Ramblings of an Ignorant Sage

Transhumanism and Spirituality Conference 2010

2010-09-27T23:15:00.000+08:00

When: Friday, 1 October 2010, 9:00am to 5:00pm MDT

Where: University of Utah in Salt Lake City, Marriott Library, Gould Auditorium

What: At the Transhumanism and Spirituality Conference 2010, we will explore the intersection of religion, science, spirituality and technology, from a transhumanist perspective. Transhumanism advocates the ethical use of technology to expand human capacities, and observes that if our rapid technological evolution continues to accelerate then humanity will become a new species before the end of the 21st century.

Who: Keynote speakers for the conference include former director of the World Transhumanist Association, James Hughes; author of the Transhumanist Manifesto, Max More; and renowned LDS scholar and author, Terryl Givens. Sponsors of the conference are the Mormon Transhumanist Association and the Transhumanist Alliance of Utah.

How: Register online (http://transhumanism-spirituality.org) for a discount and reserved seating! Online registration is $50 ($25 for students) until 29 September. Registration on the day of the conference will be $80. Students with ID will be admitted to the conference free of charge, as space permits. Students wishing reserved seating are encouraged to register at the discounted student rate.

Our Heavenly Family: Lesson 2

2010-01-28T05:31:00.002+08:00

Two weeks passed due, but better late than never.

I think this lesson is quite poorly named. Our Heavenly Family. I don’t think it summarizes very well the material inside. Or put another way, I don’t think the material inside really addresses our Heavenly Family. Arguably half of the lesson is about that (the other half is about the Council in Heaven, which I think would probably be a better title), but even the half about our Heavenly Family isn’t really about that.

The most glaring problem is that the text never uses the word Mother – as in, the Heavenly Mother.

This is glaring rhetorically, philosophically, theologically, and even just logically from the surrounding text. It is the proverbial “elephant in the corner. The very title itself calls for Her mention. Our Heavenly Family. A lesson about a family that only mentions the Father and the children. Where is Mother? (Again, Her lack is part of the reason I think the lesson is mislabelled.)

Her lack is even more glaring because the text relies both explicitly and implicitly on Her existence. Explicitly in the Joseph F. Smith quote, which is from a Proclamation by the First Presidency, where it talks about heavenly parents. One of those parents is presumably the Father that is mentioned repeated. Presumably the other parent is the Mother. She is mentioned exactly zero times. The text relies upon her existence again in discussing the gendered nature of pre-mortal spirits – male and female – who are the sons and daughters of – again the term is used - heavenly parents. But again, no reference to the other parent. To the degree this lesson is to teach us about our Heavenly Family, the picture represents a single-parent home. Given the Church’s emphasis on both our families here on earth and our eternal families in the future, I remain somewhat bewildered by Her lack.

The first recorded reference to a Mother in Heaven is from 1839, when Joseph Smith taught it to Zina Huntington, telling her that in addition to seeing her deceased mother again some day she would also meet again her “eternal Mother, the wife of [her] Father in Heaven”. In 1844, W.W. Phelps wrote a hymn for the dedication of the Seventies Hall in Nauvoo that includes the lines “Come to me; here’s the myst’ry that man hath not seen; Here’s our Father in heaven, and Mother, the Queen;”. This hymn was included in LDS hymnbooks until the 1948 revision. One year later Eliza R. Snow wrote the well known “Oh, My Father” (originally entitled “My Father in Heaven”, and also sometimes “Invocation, or The Eternal Father and Mother”) which includes both the line “Truth is reason; truth eternal; Tells me I’ve a mother there” and then invokes both Father and Mother in imploring “When I lay this mortal by, Father, Mother, may I meet you in your royal courts on high?”. Eliza said that Joseph taught her the doctrine and President Wilford Woodruff declared the hymn a revelation. The Heavenly Mother would be reference occasionally in subsequent years, including in two Proclamations; the one referenced about in 1909 and in the 1995 Proclamation on the Family. President Hinckley opined in 1991 that the doctrine of a Mother in Heaven sits well with him.

On the one hand what strikes me is that 171 years (at a minimum) after Joseph Smith first re-revealed Her existence, we remain without any formal knowledge of Her. We even seem to be unable or unwilling to actually acknowledge Her – despite doing so. By acknowledge, I mean actually use the words Heavenly Mother. If we’re going to produce a lesson entitled Our Heavenly Family, include a reference to heavenly parents, why are we unwilling to actually say the words “Heavenly Mother” - particularly when our first prophet was able to do so. We seem fine with relying on Her for our theology, just not with including Her in our theology. As I said, I find it somewhat bewildering, and the choice of titles for the lesson emphasizes the lack to me.

Before addressing two other items that stuck out to me in the first half, I want to emphasize that I believe that the pre-mortal existence idea, the Council in Heaven, and the “children/family of God” ideas are deeply important and meaningful to me. So when I raise the questions below, it is within that context.

First, on the pre-mortal existence and the veil of forgetfulness. If I existed in the pre-mortal realm in a manner similar to, if not exactly like, the way I exist now – meaning I was clearly me, others of you were clearly you, we were clearly individuals, and we had existence, relationships, history, etc. – and existed for eons of time; and if when I came into this world with veil that blocks out that existence, how should I understand that life and this life and the next life.

Meaning, when we die, or in the spirit world, or at the resurrection (the time doesn’t matter, just the action), will the veil be removed at some point? Will I remember eons of existence before this life? The manual says God remembers who we were, so will we?

If the answer is no, then am I really that person in any meaningful way? Would we not say that that person spiritually died at my birth, never to live again? Or that I am not really that person?

Indeed, the veil begs the question of whether I’m really that person anyway. Sure, my talents, abilities, nature, etc., might come from that person, but if I don’t remember that person, am I me? If I suddenly got amnesia, would I still be me? At least in that case, I’d still have those around me who remember. But in the case of the veil, you’ve all forgotten too.

