I think I have finally figured out why I seem to be so disadvantaged when it comes to being able to feel the spirit and retrieve my testimony of the existence of God, Jesus, Satan (Isn't it interesting that if you accept the reality of God and Jesus that you must also accept the reality of Satan? Satan is scary.) and the truthiness of the LDS church as the only "true" church on the face of the whole earth (meaning all the other churches on the face of the earth are lacking in some way in the truth department, apparently). I have come to one overwhelming and inescapable conclusion; I must be brain damaged. This is the only logical conclusion I can arrive at based on the facts I have in my possession. Here is my train of thought on this;
Fact 1: I have no idea if I have felt the influence of the spirit in my life, let alone what this experience would actually be like were I to have it. The additional problem with this is that even if I were feeling the spirit as I have been told many times throughout my life that I would (or should be) no one seems to be able to tell me exactly at what moment I have actually felt the spirit so that I can identify the experience for future reference. Because it is certainly my experience that, while some people claim to have felt the influence of the "spirit" during some occasion, others haven't felt anything at all. I am now the one who doesn't feel anything at all when others claim to have felt the "spirit". Of course, this whole concept of "feeling" the "spirit" begs the question of which "spirit" they are feeling, since there are supposedly a whole host of "spirits" out there that are attempting to influence our thoughts at any given moment all the time.
Fact 2: The brain is the center of emotional activity and "feelings" in people. Since all feelings I have are the result of firing synapses and chemical and electrical activity in my brain, my inability to "feel" the spirit must be the result of a lack of connection somewhere in my brain or due to a part of my brain that is malfunctioning in some way.
Therefore: I must have brain damage.
It's a miracle! I have finally figured this all out! Now I have a great response when people inquire about me not going to church, or ask why I don't believe, I have a simple and concise response, "Oh, I have brain damage that makes it so I can't feel the spirit or gain a testimony."
This makes me wonder how extensive the damage really is for me and if I should have it checked out by a doctor who specializes in determining such things. I wonder if such a doctor exists and what they would tell me? Should I be worried? I mean, I seem to be able to function in life OK. I am able to operate an automobile to travel long distances. I can carry on somewhat coherent and logical conversations with other people. I can hold down a job and complete most of the duties I have there. I can walk and talk and chew gum at the same time. Of course there is this annoying habit I have of looking at things from the opposite perspective all the time, maybe that is the clear indicator of my brain damage. Hopefully people will understand and forgive my defect. I can only hope so.
Showing posts with label evidence for God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evidence for God. Show all posts
Monday, April 23, 2012
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Faith, knowledge and emotions
In the New Testament book of John chapter 20 verse 29 we get the message that Thomas was blessed for seeing the resurrected Jesus and believing in him, but we also get the message that even more blessed are all those who believe without seeing Jesus resurrected and in person. For me, this scripture was the basis of feeling that faith in Jesus, without having seen him in person, could be even more powerful than actually having seen him to verify his exalted state. This was interpreted by me to mean that the knowledge that comes from faith in the unseen is more noble than knowledge that comes from our own senses.
Perhaps this is why I got so much blow-back from believers in the LDS church that are my friends when I posted the following quote on my Facebook wall, "The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty." by Ann Lamott. This rubs members of the LDS church the wrong way. We are so conditioned to believe that the knowledge that comes from faith is superior to knowledge gained from observation that when the very nature of faith (as a principle that is not knowledge, but a tool that can be used to obtain knowledge) is pointed out to us, we feel threatened and attacked.
To have faith in things that are unseen is viewed as a virtue in a religious context, however, why don't we feel the same way when it comes to book learning? One thing I never could figure out is why there was such a difference in the way I was taught things at school versus how I was taught things at church. For example, Sunday school teachers would teach things and then "testify" of their truth at the end of the lesson. My teachers in school never did that. My science teacher never taught me about some scientific theory or idea and then closed with some variation of, "...and I want you young people to know that I have a testimony of these things..." Why not? What is the difference between knowledge gained in church versus at school? I think the difference is pretty clear.
Faith is the foundation of what is taught at church and knowledge is the foundation of what is taught in school. Teachers in school don't need to "testify" of what they teach, because they have the scientific method backing up their position. If it is possible, they want to be proven wrong and, in some cases, they are.
I remember watching an interview with Brian Greene, the physics professor at Columbia University who popularized string theory in books and PBS television specials. He was asked, "What will you do if it turns out that (a certain aspect of) string theory is not accurate?" His answer actually surprised me since it seems like he has a pretty vested interest in seeing string theory become an accepted scientific principle. His response was something to the effect of, "that would be great, because then we would be one step closer to knowing more about how things actually are in the universe!" I'm sure people can find scientists who don't share this outlook on the future of scientific discovery because they have a heavily vested interest in seeing their view of things become the accepted standard, but I think (maybe I simply hope) that these folks are in the minority.
However, teachers at church don't want to prove anything except what they have been taught and accept on faith as truth. Learning at church is a simple exercise in agreement. Every part of the institution is set up to confirm what has been taught at one time or another as a self evident truth. While there are references to experiments and ways of finding truth in the Book of Mormon, these are really just lip service. The faithful don't really want anyone to perform experiments to find out just how beneficial prayer can be, for example. They want allegorical or anecdotal evidence to confirm their pre-existing beliefs of what they have been told is the expected outcome.
To suggest that someone has performed an experiment on their faith with any scientific objectivity is considered insulting to the faithful. To even bring it up means being met with an argument from compartmentalization. Meaning, you will be told that science (i.e. objective observation to confirm or deny the most logical explanation [theory] for something) and faith are simply incompatible. I have been told several times that one cannot prove spiritual things with science and that science will not ever be able to prove spiritual things.
While that may be true to some, science can explain the cause of experiences that we may be tempted to attribute to a "spiritual" experience. Imagine that one has some sort of spiritual epiphany that brings one closer to the deity they imagine. If we can ask the person to describe what they feel at that time, we might find that it is some sort of euphoric, warm, tingly or happy feeling. So the question is, could that same set of feelings be reproduced under different circumstances? My guess is they could. I get those feelings, that I used to attribute to spiritual communication, at very odd times, with no apparent explanation at all. Usually the feeling comes when I talk with someone I care about and desire to help them in some way. But it is not a feeling I can reproduce at will. Even if I try to duplicate the circumstances as completely as possible, there just won't be the same feeling come. There is very little in the way of a pattern or predictability for it. It comes when I don't really expect it. Much like other emotions we experience, usually there is some environmental stimulus for them, but other times they may be the result of hormonal or chemical imbalances or seem to be completely random in nature. Those emotional responses that are based on hormonal or chemical imbalances can be reproduced and experienced at will given the right set of circumstances being reproduced in the body or brain if we could measure and alter those things in a precise manner (for the most part).
So, if I am genuinely interested in establishing whether or not these spiritual experiences are coming from some deity somewhere (Where exactly, no one seems to know. On a side note, the physical locations in the known universe that God could be existing/hiding in are pretty remote at this point. About the only place God could possibly exist is in other dimensions - which we have yet to prove exist with any certainty - or at some sub, sub, sub, sub atomic level that we don't have the ability to observe yet) or being generated as a simple, and somewhat predictable, emotional response, I would begin with a hypothesis.
That is; feelings of euphoria, peace, love, joy, happiness, goodness (internal sense of right and wrong) come from an unseen deity or they are merely appendages of the continuum of emotions we all experience in our human experience.
It would seem pretty simple to show that if any of the emotional responses we experience in everyday life overlap anywhere with what we might label as "spiritual" experiences that would be pretty damning to the belief that they originate from God. However, let's say that God IS found in all the mundane and petty details of our lives that stimulate emotional responses - i.e. God is the source of ALL of our emotions. If that is the case, then there is no way to differentiate between those feelings that are beneficial - and intended to bring us closer to God - and those that are just part of the everyday human experience. If that is the case, then it seems pretty meaningless to attach meaning where no meaning can be objectively derived. If God is the source of ALL emotion (and He very well could be), my conclusion is that emotional responses are not a good indicator of the existence of God or as a tool that should be used to gauge effectiveness in living a life worthy of God's approval. It is also safe to say that such emotional responses do not contain any explicit set of instructions or interpretations to go along with them (at least mine don't anyway but, then again, I may be a defective unit). This is especially troubling when we realize that emotional responses can be triggered through manipulation.
If someone tells me that someone close to me has died (and I trust them to the point that I don't think to question their information) then that could easily elicit a strong emotional response in me. In that case, my outpouring of feelings expressed at such news would have been generated by false information. If God is the source of all our feelings, why does He rely on such an unreliable medium to convey what could be seen as, arguably, the most important information we need (i.e. knowledge of the plan for being able to determine our ETERNAL station related to God)? To quote Boyd K. Packer, "Why would God do such a thing?" It really makes no sense.
So, until someone can explain why God would choose to place so much emphasis on such an unreliable mechanism for determining truth, I will maintain my position that faith is only useful if it brings us to knowledge (that is real, provable and able to be duplicated under any differing circumstances through objective experiment) otherwise, faith in things that can be repeatedly dis proven is not a useful mechanism to lead us to knowledge and deserves to be discarded in favor of something better (a better faith).
By the way, faith is actually a pretty useful tool in science, although it doesn't receive nearly as much airtime in science as it does in religious circles. Something that has really helped me understand the place of faith in the world of science is that faith is what motivates the performing of experiments to validate a belief in how the world works. If someone comes up with an idea about how they think things ought to work they try to develop a hypothesis (i.e. a statement about what they believe so that it could become a law to guide future scientists). Once a hypothesis is arrived at, a scientist - having faith in their hypothesis - attempts to come up with experiments to prove or disprove their hypothesis. Faith certainly drives the scientist to keep going when the going is difficult, but the ultimate courage (and test of faith) comes when the experiment reveals the truth or falsehood of the hypothesis. In that moment, faith is either strengthened or diminished in that belief (hypothesis). Of course, it is kind of odd to think that if faith is strengthened, that means it is actually going away because it is leading to knowledge. This is the way it should be. Faith either leads us to knowledge (where knowledge displaces our faith in something) or it leads to a revision of our hypothesis and faith in something different. Faith is a tool that is useful as a stepping stone to knowledge, but that's it. It's not really good for much more than that.
To maintain faith in something that can't be proven through experiment seems pretty silly. In fact, I wonder what God would say to people who advocated maintaining their faith in Him in spite of lots of observable evidence to the contrary? Will He reward those who do not test and try to disprove their faith? Or how will He look on those who tried to find the best possible explanations for the world as we know it and tried to eliminate those ideas that turned out to be contradictory, unreliable, or non-universal in nature? I would like to think that God will look kindly on those that challenged their faith and relied on logic and reason to determine ultimate truth. I don't think God wants blind followers, I think God wants people who can think and reason and make tough decisions (even if that means they see that abandoning faith fits with experiment and observations in piecing together the big picture of who and what we are as people). People who have to come up with other things to base morality on besides tradition and ancient mythology. I hope God sees those people as deserving of great rewards in the afterlife believers cling to. Otherwise, I'm screwed, but I'm OK with that.
Perhaps this is why I got so much blow-back from believers in the LDS church that are my friends when I posted the following quote on my Facebook wall, "The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty." by Ann Lamott. This rubs members of the LDS church the wrong way. We are so conditioned to believe that the knowledge that comes from faith is superior to knowledge gained from observation that when the very nature of faith (as a principle that is not knowledge, but a tool that can be used to obtain knowledge) is pointed out to us, we feel threatened and attacked.
