tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23348392273298181372024-03-14T00:45:51.104-07:00Speculations of a Theoretical MormonBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2334839227329818137.post-58959070883658519782014-03-21T07:46:00.007-07:002022-04-09T02:55:22.336-07:00Speculations of a Theoretical Mormon<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Speculations
of a Theoretical Mormon</span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">A
mini-book of approximately 25,000 words</span></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-size: 12pt;">By
Bruce G Charlton</span></b></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">This compilation is intended mainly for Mormons and those interested by and sympathetic to Mormon theology and life. It was written from a (sort of) Mormon perspective - especially it is a development, a following-through, of fundamental Mormon metaphysical assumptions. The author is not and never has been a member of the CJCLDS. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">Here is collected my main examples of Mormon themed blogging over the past few years, originally from:</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><a href="http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/">http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/</a></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">...Put into a sequence which can be copied, pasted then printed-out. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">I hope they might prove enjoyable and useful. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">(Note: New material added 10 June 2014)</span></span><div><span style="font-family: georgia, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span><div><span style="font-family: georgia, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia, times new roman, serif;"><i>Statement from 8th April 2022: </i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia, times new roman, serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia, times new roman, serif;"><i>I have never been a member of the church; but since writing this theology I have come to regard the CJCLDS as - like <b>all </b>the major Christian denominations and churches - an evil-affiliated, and overall anti-Christian institution. </i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia, times new roman, serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia, times new roman, serif;"><i>None of which affects what I wrote here. </i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia, times new roman, serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia, times new roman, serif;"><i>I have always believed - since I understood it! - that its radical Christian metaphysics and theology is the deepest, greatest and most potentially fruitful contribution of Mormonism to the world. </i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia, times new roman, serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia, times new roman, serif;"><i>And the truth and importance of this metaphysical theology stands independently from any worldly-organization and its practices</i>. <br /></span>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">***</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Mormonism – poised between incredibilities</span></span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Incredible: 1b - Hard to believe. <i>New
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary</i><br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
It strikes me that Mormonism is an incredible religion, in the two-sided sense
that it both hard to believe and hard <i>not</i> to believe!<br />
<br />
* </span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">I realize that to most non-Mormons
this is untrue - in the sense that they find Mormonism one-sidedly hard to
believe and easy to disbelieve - hard to accept and extremely easy to dismiss.<br />
<br />
But, when not due to sheer ignorance, that attitude is often due to them being
blinded by negative prejudice; because there are remarkable facts about
Mormonism which it is hard to believe are not due to its being true.<br />
<br />
There are at least four two-sidedly incredible aspects of Mormonism - that is
they are both hard to believe, and hard not to believe. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
1. Joseph Smith.<br />
<br />
On the one hand, it is hard to believe that such an ordinary and flawed person
as Joseph Smith should have been a prophet of God; on the other hand it is hard
to believe that anybody except a prophet of God could have done what he did.<br />
<br />
2. The book of Mormon<br />
<br />
On the one hand, the convoluted story of how the book of Mormon came to be
written is bizarre, unprecedented - in a word incredible; on the other hand, it
is very hard to believe that a book of such length, quality, complexity could
have been dictated verbatim, serially and unrevised in extremely difficult
conditions and in just a few months (and by Joseph Smith – see point 1.).<br />
<br />
3. The organization of the LDS church<br />
<br />
On the one hand, the piecemeal emergence of the Mormon church, the adoption of
elements from various traditions (including Freemasonry), the revisions and
corrections of doctrine and so on - all seem like <i>ad hoc</i> improvisations
and strain credibility as being a consequence of divine guidance; on the other
hand, the results were incredible in the sense of astonishingly efficacious: a
church which commanded great strength and devoutness, which changes inner lives
and outer behaviour, and which expanded exponentially for 180 years - somehow
successfully scaling-up from a few hundreds to many millions of adherents.<br />
<br />
4. Mormon theology<br />
<br />
This contradicts or adds-to so much of the theology of the historical Christian
church, and does this so profoundly as to amount to a different set of metaphysical
assumptions concerning the basic structure of reality, that it is very hard to
believe that almost all Christians could have been so wrong about so many
things for such a long time; but on the other hand, the Mormon theology is so
simple, systematic and also Biblically-coherent that it is incredible that
Christians could have failed to discover it for so many centuries.<br />
<br />
**<br />
<br />
I could go on - but I hope the point has been made that <i>if Mormonism is
given its due,</i> then incredibilities abound, and are rather exactly poised!<br />
<br />
It is incredible that something as incredible as Mormonism could be true: it is
also incredible that something as coherent, as long-term successful, and as
good as Mormonism could be false.<br />
<br />
*</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">What’s wrong with Christian Heresies?</span></span></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The problem with Christian heresies
is almost exclusively a problem with intellectuals, especially professionals. <br />
<br />
(Of course, the <i>main</i> problem is determining who is the heretic; since
both sides almost-always claim to be ‘orthodox’.) <br />
<br />
But, to take the example I know most about, Mormons could be regarded as a
Christian heresy – yet, even if fully acknowledged as a heresy - what is the
problem with that? <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
The problem relates to several of the second-order aspects of Christian
doctrine: it is mostly a matter of theology.<br />
<br />
Because in terms of actual <i>behaviour</i>, Mormons are pretty much
indistinguishable from other types of Christian except that they are more
devout than average Christians (i.e. more 'Christian' in their behaviour, to
use common language). <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
But Mormons have no professional priesthood (or, more exactly, a trivially
normal proportion of professionals, who are nonetheless very important), so a
comprehensive and consistent theology is of little importance to them; and non-obvious
theological limitations (or heresies) - incompleteness, contradictions...
have little impact.<br />
<br />
At least, I find it difficult to observe any particular problems which
have arisen from Mormon theology over the past 180 years. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
The main thing about Mormon theology is that the heretical aspects arise because
Mormon theology is very <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">concrete</i> (not
abstract); very <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">narrative</i> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">time-bound</i> (not focused on systems nor
concerned with timeless (outside-of-time) 'eternity'); very close-up and
personal (not philosophical). <br />
<br />
Mormon 'heresies' are therefore not so much deliberate deviations from
mainstream Christian orthodoxies, as (mostly, but not entirely) the natural
consequences of re-expressing Christianity in concrete and temporal fashion for
the plain man.<br />
<br />
Mormon theology is intrinsically realistic, personal and story-book in style
and concepts, and it could not express the subtleties of Catholic theology,
even if it set out to do so - which (of course!) it does not. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
For example, instead of the abstract, mystical, intricate, paradoxical (or at
least superficially self-contradictory) conception of the Holy Trinity (e.g. as
expressed in the Athanasian Creed), Mormons have God the Father and Son as
separate actual personages.<br />
<br />
From a theological perspective, this is heretical and incorrect; but the
accurate mainstream Christian conception of the Trinity is - well - very
difficult to understand; very abstract, very mystical – just incomprehensible.<br />
<br />
And without a professional priesthood, and a few hundred years of professional
theology, this kind of abstract conception cannot ever develop or
survive.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
My point: there have been gross and deliberate heresies which must be
resisted (such as Gnosticism or Arianism or Unitarianism); but many
heresies are more like <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">re-expressions</i>;
and the people who are at risk from heresies are therefore intellectuals and
religious professionals – but for plain and simple folk (and children) most
heresies don’t matter – and are less harmful by far than the controversies <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">about</i> heresies. . <br />
<br />
Indeed, for intellectuals and religious professionals, there is no form of
orthodox Christianity which is heresy-proof - intellectuals can make anything
into a heresy, and lead others down the path. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
A heresy is somewhat like a fork in the road - but some heresies fork-off then
go in-parallel with the main road and have frequent crossings-between; other
heresies lead further and further away from the truth. <br />
<br />
Looking back to 1830 when Mormonism was founded, we can see that it has not
'strayed' far or indeed significantly, and (except theologically) it does not
look as if there are any really significant barriers between Mormonism and
orthodox traditional Christianity (unless people <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">want</i> there to be barriers - which clearly many intellectuals do
want). <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
But orthodox traditional Christians are (in terms of power) no longer ‘the
mainstream’. <br />
<br />
Liberal Christianity, which began to develop at about the same time as
Mormonism, was not <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">obviously</i> a heresy
for many years. Indeed, since it has captured almost all of the intellectuals
and theologians and professionals in religion, Liberal Christianity sees
itself as the mainstream. <br />
<br />
Yet, Liberal Christianity has - from heresies so subtle as to be hardly
perceptible for many decades, heresies embraced by the many or
most of the leading theologians and intellectuals, by now diverged so far
away from tradition and orthodoxy that it <i>rejects all of Christian history</i>
up until a few decades ago; it also rejects paganism (Natural Law) and has
nothing in common with any other major religion. </span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Lineal Christianity took a road fork
which diverged ever further from the truth – and it is now apostate, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">not</i> Christian indeed <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">anti</i>-Christian.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
So there is this about heresy: that heresy which seems clear and gross from a
theological perspective may turn out to be of trivial significance, indeed
have some very obvious benefits - while subtle heresy may lead to a situation
indistinguishable from explicit apostasy. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
The main lesson is that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">theology is not
Christianity</i>; and that for most Christians throughout history and around
the world, their 'theology' is necessarily very simple, concrete,
common-sensical and story-like - and therefore (from a philosophical
perspective) necessarily incomplete, inconsistent and inaccurate.<br />
<br />
*</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"></span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">How much does this matter? <br />
<br />
Wrong theology <i>may</i> lead a Christian significantly far astray - but <i>not
necessarily</i>. And perhaps it is <i>seldom</i> the wrong theology which does
the leading astray; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the problem comes
when the desire to stray distorts theology</i>, and the resulting distortion
may be very subtle indeed - imperceptible, at first, from the intrinsic
inconsistency of human affairs. <br />
<br />
But a simple Christian with incorrect theology may be, often is, and <i>historically</i> <i>usually
has been</i> a better Christian than the theologically-correct intellectual and
professional. <br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: normal;"></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 115%;">**</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Are Mormons
necessary?</span></span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">I am not (at the time of writing) a
Mormon; however I believe that Mormons bears signs of being 'a people' who have
been blessed by God.<br />
<br />
By 'blessed by God' I mean that - somewhat as the ancient Jews had <i>a
role in the scheme of salvation </i>for Mankind - so do Mormons have some
such role.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
And that role may be <b>to bear Christian witness to the fundamental importance
of marriage and family</b>.<br />
<br />
I suspect that Mormons were divinely inspired, created and sustained to carry
this message for and to the Christian world through times (foreseen by
God) when marriage and family were first neglected, then brought under
ever-greater attack.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
In other words, I think that <i>this element at least</i> was divinely-inspired
in Joseph Smith and the other founders of Mormonism; and the faithfulness
to this message of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (including
the later revelation, revision, or clarification, that marriage must be
monogamous) has been the reason why the Mormons have grown and thriven;
until now when they are the <i>only large Christian denomination in the West
which has an average of significantly more than two children per woman.</i><br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
(Consider - all other Christian denominations in the West have <i>in practice </i>embraced
willed sterility; since the other examples of fertile Christians - like the
Amish - are not psychologically part of the West. This unique witness in actuality
strikes me as a fact of huge significance. And it is a product of immense
efforts on behalf of Mormons in the face of increasingly powerful and pervasive
secular counter-pressure.) <i> </i><br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Furthermore, Mormons display what is generally regarded as the highest
average level of good behaviour of any large group in the West.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
For me, these facts - plus the fact that this continues after 180 years, or
eight generations; means that Mormonism is essentially-true and
essentially-good - <i>despite</i> all that can be said about its theological
concreteness, simplifications, errors and/ or incompleteness; its faults and
its limitations; and the fact that like any human thing in this world it is to
some extent fallen and corrupt.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
All that can be said against the Mormon people is overwhelmed by the vital
nature of the core message they carry and exemplify, concerning the centrality
of marriage and family to Christian life; a message which happens to be <b>the
single most important and urgent thing that the modern world needs to know</b>.<br />
<br />
**</span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"> </span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Alcohol and Mormons</span></span></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">One obvious and uncontroversial fact about Mormons is that they are one of very
few groups in the modern world who have, by and large, wholesome and
sustainable aspirations relating to marriage and family. And a high proportion
of Mormons live by these aspirations.<br />
<br />
How does this work, how do they manage it? <br />
<br />
Here are some speculations (and they <i>are </i>speculations).<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
The root of it seems to be religious - and relating to the distinctive
religious doctrines and emphases of Mormonism (in other words, Mormon
exceptionalism is not attributable to something like genetic inheritance or
pure culture).<br />
<br />
But many mainstream Christians have similar aspirations to Mormons, yet utterly
fail to live by them - and most Christian denominations have long since
given-up trying to resist the sexual revolution. <br />
<br />
My guess is that Mormonism has certain interlinked features which enable it,
uniquely among Christian denominations to <i>achieve what they believe</i>.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
For young men the fact that Mormonism is a Patriarchal religion is a guarantee
of significant status for all men: this is enhanced by the fact that a married
man is normally expected to be the priest for his wife and family - a
divinely-ordained and honoured position.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Why would a man, <i>qua</i> man - and not specifically as a Mormon - want to
remain chaste, marry early, and stay faithful to a Mormon woman?<br />
<br />
(Bearing in mind that a high status Mormon man would usually be surrounded by
non-Mormon opportunities for extra-marital sex, and for marriage.)<br />
<br />
Perhaps because - assuming he does indeed want to marry, and stay married, and
raise a family; then Mormon women are more likely than average to be chaste and
faithful and orientated to motherhood (in so far as upbringing can influence a
person's behaviour).<br />
<br />
Mormon women are also expecting to marry while young, while non-Mormon women
often delay marriage. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
But what of Mormon women?<br />
<br />
As a rule, women control the sexual marketplace: they are the gate-keepers.