Yet if the answer is yes, then am I really the person I am now. If I existed for hundreds, thousand, millions, billions – whatever number doesn’t matter – years before this life, and if at some point I will remember all those years – am I really me, the temporally existing person who has been alive for a few decades? Certainly my relationships with my parents, siblings, wife, children, and friends are all deeply meaningful – I cherish them more than anything. They are my sweetest relationships and most cherished memories and my greatest hopes for the future. But who did I love, cherish, enjoy the company of in the pre-mortal world. Will not this life seem like a passing dream in comparison?

Either way, the dis-continuity of identity is troubling. Brigham Young taught that salvation was the maintaining of identity. If we lost our identities when we came to earth, we’re we being damned? And if we get back those identities at some point, how will they united/meld with the identities that I’ve forged here.

I don’t know the answer to these questions – but it does seem to me that there may be much more importance to getting these bodies than we give them credit for. Perhaps we were not nearly so “real”, or as “organized”, or as “free” as we are now). None of those are the right words, but perhaps my sense will come through. (Joseph taught at one point that pre-mortal spirits with more power bore down on those with lesser power, implying perhaps that our bodies here help to “even the playing field” or somehow provide help to weaker spirits). Because if that life is essentially the same as this, except that my body was purer and finer, than I’m not sure how the century at best we can spend here can influence our natures/personalities in any degree of comparison with the time implied by a pre-mortal life.

Finally, on spirit birth. In the King Follett discourse, Joseph’s last General Conference talk (and/or the subsequent Sermon in the Grove, his last sermon ever - I can’t recall which one) taught two important ideas. That which has a beginning also has an end, and that we, as spirits, are co-eternal with God. The latter idea specifically is supported by a number of scriptures, including D&C 93 and Abraham 3. He seems to teach that we are eternal beings. Yet we also teach that we a spirit children of God. I think the most common understanding is the B.H. Roberts synthesis, which is the tripartite model of intelligence, spirit, body. We were eternal intelligences, we were born as spirits and then we were born as physical people. Some believe the intelligences had individual identities (the original “you”, so to speak), while others maintain that intelligence is the eternal spiritual building blocks from which God created spirit bodies. I wonder though, if Joseph didn’t literal mean that our spirits were eternal, and if D&C 93, when it says “in the beginning with God”, does not also mean “eternally, just like God”. And if our “birth” to our Heavenly Parents was not more akin to our “birth” as children of Christ, as referred to in King Benjamin’s sermon. To tie us back to the start of my post, this could of course be a way to get rid of Heavenly Mother, and say that Heavenly Father “adopted” us eternally existing spirits all by Himself (I know a number of Mormon thinkers who think this way).

In sum, I find the lack of acknowledgement and formal teaching about a Mother in Heaven puzzling within the church as a whole and within the lesson specifically. I believe we are eternal and existed before this life, but I’m not sure what all the implications of that belief are, and I don’t know what it means to have eternal existence, to be born spiritually. Most of all, it’s probably a good think I don’t write these manuals. But the gospel has lots of food for thought.

And I didn't even talk about foreordination, the Council in Heaven, or the plan of salvation.

Our Heavenly Father: Lesson 1

2010-01-09T01:17:00.003+08:00

This is the first of what I hope will be a series of posts on the book Gospel Principles. It is not a lesson guide, but my thoughts on the lesson in question.

This lesson has 3 main points.

1) There is a God
2) The Nature of God
3) Coming to Know God

Point one's basic message appears to be a) there is a God, which we know because the world exists; b) God lives in Heaven and created the Earth through His Son (I have to admit that the way the text is written leaves the strong impression that the Son is not God, which is unfortunate given that the primary message of the Books of Mormon is that the Son is God.... I'm going to resist the urge to look ahead and just wait till we get to that section); and c) God, the Ruler of the Universe, is the being we worship.

As we have just started to study the Old Testament in Gospel Doctrine, I'm struck by how "modern" point one is. It presents one side of an either-or proposition. Either there is a God or there is not and taking the position that there is. It is interesting because so much of the Old Testament is written not within the context of "is there or is there not a God", but the active affirmation that Yahweh/Jehovah is the God of the whole earth. Indeed, in its current form it argues that Jehovah is the only God, though one can still see clear undercurrents of Israel's early polytheism, including Jehovah's one-time position as the god that El, the Most High God, had appointed as god of the nation of Israel (and the idea that the other 70 nations were appointed other gods), to the merging of El and Jehovah, and to the elimination of other gods from 'godhood'. The main point being, as we see with Moses in Egypt, with Elijah and the priests of Baal, with the various invasions from Assyria and Babylon, the testimony that Jehovah is God. Not Baal, not Amon-Ra, not Ahura Mazda, not any of the gods of the Gentiles.

Interestingly enough, however, while most of the Book of Mormon covers an "Old Testament" timeline, it does not really contain that concern - the concern that Jehovah or Christ (given its Christocentric nature) be recognized as the God - but rather reflect the more modern concern about whether there is or is not a God at all. Granted, this is not entirely true - part of the question is whether or not Christ is God. There is not, however, the suggestion anywhere I can think of that their might be another gods other than Jehovah or Christ who might be worthy of worship. And one is left to wonder why, though I can think of at least 3 possible ones of the top of my head.

It is interesting to consider how much changed via the adoption of Christianity by the late Roman Empire, the abolishment of paganism by Imperial dictate, and the successful if frequently forced conversion of European pagans over the course of a little over 1000 years (I recently re-read a book on the Conversion of Europe from 350-750 AD). The Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Nordic, Slavic, Celtic gods were almost entirely erased. And Islam managed to get rid of North African, Arabic, and Persia gods as well (despite the tenacity of Ahura Mazda). The Hindu, Chinese, and Japanese gods remain, but the dominance of the West means that we don't actually take their gods as serious rivals for our God. Islam and Judaism both being considered followers of the same god as Christianity (at least, part of the same god).

Instead, having vanquished all the other gods within our civilization, we now find ourselves fighting the rear guard - those who a generation ago would have been our coreligionists (it's fascinating to read diplomatic reports from WWII with their casual statements regarding our Christian civilization being under attack) are now quickly becoming secular, either completely or at least functionally atheist (if they do believe in God, that belief does not direct their lives.)