To have faith in things that are unseen is viewed as a virtue in a religious context, however, why don't we feel the same way when it comes to book learning? One thing I never could figure out is why there was such a difference in the way I was taught things at school versus how I was taught things at church. For example, Sunday school teachers would teach things and then "testify" of their truth at the end of the lesson. My teachers in school never did that. My science teacher never taught me about some scientific theory or idea and then closed with some variation of, "...and I want you young people to know that I have a testimony of these things..." Why not? What is the difference between knowledge gained in church versus at school? I think the difference is pretty clear.
Faith is the foundation of what is taught at church and knowledge is the foundation of what is taught in school. Teachers in school don't need to "testify" of what they teach, because they have the scientific method backing up their position. If it is possible, they want to be proven wrong and, in some cases, they are.
I remember watching an interview with Brian Greene, the physics professor at Columbia University who popularized string theory in books and PBS television specials. He was asked, "What will you do if it turns out that (a certain aspect of) string theory is not accurate?" His answer actually surprised me since it seems like he has a pretty vested interest in seeing string theory become an accepted scientific principle. His response was something to the effect of, "that would be great, because then we would be one step closer to knowing more about how things actually are in the universe!" I'm sure people can find scientists who don't share this outlook on the future of scientific discovery because they have a heavily vested interest in seeing their view of things become the accepted standard, but I think (maybe I simply hope) that these folks are in the minority.
However, teachers at church don't want to prove anything except what they have been taught and accept on faith as truth. Learning at church is a simple exercise in agreement. Every part of the institution is set up to confirm what has been taught at one time or another as a self evident truth. While there are references to experiments and ways of finding truth in the Book of Mormon, these are really just lip service. The faithful don't really want anyone to perform experiments to find out just how beneficial prayer can be, for example. They want allegorical or anecdotal evidence to confirm their pre-existing beliefs of what they have been told is the expected outcome.
To suggest that someone has performed an experiment on their faith with any scientific objectivity is considered insulting to the faithful. To even bring it up means being met with an argument from compartmentalization. Meaning, you will be told that science (i.e. objective observation to confirm or deny the most logical explanation [theory] for something) and faith are simply incompatible. I have been told several times that one cannot prove spiritual things with science and that science will not ever be able to prove spiritual things.
While that may be true to some, science can explain the cause of experiences that we may be tempted to attribute to a "spiritual" experience. Imagine that one has some sort of spiritual epiphany that brings one closer to the deity they imagine. If we can ask the person to describe what they feel at that time, we might find that it is some sort of euphoric, warm, tingly or happy feeling. So the question is, could that same set of feelings be reproduced under different circumstances? My guess is they could. I get those feelings, that I used to attribute to spiritual communication, at very odd times, with no apparent explanation at all. Usually the feeling comes when I talk with someone I care about and desire to help them in some way. But it is not a feeling I can reproduce at will. Even if I try to duplicate the circumstances as completely as possible, there just won't be the same feeling come. There is very little in the way of a pattern or predictability for it. It comes when I don't really expect it. Much like other emotions we experience, usually there is some environmental stimulus for them, but other times they may be the result of hormonal or chemical imbalances or seem to be completely random in nature. Those emotional responses that are based on hormonal or chemical imbalances can be reproduced and experienced at will given the right set of circumstances being reproduced in the body or brain if we could measure and alter those things in a precise manner (for the most part).
So, if I am genuinely interested in establishing whether or not these spiritual experiences are coming from some deity somewhere (Where exactly, no one seems to know. On a side note, the physical locations in the known universe that God could be existing/hiding in are pretty remote at this point. About the only place God could possibly exist is in other dimensions - which we have yet to prove exist with any certainty - or at some sub, sub, sub, sub atomic level that we don't have the ability to observe yet) or being generated as a simple, and somewhat predictable, emotional response, I would begin with a hypothesis.
That is; feelings of euphoria, peace, love, joy, happiness, goodness (internal sense of right and wrong) come from an unseen deity or they are merely appendages of the continuum of emotions we all experience in our human experience.
It would seem pretty simple to show that if any of the emotional responses we experience in everyday life overlap anywhere with what we might label as "spiritual" experiences that would be pretty damning to the belief that they originate from God. However, let's say that God IS found in all the mundane and petty details of our lives that stimulate emotional responses - i.e. God is the source of ALL of our emotions. If that is the case, then there is no way to differentiate between those feelings that are beneficial - and intended to bring us closer to God - and those that are just part of the everyday human experience. If that is the case, then it seems pretty meaningless to attach meaning where no meaning can be objectively derived. If God is the source of ALL emotion (and He very well could be), my conclusion is that emotional responses are not a good indicator of the existence of God or as a tool that should be used to gauge effectiveness in living a life worthy of God's approval. It is also safe to say that such emotional responses do not contain any explicit set of instructions or interpretations to go along with them (at least mine don't anyway but, then again, I may be a defective unit). This is especially troubling when we realize that emotional responses can be triggered through manipulation.
If someone tells me that someone close to me has died (and I trust them to the point that I don't think to question their information) then that could easily elicit a strong emotional response in me. In that case, my outpouring of feelings expressed at such news would have been generated by false information. If God is the source of all our feelings, why does He rely on such an unreliable medium to convey what could be seen as, arguably, the most important information we need (i.e. knowledge of the plan for being able to determine our ETERNAL station related to God)? To quote Boyd K. Packer, "Why would God do such a thing?" It really makes no sense.
So, until someone can explain why God would choose to place so much emphasis on such an unreliable mechanism for determining truth, I will maintain my position that faith is only useful if it brings us to knowledge (that is real, provable and able to be duplicated under any differing circumstances through objective experiment) otherwise, faith in things that can be repeatedly dis proven is not a useful mechanism to lead us to knowledge and deserves to be discarded in favor of something better (a better faith).
By the way, faith is actually a pretty useful tool in science, although it doesn't receive nearly as much airtime in science as it does in religious circles. Something that has really helped me understand the place of faith in the world of science is that faith is what motivates the performing of experiments to validate a belief in how the world works. If someone comes up with an idea about how they think things ought to work they try to develop a hypothesis (i.e. a statement about what they believe so that it could become a law to guide future scientists). Once a hypothesis is arrived at, a scientist - having faith in their hypothesis - attempts to come up with experiments to prove or disprove their hypothesis. Faith certainly drives the scientist to keep going when the going is difficult, but the ultimate courage (and test of faith) comes when the experiment reveals the truth or falsehood of the hypothesis. In that moment, faith is either strengthened or diminished in that belief (hypothesis). Of course, it is kind of odd to think that if faith is strengthened, that means it is actually going away because it is leading to knowledge. This is the way it should be. Faith either leads us to knowledge (where knowledge displaces our faith in something) or it leads to a revision of our hypothesis and faith in something different. Faith is a tool that is useful as a stepping stone to knowledge, but that's it. It's not really good for much more than that.
To maintain faith in something that can't be proven through experiment seems pretty silly. In fact, I wonder what God would say to people who advocated maintaining their faith in Him in spite of lots of observable evidence to the contrary? Will He reward those who do not test and try to disprove their faith? Or how will He look on those who tried to find the best possible explanations for the world as we know it and tried to eliminate those ideas that turned out to be contradictory, unreliable, or non-universal in nature? I would like to think that God will look kindly on those that challenged their faith and relied on logic and reason to determine ultimate truth. I don't think God wants blind followers, I think God wants people who can think and reason and make tough decisions (even if that means they see that abandoning faith fits with experiment and observations in piecing together the big picture of who and what we are as people). People who have to come up with other things to base morality on besides tradition and ancient mythology. I hope God sees those people as deserving of great rewards in the afterlife believers cling to. Otherwise, I'm screwed, but I'm OK with that.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Rapture
Is it just me, or is everyone a little nervous and sad that the rapture didn't happen? All the publicity certainly got out and I honestly think on some level people were really looking forward to it. I know I was. But, now that the appointed time has come and gone (at least according to a single man's prediction), LDS seem to be reminding themselves (and others) that nobody knows when the second coming of Jesus will really happen (and patting themselves on the back about being aware of the verse in the bible that says it). I have heard some faithful LDS recently say that they don't think it will happen in their lifetimes. I remember a bishop telling me and my wife in an interview who said that he didn't believe he would see the second coming of the Savior in his lifetime but that we would most definitely see it happen in our lifetimes.
I kind of think that this is what just about every passing generation says to the up and coming one, as a sort of a carrot that is dangled in front of them (or reminder that the stick of God's judgment is very real), and as a reminder about the need to do good, because, after all, the 2nd coming is near! It is ALWAYS near for crying out loud! It has been near since the time of Jesus himself. John, one of the original 12 apostles said in the book of Revelations Chapter 22, verses 12 & 22, "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." and "He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus."
LDS living is emphasizing a talk by Dallin H. Oaks that is nice enough to point out that a lot of stuff has to happen before the 2nd coming occurs. It also seems to be a reminder that the church leadership has recently reminded all of us that nobody knows when the 2nd coming will happen. However, in the video that was put together and posted by LDS church news they close with a quote by Joseph Smith reminding everyone that anyone who claims to know the day of the second coming of Jesus is a false teacher. This quote was not found in Dallin H. Oaks original talk (given in the April 2004 General Conference) but seems to have been added for dramatic effect and to shut up anyone from implying that the church may have taught a specific date for the second coming to occur.
However, the interesting thing is Joseph Smith appeared to be pretty preoccupied with this very question. In D&C 130, verses 14-17 Joseph says, "...I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:
15 Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.
16 I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.
17 I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time."
This has always been one of those scriptures that I have wondered about. Why, if this is not an attempt to offer some sort of prediction on the matter (after all, it IS the voice of God we assume is the voice of which he is speaking) is it even included in the scriptural canon? Why not just say, "Quit asking! I'm not telling anyone, not even you Joseph!" Instead we get this weird reference to Joseph's age and weird interpretation of what it must have meant. Technically, however, Joseph Smith is attempting to say that Jesus' second coming will not occur prior to him turning 85. Based on the last verse here, Joseph is attempting to tell us it will not occur prior to that time which is, technically, an attempt to predict when the second coming will occur (or not occur until). My simple question is, doesn't this seem to make Joseph Smith a false teacher? I admit that there are plenty of outs here for Joseph on this point, so it is really not that big a deal. But it was a thought I had when I watched the Dallin H. Oaks video put out by the LDS church news on LDS Living.
When I saw that last quote in the video, I also recalled from church history that Joseph Smith might have made a comment in a general conference on the second coming where he was quoted as saying that 56 years should wind up the scene. However, there is some dispute as to the authenticity of this quote, so it would not be fair to attempt to hold this up as a prophecy by Joseph Smith.
In addition, all of this talk about predictions and prophesy does tend to lead to the all important question; When is a prophet speaking as a man and when is he speaking as a prophet? This is a question I have yet to find a sufficient answer to. It seems as though the only time a prophet's words can be relied upon are if it is the CURRENT prophet of the day and ONLY if he speaks the prophecy in an official capacity and ONLY if he precedes it by some variation of "thus saith the Lord" AND if the spirit witnesses to the hearer that the prophecy is true. All these conditions come off to me sounding like excuses, really. It seems like the circumstances have to be just right and the stars all have to align for the prophet to actually make a prophecy. And, if he happens to utter something that might possibly be construed as a prophecy, and it happens to come true, he was thus speaking as a prophet. However, if he is unfortunately incorrect about something...well, then he was just speaking as a man, or it wasn't official or we all interpreted it wrong.