This especially applies to young women (nowadays by their own choice, but
throughout history and still in much of the world by very strict the familial
control of young women’s sexual behaviour). </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"></span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">If you control the sexual behaviour
of women, then – indirectly but effectively - you pretty much also control the
sexual behaviour of men. <br />
<br />
So, it is probably the behaviour of Mormon women that underpins the success of
the Mormon system of marriage and family (combined with the above-mentioned
preference of high status Mormon men to marry Mormon women). <br />
<br />
* <br />
<br />
The difficulty most religions (or cultures) have is retaining young, attractive
women within the faith, when young attractive women are in demand with men of
any and every faith.<br />
<br />
For example, an exceptionally attractive woman from almost any background or
group can and (unless there are enforced social prohibitions) will often marry
almost any man, no matter high status. So a beautiful slave, chorus girl, or
gypsy girl can (and did) sometimes marry a Lord, King or Emperor. <br />
<br />
What stops the most beautiful Mormon women marrying high status men outside the
faith (and undermining the whole system)?<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Usually, this problem is dealt with by extreme coercive and perhaps
violent sanctions against those women who look outside the faith for
partners or husbands: but this is emphatically <b>not </b>the case among Latter
Day Saints.<br />
<br />
So, if there are not strong sanctions <i>against</i> marrying-out; then there
must (it seems) be strong incentives for the most beautiful Mormon women to
marry <i>- in</i> - to marry only Mormon men, and indeed only the most devout
of Mormon men. <br />
<br />
So why do Mormon women so often choose to remain chaste until marriage, and
then marry a Mormon man, and then stick with him, and (usually) have as large a
family as they can afford to raise decently?<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Part of the answer, I suggest, involves the Mormon prohibition on alcohol; because
alcohol is a thing which - even in moderation, but especially in excess (which
is ever more common) – enables or promotes female promiscuity.<br />
<br />
This is my tentative explanation:<br />
<br />
<i>Most </i>women are naturally chaste in the sense of being highly-selective and
care-full in their choice of sexual partners; and generally requiring
commitment before allowing sex. This is an expected product of evolution
because throughout much of history, women who were <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">not</i> selective about sexual partners would not have raised many children
to adulthood. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"></span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">In modern Western society, this has
been continually attacked for many decades by unprecedented levels of
propaganda from the mass media; but one neglected factor in the increased
promiscuity of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">non</i>-Mormon women is
alcohol.<br />
<br />
Alcohol removes inhibition; indeed alcohol is strategically used for this
purpose. Getting the woman drunk is a strategy used by seducing men; but more
recently it is also used <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">by on women
themselves</i> - to remove their own spontaneous (biologically bred) inhibitions.
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Without alcohol, most women find it
very difficult (psychologically difficult) to be promiscuous - <i>even when
they consciously 'want' to be</i>. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Therefore, I think a <i>necessary</i> (not sufficient) factor in the chastity
of Mormon women, is the prohibition on alcohol; and therefore prohibition is a
necessary factor in the success of the Mormon system of marriage and family
(but specifically for women). <br />
<br />
It is the <i>absolute </i>prohibition on alcohol - in the context of the Mormon
religion, and the social system - that enables most Mormon women to live-up to
the high Christian ideals of their society.<br />
<br />
**</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">What do we do in Heaven?</span></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">
<br />
For all Christians, Salvation leads to eternal life in Heaven, and Heaven is
beyond our power fully to imagine, since after resurrection we dwell there with
purified minds in perfected bodies, adopted by God as Sons of God, and in the
presence of the divine.<br />
<br />
There is nothing in any other religion that can remotely compare with the hope
of Christian Heaven. <br />
<br />
But for plain people, for those unable to think in terms of abstractions; the
usual descriptions of Heaven are lacking in precision when it comes to the
description of what we will <i>do</i> there.<br />
<br />
Not least because our earthly minds always need to do <i>something</i> - we
cannot imagine just <i>being</i> or just <i>worshipping</i>: this kind of
explanation of Heaven seems indescribably dull and tedious – and it probably
counter-productive. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
By contrast, the Paradise of some other religions is depicted in terms of the
best imaginable kind of earthly life; dwelt in by ourselves as we currently
are, but lacking all earthly pains and including all earthly delights; going-on
at the highest pitch of ecstasy, for all time.<br />
<br />
If you think about this for a while, you will recognize what a false promise it
really is - and how, to be tolerable and not to be an horrific fate, it would
entail something like recurrent oblivion of memory, so that we could just live
in the blissful present without awareness of endless duration.<br />
<br />
But at the first level of analysis, Paradise sounds a lot better than life on
earth, and it is perfectly clear what we would actually do there: eat wonderful
foods, drink wonderful drinks, make love, appreciate the beauties, converse and
joke happily, and so on.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
By contrast, because we will live in Christian Heaven as purified and perfected
beings, it is hard to state exactly what we will <i>do </i>there: most answers
seems woefully inadequate to our feeble earthly imaginations.<br />
<br />
So that, while it is factually correct that to live in the presence of God and
the Heavenly beings would be a greater bliss than we can imagine; that is the
problem - it is a greater bliss than we can imagine (unless we are <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">already</i> advanced in theosis).<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
This is another respect in which it seems that the concreteness of Mormonism is
an advantage: above Salvation (ie. being saved from Hell), the highest level of
Heaven is called Exaltation, and is the destiny of a celestially-married
couple.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Exaltation means not only living in
God’s presence, but receiving power to do as God does, including the power to
bear children.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Here is a thing to <i>do</i> that is
worthy of Heaven, and of Sons of God; a difficult, long term, but one could
imagine deeply rewarding and endlessly interesting job. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
This doctrine of exaltation has (at least) two elements: one is new to
Mormonism - that this destiny is available only jointly, to a man and
wife. This puts a novel perspective on the highest Heaven, as it becomes a place
we go to in-company.<br />
<br />
The other is a making concrete the mainstream Christian abstraction of what it
actually <i>means </i>to be adopted as Sons of God: Mormonism say that it means
we ourselves 'bear children' to populate a new world, a new Earth (as it were)
with mortal men, and to do for them what God does for us.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
As I say, in Mormonism all this is made very concrete and definite in a way
that does not happen in mainstream Christianity - at least it does not happen
in the kind of professionally-written systematic theology to which people refer
in defining Christian beliefs.<br />
<br />
However, what the mass of actual (real, devout, usually simple) Christians who
now live and ever have lived believe in their own hearts and minds is another
matter altogether - and I suspect that <i>this</i> is much closer to Mormonism
that would be supposed from official theology. <br />
<br />
I therefore take the Mormon doctrine of exaltation as a <i>reasonable </i><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">(albeit approximate) </span>explanation of
what we will actually <i>do</i> when we become Sons of God.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
To the concrete mind, it seems obvious that being adopted as Sons of God must
mean that we do something different from, something more than, 'merely' worship
God and live with him in happiness and without pain; since that is possible to
angels without the need for incarnate earthly life, indeed for mortal men to
experience earthly life would seem to be little more than a hazard and a
distraction if what we do in Heaven is the same as angles who have not needed
to experience mortality. </span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">(Why would God bother to create Men
if the best that Men can expect is to be as good as angels - who were created
directly into that situation and without the rigmarole of mortality and the
danger of damnation?)<br />
<br />
Whereas Mormons can explain earthly life and mortal death as a preparation or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">education</i> for doing the job of a Son of
God.<br />
<br />
That explanation makes sense, and satisfies the curiosity, in a very
straightforward and immediate fashion. It addresses the question and also what
lies behind the question. Most mainstream Christian explanations of the work of
Heaven do neither; and come across as merely vague, or else evasive - perhaps
even seeming dishonest. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Therefore it may be possible for mainstream Christians to believe that the
Mormon description is a reasonable answer to a question (what do we <i>do</i>
in Heaven?) that for many people <i>demands an answer</i>; and for which people
<i>will </i>supply their own answer - if a comprehensible one is not
forthcoming from the official sources.<br />
<br />
*</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"></span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">It is utterly inappropriate to apply
the logic and rigour of professional systematic theology to a necessarily
simplified and concrete explanation of a complex, incompletely-known and
abstract phenomenon - which must be understood and taught to their families by
an 'amateur' priesthood of all men in good standing (whatever their
intelligence and knowledge may be). <br />
<br />
It is inappropriate to use 'Gotcha!' arguments, such as that by this doctrine
Mormons are revealed as Polytheists or Pagans - since the Bible often refers to
gods in the plural, and it is normal Christian understanding that Men will
become <i>in some sense</i> gods.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Any</span></i><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;"> explanation of this (essential) aspect of
scripture must either be too abstract for most people to follow, or open to
being misunderstood as polytheistic.<br />
<br />
And after all, many Protestants have regarded Roman and Orthodox Catholics as
very obviously polytheists in their veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary and
the Saints – or at least <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">pretended</i> to
do so (I doubt the sincerity of many of these accusations of polytheism).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
</span><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">*<br />
<br />
Now although (in this instance, and in other instances) the concrete and clear
Mormon answer can satisfy most of the obvious questions, and in a way which is
comprehensible to almost anyone; it does break down when pushed further in
terms of deep philosophical coherence, or when matched up against mainstream
Christian systematic theology.<br />
<br />
Putting a microscope onto Mormon theology, it is as rather if we were to go to
an extremely saintly and utterly simple Orthodox Babushka from Holy Russia, and
set her to debate with a Professor of Thomistic Systematic theology from the
University of Notre Dame – very intelligent and learned but who may not
actually be a Christian believer.<br />
<br />
If we asked the Babushka for a description of her beliefs they would be
concrete, anthropomorphic, probably with polytheistic-sounding elements, perhaps
idiosyncratic and almost certainly heretical (by official criteria) – both utterly
unsystematic and yet at the same time both sufficient and relevant to her
everyday spiritual needs.<br />
<br />
For the Babushka to have the relationship with God which she does (and for
which all Christians strive), God must be a person; and to be a person he must
be concrete and not abstract. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
What the Babushka and devout Mormonism share is that concreteness and actually
and literal explicitness which potentially brings religion very close for <i>many
</i>people (not only for an expert elite of intellectuals or monastics); brings
into juxtaposition the spiritual realm with everyday earthly life.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"></span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">*</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"></span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The point I wish to make here is that
Christianity necessarily and properly provokes plain people (including
children) to ask certain obvious questions - such as what do we actually <i>do </i>in
Heaven.<br />
<br />
The question implicitly means what do we do in Heaven that we cannot do on
earth, that is different from anything that could be done on earth, but which
sounds like a task or job which is difficult and interesting enough to take-up
eternity' (which is being understood as 'a very long time').<br />
<br />
Considered in this fashion, it may be possible for mainstream Christians to
acknowledge that Mormonism has provided a good answer; an answer that - while
it is not perfect, and is less than coherent in terns of systematic theology -
is motivating and inspiring at an everyday, experiential level: and perhaps mainstream
Christians are prone to neglect that level - which may be the most important of
all.<br />
<br />
**</span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">The Book of Mormon as Literature</span></span></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"></span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">I have been interested in Mormonism for
several years and since before I converted to Christianity. I have supervised
several normal research projects on Mormon fertility </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: normal;"><a href="http://mormonfertility.blogspot.co.uk/"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="color: #473624;">http://mormonfertility.blogspot.co.uk/</span></span></a></span></span><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"> with another ongoing and further planned. <br />
<br />
Naturally, just about the first thing I did when I got interested in Mormonism
was to try and read <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Book of Mormon</i>.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">*</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">It was not at all what I expected,
and for a few years left me completely bewildered. <br />
<br />
Since I knew that missionaries gave out this book to prospective converts,
I expected that it would set out the Mormon religion, but it does not. It
was mostly (so far as I could tell) what purported to be historical annals -
and it was hard to see what this had to do with Mormonism as I understood it
from reading (mostly) historical and sociological books on the subject.<br />
<br />
I put the book aside and looked instead at <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Doctrine
and Covenants</i> - which was much more the kind of thing I expected: a
setting-out of the religion in terms of a series of revelations. But again it
was too unsystematic to really understand. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
But I have returned to the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Book of Mormon</i>
from time to time, especially over the past year; and now feel much clearer
about it; or rather, I am now clear that it is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">qualitatively unlike any other book</i> – in other words, considered
merely as a work of literature (and leaving aside its religious significance),
the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Book of Mormon</i> is unique. <br />
<br />
In terms of its literary quality, it is good. Not, of course, in the same
league as the Authorized Version of The Bible - but then what is? But the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Book of Mormon</i> contains a great deal to
enjoy, and purely as prose is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">vastly</i>
superior to most modern translations of the Bible. <br />
