance/essence who exists in three persons. Homoousion is never found in scripture or in the earliest writings, it is an invention to fix in dogma the relationship between God the Father and Jesus.
• Latin version of the Nicene Creed (?) This adds terms such as “God of Gods” and that the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son (Filioque). There are a couple polemic versions batting this concept back and forth between Catholic traditions.
• The Chalcedonian Creed (451 CE). This continues to expand on the homoousion/Consubstantial dogma.
• The Athanasian Creed (late Fifth Century, 100 years after Athanasius). This is the most complex creed of all, containing a lot of illogical language about one in three but not three…, as James E Talmage would say, "It would be difficult to conceive of a greater number of inconsistencies and contradictions expressed in words as few."

Aside from the Athanasian Creed, why should they ALL be an abomination? Two of them, the most common used by the Protestant Churches, are nothing but a statement of belief, entirely consistent with the LDS Articles of Faith.

Could it be that the mere idea of a creed – a required statement of belief on the part of a Christian is an abomination?  We have Joseph Smith's actual words to interpret why creeds were an abomination:

The most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein. Latter Day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles existing, as they are made manifest from time to time.  (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, v5 p215)

One of the truly amazing things about the LDS church is that ‘doctrine’ is extraordinarily hard to fix. I propose that this is intentional. From the very beginning, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young innovated on doctrinal topics, exploring possibilities, and in some cases, saying some pretty outrageous things. Critics of the church sieze upon these speculative explorations and declare that “This is what the Church believes”, when in fact we do not. We must recognize that when ‘orthodoxy’ is set aside, then it is possible, even encouraged, to explore what might be meant by the message of the gospel.

In the latter half of the twentieth century, Church leaders standardized the teachings of the church and set aside a lot of the speculative theology espoused by earlier generations. This may have been necessary to allow for consistent teachings, but should not be construed as ‘orthodoxy’ — a mandated set of beliefs that must be strictly adhered to. “What is taught” is equivalent to “Church Doctrine”. It is distinct from what is believed by the member is his or her own testimony — a personal witness constructed from personal learning, prayer, and spiritual experience. The fact that we teach a standard church doctrine does not absolve us from the responsibility to learn from our own experience to distinguish good and evil — this is a most important principle: We must think for ourselves: the Church provides guidelines in “What is taught”, it does not mandate thought or belief.

This lack of ‘orthodoxy’ was the hallmark of the restored church: man was not to pluck of the fruit of a tree of predefined dogma, but rather, to learn for himself to distinguish good and evil. The original definition of “heretic” from the greek means “to think for oneself”. Joseph Smith was an original, authentic heretic. To Joseph Smith, knowledge was the fruit of seeking truth — for “all truth” was meant to be part of the Gospel. “Truth is knowledge of things as the are, as they were, and as they are to come.”

If the Gospel is “all truth”, and mankind is to discover it line upon line and precept upon precept, then the core teachings of the Church must include a means to discern truth from all things. And the good news of the Book of Mormon is that this means to discern truth is through the Holy Ghost, and from the Doctrine and Covenants, the Holy Ghost witnesses after we study it out in our minds. Here is the truth paradigm of the church: To seek out of the best books learning, and by experience in faith, to study out these things in our minds, and to seek confirmation by the Spirit that each thing is true.
What works against this truth paradigm is a declaration that “THIS is what you are to BELEIVE (credo, creed)”, and you are to accept this dogma without question or doubt. If a loving God wants us to learn, the learning is best done by experience and emotional bonding with the truth — best done through experience and not through rote dogma. For this loving God/Parent, the fixed answerbook of a “Creed” is a cheat — an abomination to the type of learning designed from the beginning to be “The Plan of Salvation”.

3. Those professors were all corrupt. Again, a very polemic statement — insulting in the extreme to the preachers of other faiths. But it doesn’t say ‘preachers’, but rather, ‘professors’. A professor is a teacher, one who is supposed to know the truth, and provide as accurate of a truth to the students. A ‘corrupt professor’ is one who violates the profession of a professor – that is, either doesn’t teach, or teaches falsehood as if it were truth.