The fascinating thing that goes along with these ideas is that the current leaders of the LDS church say surprisingly little that could actually be construed as any sort of prophecy to begin with. It's not like in the bible where the Lord tells Lot that he is going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and then does it. Or even the Book of Mormon where God tells Lehi that Jerusalem will be destroyed and it actually came to pass. I guess the days of specific prophecies like those are done and gone. After all, we have had a seeming surge in natural disasters in the last few years and yet the prophets have failed to warn us specifically about any of them! Where are the prophets that serve to warn us and help us to avoid destruction? Are we just all wicked and not worth saving in those places where the natural disasters occur. Are the people in Joplin Missouri, not righteous enough to have merited a little heads up? I guess God just doesn't love us as much as he loved people in the scriptures.
Oh well, maybe God is just on some sort of vacation and just can't be bothered to tell us anything helpful right now. I really wish he would just return already though, because I think people have had this idea that He would return sometime in their lifetimes for eons now. It would sure be nice if one generation finally got it right for a change.
I kind of think that this is what just about every passing generation says to the up and coming one, as a sort of a carrot that is dangled in front of them (or reminder that the stick of God's judgment is very real), and as a reminder about the need to do good, because, after all, the 2nd coming is near! It is ALWAYS near for crying out loud! It has been near since the time of Jesus himself. John, one of the original 12 apostles said in the book of Revelations Chapter 22, verses 12 & 22, "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." and "He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus."
LDS living is emphasizing a talk by Dallin H. Oaks that is nice enough to point out that a lot of stuff has to happen before the 2nd coming occurs. It also seems to be a reminder that the church leadership has recently reminded all of us that nobody knows when the 2nd coming will happen. However, in the video that was put together and posted by LDS church news they close with a quote by Joseph Smith reminding everyone that anyone who claims to know the day of the second coming of Jesus is a false teacher. This quote was not found in Dallin H. Oaks original talk (given in the April 2004 General Conference) but seems to have been added for dramatic effect and to shut up anyone from implying that the church may have taught a specific date for the second coming to occur.
However, the interesting thing is Joseph Smith appeared to be pretty preoccupied with this very question. In D&C 130, verses 14-17 Joseph says, "...I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:
15 Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.
16 I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.
17 I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time."
This has always been one of those scriptures that I have wondered about. Why, if this is not an attempt to offer some sort of prediction on the matter (after all, it IS the voice of God we assume is the voice of which he is speaking) is it even included in the scriptural canon? Why not just say, "Quit asking! I'm not telling anyone, not even you Joseph!" Instead we get this weird reference to Joseph's age and weird interpretation of what it must have meant. Technically, however, Joseph Smith is attempting to say that Jesus' second coming will not occur prior to him turning 85. Based on the last verse here, Joseph is attempting to tell us it will not occur prior to that time which is, technically, an attempt to predict when the second coming will occur (or not occur until). My simple question is, doesn't this seem to make Joseph Smith a false teacher? I admit that there are plenty of outs here for Joseph on this point, so it is really not that big a deal. But it was a thought I had when I watched the Dallin H. Oaks video put out by the LDS church news on LDS Living.
When I saw that last quote in the video, I also recalled from church history that Joseph Smith might have made a comment in a general conference on the second coming where he was quoted as saying that 56 years should wind up the scene. However, there is some dispute as to the authenticity of this quote, so it would not be fair to attempt to hold this up as a prophecy by Joseph Smith.
In addition, all of this talk about predictions and prophesy does tend to lead to the all important question; When is a prophet speaking as a man and when is he speaking as a prophet? This is a question I have yet to find a sufficient answer to. It seems as though the only time a prophet's words can be relied upon are if it is the CURRENT prophet of the day and ONLY if he speaks the prophecy in an official capacity and ONLY if he precedes it by some variation of "thus saith the Lord" AND if the spirit witnesses to the hearer that the prophecy is true. All these conditions come off to me sounding like excuses, really. It seems like the circumstances have to be just right and the stars all have to align for the prophet to actually make a prophecy. And, if he happens to utter something that might possibly be construed as a prophecy, and it happens to come true, he was thus speaking as a prophet. However, if he is unfortunately incorrect about something...well, then he was just speaking as a man, or it wasn't official or we all interpreted it wrong.
The fascinating thing that goes along with these ideas is that the current leaders of the LDS church say surprisingly little that could actually be construed as any sort of prophecy to begin with. It's not like in the bible where the Lord tells Lot that he is going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and then does it. Or even the Book of Mormon where God tells Lehi that Jerusalem will be destroyed and it actually came to pass. I guess the days of specific prophecies like those are done and gone. After all, we have had a seeming surge in natural disasters in the last few years and yet the prophets have failed to warn us specifically about any of them! Where are the prophets that serve to warn us and help us to avoid destruction? Are we just all wicked and not worth saving in those places where the natural disasters occur. Are the people in Joplin Missouri, not righteous enough to have merited a little heads up? I guess God just doesn't love us as much as he loved people in the scriptures.
Oh well, maybe God is just on some sort of vacation and just can't be bothered to tell us anything helpful right now. I really wish he would just return already though, because I think people have had this idea that He would return sometime in their lifetimes for eons now. It would sure be nice if one generation finally got it right for a change.
(Please note: When using Firefox web browser, if you type a comment without logging in first, your comment may disappear when attempting to submit. To avoid this, login first and then type comment or always copy comment before attempting to submit.)
Friday, April 15, 2011
I dreamed a dream
I had a dream last night where I was in a room surrounded by close relatives and friends and everyone was engaged in making comments about me. No one was really talking directly to me, but they were all making veiled jabs at my disbelief to one extent or another. Some of them were quite hurtful and made me very sad. I awoke and made some observations about what transpired in the dream. The first one was that even though everyone in the room was aware of my disbelief, no one bothered to ask the obvious question, "Chris, Why don't you believe in the church anymore?", let alone listen to my thoughtful and sincere answers. In fact, no one even bothered to ask me any questions at all to attempt to understand where I might be coming from. Everyone just assumed that what they heard (or assumed based on their understanding of what causes people to fall away from the church) about me was true.
Another observation I made was that everyone was very condescending in their attitude towards me. They would seek affirmation from others in the group in various ways (to confirm their beliefs), but their comments were designed to either put me down or make light of my situation so that it did not have to be dealt with in any meaningful way. Everyone seemed to have an opinion about my situation, but they had no interest in finding out about my situation from the person who was in the situation. I found this very frustrating. I woke up at the most frustrating point of the scenario.
When I woke up I also began to formulate a question I wish I could have posed to everyone present at that time. Of course, it was a long question that needed a lot of foundation to be established, but now that I think about it, since no one seemed to be interested in actually learning about why I am where I am at, I don't know why they would even attempt to listen to a question posed to them in the most sincere and thoughtful manner possible. I started to feel like I was the only one capable of listening and actually processing what was being said by people without applying an automatic bias to what was being said. I felt like I was a scapegoat for everyone to unload all their fears and insecurities (disguised as convictions) on. Anyway, here is the question I began to formulate to ask my relatives and friends present in my dream;
We know from the bible it is taught that God giveth to ALL men liberally and upbraideth not when we ask Him for something (James 1:5). We also know that God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). We also know that Jesus taught that God desires to give us exactly what we need because since we know how to give good gifts to our children, God most certainly knows how to give the best gifts to us (Matt 7:9-11). To me these scriptural teachings mean that everyone is entitled to answers to prayers and, at a minimum, to feel the spirit when those things that are taught contain God's truth for mankind. The feeling of the spirit should be inseparably interconnected with God's truth when it is uttered.
Based on these teachings, what I continue to fail to understand is two things:
1) Why is it that if two people who both earnestly seek for the feeling of the spirit to confirm the same truths that have been confirmed to others, that one person will claim to have received that divine guidance and the other will not? Why does Heavenly Father do that to anyone?
2) Why is it that when truths are taught that we may claim to have felt the spirit about when they were originally taught don't cause us to feel the spirit the next time the very same thing is taught at a different time or under different circumstances?
Both of these questions have to do with consistency. Is it too much to ask that the things of God that are manifest actually be consistent with the teachings in who is able to receive them and that we consistently feel God's spirit when the things of God are taught even though the circumstances of hearing the truths may be different?
The problem is that the response of believers to these questions is to blame the person who is never able to receive the hoped for answers or feeling that they are seeking. They will give some variation of; the person who does not receive the feeling of the spirit must not be in tune to feeling the spirit at that time. They will then cite a litany of possible reasons for their unworthiness of being able to feel the spirit which all boil down to, regardless of how sincere the person is or how hard they try to achieve that worthiness, they are just still failing on some level. It is always the fault of the person who isn't feeling the spirit and there is always some additional requirement that can be heaped on as a prerequisite before the person will be "worthy" of feeling the spirit.
The problem is the list of requirements never ends and is also literally impossible to completely fulfill. Once you are doing everything you are supposed to do, what will inevitably happen is you will fail in being diligent with one of the other requirements. For example, I can't possibly do everything the church teaches and not falter in some other area. I can't possibly attend all my meetings and do all my genealogy and attend the temple with the diligence that is required in all those areas. It is also a case where no matter how much a person does, if they claim to not be able to feel the spirit, there must just be something more they are missing or maybe it is some sin they are committing that is making them an unclean vessel. Since nothing can be entirely isolated as the reason, the assumption is that it must just be something more that everyone is not aware of, but it is still the person's fault who is not feeling the spirit. It is never possible to consider that God might be the one to blame, because no one can ever assume He might ever be wrong.
This type of blame the victim mentality is just sickening to those who are on the receiving end of it. It is just like if a woman is raped and then she is blamed for it. It is just heinous to think about when that happens. Of course, I realize that there are probably still circles where this is an acceptable reaction towards the woman who is raped (i.e. to blame them for it), and this makes my heart sink and go out to those poor women who are blamed for something they are absolutely not responsible for in any way shape or form. (Of course, I understand that the line between consensual and non-consensual is sometimes very blurry, but in conditions where force is evident, I believe we should always err on the side of compassion towards the one who is claiming to have been raped, since they are truly the victim in such cases).
This causes me to wonder if it is even possible for some to ever see the hurt, pain and loneliness the judgments that are cast on others result in? I know the pain I have felt has been immense at so many times, but the response of believers seems to be, "Well, you deserve to feel pain you stupid, unrighteous apostate! If you just had faith and conformed to the truth of God all your pain would go away." How can people be so presumptuously callous? How can people who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus (who taught that we should love our neighbor as ourselves) be so extreme on the opposite end of that spectrum by despising those that simply don't understand why there are inconsistencies. People are condemned for thinking that they might possibly have a more likely explanation for it all? In essence I am asking here, why can't we all just get along? Why can't believers not treat those disaffected members of the church so harsh and abrasively? Why can't they try to understand the disaffected members viewpoint and actually consider some of the points they try to convey?
Unfortunately, I have to conclude that it is in our very nature to be judgmental and ostracize people who do not belong to our perceived group. Maybe we cannot ever fully overcome this tendency and there will always be pain and suffering and division amongst those who are separate from, or outside of, religious groups everywhere. I just wish people would think a little more about how the things they say may be hurtful to others who may not agree with their view or see things differently for some reason. I believe that, while I am not perfect in this, I do try to see things from the perspective of others a lot more now than I used to. The difficulty comes when my sympathy is directed towards those who have historically been the one to blame for their woes.