<br />
Of course, it is hard to read; and I have probably not read-with-attention
absolutely all of it - but then again the Old Testament is also hard to read
with full attention, and I have not read it all. </span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">(Just for interest – the passages
which have so far stuck in my mind most are pretty much the usual ones that
Mormons seem to have liked best – such as the extraordinary passage in 1 Nephi
when Nephi beheads the sleeping Laban; the episode of Christ blessing the
children in 3 Nephi – and the bitter-sweet closing of Moroni when he is
depicted alone, the last of his race.) <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
But the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Book of Mormon</i> is a
remarkable book, <i>qua</i> book.<br />
<br />
What it most resembles in my personal experience is my experience of reading
JRR Tolkien/ Christopher Tolkien's 1977 <i>The Silmarillion.</i> The similarity
is that the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">BoM</i> presents an
extremely intricate and self-consistent world across a large historical
timescale presented as Annalistic history in an uncompromizing fashion.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">*</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">But the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">BoM</i> does come equipped with an account of its own transmission to
these days – which Tolkien never achieved for his major works. <br />
<br />
Another superficially-plausible comparison would be <i>Ossian</i> (published
from 1760 onwards) compiled by James Macpherson (probably) from numerous oral
sources of song and stories in the Scottish Highlands. This ‘epic poem’ became
a foundational text of romanticism and nationalism - with an influence
stretching across Europe and the Atlantic, and lasting a couple of generations.<br />
<br />
So, considered as a work of subcreative invention, as the depiction of 'a
world' - and from an agnostic perspective as to its provenance - the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Book of Mormon</i> is of world historical
stature - or, at least, it should be thus considered.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Adding to this fascination is the circumstances of its. It seems clear
that The Book of Mormon was produced by Joseph Smith, dictated by him, in a
single and seemingly unrevised draft, in the space of just a few months and
with no apparent sources.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">When it is taken into account that
Joseph Smith was no Tolkien, nor even a Macpherson - being mostly uneducated
and uncultured, having a rather chaotic personality, and with no access to
educated and cultured people, or to literary and scholarly resources
- this was, to say the least of it, an amazing, unprecedented, and
unrepeated feat.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
The usual ways of dismissing the significance of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Book of Mormon</i> do not remotely hold water; or, at least, if the
kind of explanations used to explain-away the Book of Mormon were accepted in
mainstream literary history, then nothing would be left standing!<br />
<br />
I personally am quite happy to accept that - in some way and at some level -
Joseph Smith was genuinely divinely inspired (an inspiration not <i>necessarily</i>
complete, and not <i>necessarily</i> without error) - and
that of course explains the whole thing. <br />
<br />
(I believe that the idea of the Book of Mormon as having been inspired, but <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">demonically</i>-inspired, which I have seen
articulated, is decisively refuted by the subsequent history of the CJCLDS
Church.)<br />
<br />
But for those who do <i>not</i> acknowledge the reality of divine inspiration as
a possibility; the 'case' of the Book of Mormon is, or <i>ought to be, </i>a
matter of extreme interest - rather as if <i>The Silmarillion </i>had been
serially dictated, off the top of his head, by a semi-literate rustic gardener
such as Sam Gamgee.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">**</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Was Joseph Smith a religious genius?</span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">In his highly interesting book <i>The
American Religion</i> (1993), Harold Bloom (himself perhaps the most famous
US literary critic of the past several decades) famously described Joseph
Smith (1805-1844; 'the Mormon Prophet') as an <i>authentic religious genius</i>.<br />
<br />
But, although this comment showed that Bloom had understood the magnitude
of Smith's achievement, this was something of a back-handed compliment!<br />
<br />
Because Bloom did not, of course, believe that Joseph Smith was an
authentically-inspired <i>prophet</i> - and therefore (given the scope of JS's
achievement) Bloom was stating <i>what must therefore be the case</i>: that
Joseph Smith was a genius in having <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">himself</i>
created a remarkable new religion.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
(In passing, it is worth noting that Bloom, a Jew, apparently found the
earlier and more Hebraic, Old Testament, millennial, Zion-building style
of theocratic Mormonism more remarkable - and, one senses, more <i>congenial</i>
- than what Mormonism became after polygamy was abolished, and Deseret/ Utah
joined the United States and was fully subjected to Federal government and
laws.)<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
So what was Joseph Smith's achievement such that Bloom (something of an expert
on geniuses) called him an authentic genius?<br />
<br />
1. Writing <i>The Book of Mormon</i> in a few months (plus associated
scriptures and revelations).<br />
<br />
2. Creating an entirely new Christian theology (what he termed the 'restored'
Gospel).<br />
<br />
3. Founding an extremely successful church - its distinctive priesthood,
offices, rituals, and organization. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
In fact Smith's achievement was made even more extraordinary by his further
innovation - <br />
<br />
4. An explicit acknowledgement of <i>his own fallibility and limitations</i>;
such that the church incorporated the expectation of continuous revelation and
revision of the scriptures, theology and church organization.<br />
<br />
This meant, in effect, that JS <i>trusted</i> his created forms
actually to <i>improve on what he had done</i>.<br />
<br />
And such was a pretty unusual, perhaps unique, trait among the founders of
major religions.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
So, if Joseph Smith is not regarded as an inspired Prophet, then he must indeed
have been a genius; someone combining scripture-writing abilities approximately
equal to an author of one of the minor books of the Old Testament, with
something close to the theological creativity and comprehensiveness of St Paul,
and the church-organizing abilities of St Peter...<br />
<br />
On the other hand, a close examination of the life and character of Joseph
Smith does <i>not</i> seem to reveal the personality or abilities of that kind
of genius...<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Most people who are not themselves Mormons do not recognize the scope and
magnitude of Joseph Smith’s achievement, simply because they do not know enough
about the subject.<br />
<br />
For them there is 'nothing to explain'; and (like most of JS's contemporaries -
and Mormonism was born and grew under the intense skeptical, mocking and
aggressive scrutiny from the mass media and existing churches) Smith can be written
off as <i>merely</i> a 'lucky' fool (lucky, that is, apart from being tortured,
imprisoned and murdered) and/ or a cunning fraud (perhaps covertly
motivated by seeking a harem).<br />
<br />
But, if one is knowledgeable and honest enough to admit the astonishing achievement
of Mormonism, then <i>the more that can be said <b>against</b> Joseph Smith,
the less likely it is that he really was 'a genius'</i>; and therefore the more
likely it is that he was just what he said he was: an inspired, but fallible,
prophet.<br />
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--></span><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">**</span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Ralph Waldo Emerson and Joseph Smith</span></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-size: 12pt;"></span></b><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Ralph Waldo Emerson 1803-1882 - Born
in Boston and lived in Concord, Massachusetts.<br />
<br />
Joseph Smith 1805-1844 - Born in Vermont, raised in upstate New York.<br />
<br />
*</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"></span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">I am - or was - something of an
expert on Ralph Waldo Emerson and his circle, especially Thoreau - having read
some hundreds of books on the subject, starting about age fifteen and
continuing over the next few decades.<br />
<br />
By contrast, I have only relatively recently read about Joseph Smith (founder
of Mormonism); and it took me quite a while before I suddenly realized that Smith
and Emerson were almost exactly the same age and lived in the same region of
Greater New England (i.e. that definition of New England which includes Upstate
New York).<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Despite this, in most senses the two men were about as different as could be,
and inhabited extremely different worlds.<br />
<br />
Emerson was upper class, highly educated and widely read, literate and an
extraordinarily powerful preacher/ lecturer; while JS was none of these.<br />
<br />
Emerson's world was intensely cultivated and inhabited by famous intellectuals
and artists; JS's world was raw, violent, in near turmoil - I was particularly
struck by the continual, daily - almost hourly - possibility and actuality of
unrestrained 'vigilante' mob violence.<br />
<br />
(e.g. Shortly after he founded the Mormon Church, JS was severely beaten,
tarred and feathered by a mob; and his castration was planned; he was stripped
and tied to a board but at the last moment the doctor brought along for the
purpose could not bring himself to do it. Emerson only encountered any such
things in the pre-Civil War heights of anti-abolitionism.)<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Even in economic terms there was a stark contrast - Emerson's world was one of
considerable security (by world historical standards) and for his early decades
there was near -zero poverty in Concord (Emerson was astonished by the poverty
and depravity he saw in the much richer and more powerful cities of England);
while Smith was himself poor, often hungry and lacking basic necessities;
surrounded by poverty - families were continually uprooting and seeking
subsistence, ‘borrowing’, begging etc.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
So much for the differences. Yet the similarities in terms of magnitude of
international spiritual/ religious influence are striking.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Emerson came from a Ministerial Calvinist (Puritan) background which moves
through Unitarianism into Deist transcendentalism, and then a
non-supernaturalist spiritualism focused on subjective sensations.<br />
<br />
Thus Emerson, and his 'disciple' Thoreau, are spiritual and indeed <i>lineal</i>
fathers of that vast modern phenomenon of Liberal New Age spirituality which
dominate modern 'religious' seeking and expression<br />
<br />
Emerson's spiritual influence was extremely <i>large in scale, but diffuse in
effect</i> and tailing-off into mere entertainment and distraction.<br />
<br />
* <br />
<br />
Joseph Smith has been hardly less successful in terms of influence, leaving the
only Western form of Christianity that has retained its devoutness, grown
rapidly in size by winning converts and above replacement fertility, and has
thriven among the educated and successful.<br />
<br />
However the nature of influence was very different in each instance. <br />
<br />
Smith's influence was numerically much less than Emerson's; but was spiritually
much more concentrated and powerful - objectively transforming the lives of his
followers. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
(As a side point, both Emerson and Smith had famous disciples: Henry David
Thoreau and Brigham Young - who both provided a form of influence that was
clearer and simpler and therefore more easily transmitted than the master's
original doctrines.) <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
The US has been, since the early 1800s, the creative centre for new movements
in Western religion - and Emerson and Joseph Smith were perhaps the most
important of enduring influences. The very difference between their legacies is
remarkable: Emerson having been assimilated into the mainstream mass media
expressions of 'mind, body and spirit', self-help and esteem boosting; while
JS's remains focused, hard-edged, tough and private.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
So, what would each think of the other, and who would me most pleased with how
things had turned-out?<br />
<br />
Here ther is a significant difference. I think Joseph Smith would have been
satisfied, probably delighted, with his legacy church; while Emerson would have
been utterly appalled at how transcendentalism had turned-out.<br />
<br />
Transcendentalism turned-out exactly the way that Emerson's most vehement
critics at Harvard and among the Calvinists and stricter Unitarians said that
it would turn-out - except <i>even worse</i>: a chaos of irrationalist
emotional subjectivity which justifies anything, or nothing.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Emerson's legacy includes not just the shallow, selfish and self-indulgent
spiritual seekers of today, but Nietzsche and his various spawn.<br />
<br />
I suspect that if Emerson could have forseen how things would have turned-out;
he would have recognized and repented his error, and returned to some orthodox
form of Christianity (perhaps Roman Catholicism).<br />
<br />
And what a difference that might have made! To have America's first and most
influential literary-philosophical genius on the side of tradition instead of
progressivism...</span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">**</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">RW Emerson and Joseph Smith’s basic approach to
life</span></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"></span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">From the middle 1990s for a decade, I
was reading and re-reading Emerson with tremendous avidity - not only in a
literary way, but as a guide for life. Having not looked at him for several
years, and not since I became a Christian, I have returned to re-read some
favourite bits and pieces in the past couple of weeks - and was struck by two
things.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
1. Emerson is a really good writer; I mean <i>really</i> good. The quality of
his prose is unique and unsurpassed (that is, other writers are equally good,
but in different ways) - I find it elating, intoxicating, almost too powerful
to bear for any length of time.<br />
<br />
2. Emerson's anti-Christian agenda is <i>now</i> blazingly clear and obvious to
me, from almost everything he ever wrote and said; as is his staggering
egotism/ pride, and these are linked. Emerson's work is a vast and unbounded,
extended <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">assertion of himself</i>, his
potential and his adequacy against anyone or any thing (including God) that
tries to constrain or direct it.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Emerson was raised as a Unitarian and became a prominent Unitarian minister -
and Unitarianism is already anti-Christian in its profoundest implications -
although the first generation of Unitarians refused to acknowledge this, and
generational inertia meant that the fundamental anti-Christanity of Unitarianism
took a while to emerge.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">So, Emerson was never a Christian,
although perhaps he supposed he was - but nonetheless he found the rebel sect
of Unitarianism to be already stultifying, empty and spiritually dead: which
was a just criticism since it amounted to merely a system of secular ethics and
an ungrounded and unjustifiably exclusive usage of Christian scriptures and
form loosely associated with an impersonal theistic God.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Naturally this rapidly slid into
exactly the kind of eclectic 'spirituality' - that we now term New Age - which
Emerson pioneered with such glorious eloquence. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
I conclude that Emerson is, exactly has his contemporaries saw him, a terribly <i>perilous
</i>writer - precisely because he is such a great writer, and has so many
stunning insights - yet ultimately these are put to the service of a doctrine
of such extreme, such total self-centredness that I struggle to comprehend it. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Perhaps Emerson's greatest and most valuable (and most often repeated) insight
is that each person <i>must</i> appropriate the world for himself and in his
own terms; a living religion (that is to say any <i>true </i>religion) simply
cannot be<i> just </i>a following of rules and rituals.<br />
<br />
To put it as Emerson did in an early work, to be properly alive, each
individual must experience (again and again, day by day; indeed, hour by hour)