Point 2 is interesting. It contains three basic ideas as well. These are a) God has a body like ours in form but unlike ours in that it is perfect and glorious; b) God is perfect, embodying a variety of good virtues, having all power, all knowledge, and being full of goodness; and c) all good things come from God and that everything he does is for our salvation and exaltation.

This section returns my mind to the question of what type of -theism is Mormonism. Christianity ran afoul of both its Judaism before it and Islam after it. It claimed to be a monotheism, but both the Jews and the Muslims accused it of being polytheistic. Indeed, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost does become problematic if you are going to ascribe godhood to each of them. The Christian answer became the Trinity - three-in-one. It's looks like polytheism but it's really monotheism. The first few church councils, the first major schisms, and much mutual accusation of heresy came out of the debates on whether Jesus was god, man, both, fully both, etc.

Most Mormons prefer to think of themselves as monotheists, if only because polytheists sounds like a dirty word. We clearly believe each of the three members of the Godhead to be separate beings. We have some vague idea about there being a Mother in Heaven who maybe makes a fourth god(dess). We've got our whole notion of exaltation. And we've got Joseph Smith boldly proclaiming that he and the Elders of the church have been teaching a plurality of Gods since the beginning.

Of course, this is also contrasted with the Book of Mormon's simple statement that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God. And as we normally put it, they might be separate, but their perfectly united, so they are one. Therefore, we're monotheists.

Some Mormons have suggested Max Muller's term henotheism, which is the worship of one god while acknowledging the possibility that other gods might exist. However, Muller's idea was explicitly created for equality; the humble sense that "I worship my god, but I accept that the god that you worship may actually exist and be worthy of worship".

Julius Wellhausen first used the term monolatry, which is the worship of one god while recognizing (actually or potentially) the existence of other gods who are not worthy of worship. This term has been used to describe early Israelite beliefs, as I referenced above. This one almost works for Mormons, except that we typically say we're fine with worship Christ too (though not praying to him; and this despite examples of prayers to Christ in the Book of Mormon; I don't know if an LDS leader has ever commenting on worshipping the Holy Ghost).

Karl Krause coined the term panentheism, which takes the idea of pantheism (that everything in the Universe together makes up God, or the Whole is God) and flips its slightly to say that Gos is in, but more than, the whole). Thus God includes the whole of the Universe, but is greater than or transcends the whole. While this term is not perfect, it begins to feel a bit better to me. It does allow that God can be more than a single entity - God could be the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as well as all of creation - but it still doesn't seem enough.

Since I don't actually know Greek and don't plan on trying to coin a new term, I have decided that Mormon theology - at least, The Ignorant Sage's version of Mormon theology - can best be described as a pluralistic monotheism. In essence, God is an group of beings who together form a single Godhead or Godhood, or as the Book of Abraham has it, the Gods. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught, form the Presidency of the Gods. Put another way, the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God, and the Gods are God, and they are One God. I just don't think it is right to call that Monotheism.

Point 3 is about coming to know God, including the classic verse that to know the only true God and his Son Jesus Christ is eternal life. It recommends the classic Sunday School answers of pray, study the scriptures, and keep the commandments as the method by which we do this, as well as the start point of believe in God's existence and his love for us. And since I don't have any more time, I'm just going to have to leave this post with the idea that all of those things are definitely good things to do.

Have an enjoyable Priesthood or Relief Society Meeting.

Remember

2008-11-11T11:11:00.004+08:00

Today is Rememberance Day. It commemerates the armistice signed between the Allied powers and Germany to end hostilities on the Western front of the First World War. The armistice came into effect on "the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month" and so, each year at that time we (in Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa) observe two minutes of silence to remember those who have died in war.

From November 1 to November 11, many of us will wear a poppy as part of our rememberance. This tradition comes from a poem, written by a Canadian physician, Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, entitled "In Flanders Fields". The flowers grow there in fields that saw many of the worst battles of the First World War and their blood-red colour makes them an apt symbol of rememberance for those who have fallen. In Canada, this poem is always read during our Rememberance Day services, such as those I attended on occasion at the Legion Hall back in my home town. It is a powerful and touching poem.

The poem became even more powerful to me when I learned, as a teenager, that my great-uncle, my paternal grandfather's older brother, died in Flanders fields. My grandfather immigrated to Canada from Germany between the two wars and my great-uncle died in Flanders fields fighting in the German Imperial Army.

Learning this was the first time that the reality of war truly hit home. Not because I knew my great-uncle (obviously), but because it is so easy, when we think of wars, to think of our forces as "the good guys" and the enemies' forces as "the bad guys". But was my great-uncle a "bad guy"? I did not know him, but I knew his brother - my grandfather - perhaps one of the greatest, and humblest, men I have ever been priviledge to know.

When I learned this story, it taught me to remember something bigger on Rememberance Day than those who have died for my country. Rather, to remember the noble tragedy that is war. That those who died did so while fighting their brothers. That whenever we go to war, even when our cause is just, we go to war against our brothers and sisters. Protecting our brothers and sisters in our country is noble and we must remember those who gave their lives to do so. But their is no escaping the tragic reality that they are protecting us from people who are also our brothers, and killing and being killed to do so.

Soldiers from my country are currently killing and being killed in Afghanistan. Soldiers from my wife's country are there too, as well as in Iraq. We should stand by them, and for those who fall we must always remember them.

But as we shed our tears for them, let us also shed a tear for those, our brothers and sisters, who fall in fields without poppies or poems, who are now our "enemies", but are still our family.

Let us remember.

******

In Flanders Fields

In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row,

That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved, and were loved, and now we lie

In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

— Lt.-Col. John McCrae

Coexistence

2008-05-03T22:05:00.004+08:00

Tonight was mine and Jennifer's eleventh wedding anniversary. Part of our anniversary celebration was to go to U23D, a 3-D movie of a U2 concert held in Buenos Aries. One of the sets they did was one of my favourites, Sunday Bloody Sunday. During the prior set, Bono had put on a headband that had a crescent moon, a Star of David, and a cross, symbols of the three Abrahamic faiths. Between the moon and the star were the letters "o" and "e" and between the star and the cross were the letters "i" and "s", turning the three symbols into the word "Coexist".