Shouldn't a church that claims to have all the truth of God in it's doctrinal canon have, as a result of its influence, the means to help people be able to see things better from others' perspectives, instead of bringing people up to shun and be critical of others outside the group so quickly? Why is this not the case - especially in God's only true and living church on the earth today? Unfortunately, nobody who needs to hear these things is still listening to me at this point.
My dream is that the pain that comes from the critical comments and ostracism caused by believing members of the church towards those who do not believe, for whatever reason, will cease. I also wish that we could all work to understand things better from the perspective of others without automatically assuming they are sinning (or applying any other unsubstantiated bias until the situation is fully understood). Stephen Covey said it best, I think, when he said that one of the habits of a highly effective person is to seek first to understand, then to be understood.
If anyone is listening, I am not in pain because I have sinned. I am not in pain because I deserve it. I am in pain because I have been judged and cast out by those that I continue to love without due consideration of my viewpoint. My viewpoint has only been arrived at through thoughtful criticism of what I was taught should be considered the most important questions in life. Unfortunately the answers I have arrived at are now different than what I was taught. And if you ever want to know exactly what those things are, I'll be more than happy to explain. All you have to do is ask.
Another observation I made was that everyone was very condescending in their attitude towards me. They would seek affirmation from others in the group in various ways (to confirm their beliefs), but their comments were designed to either put me down or make light of my situation so that it did not have to be dealt with in any meaningful way. Everyone seemed to have an opinion about my situation, but they had no interest in finding out about my situation from the person who was in the situation. I found this very frustrating. I woke up at the most frustrating point of the scenario.
When I woke up I also began to formulate a question I wish I could have posed to everyone present at that time. Of course, it was a long question that needed a lot of foundation to be established, but now that I think about it, since no one seemed to be interested in actually learning about why I am where I am at, I don't know why they would even attempt to listen to a question posed to them in the most sincere and thoughtful manner possible. I started to feel like I was the only one capable of listening and actually processing what was being said by people without applying an automatic bias to what was being said. I felt like I was a scapegoat for everyone to unload all their fears and insecurities (disguised as convictions) on. Anyway, here is the question I began to formulate to ask my relatives and friends present in my dream;
We know from the bible it is taught that God giveth to ALL men liberally and upbraideth not when we ask Him for something (James 1:5). We also know that God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). We also know that Jesus taught that God desires to give us exactly what we need because since we know how to give good gifts to our children, God most certainly knows how to give the best gifts to us (Matt 7:9-11). To me these scriptural teachings mean that everyone is entitled to answers to prayers and, at a minimum, to feel the spirit when those things that are taught contain God's truth for mankind. The feeling of the spirit should be inseparably interconnected with God's truth when it is uttered.
Based on these teachings, what I continue to fail to understand is two things:
1) Why is it that if two people who both earnestly seek for the feeling of the spirit to confirm the same truths that have been confirmed to others, that one person will claim to have received that divine guidance and the other will not? Why does Heavenly Father do that to anyone?
2) Why is it that when truths are taught that we may claim to have felt the spirit about when they were originally taught don't cause us to feel the spirit the next time the very same thing is taught at a different time or under different circumstances?
Both of these questions have to do with consistency. Is it too much to ask that the things of God that are manifest actually be consistent with the teachings in who is able to receive them and that we consistently feel God's spirit when the things of God are taught even though the circumstances of hearing the truths may be different?
The problem is that the response of believers to these questions is to blame the person who is never able to receive the hoped for answers or feeling that they are seeking. They will give some variation of; the person who does not receive the feeling of the spirit must not be in tune to feeling the spirit at that time. They will then cite a litany of possible reasons for their unworthiness of being able to feel the spirit which all boil down to, regardless of how sincere the person is or how hard they try to achieve that worthiness, they are just still failing on some level. It is always the fault of the person who isn't feeling the spirit and there is always some additional requirement that can be heaped on as a prerequisite before the person will be "worthy" of feeling the spirit.
The problem is the list of requirements never ends and is also literally impossible to completely fulfill. Once you are doing everything you are supposed to do, what will inevitably happen is you will fail in being diligent with one of the other requirements. For example, I can't possibly do everything the church teaches and not falter in some other area. I can't possibly attend all my meetings and do all my genealogy and attend the temple with the diligence that is required in all those areas. It is also a case where no matter how much a person does, if they claim to not be able to feel the spirit, there must just be something more they are missing or maybe it is some sin they are committing that is making them an unclean vessel. Since nothing can be entirely isolated as the reason, the assumption is that it must just be something more that everyone is not aware of, but it is still the person's fault who is not feeling the spirit. It is never possible to consider that God might be the one to blame, because no one can ever assume He might ever be wrong.
This type of blame the victim mentality is just sickening to those who are on the receiving end of it. It is just like if a woman is raped and then she is blamed for it. It is just heinous to think about when that happens. Of course, I realize that there are probably still circles where this is an acceptable reaction towards the woman who is raped (i.e. to blame them for it), and this makes my heart sink and go out to those poor women who are blamed for something they are absolutely not responsible for in any way shape or form. (Of course, I understand that the line between consensual and non-consensual is sometimes very blurry, but in conditions where force is evident, I believe we should always err on the side of compassion towards the one who is claiming to have been raped, since they are truly the victim in such cases).
This causes me to wonder if it is even possible for some to ever see the hurt, pain and loneliness the judgments that are cast on others result in? I know the pain I have felt has been immense at so many times, but the response of believers seems to be, "Well, you deserve to feel pain you stupid, unrighteous apostate! If you just had faith and conformed to the truth of God all your pain would go away." How can people be so presumptuously callous? How can people who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus (who taught that we should love our neighbor as ourselves) be so extreme on the opposite end of that spectrum by despising those that simply don't understand why there are inconsistencies. People are condemned for thinking that they might possibly have a more likely explanation for it all? In essence I am asking here, why can't we all just get along? Why can't believers not treat those disaffected members of the church so harsh and abrasively? Why can't they try to understand the disaffected members viewpoint and actually consider some of the points they try to convey?
Unfortunately, I have to conclude that it is in our very nature to be judgmental and ostracize people who do not belong to our perceived group. Maybe we cannot ever fully overcome this tendency and there will always be pain and suffering and division amongst those who are separate from, or outside of, religious groups everywhere. I just wish people would think a little more about how the things they say may be hurtful to others who may not agree with their view or see things differently for some reason. I believe that, while I am not perfect in this, I do try to see things from the perspective of others a lot more now than I used to. The difficulty comes when my sympathy is directed towards those who have historically been the one to blame for their woes.
Shouldn't a church that claims to have all the truth of God in it's doctrinal canon have, as a result of its influence, the means to help people be able to see things better from others' perspectives, instead of bringing people up to shun and be critical of others outside the group so quickly? Why is this not the case - especially in God's only true and living church on the earth today? Unfortunately, nobody who needs to hear these things is still listening to me at this point.
My dream is that the pain that comes from the critical comments and ostracism caused by believing members of the church towards those who do not believe, for whatever reason, will cease. I also wish that we could all work to understand things better from the perspective of others without automatically assuming they are sinning (or applying any other unsubstantiated bias until the situation is fully understood). Stephen Covey said it best, I think, when he said that one of the habits of a highly effective person is to seek first to understand, then to be understood.
If anyone is listening, I am not in pain because I have sinned. I am not in pain because I deserve it. I am in pain because I have been judged and cast out by those that I continue to love without due consideration of my viewpoint. My viewpoint has only been arrived at through thoughtful criticism of what I was taught should be considered the most important questions in life. Unfortunately the answers I have arrived at are now different than what I was taught. And if you ever want to know exactly what those things are, I'll be more than happy to explain. All you have to do is ask.
(Please note: When using Firefox web browser, if you type a comment without logging in first, your comment may disappear when attempting to submit. To avoid this, login first and then type comment or always copy comment before attempting to submit.)
Saturday, April 2, 2011
What color are you?
I just got to wondering something; why does the church in its editings of the Book of Mormon feel the need to change white and delightsome to pure and delightsome, with regard to a change in skin color of the Lamanites, but has no problem leaving in the bit about being cursed by God with black skin for being wicked? Apparently the change from dark to white skin is setting an unrealistic expectation and is problematic, but to have people go from white to dark skin is OK and the church can get behind that all day long without a problem?
In thinking about this, I think it might have to do with legal liability. The church may want to protect itself against a lawsuit from a dark skinned person who reads in the BoM that they can become light/white skinned by doing what the church asks, but the church must not have any fear that a white person who leaves the church might actually become darker skinned (due to the increased time spent outdoors enjoying life and going tanning or whatever with all the money they save from not paying tithing!) I guess there is really no fear of backlash from the wicked dark skinned people (who only appear to get darker the farther away from the church they get) as much as there is from the righteous dark skinned people who never become white. I guess I can understand that. Could there be any other reason for the change to the words in the BoM? I mean, it's not like there was an announcement over the pulpit in general conference where it was announced that the words in the Book of Mormon were going to be changed (unless I missed that particular announcement?).
I also think it must be confusing for young people in the church to learn that white people, who turn bad, end up with dark skin (as a curse as taught in the BoM), but when those dark skinned folks join the church and do everything they are told that they are supposed to do, they aren't expected to see any kind of reversal in skin color. Rather, those that are righteous with dark skin are considered "pure" instead of "white". So the obvious question from children would be "Why wouldn't God make the darkie light again, since he made the whitie dark?" Apparently it is only a one way street when it comes to skin color. We can only get darker, but never whiter. That, my young reader, is the lesson here. Don't ever do anything bad, because once you go down that Pinocchio path and start doing bad stuff, just like Pinocchio almost ended up as a donkey forever, you may end up as a black person forever. And, if you ever decide to come back, too bad, the dark skin stays and you can never have white skin again. So guard your white skin children, because once it is lost, it is gone forever! And, just look at how tough it is for the blacks! They have been fighting for equal rights for years now and they still don't have real equality in so many ways.
To me that says that having black skin is a sign of wickedness and having white skin means you are fortunate to have never been cursed, so you should protect that status in everything you do. How could I not be expected to think less of people with black skin being taught such things?
I imagine the primary lesson I might have had went something like this: A child raises his hand (after reading Alma 3:6) to ask, "So why aren't all wicked people black then?" (This is a question I guess I never really thought about until now that I am actually thinking about this stuff. Yeah, why is that anyway?) The dutiful primary teacher responds with something like, "Of course, young child, the reason is simple. Because God picks and chooses whom he will actually curse with the skin of blackness, you silly goose."
The teacher continues:
"Just you nevermind that it really has to do with the regional climate your ancestors are from, 'those' people have always been looked down upon by society and obviously God looks down on them as well (after all, to curse means to give something rotten to someone - or their kids - who have done something bad). People who are white that are doing bad stuff better watch out because, any day now, the white God will curse the bad white people with skins of blackness. In fact you may not recognize some of your friends in the next life because they might have black skin there, even though they are really white and delightsome now. In fact, come to think about it, you won't recognize a lot of people up in heaven when it is all said and done, just like members of the church don't recognize each other when they run into each other at the grocery store in Sunday." I imagine an awkward pause would follow such a statement like the one's that Johnny Depp delivers in his version of Willy Wonka.