their own personal revelation - they must experience direct and divine
communications of reality.<br />
<br />
For Emerson this imperative was pretty-much the entire aim of life - so that
the ideal life became in one sense that <i>moment </i>of revelation timelessly
filling all; in another sense (because, experience seemed to show that these
moments did come to an end) an incessant search for the next moment of
revelation - life as a sequence of such moments. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
But Emerson's error, which led him into paradox and the evil advocacy - if not
practice - of Pride as a principle of life - as indeed the <i>only</i> principle
of life; was to reject the past, to reject the unity of humanity, to perceive
himself (his soul) as the only thing that was really real - to argue for a
subjectivism so extreme as to amount almost to solipsism. <br />
<br />
In his burning desire to shed the constraints of history and society, which
seemed to be shackling his imagination, and focus all meaning on his own
individual moments of revelation (the total affirmation of Me! Here! Now!);
Emerson destroyed the basis of humanity, of sharing, shape and purpose - and
consequently his influence (among those who actually read what he wrote and try
to live by it) has been substantially pernicious. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
What was needed and what was necessary was to accept Emerson's assertion of the
absolute necessity of personal revelation, albeit perilous, as an <i>addition</i>
(or restoration) to Christianity. <br />
<br />
This absolute and inflexible demand for modern, personal revelation, I perceive
as the point of unity between Emerson and the other great long-term spiritual
influence born in the United States at almost exactly the same time: Joseph
Smith, the Mormon 'living prophet' of modern, latter day revelation. <br />
<br />
Joseph Smith could have endorsed Emerson's cry by which he opened his first
great published work <i>Nature</i> :- <i>Our age is retrospective. It builds the
sepulchres of the fathers. It writes biographies, histories and criticism, The
foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we through their
eyes. Why should we not also enjoy an original relation to the universe?</i></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
*<br />
<br />
The religious difference between Emerson and Smith is essentially that Emerson
took this demand to behold God face to face, and enjoy an original relation to
the universe as his <i>sole </i>aim and principle, while Smith <i>added </i>it
(and its products, such as the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Book of Mormon</i>
and his other collected revelations) to existing Christianity.<br />
<br />
Smith thus achieved precisely what Emerson, in his scandalous 1838 address to
Harvard Divinity School, had declared was impossible: <br />
<br />
<i>I confess, all attempts to project and establish a Cultus with new rites and
forms, seem to me vain. Faith makes us, and not we it, and faith makes its own
forms. All attempts to contrive a system are as cold as the new worship
introduced by the French to the goddess of Reason, — to-day, pasteboard and
fillagree, and ending to-morrow in madness and murder.</i> <i> </i><br />
</span><i><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span></i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">*<br />
<br />
Even as Emerson wrote his speech, Joseph Smith had already built a new city
(the first of three) as headquarters for the Saints in Kirtland, Ohio; and the
years since the above words were spoken, Smith's 'Cultus' - with its 'new rites
and forms' added-to, modifying, re-interpreting existing modes of Christianity
- was (contrary to Emerson's characterization of it as 'vain') indeed
'established'; and has continued to grow into a major world religion - and has
been neither a dead religion of pasteboard and fillagree (rather, a
tremendously <i>motivating </i>religion which sustains great devoutness and
other-worldliness), nor has it ended in madness and murder. <br />
<br />
But, on the other hand, a stripped-down New Age version of Emerson's
spirituality of individualism and subjectivism has merged with mainstream
secular Leftism, and grown and grown to become the dominant mode of thought in
the West almost entirely discarding Emerson in the process.<br />
<br />
(And quite naturally so, since Emerson was not <i>necessary </i>to the
development of New Age spirituality - rather he was a prophet, herald or
advance guard of it.).<br />
<br />
But what a fascinating <i>divergence </i>from such close roots and similar <i>demands</i>
are Ralph Waldo Emerson and Joseph Smith - both<i> </i>emerging in the North
Eastern corner of the USA in the 1830s!<br />
<br />
<br />
**</span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">A philosophical pragmatist finds fulfilment in
Mormonism</span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Before I became a Christian I was a
philosophical follower of William James (via Robert Pirsig – author of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance</i>)
- thus a pragmatist and pluralist. <br />
<br />
When I became a Christian, for whatever reason, I jettisoned this and tried to
adopt a Classical Greek approach - first Aristotle/ Aquinas linked with Western
Catholicism, then Platonism linked with Eastern Orthodoxy. <br />
<br />
The advantage of Platonism, for me here and now, was that the future held the
prospect a condition I envisaged as a blissful eternal stasis: as I imagined
it, like an infinitely prolonged moment of aesthetic, loving and philosophical
contemplation.<br />
<br />
Indeed I regard Platonism as essentially contemplative and other worldly, such
that <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">the</b> problem is finding reasons
ever to <i>do </i>anything or to delay death and put-off the euphoria which
awaits on the other side.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Yet, after a period <i>of increasing tension</i> my innate disposition has
reasserted itself but this time <i>within</i> the Christian world view; and I
have thus <i>twanged-back</i> to William James and his pragmatic/
pluralist vision of the nature of life - especially as described by some
aspects of Mormon theology. <br />
<br />
(The link of philosophy, interest and sympathy between James and Mormonism
is seemingly well known and has been documented among LDS intellectuals for
more than a century, but I became aware of it only recently.)<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Unless one regards philosophy as more fundamental than Christianity - which
sounds like an absurd belief for a Christian yet is clearly very common -
then there is nothing whatsoever that is paradoxical or self-contradictory
about being a pluralist Christian.<br />
<br />
(Indeed, a degree of pluralism is, as James, points-out, intrinsic to all
monotheisms in dividing creator from created - but of course Trinitarian
Christianity takes this further, and some 'catholic' types of Christianity take
it far indeed.)<br />
<br />
Monism (as found in Classical theism) is not 'more Christian' in essence, nor indeed
necessarily in practice than pluralism; even if it has been much commoner among
Christian intellectuals.<br />
<br />
At any rate, it is an aspect of the Jamesian perspective
that more formal systems are driven by inexplicit feelings of
one sort or another - which is why philosophy (and theology) has been so
often/ most usually a <i>divider</i> rather than a uniter in human affairs.<br />
<br />
(Contrary to theory, religion based on philosophy is frequently no more able to
attain consensus than is a religion based on revelation or mysticism - since
philosophical discourse is driven by prior feelings and convictions,
it leads to schism as quickly and reliably as does personal
conviction.)<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
However, one big disadvantage of the pragmatist pluralist way of
understanding Christianity is that the prospect is <i>exhausting</i>
compared with that hope for permanent contemplative bliss to which I
referred above. <br />
<br />
As a naturally tender-minded and asthenic personality prone to acedia, I
naturally looked forward to permanent relief from the recurrent business of <i>living
- </i>yet to the pragmatist, the afterlife is 'more of the same forever' with
respect to effort, striving, learning, and developing and dealing with the
triumphs and tragedies of existence...<br />
<br />
I can only hope and presume that the resurrection body brings with it much
greater dose of health, energy, motivation and resolution than I am
used-to here in mortal life!<br />
<br />
<i>Then</i> I might be more enthusiastic about the propect of endless
delightful (yet also painful) labour, rather than euphoric eternal rest. <br />
<br />
**</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Who should dominate the church: men or women (make
your choice)</span></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"></span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">"Should men, or should women,
dominate the church?" is the properly-formed question on this topic - the
question which sets into proper perspective the mass of comments and
reflections and policies which have clustered around the topic of sex roles in
churches.<br />
<br />
(Note that for Christians this is essentially a question of <i>the church</i>
as an organization, and not the religion itself - it is a mostly question of
good order in the institution. At a spiritual level this discussion melts away;
or, at least, transforms qualitatively.) <br />
<br />
This is only an active question in <i>some</i> religions, of which Christianity
is one - because there have been a wide range of balances between men and women
in domination of the Christian church, and in different areas of church
activity. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
I had been reading a Mormon blog in which a woman complained that - in terms of
the LDS church - she, and her daughter - felt (ahem) <i>hurt</i> by the
maleness of the priesthood; given that the priesthood was of such vital
importance: for her <i>nothing</i> could make-up for this fact of inequality,
of non-sameness.<br />
<br />
Musing on this, I realized that the premise of this debate was mistaken and
dangerous; because when the question is <i>properly </i>framed there are only
two valid perspectives.<br />
<br />
Either 1. the Mormon church should remain dominated by men, or 2. it should
instead become dominated by women.<br />
<br />
And this is a question to which empirical evidence can be brought - because
there are examples on both sides. There are Christian denominations and
specific churches that are dominated by men; and there are those which are
dominated by women.<br />
<br />
In between there are many Christian churches in which the <i>balance </i>is
towards either men or women and where the situation is clearly <i>moving </i>in
one direction or the other. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
So there are men-dominated churches in Mormonism, as mentioned, and Eastern
Orthodoxy, and some Conservative evangelicals.<br />
<br />
And there are women-dominated churches in all liberal Protestant denominations.
(Woman dominated means <i>not </i>that there are <i>no </i>men, but that male
leader must primarily be <i>compliant </i>to the <i>agenda</i> of being
ever-more women-dominated.)<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
I see the Roman Catholic church as being a mixed state and moving towards
woman-domination since Vatican II. Despite counter-currents I do not believe
that this this movement has stopped. So, the male priesthood has become
increasingly feminized and compliant (conducted according to principles derived
from women) for several decades; a situation which happened earlier and more
completely in the Romanized Anglo-Catholic wing of Anglicanism<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
From the above, I think there are sufficient example to infer the necessary
medium- to long-term consequences of men versus women domination of churches in
terms of the size, vitality and growth of the institutions<br />
<br />
So, the discussions on sex roles in denominations should not occur in a vacuum
of abstraction and at a theoretical level. The consequences of changing a
church from male to female domination are indeed known hence predictable.<br />
<br />
For instance, we know that the nature of an institution is fundamentally shaped
and changed by a shift from male to female domination.<br />
<br />
And we know that there are no long-term-viable examples of mixed male/ female
domination - there are only transitional states as a church moves in one
direction or the other.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
The long-term-viable examples (I mean church institutions which survive and are
strong for several generations) seem to be either male-dominated or
female-dominated institutions, tending very much towards single sex
institutions, or rather sub-institutions within churches (like church schools,
nunneries, nursing sisters, the Mormon Relief Society).<br />
<br />
Things are actually very simple - once transitional situations are understood!
Either an church is organized around the principle of domination by men or by
women.<br />
<br />
In practice this domination will always allow for exceptions, to varying
degrees; but since equality and impartiality are impossible - we have here an
apparently immovable principle in human affairs: <b>either/or</b>. <br />
<br />
**</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Free will is a product of us being eternal
autonomous beings</span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">My current understanding is that each
person has existed eternally as an autonomous (but not, initially, personal)
essence - and that at some point in Time we became Sons of God, which made us
into persons.<br />
<br />
(God shaped us into personhood when we became his spirit children, before we
entered mortal life.) <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Our free will is <i>rooted </i>in our eternal autonomous existence, but was
made effectual - <i>choices </i>were made possible - by our having become
Children of God. <br />
<br />
This is what made The Fall possible.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
On the one hand, our personhood comes from God and the reality of our situation
is that we are in a profound relationship with God since He is our Father and
made us persons; but on the other hand <b>we existed as essences before we had
a relationship with God; and this pre-existence is what <i>enables</i> us to <i>reject
</i>God, and to deny the <i>primacy </i>of our relationship with Him</b>. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
It is because our free will derives from eternal agency that we are able to
choose (to have the divine attribute of being unmoved movers, or first causes).<br />
<br />
And it is because our free will derives from eternal agency that we <i>must <b>choose</b></i>
to acknowledge God's Fatherly love for us, and our child-like love of Him -
because we <b><i>cannot be compelled </i></b>(<i>not even by God</i> - it is
vital to recognize this) to acknowledge God's love, nor can we be compelled to
love Him.<br />
<br />
To be Christian is a choice because it <i>must be</i> a choice.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Therefore, Satan could not and cannot remove the ultimate (metaphysical)
autonomy of persons, nor can Satan control free will - although he can of
course enslave the body and compel actions.<br />
<br />
Satan can influence autonomy only indirectly - principally by demoralization
and corruption of the will - so that a person will choose to use his autonomy
to deny his autonomy; and deliberately, repeatedly, systematically choose to
sin and to destroy Good - while denying at every moment that he could choose
otherwise.<br />
<br />
And this is, of course, the great triumph of Satan in this modern era: to have
so deeply confused and corrupted modern man that he uses his eternal and
indestructible freedom of will in <i>actively-denying</i> the reality of his
own freedom. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
[Note: The above schema is the only one that (currently) seems to make sense of
free will to me, therefore I present it for consideration. It leaves intact all
core Christian doctrine, but modifies the metaphysical back story - so that
some things are re-explained. It is, I think, pretty much identical with the
implications of Mormon theology as I get it from Sterling McMurrin and Terryl
Givens - but there are quite likely aspects which go beyond, or conflict with,
what many or most Mormon theologians seem to say - so far as I can tell - which
is not very far.] </span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">**</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Negative prejudice against Mormonism from
Mainstream Christians</span></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"></span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">There is a negative prejudice against
Mormonism among serious Mainstream Christians.<br />
<br />
Neutrality is not possible – of course – therefore when approaching the subject
of Mormonism there will inevitably be prejudice: either positive or negative.
What we observe here is that the prejudice is nearly always negative.<br />
<br />
Given this negative prejudice, and in relation to religious evaluations, it is
likely that whatever evidence is examined, that prejudice will be confirmed.