During a segment of the song, Bono sang words addressing Father Abraham, asking "what have we done?", reflecting the blood shed by members of each faith warring against, amongst, and between themselves. And then the call for "No More!"

I was profoundly moved by the song - not a call for the end of religions, but a call for coexistence, for peace, and for love. Literally moved to tears.

I reflected upon the words of our earlier prophets, particularly Brigham Young, that in the millenium there would still be people of all faiths on the earth. The difference would be that we would be at peace with each other, that there would be no bloodshed, strife, or contention.

I look forward in hope for such a better world.

The God I Worship, Part II

2008-04-29T12:22:00.004+08:00

The day after my last post, I was teaching Sunday School. The lesson covered Mosiah 1-3, which includes King Benjamin's initial sermon to his people on the occasion of him passing the crown to his son, Mosiah. In this sermon, he says, "..that with power, the Lord Omnipotent, who reigneth... ".

I was, of course, aware of this verse before, but it is good to see that not only does the Lord has an ironic sense of humour, but His timing is spot on as well. ;-)

My wife told me that the last post seemed a little too lob-sided, and that the ending insufficient to balance it back. Lincoln's comment online seemed to reconfirm this. Hence the Part II.

First, I believe God to be powerful. I believe God to be the Creator of Heaven and Earth. I believe God to be powerful enough to both organize and govern the universe and comfort the distraught heart of a single soul. I believe there is nothing more powerful than God.
So why did I post with such emphasis on God's limitations?

Frankly, because we don't like to admit that He has any, despite the fact that God's limitations are important - important to our salvation.

In the Council in Heaven, Christ and Lucifer offered to become our Saviours - our God. God our Father chose Christ. Lucifer refused to cede the debate, rebelled, and was cast from Heaven. We chose to follow Christ. Many chose to follow Lucifer.

In Moses Chapter 4, the Lord quotes Satan as offering to save all mankind - that not one soul should be lost. It’s clear that this is the selling point of Satan’s plan and thus equally clear that inherent in God’s plan is that some will be lost.

So let’s be serious. On the face of it, how is this not the better offer? Plan A – some are lost. Plan B – none are lost. A third of the hosts of heaven sided with this idea. So why did God (and the other two-thirds of us) disagree.

Now, God doesn't give us the details of Satan's plan – but He does give us the two reasons why He cast Satan down – why his plan was rejected.

One reason is because Satan sought to destroy the agency of man. The other reason was rebellion – rebellion in that Satan said that since his plan would save everyone (and God’s plan doesn't), that God should give him his throne.

We learn three things from this. First, God is willing to share his power, but not give it up. That sounds almost petty at first glance – I mean, if Satan’s plan were better, wouldn’t ceding the throne be the right thing to do? Clearly, not or God would have done so. So why not?
Option one is that the part of Satan’s plan that entails destroying mankind’s’ agency is not doable. That God and/or Satan literally cannot take away mankind’s agency. Essentially, nice idea Satan, but we really can’t do it. And then Satan just doesn’t believe him and rebels anyway. In this case, of course, God is limited. Limited, that is, by His inability to actually accept Satan’s plan.

Option two is that the agency destruction is entirely possible (which is more strongly attested to when God says “the agency that I gave him”). Ah, so God is not so limited after all…

But not so fast, because He still didn’t choose Satan’s plan. He didn’t want to. He chose not to. He made a value judgment and decided that His plan, including some being lost, has an end result that is more valuable than Satan’s plan in which none are lost. As Mormons we are all familiar with the agency thing - the idea expressed repeatedly in scripture in different ways (I think most eloquently in 2 Nephi 2 and D&C 121), that we are to experience opposition and to grow and learn, and that this things we suffer will both be for our good and our exaltation if we bear them well; that we need to learn for ourselves and choose the good and reject the evil. The end result of the process being our progression and eventually our exaltation. It also means He still has a big limitation.

Put another way, God either a) couldn’t choose Satan’s plan because it was no within His power to do so, b) didn’t choose Satan’s plan because it was incompatible with His desires.

Either way God is limited because the one thing that is clear is He couldn’t choose to both exalt his children and save all of them.

I return to where I ended my last post, I believe God is mighty to save.

This is the power of God that I care about the most. I believe in the mighty powers of a marvellous God, but I also experience a world in which many people do not. They don’t for a variety of reasons, often involving the suffering and pain in the world, the death and destruction, and/or the God’s hiding – the fact that God is not evident in the same way tangible things like the sun, the moon, mountains, etc.

To say that God chooses not to do something about those things to me is equivalent as saying God cannot do something about them. Whether He lacks the power or chooses not to because He has other ends in mind is not the point, because clearly He cannot bring about His ends AND resolve all of our pain, sorrow, suffering, etc. The only other option is that He could do so and just doesn’t care enough about it to worry about it.

As I taught in the aforementioned Sunday School class, King Benjamin teaches us quite clearly that God does care. He was willing to come down, make flesh his tabernacle, and suffer the pains of this life to save us. To have his reaching out to us in love be responded to with hate. I believe He would only do so because He both loves us and because doing so was a necessary part of His desired ends.

As I said hinted at last time, I believe that in part it is because we have a co-eternal core – our intelligence - that God is seeking to empower and assist to progress. And that progress is something God can only bring about via our own choices, individually and collectively. Becoming one of us, so that we can become one with Him.

The God I Worship

2008-04-26T06:30:00.002+08:00

I don't like the omnis. Not omni-present, not omni-scient, and least of all, omni-potent. I don't believe God to be any of those things - at least not in any traditional sort of way (and possibily not even in untraditional ways). I believe in a God that, while eternal, is also finite, or limited.

The key scripture for my dislike is Doctrine and Covenants 93:29, which reads "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be." The idea behind this verse was also taught more explicitly in the King Follett discourse where, in discussing the eternal nature of our souls, Joseph said we were "co-equal" with God. "Co-equal" in the sense that neither we nor God were created, at least in the sense of "from nothing".

I believe that you, me, and everyone else have always existed. And that existence has always included some degree of freedom and choice. Now, a freedom and choice that could and can be oppressed and controlled, but nevertheless, at our core we are eternal beings and God respects that. In fact, the verse says that God can't do anything about it, at least in the sense that God cannot make us. Cannot. So much for omni-potent.