By the way, if anyone has an explanation for why the curse/mark of Cain/Ham/Egyptus persisted for more than a few generations, I would love to hear it because from what I have read God only curses those that he really despises for only 3 or 4 generations at most, not for well over 160 generations! (See Deuteronomy 5:9, Numbers 14:18, Exodus 34:7 & Exodus 20:5)
I can think of a few explanations for the phenomena that I have outlined above;
1) Whatever the first person to be cursed with black skin did to God was pretty bad (we're talking utterly and completely severe) so that the curse was so long lasting (and the scriptures I outlined do not fit that category of uber badness). However, there is really not any indication that this was the case...unless the first murder had to be forever remembered as a really bad choice among the children of men and black people are supposed to remind everybody of that. But why would a God, who doesn't want us to have crucifixes displayed - to remember the death of His Only Begotten Son, want to have constant reminders persist among humanity of the first murder (or whatever that unspeakable act was)?
2) God doesn't have the power to lift the curse once it is given (which, I guess, could be a possibility) but that kind of throws out the idea of an omnipotent God doesn't it?
3) God doesn't ever remove the curse of the skin of blackness because it really isn't that big of a deal. I guess this is also a possibility, but if that is the case, why not just cause any teaching or reminder about the curse of black skin to be removed from scripture? If it is really not a big deal to God, why is it needed at all in the doctrinal canon? Not only that, but if it is not a big deal to God, why allow blacks to be owned as slaves? After all, I'm pretty sure this teaching was at least partly used as the justification for the whites being able to own black people as slaves (because the blacks were cursed by God and therefore not eligible for equal rights to own property and vote). I wonder what God thinks of slavery, anyway? He sure did have a lot of rules about how to treat slaves in the Old Testament (See Exodus 21, 22 & 23).
4) Those that profess that having a skin of blackness is a curse from God are full of it. This is where I am at. Since all the other reasons don't seem to hold water for me, this is my conclusion. Of course, I am open to any other reasons that may exist out there so please enlighten me. While I am waiting to hear back I'll be outside working on my skin of blackness ;-)
In thinking about this, I think it might have to do with legal liability. The church may want to protect itself against a lawsuit from a dark skinned person who reads in the BoM that they can become light/white skinned by doing what the church asks, but the church must not have any fear that a white person who leaves the church might actually become darker skinned (due to the increased time spent outdoors enjoying life and going tanning or whatever with all the money they save from not paying tithing!) I guess there is really no fear of backlash from the wicked dark skinned people (who only appear to get darker the farther away from the church they get) as much as there is from the righteous dark skinned people who never become white. I guess I can understand that. Could there be any other reason for the change to the words in the BoM? I mean, it's not like there was an announcement over the pulpit in general conference where it was announced that the words in the Book of Mormon were going to be changed (unless I missed that particular announcement?).
I also think it must be confusing for young people in the church to learn that white people, who turn bad, end up with dark skin (as a curse as taught in the BoM), but when those dark skinned folks join the church and do everything they are told that they are supposed to do, they aren't expected to see any kind of reversal in skin color. Rather, those that are righteous with dark skin are considered "pure" instead of "white". So the obvious question from children would be "Why wouldn't God make the darkie light again, since he made the whitie dark?" Apparently it is only a one way street when it comes to skin color. We can only get darker, but never whiter. That, my young reader, is the lesson here. Don't ever do anything bad, because once you go down that Pinocchio path and start doing bad stuff, just like Pinocchio almost ended up as a donkey forever, you may end up as a black person forever. And, if you ever decide to come back, too bad, the dark skin stays and you can never have white skin again. So guard your white skin children, because once it is lost, it is gone forever! And, just look at how tough it is for the blacks! They have been fighting for equal rights for years now and they still don't have real equality in so many ways.
To me that says that having black skin is a sign of wickedness and having white skin means you are fortunate to have never been cursed, so you should protect that status in everything you do. How could I not be expected to think less of people with black skin being taught such things?
I imagine the primary lesson I might have had went something like this: A child raises his hand (after reading Alma 3:6) to ask, "So why aren't all wicked people black then?" (This is a question I guess I never really thought about until now that I am actually thinking about this stuff. Yeah, why is that anyway?) The dutiful primary teacher responds with something like, "Of course, young child, the reason is simple. Because God picks and chooses whom he will actually curse with the skin of blackness, you silly goose."
The teacher continues:
"Just you nevermind that it really has to do with the regional climate your ancestors are from, 'those' people have always been looked down upon by society and obviously God looks down on them as well (after all, to curse means to give something rotten to someone - or their kids - who have done something bad). People who are white that are doing bad stuff better watch out because, any day now, the white God will curse the bad white people with skins of blackness. In fact you may not recognize some of your friends in the next life because they might have black skin there, even though they are really white and delightsome now. In fact, come to think about it, you won't recognize a lot of people up in heaven when it is all said and done, just like members of the church don't recognize each other when they run into each other at the grocery store in Sunday." I imagine an awkward pause would follow such a statement like the one's that Johnny Depp delivers in his version of Willy Wonka.
By the way, if anyone has an explanation for why the curse/mark of Cain/Ham/Egyptus persisted for more than a few generations, I would love to hear it because from what I have read God only curses those that he really despises for only 3 or 4 generations at most, not for well over 160 generations! (See Deuteronomy 5:9, Numbers 14:18, Exodus 34:7 & Exodus 20:5)
I can think of a few explanations for the phenomena that I have outlined above;
1) Whatever the first person to be cursed with black skin did to God was pretty bad (we're talking utterly and completely severe) so that the curse was so long lasting (and the scriptures I outlined do not fit that category of uber badness). However, there is really not any indication that this was the case...unless the first murder had to be forever remembered as a really bad choice among the children of men and black people are supposed to remind everybody of that. But why would a God, who doesn't want us to have crucifixes displayed - to remember the death of His Only Begotten Son, want to have constant reminders persist among humanity of the first murder (or whatever that unspeakable act was)?
2) God doesn't have the power to lift the curse once it is given (which, I guess, could be a possibility) but that kind of throws out the idea of an omnipotent God doesn't it?
3) God doesn't ever remove the curse of the skin of blackness because it really isn't that big of a deal. I guess this is also a possibility, but if that is the case, why not just cause any teaching or reminder about the curse of black skin to be removed from scripture? If it is really not a big deal to God, why is it needed at all in the doctrinal canon? Not only that, but if it is not a big deal to God, why allow blacks to be owned as slaves? After all, I'm pretty sure this teaching was at least partly used as the justification for the whites being able to own black people as slaves (because the blacks were cursed by God and therefore not eligible for equal rights to own property and vote). I wonder what God thinks of slavery, anyway? He sure did have a lot of rules about how to treat slaves in the Old Testament (See Exodus 21, 22 & 23).
4) Those that profess that having a skin of blackness is a curse from God are full of it. This is where I am at. Since all the other reasons don't seem to hold water for me, this is my conclusion. Of course, I am open to any other reasons that may exist out there so please enlighten me. While I am waiting to hear back I'll be outside working on my skin of blackness ;-)
(Please note: When using Firefox web browser, if you type a comment without logging in first, your comment may disappear when attempting to submit. To avoid this, login first and then type comment or always copy comment before attempting to submit.)
Friday, February 25, 2011
Perfection
I used to be somewhat obsessed with perfection. Perfection is the stated goal of members of the church for the eternities and it is often thought of in terms that are measurable and achievable through everything done as taught by the church. For some reason I never really gave much thought to what this really means. So now I wonder, can perfection ever be really achieved?
What I have realized is that perfection has multiple meanings. There is the meaning that is used to define when a principle, or set of parameters, has been fully realized (such as describing what a perfect circle is and then being able to create a perfect circle on paper according to all the known definitions of what a perfect circle would be) and the other means without flaw or defect. Yet another meaning for perfection is the constant striving for a target. Many people combine the idea of being without flaw or defect and moving towards a target. I think when people do that they find that the target will probably move as one get's closer to the ideal. Which causes me to wonder, if we get closer to being god-like, will our idea of what being god-like is then expand? It seems to me that it should and that the possibility exists that this expansion would occur until the possibilities for growth literally become infinite. Perfection is often thought of as a state of being that can someday be achieved, not something that can never be fully understood, let alone realized.
I don't think we as human beings are capable of achieving perfection in our current state. What is a perfect human being anyway? Does such a person exist? I would say that people can only be perfect in very limited ways. Even the people we might identify as the most perfect today will still have physical, emotional or mental flaws that will forever keep them from being perfect in one area or another. It is funny to watch Hollywood or Madison Avenue place people on a pedestal as being very nearly perfect only to later find out they have some addiction, some relationship problem or physical flaw that would indicate they are not really perfect at all.
I think we want to have perfection, but we can never really achieve it, so we pretend that there are perfect people out there and we imagine that people are perfect when the reality is they are usually very far from it.
In thinking about this I tried to imagine what would happen if I could alter something about myself and there were no boundaries on what I could do. I would definitely want to fly, but what would be the perfect flying instrument? I guess it would depend on the kind of flying I wanted to do. Would flapping wings serve my purpose or would rockets built in to my feet? I would also want my flying mechanism to be extremely portable and not make me look like a freak. Would a suit like Iron Man fit the bill? If so, could perfection in the suit ever be achieved? I guess in one very specific and limited way, perfection could be achieved according to the desired parameters, but can it be achieved in more than one area without compromising perfection in some other area?
If I could alter my appearance, what would I change to become perfect? Can God change his/her/its appearance at will? Actually changing physical characteristics, personality or strength/agility? Is God a perfect arm wrestler? Does that mean He always wins or always loses? Does the very definition of God restrict God in his/her/its ability to be what God wants to be, in order to be considered perfect, or will God always be everything we are not? Does perfection have an apex when it comes to humanity? Does being perfect at some point mean you give up on those things you can't ever change?
I know Christians (probably Mormons more than anyone else) are very fond of calling Christ perfect. He was the perfect example, they say. But what, exactly, was he perfect in? Was He perfectly good looking? That would require that He was a shape shifter so no matter who beheld him, he would morph into the perfect looking person. That would mean in some cases He was a woman and other times He was a man. Then perfection becomes simply a matter of each individual's tastes and there is no universal rule of what a perfect being looks like. Can perfection be subjective like that? Is it perfection if it is according to my tastes but not according to yours?
Was Christ perfectly obedient in all things known as commandments from God? No. Unless, of course, you make excuses and rationalize Jesus' behavior in all the recorded instances of the New Testament. Supposedly, Jesus was the author of the 10 commandments. One of which says, "Thou shalt not kill", but Jesus cursed and killed the barren fig tree. LDS like to cite very limited examples of obedience and they call it "perfect" obedience. However, who do we have to confirm that Jesus was "actually" obedient as claimed? Where is it written all the ways that Jesus was perfectly obedient and how can we corroborate those statements with the historical record? Where was the clear standard of obedience Jesus had to fulfill, that was written prior to his appearance on the scene? If it wasn't written in clearly spelled out guidelines, aren't people just making stuff up after the fact? If I say, "Ooh look I discovered a perfect fundangle!" and then went on to describe the item I discovered in great detail, how could anyone know what a perfect fundangle was except what I made up, there on the spot, to describe the item I had in my possession?
I guess in a very limited way Jesus was possibly perfect, but they never say, "Jesus was perfect in this one thing", they like to apply his perfection universally without giving thought to the implications that such a state of perfection is impossible to achieve in a universal way.
So then there is the standard of "perfection" those in the church believe they are striving towards. What does this mean exactly? I asked my co-worker (devout LDS) what achieving perfection means and he said, "I don't know, but I am a perfect tithe payer." Is he, though, really? I mean what is the definition of a perfect tithe payer? Does that mean he pays 10% of his gross or net income? Does that mean he pays tithing right at the time he gets paid or at the end of the year? The problem is, nobody in the leadership of the church will claim any of these parameters to be at all important. They usually say this is all left up to the payer of the tithe. How convenient! People are supposed to be striving for perfection in living the gospel as they understand it, but the parameters are not even clearly defined!