I’m going to suggest that Christ was extraordinarily precise in his statement: those who then were preaching from the creeds as if that was the thing all people must accept on faith without doubt were corrupt in promoting such dogma. Professors who fail to help their students think critically and bond their learnings with personal experience are a menace to learning. Rote learning can do nothing but indoctrinate. It cannot teach — it prevents critical thinking, so necessary for an objective determination of truth. Those who profess and teach dogma as if it were truth, and then base all ‘knowledge’ on the dogma, are creating a type of tyranny over the mind of man that prevents real knowledge of truth. Such practice is corrupt indeed.

4. They teach for doctrine the commandments of men. Christ then quotes Isaiah 29:13 linked to 2 Timothy 3 with an important conjunction between the two. Isaiah 29:13 says:

Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

2 Timothy 3:5 says:

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

The quote in the Message blends these two with the highlighted conjunction:

they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.

The term ‘doctrine’ means either “what is taught” or “dogma”. Since the expression “they teach for [what is taught] the commandments of men” doesn’t make a lot of sense, the meaning “They teach for [dogma] the commandments of men” fits much better within this context.

According to the Message, Christ condemned the creeds and professors, and then explicitly states that the practice to be condemned is the teaching of doctrine (dogma) constructed from the commandments of men. Elsewhere, multiple times, Christ states explicitly that the only ‘doctrine’ or ‘dogma’ that rises to the level of “Doctrine of Christ” is as stated in 2 Nephi chapters 31-32, 3 Nephi 11, and here in Doctrine and Covenants Section 10:

67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church. 68 Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church. 69 And now, behold, whosoever is of my church, and endureth of my church to the end, him will I establish upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

In other words, the core Doctrine of Christ is quite simple: it comprises of the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel as stated in the Articles of Faith, without the explicit definition of things one must know or declare as dogma. Note clearly that Christ’s “Church” consists of those who keep to these core principles and those who declare more or less as core principles is not of Christ’s church.

While this seems like an extreme statement, the point is clear: the only ‘dogma’ — that which is to be accepted without doubt — is the need to repent and come to Christ, and endure to the end with him. All other things are either to be learned from experience, or are not required as core beliefs. We declare a set of beliefs in the Articles of Faith, but there is no absolute requirement to accept these things without determining for ourselves that they are true.

It is absolutely essential to understand that “commandments of men” are not forbidden, but they must not be construed as the “Doctrine of Christ”. They are not to be taught as if they must be accepted without doubt or personal testimony. Teaching commandments of men as if they are doctrine is explicitly forbidden by scripture, therefore as a responsible member of Christ’s church, one must recognize the difference between the Doctrine of Christ, and that which must be tested, as Alma proposes in Alma 32.

5. Join none of them. This is stated at the very beginning and end of the Message. Joseph had come asking which one to join, and Christ gave him his answer: do not join up with an organization that subjects the mind to the tyranny of dogma.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not use the term “Dogma” in explaining what the Church believes. There is no Westminster Confession, a long statement of belief intended to be taught and professed verbatim by members. There are no creeds recited each sunday and required as a declaration of belief by the member. Each and every principle in the Church is intended to be witnessed by the individual member through his or her own testimony: not a rote version to be memorized, but rather, through one’s own personal experience with the Spirit.

To be sure, there is a cultural tendency, reinforced by some unfortunate statements from the pulpit at BYU devotionals and General Conference, that members are to observe with exactness every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of the prophet and servants of the Lord, without question or doubt. Such observation in faith should never violate one’s responsibility to learn from experience and by spiritual confirmation the truth of all things.

To me, the Message of the First Vision is extremely important and clear: we are to be very wary of things that appear like ‘dogma’ — that which is to be accepted without doubt or question. With the singular exception of repenting and coming to Christ, all things are subject to question and spiritual confirmation.

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.