Mormons are assumed guilty until proven innocent, and – as usual in such
situations – cannot prove themselves innocent. </span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The prejudice frames the discourse,
as prejudice does.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Now, what is interesting is why mainstream Christians should bring this
prejudice to the table – why do Mormons attract this? </span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Is there any sound reason? Any <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">good</i> reason? And I don’t mean the
reasons for anti-Mormon prejudice which people use in public discourse and to excuse
themselves – I mean the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">real</i> reason.<br />
<br />
There are indeed some groups where there are sound and good reasons why – from
common sense and common experience – in approaching them a negative (suspicious,
judgmental) prejudice is appropriate – but not Mormons, surely?</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">And if we accept that it is
reasonable to bring negative prejudice to bear on Mormons – by such criteria,
who will be exempt from negative prejudice?<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Surely, on the surface and with common sense criteria and from hard facts
widely known, Mormonism should be approached with a positive prejudice – on the
assumption that it is likely to be good, to be wholesome, to be Christian – and
that mainstream Christians (if they want to engage with Mormonism) should not
be putting it on trial – but rather engaging in a conversation where the
reasonable hope is to discover a friend and ally.<br />
<br />
This is what I did – since before I was a Christian convert I have regarded
Mormonism as Christian, indeed one of the very best of Christian denominations,
and I still do – although now I know a great deal about Mormonism from five
years of reading, research and devotional study – but done with a positive
prejudice, on the assumption that I was dealing with a friend and ally, until
shown otherwise.<br />
<br />
Yet such is the anti-Mormon prejudice, that Mormons are regarded by many –
probably most – serious mainstream Christians as covert demons or brainwashed
dupes – as we see in many of these comments.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
I personally find this very distressing and painful.<br />
<br />
Why? Most obviously it is distressing to see people I regard as exemplary
Christians (in the primary sense of Christian, which is faith in Christ as Lord
and Saviour, people who are exceptionally devout, and who display the Christian
virtues to an admirable degree) continually (and indeed gleefully,
aggressively) pilloried by other Christians.<br />
<br />
This is a horrible thing to behold, provoking pity, sadness, and horror.<br />
<br />
But secondly I fear that it imperils the souls of Christians who engage in it,
and the denominations who encourage it. Not merely from the encouragement of
resentment, pride, hatred etc – but even more from the distortions it
introduces to mainstream Christianity, and the failure to learn theological,
devotional and moral lessons that ONLY Mormonism can teach to the rest of Christendom.<br />
<br />
Failure to learn these lessons from Mormonism may be the death of Christianity
in the West. Yes, really. Since Mormonism is doing fine, doing more than fine –
while the rest of Christendom is in serious travail.<br />
<br />
Maybe that is a root of the problem? Mormonism is doing too well – leading to
resentment fuelled by envy?</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Whatever the reason for such
widespread and entrenched anti-Mormon prejudice, I feel sure the real reason is
a bad one, since (in my experience) it encourages, brings out and reinforces
such bad qualities in those who display it.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
In sum, I am seriously distressed by the prevailing anti-Mormon prejudice among
serious mainstream Christians, and would love to see it replaced by pro-Mormon
prejudice and an attitude of wanting to know more about what enables Mormonism
to resist secular modernity so happily, and so effectively – especially in
relation to those crucial domains of marriage and the family.<br />
<br />
Mormonism is, for me, a litmus test issue in terms of seriousness about the
future of Christianity: but the test is for mainstream Christians. If anybody
is on trial here, it is not Mormonism but mainstream Christianity in the West.<br />
<br />
Sadly, perhaps tragically, Mormonism is a test which most serious mainstream
Christians fail spectacularly.<br />
<br />
**</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Why
do Mormons try to convert other Christians?</span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Mormons try to convert other
Christians, as do evangelical Protestants (very successfully) and Roman
Catholics (not so successfully) - because in the West most people are weak or
lapsed Christians, and form the main missionary field.<br />
<br />
So converting other Christians is something which <i>all</i> evangelizing
denominations do. <br />
<br />
And for very good reasons.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
What tends to happen is that a lapsed, feeble or 'in name only' member of a
Christian denomination converts to another Christian denomination with an
increase in faith, zeal etc - as when an ex-Roman Catholic is 'born again' -
and I would regard this as usually a positive matter<br />
<br />
In sum: surely, <i>to take a feeble Christian and convert them to a stronger
Christian</i> is - usually - <b>a Good Thing</b>.<br />
<br />
This process may, often does, include a change of denomination, which will have
disadvantages - but may in practice be necessary.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
But there is a difference - because quite often evangelical Protestants or
Catholics covert other denominations for the sake of their salvation - they
believe that their denomination is necessary for salvation. They may - in all
sincerity - warn the potential convert that if they do not convert they will be
damned. This may indeed be the major pressure for conversion to mainstream
Christin denominations - powerful negative sanctions against those who fail to
convert. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
But <i>Mormons do not believe that</i>.<br />
<br />
<b>Mormons believe that devout members of other denominations are already saved</b>,
but that becoming an faithful and active Mormon may enable them to attain a <i>higher
level of exaltation</i> - i.e. salvation to a higher degree of Heaven - or at
least start them along that path in a process which may continue after death. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
So Mormon missionaries, unlike most other Christian missionaries through
history, are not threatening with Hellfire or else; but are instead are <i>offering
an add-on</i> (as it were) to other forms of Christianity.<br />
<br />
But Mormons do not regard Christians of other denominations as damned - merely
limited to a lower, but still wonderful, level of Heaven.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
(Indeed, the sanctions against not being a Mormon are even 'weaker' - or kinder
- than the above simplified account - because Mormons believe that spiritual
progression may continue after death - so that after death a person may attain
the higher levels of exaltation, even if they do not become a Mormon in this
earthly life. The exaltation benefits of being baptized a Mormon accrue almost
entirely to the most devout Mormons, whose marriages are sealed for time and
eternity in a Temple, and who live according to the commandments and by the
rules of the LDS church. Devout Mormons who do not attain this high level of
active practice are in much the same salvific situation as devout non-Mormons -
will go to the same high but sub-optimal level of Heaven.)<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
So Mormons are pretty much offering <i>only positive incentives </i>to the
potential convert<i>.</i><br />
<br />
<i>**</i><br />
<br />
One aspect of Mormon theology which I have found extremely helpful in
understanding the human condition is that humans had pre-mortal existence.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
It took me a while to understand why this was such a significant part of the
account of the 'plan of salvation' - but I now perceive it has a vital role;
because it enables the explanation that each person <i>chose</i> mortal life on
earth - just as Jesus Christ chose to become incarnate as a Man.<br />
<br />
By this account, we were not created (indifferent to our wishes) in this vale
of tears; we are not <i>thrown</i> into life whether we want it or not, whether
we like it or not - but our pre-mortal spirits chose to live on earth in
physical bodies, and to undergo death - before returning to the presence of
God.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
The idea that we are all, without exception, <i>volunteers</i> in this life has
the effect of transforming the perspective on the nature of the human
condition; and dissolving many of the apparently intractable questions related
to human suffering. <br />
<br />
Because to inflict suffering upon a person who has been thrown into the world,
willy-nilly, like it or not, is morally a <i>very</i> different matter from the
sufferings undergone by a volunteer.<br />
<br />
Supposing that the extreme physical and mental trials and training voluntarily
undergone by special military forces, such as the Navy SEALs, were inflicted on
<i>all</i> young men, and <i>against their will</i>... this would be <i>torturing</i>
them, pure and simple. The fact of volunteering transforms the moral situation.<br />
<br />
And, like special military forces; our voluntary consent to mortal human life
was to the general process of life (including death), and to the objectives of
that process of life, and not each specific one of life's trials - which were
neither known, nor determined, in advance. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
As Terryl Givens makes clear in his scholarly and thorough 2010 monograph <i>When
Souls Had Wings: Pre-Mortal Existence in Western Thought</i>; the idea that
humans had a pre-mortal existence is one that can be traced back to ancient
times, perhaps through some specific Biblical texts, through some of the early
Fathers of the church (probably including Origen and St Augustine) and right up
to this day.<br />
<br />
The idea of pre-mortal existence has been persistent and recurrent because of
its great explanatory value - and from the fact that without pre-existence and
the idea that we volunteered for incarnate morality, the Goodness of God
becomes... well, if not <i>impossible</i> to explain, then at least a
difficult, complex and often incomprehensible thing to explain. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
<br />
Note added: I would add that mortal life is an experience, more than a test;
and no matter how brief it may be - even if it ends in the womb - all mortal
life includes the experience of death (death of the mortal body). Therefore, it
seems that the experience of death is the minimum/basic <i>reason </i>for
mortal, incarnate life. </span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">**<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" /><!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]--></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Pascal’s argument for the hidden God in light of
radical free agency</span></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
In his <i>Pensees</i>, Blaise Pascal outlines an argument that this world has
enough evidence of the truth of Christianity to <i>support </i>faith, but not
so much as to <i>compel </i>faith.<br />
<br />
That God is hidden, always findable to one who seeks Him - but hidden so that
one who does not seek, will not find Him. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
While I was convinced by this argument, I am now re-evaluating the point of
whether God could really, even in principle, provide so much evidence that it
would compel belief.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
I don't think belief <i>can </i>be compelled because Man's free agency really
is free - free will <i>cannot </i>be compelled, not even by God - so there
never could be such a weight of evidence that would compel belief in God without
need for faith. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
I think this is shown throughout the Bible - where there is always the
possibility and often the actuality, of refusing faith; but perhaps especially
in the New Testament, when even the actual presence of Christ - his teaching, his
works - is not sufficient to compel faith; nor to prevent the apostasy of
Judas, the denials of Peter, and the backsliding of most of the Apostles at and
immediately after the crucifixion. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
So I don't find the argument as compelling as I did - but then, neither (from a
perspective of Mormon theology and the plan of salvation) do I perceive a <i>need
</i>for this argument - the need is probably a by-product of Classical Theology
based on Greek philosophy which denies the <i>radical </i>freedom of Man's will
in a world where creation-from-nothing implies that God's knowledge and power
are absolute, unbounded and comprehensive - with no exclusions.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
In the world of Classical Theology, free will is a quantitative kind of thing,
the kind of thing which can be compelled by a sufficient degree of evidence -
therefore not radically autonomous of God's will - indeed, ultimately, on this
conception, free will is a delusion and God is doing everything - and
Christianity collapses into the bewildered, self-refuting but inescapable
fatalism of trying to believe that we are both merely cogs in a gigantic
machinery yet also to blame for our motions... <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Lucky, then, that most Christians always have rejected Classical Theology in
practice - even when they passionately assent to it in theory!<br />
<br />
**</span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Volunteering for mortal life</span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">One aspect of Mormon theology which I
have found extremely helpful in understanding the human condition is that
humans had pre-mortal existence.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
It took me a while to understand why this was such a significant part of the
account of the 'plan of salvation' - but I now perceive it has a vital role;
because it enables the explanation that each person <i>chose</i> mortal life on
earth - just as Jesus Christ chose to become incarnate as a Man.<br />
<br />
By this account, we were not created (indifferent to our wishes) in this vale
of tears; we are not <i>thrown</i> into life whether we want it or not, whether
we like it or not - but our pre-mortal spirits chose to live on earth in
physical bodies, and to undergo death - before returning to the presence of
God.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
The idea that we are all, without exception, <i>volunteers</i> in this life has
the effect of transforming the perspective on the nature of the human
condition; and dissolving many of the apparently intractable questions related
to human suffering. <br />
<br />
Because to inflict suffering upon a person who has been thrown into the world,
willy-nilly, like it or not, is morally a <i>very</i> different matter from the
sufferings undergone by a volunteer.<br />
<br />
Supposing that the extreme physical and mental trials and training voluntarily
undergone by special military forces, such as the Navy SEALs, were inflicted on
<i>all</i> young men, and <i>against their will</i>... this would be <i>torturing</i>
them, pure and simple. The fact of volunteering transforms the moral situation.<br />
<br />
And, like special military forces; our voluntary consent to mortal human life
was to the general process of life (including death), and to the objectives of
that process of life, and not each specific one of life's trials - which were
neither known, nor determined, in advance. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
As Terryl Givens makes clear in his scholarly and thorough 2010 monograph <i>When
Souls Had Wings: Pre-Mortal Existence in Western Thought</i>; the idea that
humans had a pre-mortal existence is one that can be traced back to ancient
times, perhaps through some specific Biblical texts, through some of the early
Fathers of the church (probably including Origen and St Augustine) and right up
to this day.<br />
<br />
The idea of pre-mortal existence has been persistent and recurrent because of
its great explanatory value - and from the fact that without pre-existence and
the idea that we volunteered for incarnate morality, the Goodness of God
becomes... well, if not <i>impossible</i> to explain, then at least a
difficult, complex and often incomprehensible thing to explain. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
<br />
Note added: I would add that mortal life is an experience, more than a test;
and no matter how brief it may be - even if it ends in the womb - all mortal
life includes the experience of death (death of the mortal body). Therefore, it
seems that the experience of death is the minimum/basic <i>reason </i>for
mortal, incarnate life. </span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">**</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Metaphysical differences between Mormonism and
Mainstream Christianity</span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">As I have already stated, the most
important aspect is prejudice: whether the Mainstream Christian approaches
Mormonism with a positive prejudice, on the assumption or in the hope of
finding an underlying unity; or (as is usual) with a negative prejudice, that
assumes Mormonism is not Christian, and which puts Mormonism on trial -
confronting Mormonism with a set of accusations all of which it must refute on
a point by point basis.<br />
<br />
In other words, the nature of the prejudice (or prior assumption) will have a
vast and decisive effect on the procedure of evaluation and therefore the
outcome of evaluation.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Because Mormonism is approached by most Mainstream Christians with a negative
prejudice, the differences between Mormonism and Mainstream Christianity get
presented as a shopping list of point-and-sputter factoids: "Mormons
believe God (the Father) had a body", "Mormons believe the risen
Jesus visited America" etc etc. <br />
<br />
Now many of these shock tactics are misrepresentations and de-contextualized
distortions - but of course Mormonism does have <i>many</i> and important
differences from mainstream Christianity. <br />
<br />
Now, if these are examined one at a time, and especially with a negative
prejudice, then this list of differences will seem either wickedly defiant; or
simply absurd and arbitrary. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
But in fact (and I mean in <b>fact</b>) most of these differences (and all of
the really significant ones) emerge from an underlying metaphysical difference
- philosophical pluralism - and from a different way of reading the Bible
(taking it at face value, minus Classical philosophical preconceptions).<br />
<br />
I assume that this different perspective came from Joseph Smith and predated
the writing of the Book of Mormon, which was then written in accordance with
this mode of understanding so different from the theology of the post-Apostolic
era (but comfortably consistent with the Bible as understood by a plain man's
reading).<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
In sum, Mormonism is Christianity; and differs from other denominations
primarily in its metaphysical assumptions (i.e. its philosophical assumptions
concerning the basic nature or structure of reality) which are pluralist rather
than monist.<br />
<br />
These metaphysical assumptions are not a part of Christian revelation, rather
they are second order (and historically later) attempts to systematize
revelations, and bring them into line with other forms of understanding.<br />
<br />
For example, much of the intellectual theological work of the first few hundred
years of Christianity seems to have focused on bringing Christian understanding
into the framework of Classical Philosophy, in its various manifestations.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
The vicious Christological disputes (disputes concerning the nature of Christ)
of these early centuries seem to have been (at least to some significant
extent) a consequence of this philosophical work - when it was found that
perfectly clear and comprehensible Biblical revelations were difficult - in
fact <i>impossible</i> - to fit into a self-consistent philosophical framework
which also fitted with revelatory/ traditional understandings of the nature of
Christ.<br />
<br />
It was probably the <i>insistence</i> (despite the difficulties) on adopting a
Classical philosophical understanding, and giving this philosophical
understanding primacy over revelation, which probably led some into heresies -
as they followed their philosophy wherever it led, rather than giving primacy
to the revelations. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
So, Christianity has various metaphysical systems backing-up revelation: most
famously Platonism (associated with St Augustine) and Aristotelianism (associated
with St Thomas Aquinas).<br />
<br />
Since around 1830, to this can be added pluralism/ pragmatism - with Mormonism
broadly summarizable as Christianity backed-up with a kind of precognitive
version of the distinctively 'American' philosophical perspective described by
William James and his colleagues. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
But what is true? <br />
<br />
The answer will have to take into account that more than 2000 years has failed
to answer objectively whether Plato or Aristotle was true, or even which system
was true-er.<br />
<br />
Because the truth of metaphysical systems is <i>not</i> an empirical matter,
because the metaphysical system includes and defines empirical evaluations. <br />
<br />
How, then, to choose which metaphysical system to adopt?<br />
<br />
In the first place, the system should be self-consistent.<br />
<br />
Having passed this test, and beyond this, the choice of metaphysical systems
would take account of factors such as expediency (personal, and social, fruits
of the belief), and also comprehensibility, and intuition/ personal revelation.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Different metaphysical systems work for different people for different purposes
and at different times - each has advantages and disadvantages.<br />
<br />
All I would point out is that the Mormon metaphysical system very obviously has
many and important advantages (in terms of fruits, of comprehensibility, and as
validated by personal revelation) for some people at this point in history.<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">**</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Creatives and the church – heretics versus
apostates</span></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
There is a problem with creative people and the churches, because:<br />
<br />
1. Creative people have a built-in tendency to change things - and some things
in the church should not be changed.<br />
<br />
2. Creative people typically have a personality type of the (moderately)
high-Psychoticism type which is a shopping-list of mostly undesirable traits<br />
<br />
</span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: normal;"><a href="http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/eysencks-personality-trait-of.html"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="color: #473624; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/eysencks-personality-trait-of.html</span></span></a></span><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<br />
For example, creative people are often not conscientious, which means that
cannot force themselves to perform duties reliably, regularly, over a long
period. They may lack empathy and be rather unconcerned by the opinions of
other people. They may be impulsive, prone to tantrums and sulks.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
In sum, creative people are more than usually 'selfish' and usually not
'joiners' and find church membership to be more onerous, more irritating, more
boring than do most people - exactly because they do not much feels the rewards
of service, community, groupishness...<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Now, all of these can be moderated and tamed - by personal effort and by a
structured environment - but only in degree.<br />
<br />
The fact is that people high in Psychoticism - and thus creative people - are
generally troublesome and generally not very useful to the running of the
church. They tend indeed to be somewhat parasitic on the hard and dutiful work
of others. <br />
<br />
Since creativity is rare - it may seem that churches are better off <i>without</i>
creative people since although there are not many of them, their potential for
causing trouble is considerable. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
BUT.<br />
<br />
The church absolutely <i>needs</i> creative people - at least it needs them
over the long term - even though there are many examples of churches being
damaged by the activities of creative people (such as theologians) the fact is
that the complexity of the world over the long term means that there will
always be unforeseen problems which the church <i>must</i> solve, and which can
<i>only</i> be solved by creativity - which means by creative people.<br />
<br />
<b>Un</b>creative churches (and this is a problem of all churches without
enough men, where women dominate, that are anti-men, where men lack scope -
because most creatives are men, because Psychoticism is higher in men) will
over the medium-long term decline and become absorbed into other institutions
or become extinct, as a matter of certainty. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Therefore, the church needs to <i>retain</i> creative people over the long haul
(as it were 'on a retainer' - for when they are needed) - needs to keep
creative people sufficiently within the church that they will consent to and
indeed be <i>motivated</i> to work for the church in the way that (only)
creatives can.<br />
<br />
I mean deeply motivated - in the special way of creative people - which may
mean an obsessive rumination on a problem, a process lasting years, even
decades.<br />
<br />
This degree of motivation cannot be imposed but must come from within - and it
means that creatives must be inspired to work for the benefit of the church.