I hope all members of the church realize that they could say they are perfect in paying their tithing if they only pay $1 per year. Anyone could do some fancy math to show that $1 is 10% of their income (or increase) if they throw in all their expenses, money set aside for retirement and savings, etc., etc., etc. Why don't members of the church do that? Maybe many do, but most of the folks I used to talk to about such things in the church had very strong feelings that it was on their gross income paid regularly. Why? Well, because the impression is given that they are being perfectly obedient by doing that. So what does being a perfect tithe payer mean again? Apparently they can't say for anyone but themselves. What kind of answer is that? It causes my reason to stare.
LDS like to talk about the idea of them becoming perfect at some point, like God is perfect. How is it they expect to ever be able to achieve perfection? What does that even mean? Perfectly obedient? If that is the case, how can one possibly be perfectly obedient when commandments come into conflict with each other? For example, was Nephi perfectly obedient when he killed Laban? No way. He broke one commandment (thou shalt not kill) so he could attempt to keep another (honoring his father - and mother). Is that a rule we can use as a guide to perfection? When the commandments come into conflict with each other will one always trump the other or does it depend? If so, what does it depend on? If God is perfect would he be capable of giving a commandment that He later advocated should be broken to serve a higher purpose? Shouldn't people be made aware of the higher purposes of the laws up front? Shouldn't we have a priority assigned to each commandment?
It seems like Jesus came up with the answer, that we love everyone (or just our neighbor, I guess) the way we love ourselves. But then I am left to wonder how one can ever possibly perfect in this rule? Jesus was asked who is considered to be our neighbor by giving the parable of the good Samaritan. So, I guess our neighbor is our social outcast or enemy, then? Will mankind ever be perfect in treating their social enemies like themselves? Well, good luck on that one. I think the chances are slim to none that this ideal is ever achieved in any time period. It certainly hasn't happened anywhere since Jesus made this proclamation.
I want to think that LDS could claim that while there is no way they can ever be perfect in this life, that striving for perfection is all that can be expected. But, if striving for perfection is all that is needed, then the very minimal effort will be rewarded just the same as the extraordinary effort. In those terms, why would anyone put forth anything close to an extraordinary effort?
This post is full of questions and, therefore I am pretty sure, very far from being anywhere near perfect. I guess I still have a long way to go.
What I have realized is that perfection has multiple meanings. There is the meaning that is used to define when a principle, or set of parameters, has been fully realized (such as describing what a perfect circle is and then being able to create a perfect circle on paper according to all the known definitions of what a perfect circle would be) and the other means without flaw or defect. Yet another meaning for perfection is the constant striving for a target. Many people combine the idea of being without flaw or defect and moving towards a target. I think when people do that they find that the target will probably move as one get's closer to the ideal. Which causes me to wonder, if we get closer to being god-like, will our idea of what being god-like is then expand? It seems to me that it should and that the possibility exists that this expansion would occur until the possibilities for growth literally become infinite. Perfection is often thought of as a state of being that can someday be achieved, not something that can never be fully understood, let alone realized.
I don't think we as human beings are capable of achieving perfection in our current state. What is a perfect human being anyway? Does such a person exist? I would say that people can only be perfect in very limited ways. Even the people we might identify as the most perfect today will still have physical, emotional or mental flaws that will forever keep them from being perfect in one area or another. It is funny to watch Hollywood or Madison Avenue place people on a pedestal as being very nearly perfect only to later find out they have some addiction, some relationship problem or physical flaw that would indicate they are not really perfect at all.
I think we want to have perfection, but we can never really achieve it, so we pretend that there are perfect people out there and we imagine that people are perfect when the reality is they are usually very far from it.
In thinking about this I tried to imagine what would happen if I could alter something about myself and there were no boundaries on what I could do. I would definitely want to fly, but what would be the perfect flying instrument? I guess it would depend on the kind of flying I wanted to do. Would flapping wings serve my purpose or would rockets built in to my feet? I would also want my flying mechanism to be extremely portable and not make me look like a freak. Would a suit like Iron Man fit the bill? If so, could perfection in the suit ever be achieved? I guess in one very specific and limited way, perfection could be achieved according to the desired parameters, but can it be achieved in more than one area without compromising perfection in some other area?
If I could alter my appearance, what would I change to become perfect? Can God change his/her/its appearance at will? Actually changing physical characteristics, personality or strength/agility? Is God a perfect arm wrestler? Does that mean He always wins or always loses? Does the very definition of God restrict God in his/her/its ability to be what God wants to be, in order to be considered perfect, or will God always be everything we are not? Does perfection have an apex when it comes to humanity? Does being perfect at some point mean you give up on those things you can't ever change?
I know Christians (probably Mormons more than anyone else) are very fond of calling Christ perfect. He was the perfect example, they say. But what, exactly, was he perfect in? Was He perfectly good looking? That would require that He was a shape shifter so no matter who beheld him, he would morph into the perfect looking person. That would mean in some cases He was a woman and other times He was a man. Then perfection becomes simply a matter of each individual's tastes and there is no universal rule of what a perfect being looks like. Can perfection be subjective like that? Is it perfection if it is according to my tastes but not according to yours?
Was Christ perfectly obedient in all things known as commandments from God? No. Unless, of course, you make excuses and rationalize Jesus' behavior in all the recorded instances of the New Testament. Supposedly, Jesus was the author of the 10 commandments. One of which says, "Thou shalt not kill", but Jesus cursed and killed the barren fig tree. LDS like to cite very limited examples of obedience and they call it "perfect" obedience. However, who do we have to confirm that Jesus was "actually" obedient as claimed? Where is it written all the ways that Jesus was perfectly obedient and how can we corroborate those statements with the historical record? Where was the clear standard of obedience Jesus had to fulfill, that was written prior to his appearance on the scene? If it wasn't written in clearly spelled out guidelines, aren't people just making stuff up after the fact? If I say, "Ooh look I discovered a perfect fundangle!" and then went on to describe the item I discovered in great detail, how could anyone know what a perfect fundangle was except what I made up, there on the spot, to describe the item I had in my possession?
I guess in a very limited way Jesus was possibly perfect, but they never say, "Jesus was perfect in this one thing", they like to apply his perfection universally without giving thought to the implications that such a state of perfection is impossible to achieve in a universal way.
So then there is the standard of "perfection" those in the church believe they are striving towards. What does this mean exactly? I asked my co-worker (devout LDS) what achieving perfection means and he said, "I don't know, but I am a perfect tithe payer." Is he, though, really? I mean what is the definition of a perfect tithe payer? Does that mean he pays 10% of his gross or net income? Does that mean he pays tithing right at the time he gets paid or at the end of the year? The problem is, nobody in the leadership of the church will claim any of these parameters to be at all important. They usually say this is all left up to the payer of the tithe. How convenient! People are supposed to be striving for perfection in living the gospel as they understand it, but the parameters are not even clearly defined!
I hope all members of the church realize that they could say they are perfect in paying their tithing if they only pay $1 per year. Anyone could do some fancy math to show that $1 is 10% of their income (or increase) if they throw in all their expenses, money set aside for retirement and savings, etc., etc., etc. Why don't members of the church do that? Maybe many do, but most of the folks I used to talk to about such things in the church had very strong feelings that it was on their gross income paid regularly. Why? Well, because the impression is given that they are being perfectly obedient by doing that. So what does being a perfect tithe payer mean again? Apparently they can't say for anyone but themselves. What kind of answer is that? It causes my reason to stare.
LDS like to talk about the idea of them becoming perfect at some point, like God is perfect. How is it they expect to ever be able to achieve perfection? What does that even mean? Perfectly obedient? If that is the case, how can one possibly be perfectly obedient when commandments come into conflict with each other? For example, was Nephi perfectly obedient when he killed Laban? No way. He broke one commandment (thou shalt not kill) so he could attempt to keep another (honoring his father - and mother). Is that a rule we can use as a guide to perfection? When the commandments come into conflict with each other will one always trump the other or does it depend? If so, what does it depend on? If God is perfect would he be capable of giving a commandment that He later advocated should be broken to serve a higher purpose? Shouldn't people be made aware of the higher purposes of the laws up front? Shouldn't we have a priority assigned to each commandment?
It seems like Jesus came up with the answer, that we love everyone (or just our neighbor, I guess) the way we love ourselves. But then I am left to wonder how one can ever possibly perfect in this rule? Jesus was asked who is considered to be our neighbor by giving the parable of the good Samaritan. So, I guess our neighbor is our social outcast or enemy, then? Will mankind ever be perfect in treating their social enemies like themselves? Well, good luck on that one. I think the chances are slim to none that this ideal is ever achieved in any time period. It certainly hasn't happened anywhere since Jesus made this proclamation.
I want to think that LDS could claim that while there is no way they can ever be perfect in this life, that striving for perfection is all that can be expected. But, if striving for perfection is all that is needed, then the very minimal effort will be rewarded just the same as the extraordinary effort. In those terms, why would anyone put forth anything close to an extraordinary effort?
This post is full of questions and, therefore I am pretty sure, very far from being anywhere near perfect. I guess I still have a long way to go.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Love me Jesus
I was recently found guilty in a court of law for committing a crime. Once the jury pronounced the verdict, the reality of the guilt all came crashing down on me, but I knew that I had done what the authorities had said I had done and there was no use in denying it. I became resigned to my fate. I awaited the sentencing, hoping that I wouldn't be cut off from my family and friends for a completely unbearable amount of time by the judge.
The judge began, "You are hereby sentenced to a prison sentence of 25 years in a maximum security penitentiary. However, your sentence has already been carried out. You see, you are qualified to participate in a new prison sentence recovery program. Because we have several prisoners who have been found to be not guilty after serving nearly all of their sentences, we will apply the time that they served (in their innocence) to your time that you have been sentenced to. Because of this program, your effective days in prison equal zero for this crime."
WOW! How awesome is that?! I ran out of the courthouse jumping for joy. Justice was served! Or was it? I, essentially, was able to get off scot-free, even though I was actually guilty as charged. I began to feel some remorse. I began to wonder about whether or not I could go on knowing that I was guilty of a crime and yet received no real consequence. I began to wonder if this treatment was tenable as a long term solution to crimes committed in society. What would be the deterrent to committing crime if nobody ever served any jail time? Sure I was happy to be free, but I didn't deserve to be. Can I live with knowing that someone innocent paid for my mistake and I am powerless to do anything about it.
Then my mind was drawn to that poor fella who basically served out my prison sentence for me. Do I owe him a debt of gratitude? What would possibly be sufficient to pay back something that really never could be paid back? I tried to forget about the poor sap, but I couldn't help but wonder why things had to go down the way they did.
How do I really feel about this scenario? I don't really like it. It seems to encourage crime because when there is little to no perceived consequence for doing something wrong, that seems to be an invitation to repeat the unacceptable behavior. Something deep down tells me this would just not work.
At this point I should say that I have not really been convicted of any crime (other than traffic court), but I wanted to explore the possibility of this scenario with you. The other reason I am writing this imaginary tale is because this is exactly what Christians ask anyone who believes in Jesus to do.
Christians say that because we all sin and fall short of the glory of God (not sure why this is, by the way, or how, as a child of God, I could immediately be cut off from his presence due to someone's behavior over 6,000 years ago - which was a no win situation since there were supposedly two conflicting commandments given for Adam and Eve to keep) we are basically convicted eternally for this "crime". The punishment for which is that we are all forever banished from the presence of God.