If you, me, and everyone else have always existed and have always had and still have some degree of freedom, of power of choice, than God is not omni-potent. God does not have all power, because you, me, and everyone else has some power. Either you have power or you don't. The power you have is power that God doesn't have. Put the other way, if God truly has all power, than you have none.

Omni-scient I dislike because I fall into the "If God already knows what I'm going to do, I have no choice not to do it" understanding of agency. That's probably best saved for a separate post sometime. But the idea is the same. If I have choice, if a point I really can choose A or B and it is not already determined by my background, upbringing, past choices, etc. - if, for example, I really can choose to repent (or not repent), I really can't see how God can know in advance. I've heard the arguments, I just don't buy them. That and I believe God is progressing. And that I think eternal existence would be profoundly boring if I knew everything. But for another post.

Omni-present is the easiest. I believe that God has a body (either flesh and bone or spirit, depending on what member of the Godhead we are talking about), but either way, a body. Which means quite simply if God is here he is not there. Ironically, this is also the one I am most comfortably understanding in non-traditional ways. Doctrine and Covenants 88 talks about the light that radiates from God to fill the immensity of space. I don't take issue with God having impact, influence, awareness, etc., thoughout the universe. I just think if we, as Mormons, are going to believe God has a body we should keep terms like "everywhere present". God is present where God is.

At its core, I believe God is part of the universe. While I believe in God as the Creator, I do not believe God to be the creator of the universe. Not in the "ex nihilo" fashion, from nothing. Me, you, God, matter, spirit, etc., have always existed. As Joseph phrased it once, "God, finding himself among...". God found himself in a universe. God then set about "creating it". Organizing the chaos. I happen to believe that the "ex nihilo" doctrine is one of the worse doctrines ever developed; an idea ripe with destructive potential. God is a great craftsman. An artist. He is working with us to make the universe, including us, a better place. He calls us to be craftsmen an artists with Him.

I do not believe that He is all-powerful, but I do believe, as the scriptures phrase it, that He is mighty to save (D&C 133:47).

And that, in the end, is what is important to me.

Ramblings on Faith and Christ

2008-03-30T21:20:00.003+08:00

Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is the First Principle of the Gospel. I'm glad Joseph wrote it that way. In fact, its one of those things that I am truly glad it is written the way it is, because it is not written the way I sometimes wish it was.

Sometimes I wish it was just written, "Faith in Christ", rather than "Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." Hopefully it will be clear, by the end, why I sometimes which it was written the former way, and also why I am glad it is written the latter way. But just to be clear, as perhaps the title implies, this post is many about the former.

What is the difference, you ask? Two words - "Lord Jesus". The difference is the person of Jesus of Nazareth. I'm greatful for Jesus. He challenges me. He challenges particularly the me who might otherwise be tempted, as many have before me, to mythologize him away. To make him all symbol, and not really a man.

I say this as someone who, in my times of existential thought and pondering, have considered the possibility that there is no God, as well as the possibility not just that Jesus was not the Son of God, but that there was no Jesus. That the man Jesus was simply a story - a person made up to tell the story of the Christ, the Son of God, in a more understandable way. But that he was no more real (and some would say no less) than Zeus, or Apollo, or Mithras, etc. Oh, I've let myself think the thoughts. And ironically, what I found was not what I expected.

I can, if I try hard enough, doubt the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's experiences. I can doubt not just the Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth, but even the historical existence of Jesus. I can doubt the existence of God. Now, I'm not saying I do. Indeed, I choose not to doubt them and choose to accept the spiritual witnesses that I have received of those things.

But I know not only enough people who have had similar experiences and denied them, but also enough about the difference between those experiences and the more, tangible say, ones of getting dressed in the morning or stubbing my toe. I recognize the potential in me - the potential in all of us, to turn from faith to doubt.

But I can't doubt the Christ. Indeed, I think that should I ever get to a place where I could doubt the Christ, I should be very near lost. In fact, I can only think of one time in my life, as a freshman in college, when I had a particularly "dark night of the soul" where I think I could say I came close to doubting the Christ. And I was filled with Christ's light that night.

Why can't I doubt Christ? I can't doubt Christ because as a dear friend of mine would put it (though he does so with the word 'God'), Christ is posited, not proven. I can't doubt Christ because, to put it bluntly, I'm not a good enough skeptic to doubt my own or the rest of humanities existence. And I see Christ in us.

In a sense, I might say I have greater faith in Christ than I do in God. I'm not sure that's true, but it might be. You see, let's take the stereotype atheistic science is everything materialist outlook (ironically, of course, Mormonism is a very materialistic faith). Everything just came into being. Now, if the world is totally deterministic than this all kind of falls apart to me as well I must admit. Or, at the very least, becomes entirely uninteresting. But taking two ideas - one, we humans exist in this universe and two, we have some degree of choice, then I believe in Christ. Christ is my choice for how I view the world. And with Christ comes God, and with both, to me, come Mormonism.

Regardless of anything else (i.e. - even if there is no God {now}) if we exist and have choice than Christ is, because at least some of us choose to believe in him. And our belief leads us to be his disciples and to do his work. To become him.

The story of Christ is that God (i.e. at most extreme, the universe) became flesh, suffered with and for us, and made us at one.

And that is something I believe in. We humans should and can love each other. We can suffer together. We can build each other up. And perhaps, just perhaps, we can find a way to overcome death and hell and become the Gods that we have faith in.

Let's take the other extreme, to perhaps make things clear(er). Let's imagine a world with God but without Christ.

This is one I do not have faith in. Seriously. Without the story of Christ, without both God becoming one of us, and asking us to become one with him, I'm not sure why I should care a great deal about God. I would not make a good Muslim perhaps. Though if I understand their theology at all, I wouldn't make much of a fundamentalist/Calvinist Christian either.

Nor do I have faith in determinism (nor, if determinims is true, does it matter); in fact, definitionally I can't have faith in determinism. Faith, as Joseph taught, is a belief leading to action.