They must be <i>loyal</i> - or, despite their many, frequent, minor
disloyalties - their basic affiliation to the church must be maintained. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
This means that a wise church leader will often need to defend creative church
members from expulsion, and from other sanctions which would tend to exclude
creatives. And this means some degree of 'special treatment' which can be hard
to justify - at least superficially.<br />
<br />
But on a deeper analysis, it is not hard to justify, because there is a general
principle which means that an individual should be treated as an individual -
and a person who has a different make-up, nature, character, personality <i>ought</i>
to be differently treated from the mass of people from whom he differs.<br />
<br />
Yet, again this is hazardous - as 'special treatment' may be interpreted as a
license for bad behaviour, which would itself lead creatives <i>out</i> of the
church, or else give them the attitude that it is up to the church to
accommodate whatever they happen to want. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Furthermore, there is the matter of heresy.<br />
<br />
<b>Creatives will always be heretics</b> - no matter how much they may try (and
often they won't try!) to be orthodox, their heresy will show itself to the
genuinely orthodox - indeed heresy is usually very obvious, which is why there
is <i>typically an inappropriate and self-destructive over-reaction against
heresy.</i><br />
<br />
(This has been the bane of Christianity since its foundation - overall, the
reaction against heresy has done far more harm than heresy itself.)<br />
<br />
A heretic disbelieves in whole or part the teachings of the church, or urges a
significantly a different emphasis than the church, or adds to the church
something distinctive... that kind of thing.<br />
<br />
All creatives are heretics - yet there should be efforts to keep them in the
church so long as they are not apostate.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Apostates have turned against the church.<br />
<br />
And no church can tolerate apostates - because they are a fifth column, eroding
the church from within - a parasite, a cancer, a traitor.<br />
<br />
(Of course, apostasy is usually covert and disguised - even disguised from the
apostate - so must be a matter of judgment.)<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
In other words, a long-term-viable church must (to some significant extent)
tolerate heresy among its creatives - otherwise it will not retain its
creatives, then will have no creatives, and the church will die as a result.<br />
<br />
And the church must <i>not</i> tolerate apostasy.<br />
<br />
(Apostate creatives are indeed especially harmful - if their apostatsy becomes
the focus of their creativity, they may tirelessly work at it for decades,
focused implicitly on the destruction of the church, and the aiding of those
who would destroy it.). <br />
<br />
Yet apostasy is not objectively observable in the way that heresy is; apostasy
is a matter of motivation, hence inner. Man cannot know for sure another man's
motivation - yet any viable church <i>must</i> make this judgment, and <i>must
act upon it</i>.<br />
<br />
So the justly-expelled apostate creative can, and often does, create trouble
for the church - because there is no objective evidence of his apsotasy, and he
will usually deny and conceal his real and destructive motivation (perhaps
conceal them even from himself) - and may present himself as arbitrarily
victimized or scapegoated for some other behaviour.<br />
<br />
Yet despite all this, the church must not tolerate apostasy. <br />
<br />
* <br />
<br />
A middle path is necessary - the church must not be subverted, but equally the
church must retain and inspire creatives; orthodoxy cannot be imposed on all
without excluding creatives, yet excessive license will leave apostates to
flourish at the expense of the church<br />
<br />
So, this is a tricky problem of the kind for which there is no general
solution, but which may potentially be soluble by individual leaders of
sufficient knowledge and wisdom and with personal authority - but not a problem
that can be dealt with by committees, and certainly not by committee debate and
committee-vote of the mass majority of conscientious and empathic people. <br />
<br />
**<br />
<br />
<br />
Note: These reflections came from thinking about the relationship between the
LDS church and Sterling McMurrin, as revaled for example in this interview:<br />
<br />
PDF file: search the words sterling mcmurrin interview dialogue <br />
<br />
McMurrin makes the distinction between heretic and apostate, and describes
himself as a heretic but not apostate. That seems to be how he was regarded by
the CJCLDS - since he was personally 'managed' by several Presidents of the
church, and retained within its community as a loyal advocate - despite his
many and large heresies.<br />
<br />
The particular interest of the McMurrin story is that the LDS is the most
conscientiousness-requiring of all denominations in terms of the calls for
missionary, administrative and labouring service made upon its active members; <i>combined
with</i> a generally high level of economic-social functioning in 'jobs'; <i>combined
with</i> typically large families in which men are enjoined to play an active
role.<br />
<br />
Combining all these heavy duties creates a stereotypical pattern of hyper-busy
and hyper-organized behaviour among the most devout Mormons, which strikes a
person of moderately high Psychoticism (such as myself) as nearly-intolerable
at best and outright impossible at worst!<br />
<br />
Yet, probably due to his Mormon family background, McMurrin was kept on the
inside of the LDS and loyal; and a brilliant and very valuable book of Mormon
theology was one result. But it took top-level interventions from several
Prophets to achieve this. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">**</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-size: 12pt;">Jesus is the God of the Old Testament</span></b><span style="color: #29303b; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">This is one of the most bizarre of
all my experiences since I became a Christian - to discover that (<b>supposedly</b>)
<i>all Christians believe that the God of the Old Testament is Jesus</i>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">
<br />
This was news to me. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
I first came across this in Mormonism where it is made very clear, explicit and
up-front:<br />
<br />
<i>[Jesus Christ] “...was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah
of the New. Under the direction of His Father, He was the creator of the earth.
‘All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was
made’ (</i></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: normal;"><a href="http://lds.org.uk/scriptures/nt/john/1.3?lang=eng&country=gb"><i><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="color: #473624;">John 1:3</span></span></i></a></span></span><span style="font-size: normal;"><i><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">).</span></i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-size: 12pt;">
<br />
<br />
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><a href="http://lds.org.uk/topics/jesus-christ?lang=eng&country=gb"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="color: #473624;">http://lds.org.uk/topics/jesus-christ?lang=eng&country=gb</span></span></a></span></span><span style="color: #29303b; font-size: 12pt;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<br />
Thus, no Mormon could be in any doubt about the identity of the God of the Old
Testament - this is a primary element <i>framing</i> the religious education
and scriptural reading of the convert and of children. <br />
<br />
Initially, I supposed that this was one of the distinctive beliefs of Mormons -
but no, supposedly all mainstream Christian denominations believe this too!<br />
<br />
But unlike Mormons, Mainstream Christians hardly ever mention the fact!<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
It is remarkable that, throughout my whole life (including 7 years at a Church
of England Primary School), <i>the idea that Jesus was Jehovah had <b>literally
never crossed my mind</b>, and nobody had <b>ever</b> told me about it.</i> <br />
<br />
I had <i>always</i> assumed that the God of the Old Testament was God the
Father - and that therefore what made Christians different from Jews was that
they also believed - from the New Testament - that Jesus was God; in other
words, I assumed that the God of the Old Testament (Father), plus Jesus of
the New Testament - plus mentions of the Holy Ghost from both Testeaments -
were the basis of the Holy Trinity.<br />
<br />
Indeed, I had thought that almost everything we knew about God the Father was
from His having featured so prominently in the OT. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
I still find it hard to get my mind around this!<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Having discovered my mistake, I have for a while been looking out for evidence
from the mainstream denominations that they do indeed believe that Jesus is the
God of the Old Testament - and I can find precious little. <br />
<br />
Maybe there is some statement somewhere which I have missed - but that is
the point: surely something as vital as this should not be possible to miss!<br />
<br />
I combed my ESV study Bible, and the notes, for some indication that when God
is mentioned or appears in the OT then this was actually Jesus - but I couldn't
find any - and there was nothing in the introduction either. Same for the
Orthodox Study Bible, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Michael Pomazansky; and the
DK Illustrated Children's Bible.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
As I say I could have missed the statement that Jehovah is Jesus - but the
point is that I was <i>looking</i> for it, and <i>failed</i> to find it!<br />
<br />
Surely something as important as this should be stated over and again - with
notes to every single appearance or mention of God in the OT to clarify when
this refers to Jesus and when to God the Father. <br />
<br />
Indeed, there would be a case for preparing a beginners Bible paraphrase in
which<i> the OT was rewritten to include the name of Jesus</i> <i>throughout</i>,
explaining the nature of his maifestations - as and when appropriate.
<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
I find all this extremely weird!<br />
<br />
What is the situation, I wonder - do most Christians have the same
misconception that I did - that the OT God is God the Father?<br />
<br />
And are the theologians just taking it for granted that Christians <i>already
know</i> that the OT God is really Jesus (even in introductory material, and
material for children) - and they regard this as so obvious that they never
need explicitly to mention it, or to clarify the matter to converts and born
again Christians?<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
I also find that the fact of Jehovah being Jesus has further implications - for
example with respect to Jews. Some Christians assume that - since the only
way to salvation is by Jesus - then Jews are excluded from salvation.<br />
<br />
Yet if Jews are actually worshipping Jesus as their Lord under the identity of
Jehovah/ YHWH, then is it not possible or likely that they will be saved -
regardless of their failure to recognize the incarnate Christ?<br />
<br />
Seems worth thinking about at any rate - and the fact that I have never heard
mention of the question seems strange - if all Mainstream Christians really do
already know that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament, and have considered
the implications of that fact. <br />
<br />
**<br />
<br />
<br />
Note: Interestingly, if you Google this question, many of the top hits are
material for the use of those trying to convert Jehovah's Witnesses to
Mainstream Protestant Christianity. Again the assumption is that Mainstream
Christians all know this already. Yet the Scriptural evidence cited is all
indirect and scattered - so that the fact Jehovah is Jesus is NOT easily
disocvered from simply reading the Bible: it requires a very comprehensive and
detailed knowledge of scripture and the ability to make indirect inferences. </span></span></span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">**<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> </b></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-size: 12pt;">Four Christian views of what happens after death<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]--></span></b><span style="color: #29303b; font-size: 12pt;"></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">In my (positively prejudiced!)