So we are all guilty of some crime (perhaps of being an enemy to God, which still begs the question, why would God create enemies for children?) and are told that we are not even capable of carrying out the punishment for such apparent wrongdoing ourselves (which to me is extremely frustrating...I hate being told I am not capable and I would never tell my children that. Can you imagine, "Oh sorry son, you're just not capable...") so we need a perfect, innocent savior to pay our price (serve our sentence) for us. This is the perfect plan of an all-knowing God of the universe? What happens when God realizes, what we all know deep down, that if you pay people's punishment's for them, you end up encouraging the behavior you are trying to avoid? Everybody likes being given things they don't expect, but when people are given salvation from punishment there is no lesson learned and the behavior really doesn't change.
Of course, all this redemption must have a price. So God says, the price is set by Jesus, after all, He is the one we are all supposed to be paying back. So, in my parable above, if I go to the prisoner who effectively served my time for me, what would he want? I would think he would want to just forget about the whole thing and move on with life. So is that what Jesus wants? Apparently there is some confusion among the Christians about exactly what Jesus wants specifically from all of us. The LDS church teaches that Jesus wants all your good works (which are really never enough and requires everything you have or will ever receive and all your time and talents and 10% of your gross income, etc., etc.) and he'll make up the difference (what little is left after all we can do). Wow! What difference? It seems like LDS believers that do all that is asked of them will have more than paid their price and earned their way to heaven. I think many LDS secretly believe that the more they do in the way of good works, the less Jesus has to suffer for our wrongdoing. So they are really noble creatures at heart, they just have to accept the whole Jesus paying my price thing because of this barrier that was built up because of Adam and Eve's screwup.
Anyway, this is all making my head hurt (must be those terrible demons), but it is my ongoing reaction to the question of whether or not I think God exists. There is so much lacking in common sense that people have to swallow in order to believe in God. I will try to outline more in the future.
The judge began, "You are hereby sentenced to a prison sentence of 25 years in a maximum security penitentiary. However, your sentence has already been carried out. You see, you are qualified to participate in a new prison sentence recovery program. Because we have several prisoners who have been found to be not guilty after serving nearly all of their sentences, we will apply the time that they served (in their innocence) to your time that you have been sentenced to. Because of this program, your effective days in prison equal zero for this crime."
WOW! How awesome is that?! I ran out of the courthouse jumping for joy. Justice was served! Or was it? I, essentially, was able to get off scot-free, even though I was actually guilty as charged. I began to feel some remorse. I began to wonder about whether or not I could go on knowing that I was guilty of a crime and yet received no real consequence. I began to wonder if this treatment was tenable as a long term solution to crimes committed in society. What would be the deterrent to committing crime if nobody ever served any jail time? Sure I was happy to be free, but I didn't deserve to be. Can I live with knowing that someone innocent paid for my mistake and I am powerless to do anything about it.
Then my mind was drawn to that poor fella who basically served out my prison sentence for me. Do I owe him a debt of gratitude? What would possibly be sufficient to pay back something that really never could be paid back? I tried to forget about the poor sap, but I couldn't help but wonder why things had to go down the way they did.
How do I really feel about this scenario? I don't really like it. It seems to encourage crime because when there is little to no perceived consequence for doing something wrong, that seems to be an invitation to repeat the unacceptable behavior. Something deep down tells me this would just not work.
At this point I should say that I have not really been convicted of any crime (other than traffic court), but I wanted to explore the possibility of this scenario with you. The other reason I am writing this imaginary tale is because this is exactly what Christians ask anyone who believes in Jesus to do.
Christians say that because we all sin and fall short of the glory of God (not sure why this is, by the way, or how, as a child of God, I could immediately be cut off from his presence due to someone's behavior over 6,000 years ago - which was a no win situation since there were supposedly two conflicting commandments given for Adam and Eve to keep) we are basically convicted eternally for this "crime". The punishment for which is that we are all forever banished from the presence of God.
So we are all guilty of some crime (perhaps of being an enemy to God, which still begs the question, why would God create enemies for children?) and are told that we are not even capable of carrying out the punishment for such apparent wrongdoing ourselves (which to me is extremely frustrating...I hate being told I am not capable and I would never tell my children that. Can you imagine, "Oh sorry son, you're just not capable...") so we need a perfect, innocent savior to pay our price (serve our sentence) for us. This is the perfect plan of an all-knowing God of the universe? What happens when God realizes, what we all know deep down, that if you pay people's punishment's for them, you end up encouraging the behavior you are trying to avoid? Everybody likes being given things they don't expect, but when people are given salvation from punishment there is no lesson learned and the behavior really doesn't change.
Of course, all this redemption must have a price. So God says, the price is set by Jesus, after all, He is the one we are all supposed to be paying back. So, in my parable above, if I go to the prisoner who effectively served my time for me, what would he want? I would think he would want to just forget about the whole thing and move on with life. So is that what Jesus wants? Apparently there is some confusion among the Christians about exactly what Jesus wants specifically from all of us. The LDS church teaches that Jesus wants all your good works (which are really never enough and requires everything you have or will ever receive and all your time and talents and 10% of your gross income, etc., etc.) and he'll make up the difference (what little is left after all we can do). Wow! What difference? It seems like LDS believers that do all that is asked of them will have more than paid their price and earned their way to heaven. I think many LDS secretly believe that the more they do in the way of good works, the less Jesus has to suffer for our wrongdoing. So they are really noble creatures at heart, they just have to accept the whole Jesus paying my price thing because of this barrier that was built up because of Adam and Eve's screwup.
Anyway, this is all making my head hurt (must be those terrible demons), but it is my ongoing reaction to the question of whether or not I think God exists. There is so much lacking in common sense that people have to swallow in order to believe in God. I will try to outline more in the future.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
I am so blessed
I was watching an interview with a professional athlete recently and he said of winning a recent game and his performance that he is "so blessed". When I hear this it just grates on me like nails scratched on a chalkboard. I understand that being thankful is important and can definitely cheer us up when we're down, but the whole concept of God being the ultimate source of all our blessings (and choosing to label beneficial happenings as such) just rubs me the wrong way.
You see, to me, saying you are blessed means that God sent favorable happenings in your direction instead of mine. Obviously one could argue that I am blessed just as much, but in different things. For some reason I don't buy this explanation. For the athlete, there is so much time and dedication put out in the form of practicing and training that it should be no wonder they are "blessed" with a good performance in one game or several. I was fortunate to be born in the USA so I had a leg up when pursuing the American dream, having started out in America and all. When I think of those outside my country and circumstances, however, like someone in Africa for example, I get an entirely different reaction. If God is the source of all our blessings, why does he play such favorites?
When I ask this question to people like my wife who believe in God, and believe that god has one favored true church on the earth, the response is that everyone's conditions may seem different here, but in the hereafter we'll see how equitable it all was. This might be, but should we always assume that when there appears to us to be inequality in the world, we should just turn a blind eye and hope everything will be settled in the hereafter? I think this belief can lead to being taken advantage of in the least and outright defrauded or killed (and having it be said that it was god's will) at the worst.
The funny thing to me is that those members who do take advantage of others seem to move up in the ranks of the church fastest, while those that let others take advantage of them because of a belief in the equitable hereafter seem to be the lowest on the totem pole as far as callings (and blessings) go. Obviously this is possibly a gross generalization on my part, but it can be shown true in many cases (Like when Henry B. Eyring says he was blessed to be able to sell a very valuable extra piece of property he just happened to have sitting around in his portfolio of assets). Of course I realize I sound like a bitter apostate in this, but I just can't continue to accept that there is a director or choreographer (or whatever people claim God's role to actually be in our lives) out there divvying up blessings here and there based on some, as yet unknown, standard of fairness. I guess we can either accept that because "the" standard of fairness is not known it must not exist (which would be a perfectly natural conclusion) or we can say that it does in spite of appearances to the contrary, but we just don't know what it is.
This goes back to the question of faith I explored in a previous post wherein I ask what is the purpose of faith. Until and unless someone can show me that there is ultimately a benefit in the hereafter for exercising faith (instead of, or in addition to, reason) in the here and now, I will choose to follow reason and rely on my intellect instead of placing faith in a hereafter that has yet to be proven even exists let alone knowing that when it is revealed everything will be shown to have been perfectly equitable.
On top of that, I cannot relate to this God of whom so many speak. When you say that God is my heavenly father, I naturally try to relate to him by placing myself in his circumstances and asking myself, if I were god would I treat my children this way? The answer most of the time is no friggin' way! It turns out there is much that God does that I cannot relate to, because if it were up to me, things would be wayyy different here.
On a different note, I went and looked up the word mammon (duh, I probably should have done that before I wrote and posted my views on the word) and it doesn't mean "the world" but means riches or material wealth (which could be considered part of the world, right?). I guess that changes my whole outlook...does that scripture mean I have to choose between the god of riches (mammon) and the Hebrew god of...poverty? I think I'll choose to avoid following a god that advocates poverty thank you very much. Makes me wonder what is up with all the admonitions against riches in the bible. I have heard some say (no doubt trying to find the work around to this teaching in order to have riches but still live the spirit of the law) that it is the "love of money" that is to be avoided and not just money or the pursuit of it in itself. But if you desire to pursue money don't you kind of have to love it? If one believes the bible and teachings of Jesus it seems as though it is better to avoid the temptation and seek a life of poverty than to seek riches and be subject to so much temptation. Jesus would say don't worry about stuff...all your needs will be taken care of...just let things take care of themselves...you will be blessed. Then a modern day leader of the lds church would say, "See, all those people that went out on missions early in church history were taken care of." However, if I go out today and take nothing with me and embark on a journey across the country, I could probably survive on the charity of others for a very long time, but is that any kind of life worth living? Living on somebody else's dime your entire life does not bring confidence and self respect, it robs you of it.
I can see some sense in saying that riches can never bring true happiness, but I sure wouldn't mind testing out that theory ;-).
You see, to me, saying you are blessed means that God sent favorable happenings in your direction instead of mine. Obviously one could argue that I am blessed just as much, but in different things. For some reason I don't buy this explanation. For the athlete, there is so much time and dedication put out in the form of practicing and training that it should be no wonder they are "blessed" with a good performance in one game or several. I was fortunate to be born in the USA so I had a leg up when pursuing the American dream, having started out in America and all. When I think of those outside my country and circumstances, however, like someone in Africa for example, I get an entirely different reaction. If God is the source of all our blessings, why does he play such favorites?
When I ask this question to people like my wife who believe in God, and believe that god has one favored true church on the earth, the response is that everyone's conditions may seem different here, but in the hereafter we'll see how equitable it all was. This might be, but should we always assume that when there appears to us to be inequality in the world, we should just turn a blind eye and hope everything will be settled in the hereafter? I think this belief can lead to being taken advantage of in the least and outright defrauded or killed (and having it be said that it was god's will) at the worst.
The funny thing to me is that those members who do take advantage of others seem to move up in the ranks of the church fastest, while those that let others take advantage of them because of a belief in the equitable hereafter seem to be the lowest on the totem pole as far as callings (and blessings) go. Obviously this is possibly a gross generalization on my part, but it can be shown true in many cases (Like when Henry B. Eyring says he was blessed to be able to sell a very valuable extra piece of property he just happened to have sitting around in his portfolio of assets). Of course I realize I sound like a bitter apostate in this, but I just can't continue to accept that there is a director or choreographer (or whatever people claim God's role to actually be in our lives) out there divvying up blessings here and there based on some, as yet unknown, standard of fairness. I guess we can either accept that because "the" standard of fairness is not known it must not exist (which would be a perfectly natural conclusion) or we can say that it does in spite of appearances to the contrary, but we just don't know what it is.