Anyway, the point I don't think I've made clearly is that the story - the myth - of Christ is powerful to me. I have faith in it, even if nothing else about the gospel were true. I believe the story that much, that we would be able to make it true. It is a story that inspires faith in us - inspires us to action.

But this is also where this line of thought kind of all falls apart.

I believe it because it "tastes good". Because as I both reflect on my experience and observe the world around me, the universe seems to respond to my faith - to our faith. I have faith that the story of Christ would come true because I beleive that the universe simply is that way.

I acknowledge, I guess, that I could stop having faith in Christ. But it would entail a lose of faith in either my ability to choose or in my own existence.

But I do believe in myself. I do believe I have choice. And so I believe in Christ. And so I believe not only in Christ, but in God. I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, even when I'm not certain what that al entails. And I believe not only that Christ is a powerful myth, but I believe that Christ lives - again, even without knowing what that really means.

Which is why I'm grateful Joseph wrote those two extra words, "Lord Jesus".

They challenge my inner skeptic. They challenge that part of my that risks allegorizing the concrete away and spiritualizing it all. That would rest content in the "spiritual power" that I truly feel in the powerful stories that are told and perhaps let myself drift into those who do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was in fact the Son of God or that he rose again the third day.

It is, in the scientific sense, unknowable. It is, in the scientific sense, profoundly implausible, impossible even. I hold my beliefs tentative - I do not know with certainty what things were, nor what things are.

But I have faith. First and foremost, I have faith in Christ - and I am grateful, each week as I take the sacrament, that that includes faith in the Lord Jesus Christ too.

Plain and Precious Truths: The Council of the Gods

2008-03-30T20:30:00.004+08:00

One aspect of the restoration was expressed by Nephi in his vision, in which he describes many plain and precious truths that will be lost during the ages. If one looks at Joseph's teachings, there is one, I would argue, that stands out most clearly as such a restoration. It is one we talk about but don't emphasize too much. Ironically enough, it is not one that Nephi, nor the entire Book of Mormon even addresses. But as a testament, not only of Jesus Christ, but of Joseph's mission as prophet, seer, and revelator, the Book still sets the stage.

I am referring, of course, to the restoration of the plurality of Gods. Of all Joseph's teachings, this remains perhaps one of the most radical. It is also one of the most outstanding, in that it preceeded any significant research on the subject of the Israelites ancient beliefs by over one hundred years. It doesn't take too much digging to find the wide swath of historians who will agree (there are, of course, those who do not) that the ancient Israelites were not the monotheists of lore, but polytheists. Polytheists who believed in a pantheon of gods, a Council in Heavan, so to speak, overseen by a Most High God. Some even argue that the development of Yahweh Elohim (the LORD God) was a merging of two Gods, a Father and Son, and that the merger was not complete in some segments until even after Jesus Christ, with some holding a view that Yahweh Elohim was God and that he was served by the Angel of the Lord, a sort of secondary deity. This is perhaps what allowed Jesus to be accept so readily (by a least a portion); there was many who could see in Jesus' messiahship this very aspect of the "Other God", so to speak. Of course, the other part of this pantheon is the female deities, the Goddess wives of the God husbands, the most well known name wise being Asherah, the Queen of Heaven. An idea, of course, which Joseph also restored in laying the foundation for discussion (what little we have) of our Mother in Heaven.

What I find particularly interesting about this particular branch of the restoration is that, as I said above (and would say better, with footnotes and whatnot, were I not so lazy) is that this is perhaps the clearest example of Joseph restoring a clearly ancient idea without any real preceding foundation. There is not equivalent to Swedenbourg's three heavens, or to the Masons' ceremony, or even the Kabbalists Tree of Life (I'm not saying necessary arguing this things were the source of even the inspiration for Joseph, only that they had a potential role). I think you would be hard pressed to find any meaningful source for the Council of the Gods in Joseph's environment. And certainly, as I mentioned, not scholar who would be talking about it for another century. Yet there it is, from as early as Section 76 in the D&C, and finally so bold put forward in Joseph's last sermons, the King Follett discourse and the Sermon in the Grove. I'm not saying "and this proves Joseph was a prophet". No testimony should be based on such ideas. Nevertheless, there it is, begging to be explained, how his relatively uneducated man came forward with such a bold and blasphemous idea. Even more, how he could be so right.

It does to me emphasize the importance of a prophet, however. All these scholars have written all these books about it. Yet not one is able to step forward and say "And this is the truth about God(s)!". Yet Joseph was, and did.

The other irony, of course, is how little we appreciate it. How little we do with it. Joseph taught it so boldly, so defiantly, and it impacted Mormonism quite significantly early on. Not so much now. Of course, of itself that isn't a problem and it certainly isn't my place to say what should and shouldn't be emphasized, and there are all the easy arguments, and all the good ones too, about why we choose not to. But the irony remains - if we are going to make such a big deal about the restoration, not just of authority, but of plain and precious truths as well, that we wouldn't make more of one of the clearest restorations of such truths Joseph gave us.

Some scriptures of note
Deut. 10:17
D&C 76:58 (incidentally, while this verse specifically refers to sons of God, I think the context obviously implies daughters as well, particularly verse 24)
D&C 121:28
D&C 121:32
D&C 132:20
Abraham 4

In the end, it seems to me that we are, as a whole, very uncomfortable with the idea of the plurality of gods. Perhaps it makes us feel too "outside the mainstream". But the discomfort is obvious. I just can't quite grasp why...

The Same Sociality

2007-10-31T12:18:00.000+08:00

Often questions about Mother in Heaven lead the someone saying "The question is, do we all have the same Mother in Heaven."

Obviously this harkens back to Mormonism foray into polygamy. Yet I was thinking how rarely is the opposite question asked; namely "Do we all have the same Father in Heaven?" (By rarely, I mean approaching 0. In my life I can only recall it coming up once.)

Why should we ask it? To me, because it is one potential outcome of Joseph's teaching.

First, that we can become gods and goddess, which is taught both in the scriptures and in Joseph's final major sermons.

Second, his profound teaching that the sociality we enjoy here will be enjoyed in heaven, coupled with eternal glory.