explorations and practices of Mere Christianity - I have noted some sharp
differences in the understanding of what happens immediately after death.<br />
<br />
Here are brief accounts, necessarily simplistic: <br />
<br />
*</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
1. The Protestant view seems to be that it is at or immediately after the
moment of death when the soul is allocated to salvation or judgment.<br />
<br />
After that point, nothing can be done to change its ultimate destiny - the
final judgment may not be known at this exact point, but it is predestined.<br />
<br />
The domain of salvation is restricted to the span of human life.The boundary
between time and eternity is the moment of death, and the state of the soul at
the moment of transition is therefore permanent and unalterable. <br />
<br />
So prayers for the salvation of the dead are at best futile, and at worst a
kind of blasphemy - because assuming that human intervention can affect what is
between God and the soul of the departed.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
2. The Eastern Orthodox view seems to be that there is a period of forty days
following death during which the soul is evaluated - and during which prayers
of the still living may affect this evaluation - then the soul is allocated by
the first judgment (awaiting the final judgment).<br />
<br />
The domain of salvation extends beyond human life - but is essentially time
limited; after which the soul enters eternity, and does not change. <br />
<br />
Consequently, prayers for the dead are regarded as necessary, and especially
immediately after death.<br />
<br />
(The salvific effectuality of later prayers is not ruled-out, but is much less
clear.)<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
3. The Roman Catholic view seems to be complex, and I am not sure I have
grasped it. After death, most Heaven bound souls require purgatory before
Heaven.<br />
<br />
There is a strong emphasis on the effectuality of prayers for the dead, but -
unlike Orthodoxy - the timing of such prayers is not critical, and prayer
may be retroactive in its effects.<br />
<br />
So, the soul is evaluated and purged, and during this process in linear time,
the prayers of the living - past, present and future - are all brought to bear
on the situation.<br />
<br />
The domain of linear time seems to extend beyond the moment of death and to the
end of purgatory, at least - which is not a fixed length of time, and perhaps
linear time after death is not mapped onto linear time before death; after
which the soul enters eternity and does not change. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
4. In Mormonism, death is a positive experience of transition to a potentially
higher level of exaltation, and necessary to move to the next stage.<br />
<br />
Any soul that will consent to be saved (and which has not implicitly rejected
salvation by severe and unrepented sin) is evaluated and allocated to its
proper place in a multi-level Heaven (or several Heavens); where the
possibility of progression upward is open-ended.<br />
<br />
In Mormon metaphysics, there is only linear and irreversible time, eternity is
simply open ended linear sequential time; so there is no possibility of
retroactive prayer being effective - but prayer for the dead may be effective
in the sense that there is an 'ongoing process' that may be affected. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
As the last comment describes, the differences are partly theological and
ultimately metaphysical - concerned with time and the nature of eternity.<br />
<br />
In some accounts the soul can change its salvific state after death, in other
accounts the soul is fixed at death. <br />
<br />
And these differences have a large influence on the nature of Christian
practice, and account for many of the most obvious differences between
denominations.<br />
<br />
For example, when I worship at a Protestant Anglican Church we never pray for
the dead; while at Anglo-Catholic Churches we spend a lot of time in prayer for
the dead, even in short Masses - and that difference is within a single
denomination.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">**</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">The need for an overview of the story of human life</span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Modern people feel guilty, but they
do not repent - and if they do not repent, they cannot be Christian.<br />
<br />
So, what blocks repentance?<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
People cannot repent until they know what they <i>should </i>do, and that they
are <i>not </i>doing it; and they cannot know what they should do, until they
know the structure of reality: the human condition.<br />
<br />
If so, it is futile trying to get people to repent when they do not know the
structure of reality, and if they deny even that reality even has a structure.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Most modern adults are alienated - cut off from reality - and this is
experienced as negative emotions: misery, boredom, anger, anxiety,
demotivation...<br />
<br />
But they do not know what they are alienated <i>from</i>. Therefore nothing can
be done about alienation - except distraction and intoxication to stop the
feeling (but not the cause).<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Modern people are stuck. They feel bad and they not only do not know why they
feel bad, but they also deny that there is any objective reason for feeling bad
except for illness and a repressive 'society' - therefore a religion which
tells modern people to repent is interpreted as deliberately making people who
already feel bad, feel even worse. Which seems like a very nasty thing to do.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
So, what should be the first step in modern deep apologetics?<br />
<br />
Whatever the first step in apologetics it will be incomplete, because it is the
first step. Its main role is to provide what is necessary to back-reference
when the further steps are added (IF things get even that far). <br />
<br />
My present notion is that the first step should be to describe the basic
set-up, the human condition and relation to God the Father and Jesus Christ -
the <i>story</i> of the history of Man: where we came from and where we are
going.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
This story must be truthful, of course! - and must also be inspiring - if it is
to be useful.<br />
<br />
But the truthfulness of the very first brief outline must be carefully
considered, in the sense that any brief outline must omit mention of
difficulties that cannot be dealt with without interrupting the story: this is
just common sense about how to teach.<br />
<br />
In teaching something difficult, you first of all give the whole thing, stated
clearly and didactically in plain language (minimal jargon) without
qualifications or quibbles - and only <i>then</i>, once people have
'got' that simple version, you go back over the story adding nuances,
discussing difficulties or ambiguities, teasing out implications etc. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
The is what Christians need to do for the modern audience - each Christian
denomination needs to reflect on this matter, and work on telling the story of
Man and God for the first time: what to include as necessary for further
building, what to leave-out as misleading, what to emphasize as interesting and
inspiring.<br />
<br />
If people understand the basic story of human life, they can then understand
the nature of sin and why sin is (objectively) sin; because then they
understand what they are <i>sinning-against</i>: only then can modern people
repent. <br />
<br />
**<br />
<br />
<br />
Note: I recognized the need for this after reflecting on the content of the
published manuals for Mormon missionaries - and the prominence given to The
Plan of Salvation.<br />
<br />
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: normal;"><a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/the-plan-of-salvation/the-plan-of-salvation?lang=eng"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="color: #473624;">https://www.lds.org/manual/the-plan-of-salvation/the-plan-of-salvation?lang=eng</span></span></a></span></span><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<br />
Here the LDS church sets out from its own perspective 'the basic story' of the
human condition, God's relations with Man; describes it very clearly and in a
way which is potentially both interesting and exciting/ inspiring. Once this
basic story is understood, then more detailed discussions can be related back
to it, and questions can be answered by reference to the overall Plan.<br />
<br />
I think other Christian denominations ought to be able to generate a comparably
brief, simple, clear, and inspiring account of the basic story of Man and God,
from their own perspective. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Further note: I am not interested in publishing comments critical of the Mormon
Missionary Manual, nor of Mormonism - I am referencing this manual as a
good example of <i>the kind of thing which is needed</i>, and to make clear
that most Christian denominations do not provide anything half so useful for
apologetics.<br />
<br />
**</span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Spiritual pride and theosis</span></b></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-size: 12pt;"></span></b><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The sin of spiritual pride is a focus
of the ascetic monastic tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy. It is also recognized
by the Western Catholic tradition - although not given such prominence; and
indeed by monastic Zen Buddhists.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Spiritual pride is the particular sin of those who embark upon a personal quest
for holiness, for sanctity (the path to Sainthood), for theosis (becoming more
like God) - and the sin is something like regarding one's own will as if it
were the divine will - or perhaps being deceived into regarding demonic
promptings as if they were divine.<br />
<br />
The particular problem of spiritual pride, is that the person who suffers it
imagines they are at a higher spiritual level than those around them, and so
becomes immune to advice, warning, criticism.<br />
<br />
The Eastern Orthodox antidote is to embark on ascetic disciplines only under
supervision of a spiritual Father - and initially in a monastic (group)
setting, with the monks 'looking out for each other'.<br />
<br />
The assumption is that the spiritual Father has attained a sufficiently high
level of theosis that he can detect and help solve the problems in the
apprentice; and the apprentice must, for his own good, submit to this
authority. The religious life is thus transmitted from Master to apprentice in
an unbroken chain - implicitly originating and emanating from the Apostles at
the time of Christ. (<br />
<br />
However, it seems that the chain of tradition has been broken in many or most
places in the world, which means that this method of attaining theosis is no
longer possible - at least for most people in most places.)<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
My impression is that spiritual pride is especially a problem of spiritual
ambition, when spiritual ambition is contaminated by the desire for one's own
power and glory - e.g. the desire to make a 'successful career' of being a
recognized Holy Man (rather like those fake 'gurus' of the 1960s), or simply
the status of holiness - even purely the the self-satisfied 'smugness' of
regarding oneself as of higher holiness than others.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Yet of course spiritual ambition is in itself 'a good thing' - and very
necessary in a world such as ours where spirituality is at a pitifully low ebb.<br />
<br />
But it seems that an onslaught on spirituality, aided by fasting, many hours of
prayer, vigils (staying awake all night to pray) is - while often effective -
hazardous; and hazardous in a similar way to the 1960s use of psychedelic drugs
to create spiritual experiences - selfish, evil, demonic experiences are
mistaken for insights, miracles and divine revelations.<br />
<br />
These smack of a very modern impatience, sensation-seeking, mere curiosity,
desire for novelty and impressive, extreme, experiences which can be boasted
about.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
It might have been <i>expected</i> that, on theological grounds, the Mormon
religion would be especially prone to spiritual pride - since it makes theosis
(called exaltation) into a central tenet: we are God's children - hence of the
same nature as the divine - in a much more literal sense than in mainstream
Christianity; there is a different concept of The Fall, thus no Original Sin to
'worry about'; and there is at least a remote and theoretical potential of each
human becoming a God (under God the Father, but of similar scope) - which would
<i>seem</i> like a very direct invitation to arrogance, selfishness.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, all Mormons are told to ask for and expect to receive personal
divine revelations - direct communications from God - to guide them through
life <br />
<br />
And yet spiritual pride is <i>not</i> a particular feature of Mormons nor much
of a problem in the LDS church.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
This apparent relative immunity to spiritual pride (at least, compared with
other Christian traditions which emphasize theosis/ sanctification) may be
related to the much more human ('anthropomorphic') understanding of God.<br />
<br />
Mormons would tend to regard God the Father as a vast, almost infinite
amplification of Man - i.e. starting from Man; while most mainstream Christian
theology starts with abstract definitions of God, and tries to move towards Man
- but typically cannot get very far with the comparison. It is a matter of
starting at opposite ends. <br />
<br />
Terryl and Fiona Givens - writing in The God Who Weeps - also suggest that the
traditional Mormon emphasis has been much less on a God of infinite Power and
Glory, and more on a God of infinite love and compassion (as depicted in the
weeping God of Enoch's experience and depicted in the scripture <i>Moses</i> 7:
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/7?lang=eng).<br />
<br />
To become ever more like a God the Father whose love is 'infinite' such that
his suffering for the sins of the world is 'infinite' (like the mortal earthly
Father of a vast family of deeply loved and profoundly suffering children) is
not really the kind of goal likely to be provoking of spiritual pride. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Another difference is that the Mormon spiritual life is ideally in a family
context - not a monastery nor in solitude.This guards against the many problems
of ascetic monasticism.<br />
<br />
Indeed, the opposite problem of worldly busy-ness - <i>too much social doing</i>,
and not enough solitude, contemplation and prayer - would seem to be the
characteristic limitation of Mormon spirituality. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Another difference is that for Mormons the path of theosis (exaltation) goes
beyond death into the next life - and indeed stretches out into infinity.<br />
<br />
Mormons may be aiming to become a God at some point in the unimaginably remote
future, but in the meantime the main business is the hourly, daily, yearly
business of living by the Commandments, working, serving, striving and so on -
and this continues into the after life. <br />
<br />
In other words, for Mormons there is not much sense of urgency about theosis -
quite the reverse, since it stretches into an eternal future - exaltation it is
mostly a matter for patience and endurance.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
This is in stark contrast to mainstream Christianity where sanctification/
theosis is urgent and the clock of mortality is ticking.<br />
<br />
Protestants generally regard spiritual progress as stopping at the instant of
death, at which point the possibilities of salvation are fixed.<br />
<br />
Catholics acknowledge a short period of potential spiritual development after
death (e.g. the forty days of Orthodoxy or Roman Catholic purgatory) during
which salvation/ theosis may be affected - but this seems to be conceptualized
as a period when the soul may be helped by the intercessions of others, rather
than its own efforts. <br />
<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
All this is very important stuff, to my understanding, since sanctification/
theosis/ exaltation is the main business of our <i>continued</i> experience of
mortal life - it is what we ought to be focused on as our main business, day by
day, hour by hour, year on year.<br />
<br />
The main business of incarnate mortal life is - as the name implies - to
experience 1. living in a body, and 2. dying. It is these which are the essence
of this life we live - and these are experienced by everybody. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Beyond that, human experience is very varied - some die in the womb, or as
infants, others live for varying times and in varying circumstances. The
question is, beyond the necessity of <i>not-rejecting</i> that salvation which
Christ has given us - <i>what should we do with our days</i>?<br />
<br />
The answer is theosis - so we are called-upon to be spiritually ambitious, to
progress as far as we can towards divinity during incarnate mortal life.<br />
<br />
Therefore (assuming the above reasoning is correct), theosis is a topic which
deserves, which <i>requires</i>, a lot more consideration than it is given in
most Christian traditions.<br />
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" /><!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]--></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">**</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">The King Follet Discourse – pushing back the
infinities… </span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The King Follett sermon or
'discourse' was a speech made by Joseph Smith shortly before he was killed. The
speech was not written but extemporized, and was taken down by various
observers - and therefore the primary record is a parallel text by multiple hands:<br />
King Follett is non-canonical for the LDS church - being very obviously a kind
of 'thinking aloud', a philosophical speculation on the apparent implications
of Mormon theology (in other words, the Prophet was not prophesying at this
moment).<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
I find it a wonderful speech - and it elucidates for me the interplay between
what is assumed and fixed in Mormonism, and what are possible consequences of
these assumptions, but which are not of the essence.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
The discourse reveals that the aspects of Mormon theology which seem strangest
(and attract most horror and ridicule) are in fact a (speculative) consequence
of following up several steps of implications from the primary assumptions of
the nature of God and His relationship to Man. <br />
<br />
Probably, all metaphysical systems contain infinities - in Classical Christian
theology the infinities are given to God - creation from nothing,
omnipotence/omniscience, omnipresence and the like. The basic metaphysic is one
of statis. <br />
<br />
For Mormonism the God of the Bible has none of these attributes; and God is our
loving Father primarily and as literally as possible.<br />
<br />
The infinities are pushed back and back, until they are out of the realm of our
concern altogether - an infinite regress of other Gods in other universes unknown
- which are <i>logically implied</i>, but are nothing to do with us in this
world, with one God. The monotheism is what matters to us, here now and
forever; the polytheism is an answer to a philosophical question. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Another thing to look out for in King Follett is the <i>dynamic</i> nature of
Mormonism (in contrast to stasis). The condition for God and for Man is one of
eternal progression (another abstract infinite - no bound can be put to
progression, exaltation, glory - in a particular sense, not even for God). <br />
<br />
But since dynamism is nonsense if <i>everything</i> changes - progression also
implies a stasis, against which progress is measured. Thus the necessary
eternal existence of matter and laws of the universe 'within which' God works
and progresses. Instead of creation from nothing, the Mormon view is that the
primary things 'always' existed (from eternity) and always will exist, being
re-organizable but indestructible. <br />
<br />
In sum, this represents the final stage in a truly amazing theological
achievement - one which quite simply, and therefore triumphantly, solves many
of the most obvious and troubling - and, I believe, ineradicable - theoretical
problems due to the conflict between classical philosophy and Christianity.<br />
<br />
* *</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">As I have said before, I am by nature
a pluralist - which is why I have gravitated to Mormon theology (my take on
Mormon theology is that it is Christian pluralism). <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
One way of thinking about this is the infinite regress problem, which children
often discover for themselves.<br />
<br />
What causes <i>this</i>? Answer given: <i>this</i> is caused by <i>that</i>.