This goes back to the question of faith I explored in a previous post wherein I ask what is the purpose of faith. Until and unless someone can show me that there is ultimately a benefit in the hereafter for exercising faith (instead of, or in addition to, reason) in the here and now, I will choose to follow reason and rely on my intellect instead of placing faith in a hereafter that has yet to be proven even exists let alone knowing that when it is revealed everything will be shown to have been perfectly equitable.
On top of that, I cannot relate to this God of whom so many speak. When you say that God is my heavenly father, I naturally try to relate to him by placing myself in his circumstances and asking myself, if I were god would I treat my children this way? The answer most of the time is no friggin' way! It turns out there is much that God does that I cannot relate to, because if it were up to me, things would be wayyy different here.
On a different note, I went and looked up the word mammon (duh, I probably should have done that before I wrote and posted my views on the word) and it doesn't mean "the world" but means riches or material wealth (which could be considered part of the world, right?). I guess that changes my whole outlook...does that scripture mean I have to choose between the god of riches (mammon) and the Hebrew god of...poverty? I think I'll choose to avoid following a god that advocates poverty thank you very much. Makes me wonder what is up with all the admonitions against riches in the bible. I have heard some say (no doubt trying to find the work around to this teaching in order to have riches but still live the spirit of the law) that it is the "love of money" that is to be avoided and not just money or the pursuit of it in itself. But if you desire to pursue money don't you kind of have to love it? If one believes the bible and teachings of Jesus it seems as though it is better to avoid the temptation and seek a life of poverty than to seek riches and be subject to so much temptation. Jesus would say don't worry about stuff...all your needs will be taken care of...just let things take care of themselves...you will be blessed. Then a modern day leader of the lds church would say, "See, all those people that went out on missions early in church history were taken care of." However, if I go out today and take nothing with me and embark on a journey across the country, I could probably survive on the charity of others for a very long time, but is that any kind of life worth living? Living on somebody else's dime your entire life does not bring confidence and self respect, it robs you of it.
I can see some sense in saying that riches can never bring true happiness, but I sure wouldn't mind testing out that theory ;-).
Monday, August 16, 2010
Existence of God and Free Willy
I read a blog post here that reminded me of some thoughts I have had surrounding what evidence it would take regarding the existence of God that would be necessary for me to accept the existence of God.
For me this question is inseparable from the question of free will. The first question I would want an answer to is; Do we truly have free will and is the principle of free will one that is maintained absolutely for everyone?
To endeavor to answer this question, let's look first at the opposite of free will. The alternative to the concept of free will would be that our life outcome is the result of some form of predestination setup by an omnipotent (i.e all powerful) and omniscient (i.e. all knowing) being who really has no spontaneity because everything is already known and planned out exactly how it will happen (which sounds kind of boring). If God is, in fact, omniscient, does it mean He/She/It knows past, present and future? I would think so. If that is the case, then free will is an illusion and does not exist. If free will does, however, exist absolutely, then this same heavenly being is only omniscient to a point (could we really say God is omniscient then?) working really hard to react to every single stimulus and response to make sure that free will is maintained at all costs and is not really omniscient, but is omnipotent. A third possibility is that God is omniscient and omnipotent but is not all loving because He/She/It allows bad things to happen to good people (at least according to our traditional understanding of love - which could use further clarification as to what it means, I suppose).
Regarding predestination; I think most religious people reject the idea of predestination because the idea of us having absolute free will is the most encouraging possibility for us to be able to determine our life outcome and potential redemption/salvation in the hereafter. Otherwise, our eternal existence is already planned out, so this life becomes pretty irrelevant. In the religious context, what often follows the question of whether or not God is omniscient is an explanation that 1) He either knows what will happen in the future and does nothing about it (i.e. maintaining our illusion of free will that ultimately does not exist) or 2) He is only omniscient when it comes to expected outcomes, so He/She/It pretty much knows what will happen to you, based on a universal law of consequences, but again, chooses to do nothing about your/our consequences. In either case, the idea of an omnipotent AND loving God is just thrown out the window. Unless, the epitome of love is letting people learn through sad experience and pointless death, destruction and loss which, in many cases, does not appear to readily manifest its lesson or meaning/purpose.
Of course, an idea known as fore-ordination is one that creeps in every once in a while. I guess this would be the idea that we are given the potential to achieve a life outcome but the actual accomplishment of it is entirely up to us. This does not violate the concept of free will since we still can choose whether or not to live up to our potential in that scenario. So, based on the above, it would appear the idea of free will (i.e. our ability to choose our life outcome) exists absolutely as taught by the religious. I don't think I could find many that would dispute this conclusion.
If that is the case, then, there will never be anything that will happen to us that will violate our freedom of election to choose what we do (in response to stimuli) in any given situation. Based on my limited observations, this appears to be the case (Except where some people try to limit my choices by imposing rules that follow their whims instead of my desires).
So, if the question is asked, "What evidence would it take for you to accept that God exists?" I would have to respond by wondering, what evidence is a God who will not violate the principle of free will going to be willing to provide?
It seems to me that, if God appeared to me right now and said, now you see me, so you must believe. Then slapped me across the face for good measure to make sure I got the message and the sting would help me know that God was real. Would this not be a violation of my free will? In other words, wouldn't my freedom of choice not always be upheld? Would I retain the ability to choose whether or not to believe in God if He/She/It did that? I don't think so. Which leads me to the conclusion that God will never do something which takes away my freedom to choose. Since the act of appearing before me would take away my freedom to choose whether or not God exists, or not, it seems that God would not do that.
Why do believers insist on asking then, what evidence for God's existence would it take for you to believe? When no evidence can (or will ever) possibly be found if the principle of free will is maintained absolutely. Unless, of course, you believe in a deity that maintains free will except when it comes to subtly steering you towards a belief in He/She/It.
In any event, the concept of free will has been pronounced by religion to exist absolutely (at least as far as I am aware) in the context of powers granted to us and upheld by the divine creator that religion claims to receive direction and guidance from. So, if the religion is shown to be a man-made creation, the concept of free will (and any answers surrounding whether or not we have it absolutely) are pretty much null and void.
The only logical response to these questions is to utilize the scientific method to deduce what our present state of affairs is here on this planet and whether or not the concept of free will is even an important one. I would point out that if religion is man-made, the emphasis on free will comes out sounding more like an excuse to try and explain the state we find ourselves in (a.k.a. why bad things happen to good people) and not so much like a divine revelation from a being who either has everything already planned out that will happen (i.e. follows predestination) or is tip-toeing around making sure that there is not any overwhelming evidence on one side or the other (i.e. free will is maintained absolutely). The belief about how active a role God plays in our lives is one that usually serves to answer these questions.
See here for more discussion of this topic.
Sorry that Free Willy didn't make it into this post. I'm sure there are a whole bunch of Free Willy fans that are extremely disappointed now.
For me this question is inseparable from the question of free will. The first question I would want an answer to is; Do we truly have free will and is the principle of free will one that is maintained absolutely for everyone?
To endeavor to answer this question, let's look first at the opposite of free will. The alternative to the concept of free will would be that our life outcome is the result of some form of predestination setup by an omnipotent (i.e all powerful) and omniscient (i.e. all knowing) being who really has no spontaneity because everything is already known and planned out exactly how it will happen (which sounds kind of boring). If God is, in fact, omniscient, does it mean He/She/It knows past, present and future? I would think so. If that is the case, then free will is an illusion and does not exist. If free will does, however, exist absolutely, then this same heavenly being is only omniscient to a point (could we really say God is omniscient then?) working really hard to react to every single stimulus and response to make sure that free will is maintained at all costs and is not really omniscient, but is omnipotent. A third possibility is that God is omniscient and omnipotent but is not all loving because He/She/It allows bad things to happen to good people (at least according to our traditional understanding of love - which could use further clarification as to what it means, I suppose).
Regarding predestination; I think most religious people reject the idea of predestination because the idea of us having absolute free will is the most encouraging possibility for us to be able to determine our life outcome and potential redemption/salvation in the hereafter. Otherwise, our eternal existence is already planned out, so this life becomes pretty irrelevant. In the religious context, what often follows the question of whether or not God is omniscient is an explanation that 1) He either knows what will happen in the future and does nothing about it (i.e. maintaining our illusion of free will that ultimately does not exist) or 2) He is only omniscient when it comes to expected outcomes, so He/She/It pretty much knows what will happen to you, based on a universal law of consequences, but again, chooses to do nothing about your/our consequences. In either case, the idea of an omnipotent AND loving God is just thrown out the window. Unless, the epitome of love is letting people learn through sad experience and pointless death, destruction and loss which, in many cases, does not appear to readily manifest its lesson or meaning/purpose.
Of course, an idea known as fore-ordination is one that creeps in every once in a while. I guess this would be the idea that we are given the potential to achieve a life outcome but the actual accomplishment of it is entirely up to us. This does not violate the concept of free will since we still can choose whether or not to live up to our potential in that scenario. So, based on the above, it would appear the idea of free will (i.e. our ability to choose our life outcome) exists absolutely as taught by the religious. I don't think I could find many that would dispute this conclusion.
If that is the case, then, there will never be anything that will happen to us that will violate our freedom of election to choose what we do (in response to stimuli) in any given situation. Based on my limited observations, this appears to be the case (Except where some people try to limit my choices by imposing rules that follow their whims instead of my desires).
So, if the question is asked, "What evidence would it take for you to accept that God exists?" I would have to respond by wondering, what evidence is a God who will not violate the principle of free will going to be willing to provide?
It seems to me that, if God appeared to me right now and said, now you see me, so you must believe. Then slapped me across the face for good measure to make sure I got the message and the sting would help me know that God was real. Would this not be a violation of my free will? In other words, wouldn't my freedom of choice not always be upheld? Would I retain the ability to choose whether or not to believe in God if He/She/It did that? I don't think so. Which leads me to the conclusion that God will never do something which takes away my freedom to choose. Since the act of appearing before me would take away my freedom to choose whether or not God exists, or not, it seems that God would not do that.
Why do believers insist on asking then, what evidence for God's existence would it take for you to believe? When no evidence can (or will ever) possibly be found if the principle of free will is maintained absolutely. Unless, of course, you believe in a deity that maintains free will except when it comes to subtly steering you towards a belief in He/She/It.
In any event, the concept of free will has been pronounced by religion to exist absolutely (at least as far as I am aware) in the context of powers granted to us and upheld by the divine creator that religion claims to receive direction and guidance from. So, if the religion is shown to be a man-made creation, the concept of free will (and any answers surrounding whether or not we have it absolutely) are pretty much null and void.
The only logical response to these questions is to utilize the scientific method to deduce what our present state of affairs is here on this planet and whether or not the concept of free will is even an important one. I would point out that if religion is man-made, the emphasis on free will comes out sounding more like an excuse to try and explain the state we find ourselves in (a.k.a. why bad things happen to good people) and not so much like a divine revelation from a being who either has everything already planned out that will happen (i.e. follows predestination) or is tip-toeing around making sure that there is not any overwhelming evidence on one side or the other (i.e. free will is maintained absolutely). The belief about how active a role God plays in our lives is one that usually serves to answer these questions.
See here for more discussion of this topic.
Sorry that Free Willy didn't make it into this post. I'm sure there are a whole bunch of Free Willy fans that are extremely disappointed now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)