Third, that the Celestial Kingdom will be upon this Earth, glorified.

Finally, that there are kingdoms higher than the Celestial (hinted at in both section 130 and in his teaching that Christ's father would ascend higher when Christ completed his work (as well as the idea hinted at that Christ's father was also a Saviour).

Where might this point?

What if God the Father was not alone (with or without a Goddess the Mother)?

What if, instead, God was made up of "gods (and goddesses) many", or a "Council of the Gods" who appointed one God to be there representative for this world (as Joseph appears to me to have taught)?

Perhaps our God is the exalted community of a previous earth? That like us, they lived and died, were resurrected and exalted through the power of Christ's atonement, and then had us as spiritual children. We may have different actual fathers and mothers (a future post will examine what spirit creation/birth might entail) of our spirits. But as they are united - one - are one family - so we are and can be said to have One Father (and Mother).

This seems more what I would hope for - a true eternal family for my future. So why not for our Heavenly Parents?

It also has implications for Christ and the idea of Saviour(s). Joseph seems to me to teach that Christ only did what his father did. So, some ask, was his father a Saviour on his world? Are there Saviour Gods and non-saviour gods in the eternities? Some argue yes, or that there is an Eternal God (Father, and maybe Christ) who really are fundamentally different from us. Still others talk of multiple mortal probations, where we must perform our own atoning sacrifice on another world. Finally, so wonder how other worlds could have a Saviour - wasn't the atonement infinite and eternal?

But are we not all taking upon ourselves the name of Christ? Are not we called to be saviours on Mount Zion? Do we not participate in the atonement of Christ every time we bear each others burden? Each time we forgive offenses? When we are in the Celestial kingdom, will we not all be perfect and without sin? If each of us becomes Christ - a saved being - will not our future jointly created earth's Saviour be able to say, as Joseph has Christ say, "I do that which I saw my Father do", regardless of which one of us is his spiritual parent?

To put another way, Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, but not exclusively. Rather, he was the prime exemplar of the Christ to our world, in part of an eternal drama bringing about the eternal progression of lives.

Returning to the beginning, I do believe that the fundamental eternal unit with be the sealed couple. But I see no reason to imagine each of us will necessarily break away, two by two, to our own heavens to begin our own spiritual brood.

This earth will be our heaven. We will live together. Why not then live together and have children together? Why not create a future together, rather than apart? And if we do it, why wouldn't our fathers and mothers have done it? Wouldn't this be a likely identity for "the Gods", referred to in the Book of Abraham?

Tentative Belief, or the Pursuit of Wisdom

2007-10-26T13:28:00.000+08:00

One last post before diving into my beliefs. I want to talk for a moment about the idea of tentative beliefs. Beliefs that we hold, but not too tightly. That we openly (at least, to ourselves) acknowledge could be wrong. For me, I would say that most of my beliefs - perhaps all? - are tentative.

Why?

Because it reminds me to be humble - to avoid spiritual arrogancy (a weakness I've experienced, as a loving sister-in-law once pointed out to me).

Because it reminds me to be teachable. If I believe that my beliefs are absolute, or absolutely correct, can I learn from another? No, at best I can be confirmed in my presumed beliefs (if they agree with me), in between I can simply agree to disagree with another, and at worst we can engage in perpetual argument with neither of us being edified.

Because it reminds me that we all, yes, even us Mormons, have a great deal to learn. All of our beliefs, in my all to often unhumble opinion, are 'best estimates'. They are our best attempts to understand things that are very big and very complex. Whether its science (what is the Big Bang, a black hole, DNA, etc., etc.) or religion (what is the nature of God, of man, our relationship, etc., etc.) we all, as Paul said, see through a glass darkly. Perhaps because of our belief in revelation and modern prophets, we Mormons can sometimes believe that we "know" a great deal. But the moment we pass beyond the "standard Sunday school answers", we realize that we don't know very much at all. Indeed, that's why we have the "SSSA", because those are the things we can all generally agree upon. Beyond that, we face the same haze as the rest of the world.

Which is not to say the revelations are not important, only to say that beliefs and knowledge are not the focus. We are given some - vision, if you will - to get us going, motivate us, and teach us the nature of some things. But most of what the prophets do is teach us what we should do, how to develop into a better society and people. After all, if the beliefs and knowledge we are given do not impact on how we live our lives, they really are not of a great deal of use.

Did God create the world in six days, as described in Genesis? Many believed it for thousands of years. I don't, but I don't begrudge those who did. It was sufficent and as good an explanation as any. Now I think we have better information. Yet I still believe God created the world. I just have a different picture of how God may have done so. And my current beliefs are as tentative as I hope the six days belief would have been to me, had I ever held it. My default belief, so to speak, until we had better information. As Hugh B. Brown, counselor to President McKay would put it, we are only bound to believe that which is true.

Or put another way, I hold to my faith in God stronger than I do to any of my beliefs about anything, including God. If I have any belief that is not open to revision, then I am damned in that part.

This is not a lazy belief, or a lack of strength in beliefs. There are many of these tentative beliefs that I believe in quite strongly, profoundly, and in many contexts would not hesitate to say "I know this to be true". But we all know people who have said those words and later stopped not just knowing, but even believing. There is no clear line between what we "believe" and what we "know". And I think many people lose their faith because one aspect of their belief gets destroyed. They hold so tightly to something that when it gets broken they throw the whole baby out with the proverbial bathwater.

Which leads me finally, in this very long-winded post, to the pursuit of Wisdom.

This is one of my favourite metaphors. I like it because I can visualize it, I can feel it. I pursue Wisdom the way that one pursues a lover. Her red lips call to you and you cannot help but seek after their kiss. You cannot sleep at night because the thought of her fills your mind and you cannot rest during the day because your every thought is towards her. And one kiss does not satisfy; it only leads to increased desire, to a desire for a new kiss. And each revelation of her only leads you to want more.

I like the metaphor because I know what it is to be filled with passion for a lover. I have known my wife for fourteen years now and been married to her for ten and a half. And I cannot stop thinking about her either. She is my living, breathing Wisdom.

And so I pursue Wisdom. I seek knowledge and understanding and truth and virtue and Wisdom is my guide. As I strive to distinguish between truth and error, virtue and vice, she calls to me, "choose wisely". She calls to me love - to mix my desire for truth with my love of my fellowman, of my world, of existence. She calls me to step back, to consider the consequences and the implications of my actions and my beliefs. She calls me to step forward, to consider the implications of my beliefs - where do they point? what greater truth do they hint at.

I like the metaphor because it is active. It reminds me that I should not be passive and wait for God to grant me wisdom (or anything else for that matter). I should step forward, boldly. I should purse.

Come, pursue with me.

What this blog is not

2007-10-26T10:35:00.000+08:00

Having introduced the blog and myself, and before getting into more substantive subjects, I thought I should perhaps talk for a moment about what this blog is not.

First, this blog is not an attempt to outline Mormon or LDS doctrine. I certainly doubt I could do it better than the Church's website and there is really no need for me to sit here and simply recite established LDS doctrine (though this particular portion of the Church's website shows just how hard it is to determine what exactly 'established' LDS doctrine is, and emphasizes how fluid it can be given our belief in continual revelation).

Second, this blog is not an attempt at apologetics. I am not here to defend my own beliefs, let alone the teachings of the LDS Church. Again, there are other people doing that, such as FARMS and FAIR, plus it's not really my thing.

This blog is about my beliefs, as well as thoughts, speculations, ideas, suppositions, and probably even strained hypotheticals. There will be mistakes, errors, inconsistencies, at the extremes maybe even heresies. But I'll try and keep all of those things to a minimum. ;-)

I am a Mormon

2007-10-23T12:15:00.001+08:00

Like everyone, I wear many hats and fall into many classifications. I am a human, specifically a male one. I am a husband and a father (which happen to be both my favourite hats and favourite classifications). I am a brother and a son. I am a Canadian (you'll probably notice the extra 'u's). I am a civil servant; specifically a foreign service officer, or diplomat. I am a tee-ball, soccer, and soon-to-be basketball coach (you know, with five-year olds you can pretty much coach anything because odds are you know more than they do). I am, or at least try to be, a friend. In brief (or not so brief), I am many things.

So why do I choose "I am a Mormon" as the title of this post?

The most obvious reason is because as I first stated this blog is intended to be about my thoughts about religion, mingled with random bits of other parts of my life. And since I am, in fact, a Mormon (specifically, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), it is a rather obvious title.

But 'Mormon' goes beyond simply a description of my denominational affiliation. 'Mormon' is very much a part of me - about my whole world-view, my self-identity, my relationships, even my work. Everyone who knows me well, most people who know me a little, and lots of people who have only met me in passing know that I am Mormon.

Plus, I like the sound of being Mormon. I like the word. I have to admit that I'm not too big on the apparent trend to de-emphasize the term 'Mormon' and emphasize either 'LDS' or the much more cumbersome 'member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' - especially because I always have to fill in "you know, the Mormons" or "sometimes we're called Mormons" or just "Mormon" afterwards anyway. But more than that, Mormonism is more that just the Church, at least to me. When I say I am a Mormon, I am saying I believe in Mormonism, as a philosophy - as a way of viewing and valuing the world.

I really like the hymn "If you could hie to Kolob". Not simply because it uses the word "hie" and that strange sounding Mormon word (though I do like it for those too), but because of what it talks about - an endlessly vast universe, creation, God, gods, improvement, progression, matter, spirit, virtue, truth.

Being a Mormon is to be positive, to be seeking after not just the good, but the better, to look at life as a glorious gift to be both enjoyed and improved upon. It is to look forward in faith to a better world, but not a better world to the exclusion of the current one. Rather, a better world that we create together out of this one. It is a vision of what God is like and a vision of what it means for us to follow in God's footsteps. It is a vision of Jesus as Saviour, but also of Jesus as prototype - as the image of what I should become. It is a commitment to seek after truth combined with a commitment to friendship, to charity, towards my fellowman.

I say I am a Mormon because 'Mormonism', as I understand it and believe in it, influences what type of male human, husband, father, son, brother, Canadian, diplomat, coach, friend I am or at the very least am trying to be. And the faith that I can become it.

And to return to what I said above, it also influences what type of member I am, or try to be, within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Being a Mormon is much, much more to me than simply being a description of what church I go to or what I drink (or don't drink) with my breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

A First Post

2007-10-21T11:52:00.000+08:00

I suppose every blog requires a first post. This is mine. I thought that rather than introducing myself I would introduce the purpose of this blog: what it is, why, and for whom.

The What: Unless one is working from a precise plan it is hard to say exactly how something will turn out, and even then, I often think we make plans just so God can have a good laugh. But for the moment I intend the blog to be a place where I can preserve my thoughts about life, faith, religion, and all things spiritual. I expect most posts will be about religion, or as the blog description would have it, the pursuit of Wisdom (which itself will be a post in the near future). But I expect it will also be about my family, occasionally politics, with the occasional blend of history, science, and random ramblings. Basically, it will be about the things I think about - my family, God, and the wild, complexly confusing thing we call life.

The Why: First and foremost to simply record my thoughts, both about those things I think about all the time and about the random events that give life so much flavour. For the former, my thoughts and feelings about things have changed a great deal over my life and I wish I had a record of how I thought at different times in my life, to track how those thoughts have developed, grown, changed and be able to look at what changes the most, what changes the least, and what changes were a return to a previous way of thinking. For the latter, because I am amazed at how easily we forget things, including things we shouldn't - either because they are important or because they are precious (in all that word's meanings) or usually a combination of both. The second "why" is because as the blog's title (and future posts will as well) makes clear, I am a rambler. I ramble when I think and I ramble when I talk. And I don't think that is a bad thing. But I also think that there is value in being able to put things together, coherently and succinctly (which is also not my strong suit), both for oneself and for the other with whom we are trying to communicate.

The Whom: For myself, for the above reasons. For others - family, friends, and perhaps strangers, that they might know me better, but moreso, so that perhaps my thoughts will inspire thoughts of their own and perhaps we can be edified together. In other words, if you are reading this, welcome, and your comments are welcome.