Yes but what causes <i>that</i>, and then what causes <i>that</i>... and so on,
and on... forever?<br />
<br />
An infinite regress? <br />
<br />
Well then no, not forever.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
The only thing that can stop the regress is an <i>uncaused cause</i> - something
which makes other things happen but not in response to other things happening.<br />
<br />
Something which is an origin of action.<br />
<br />
(This is also something with free will. Free will is an uncaused cause.)<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
So... everything that happens can be traced back to an uncaused cause.<br />
<br />
But how many uncaused causes? - One, or more than one; one or many? Monism or
pluralism?<br />
<br />
To answer the question one uncaused cause, <i>versus</i> many uncaused causes,
is apparently a matter of intuition, a metaphysical assumption; undecidable on
the basis of evidence.<br />
<br />
And undecidable on the basis of Christian revelation.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Most Christians are monists and trace all causes back to one God.<br />
<br />
This leads to a problem when considering Jesus and the Holy Trinity in general.
Is Jesus an uncaused cause, or not? If so, then God is two; if not then Jesus
is just an aspect of God: inessential. This problem has not been solved by
monism (only obscured by sleight of language).<br />
<br />
Monism also leads to the problem that humans have no free will, since all
causes are traced back to God. Insofar that Jesus is essential to our
salvation, and insofar as free will is essential to Christianity, then monism
is deficient.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Pluralists like me believe there are more-than-one/ many uncaused causes; so
Jesus and the Trinity is not a problem - Father, sona and Holy ghost are all
uncaused causes; and free will is not a problem (since each humans is an
uncaused cause). <br />
<br />
But it is messy! To a monist it is unacceptably messy - it just can't be true!<br />
<br />
But a pluralist feels this is intuitively right; that reality is many not one,
that there are <i>many uncaused causes interacting, will be forever, and always
have been...</i><br />
<br />
** </span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Christianity
and world history</span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">I do have views on what I understand to be 'God's plan' or
'God's hopes' about the nature and role of some churches and nations - but
there is no possibility of persuading other people of the correctness of my
beliefs, and it would be dangerous to try. <br />
<br />
So I will not argue or defend these views - nor will I respond to challenges or
requests to do so; I merely state them. <br />
<br />
For what they are worth; I believe that the way God works in history is to
support the best possibilities as they emerge through human choices; but people
often, usually, choose wickedness, - later if not sooner - often
encouraged by demonic influences - and therefore these plans and hopes get
sabotaged and new ones must be launched. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
I presume that the focus of world Christianity was the Roman Empire and its
continuation in Constantinople then Moscow - but that God foresaw how this was
crumbling towards destruction (which actually happened, from evil choices
encouraged by demonic influences, in 1917). <br />
<br />
I believe God also supported the best manifestations of the Western breakaway
churches, including the (many) good features of the Reformation;
and including the early Church of England translations of scriptures (to
form a basis for English-speaking Christians). <br />
<br />
I also believe that God enabled and has sustained the Mormon church - and its
'timing' to emerge as so many other Christian churches in the West are
corrupting, crumbling and dying. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
The focus of Christianity has roots, but also has moved around the world; the
Holy Ghost being most active at one place at one time, and another place at
another time - especially in relation to anything which is or may become a
Christian empire.<br />
<br />
In this sense I think it likely that the USA both has been, and was meant to
become, the focus of world Christianity - at least since the apostasy and <i>de
facto</i> secularization (and then decline) of the British Empire. <br />
<br />
This kind of thing has various indices - but missionary activity is one of
them. Britain was the main source of missionaries until this 'role' was taken
over by the US - and Britain has been a major recipient of missionary activity
since the mid-20th century. <br />
<br />
But of course, the nation of the USA has not lived-up-to these hopes (although
until recent decades there was hope that it might) and has now become (and is
becoming ever more so) <i>via</i> the mass media perhaps the most significant
anti-Christian influence in the world. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
So I am sure that there is divine providence, but not destiny, nor fate -
Men may sabotage almost anything Good, if and when they choose evil; they may
also repent (since evil cannot be complete, and in Men there is always an
incorrupt residue, a fragment of Goodness, that cannot be
obliterated).<br />
<br />
While I am not sure I understand providence, neither am I convinced that other
people understand it better than me - especially when such people clearly
display hard-heartedness, lust for destruction and domination, and hatred when
discussing these matters (as do so many supposedly orthodox or traditional
'Christian' bloggers and commenters!). <br />
<br />
I am also sure that we each need to do our best to understand the broad
workings of providence - to <i>feel</i> the movement and direction
of the Holy Ghost - by the discernment of the heart; especially so as to avoid<i>
inadvertently sabotaging providence</i> by fighting against God's actual
energies, plans and hopes.<br />
<br />
**</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">As I have said before, I am by nature
a pluralist - which is why I have gravitated to Mormon theology (my take on
Mormon theology is that it is Christian pluralism). <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
One way of thinking about this is the infinite regress problem, which children
often discover for themselves.<br />
<br />
What causes <i>this</i>? Answer given: <i>this</i> is caused by <i>that</i>.
Yes but what causes <i>that</i>, and then what causes <i>that</i>... and so on,
and on... forever?<br />
<br />
An infinite regress? <br />
<br />
Well then no, not forever.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
The only thing that can stop the regress is an <i>uncaused cause</i> -
something which makes other things happen but not in response to other things
happening.<br />
<br />
Something which is an origin of action.<br />
<br />
(This is also something with free will. Free will is an uncaused cause.)<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
So... everything that happens can be traced back to an uncaused cause.<br />
<br />
But how many uncaused causes? - One, or more than one; one or many? Monism or
pluralism?<br />
<br />
To answer the question one uncaused cause, <i>versus</i> many uncaused causes,
is apparently a matter of intuition, a metaphysical assumption; undecidable on
the basis of evidence.<br />
<br />
And undecidable on the basis of Christian revelation.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Most Christians are monists and trace all causes back to one God.<br />
<br />
This leads to a problem when considering Jesus and the Holy Trinity in general.
Is Jesus an uncaused cause, or not? If so, then God is two; if not then Jesus
is just an aspect of God: inessential. This problem has not been solved by
monism (only obscured by sleight of language).<br />
<br />
Monism also leads to the problem that humans have no free will, since all
causes are traced back to God. Insofar that Jesus is essential to our
salvation, and insofar as free will is essential to Christianity, then monism
is deficient.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Pluralists like me believe there are more-than-one/ many uncaused causes; so
Jesus and the Trinity is not a problem - Father, sona and Holy ghost are all
uncaused causes; and free will is not a problem (since each humans is an
uncaused cause). <br />
<br />
But it is messy! To a monist it is unacceptably messy - it just can't be true!<br />
<br />
But a pluralist feels this is intuitively right; that reality is many not one,
that there are <i>many uncaused causes interacting, will be forever, and always
have been...</i><br />
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--></span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="2780605329708770641"></a></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">**</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Reading Old Books about Mormons</span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;"> I spent an interesting few hours looking through some old books
about Mormons which were in the collection at The Literary and Philosophical
Society of Newcastle upon Tyne - a prestigious provincial club and library
dating founded in 1793. <br />
<br />
What I found surprised me in several ways. There were plenty of books on
"The Mormons" dating from about 100 years ago - which was the first
surprise; the second surprise was how very, very strongly anti-Mormon they
were; the third surprise was the utterly outrageous things they said.<br />
<br />
The oldest account was of Lord Redesdale's visit of 1873 (published in his
Memoirs of 1915):<br />
<br />
<i>Brigham Young was all-powerful, bearing a more undisputed mastery than king
or tsar or kaiser. He was a law unto himself, and had his Vehmgericht, or
rather was also a secret court unto himself. True, there was no Folterkammer,
no eiserne Jungfrau, but those old methods were out of date ; the revolver and
the bowie-knife were swifter and as sure ; Jordan was the oubliette. There has
been some attempt to deny the existence of the Danites or Destroying Angels who
were Brigham Young's executioners. That is futile, for the men, as I can
testify, were as well known in Salt Lake City as the Prophet, and the Old Man
of the Mountain himself was not more faithfully or more bloodily served by his
hashishin than was the Lion of the Lord by his band of bravos. There were
whole-sale murders like the Mountain Meadow Massacre, but there were also other
crimes, secret murders actuated by private spite, jealousy or lust, the stories
of which are well known to those behind the scenes in Zion. It was not healthy
for a man to incur the wrath of the Prophet or of the leading Saints. It was
not conducive to long life to love a maid or wed a wife upon whom the eyes of
one of the holy ones might have fallen.</i><br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
<i>The Mystery of Mormonism</i> by Stuart Martin (1920) presents itself as a
balanced view - in between the official church history and the more sensational
anti-Mormon books.<br />
<br />
Its introduction ends like this:<br />
<br />
<i>Since Mormonism was born in that normal wood its story has been mostly
tragic, with here and there a gleam of heroism lighting up the dull, terrible
sadness of pitiful, wasted effort and misguided action. The scars of its
sufferings are plainly marked upon Mormonism ; and, if the creed is to live,
its final adjustment to the demands of the civilisation of the twentieth
century has yet to be made. The author has tried to indicate what that
adjustment demands of Mormonism, and how the finer men and women of the Church
shrink from the coming crisis. When the adjustment takes place — as it
inevitably will, though most likely by slow degrees — the Mormonism of Joseph
Smith and Brigham Young will be strangled in Utah, and the last vestige of its
abominations will disappear.</i><br />
<br />
The final word is as follows:<br />
<br />
<i>As for the religious part of Mormonism, its doom is clear. It is the
author's belief that before long it will be attacked, and it will crumble
before the attack. Its wave of fervour is nearly spent, and in the day when it
is finally attacked by its opponents this organisation, which has been a thorn
in the flesh of the great American Republic since it was founded in 1830, will
vanish as a creed. In that day Mormonism — the Mormonism which has quarrelled
with every neighbour it has had, the Mormonism the history of which is one black
page in the story of the United States — will cease to exist. Rent by internal
schisms, attacked by forces as relentless as Knowledge and as powerful as Time,
it will ultimately totter to a gaping grave ; to a tomb dug by itself. When
that day comes, the last vestige of the abominations of Mormonism, as its
founders intended it to be, will disappear from the earth, and the name of
Joseph Smith will be but the memory of a man who, in his delusion, founded a
gigantic fraud.</i><br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
That may sound pretty extreme - however <i>Brigham Young and the Mormon Empire </i>by
Frank J Cannon and George L Knapp (1913) goes even further. This has Brigham
Young engaged in wholesale castration and assassination related to his
"modern gospel of human sacrifice".<br />
<br />
That's correct: human sacrifice.<br />
<br />
After that there isn't really any further to go.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Still, the other books had their moments.<br />
<br />
I Woodbridge Riley's <i>The founder of Mormonism: a psychological study of
Joseph Smith Jr</i> (1902) has the following heading for its final section:
"Was He Demented or Merely Degenerate" (he seems to suggest both at
once).<br />
<br />
R Kauffman and RW Kauffman take a different angle in <i>The Latter Day Saints:
a study of the Mormons in the light of economic conditions</i> (1912) - they see the
Mormon phenomena from a socialistic perspective in terms of just another
instance of capitalistic exploitation, on a gigantic scale. But for the
Kauffman's that is all any religion ever is.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
If the books written <i>about</i> the Mormons were indescribably hostile and
foolish - books written by visitors to Salt Lake City tended to be very
positive.<br />
<br />
Charles B Spahr wrote an interesting account of <i>America's Working People</i>
(1899,1900) in which he visited New England, Chicago, The South and various
other places to report on conditions. He was very impressed, on the whole, by
what he saw in Salt Lake City:<br />
<br />
<i>The general level of morality is unquestionably high. Inquiry at police
headquarters confirmed the Mormon claim that the Mormon population hardly
figured at all among those arrested for crime or disorder, or among those who
ministered for gain to criminal and vicious tastes.</i><br />
<br />
<i>But the statistics were the least trustworthy signs of the high morality.
The real evidence of it was in the care for the poor, the temperance, the
thrift, and the public spirit, that were apparent.</i><br />
<br />
<i>There was, however, one point upon which the impression revived was
distinctly unfavourable, and this was the supremely important matter of sexual
morality. (...) But what I heard from frank and conscientious Mormons in
deprecation of these charges, even more than what I heard from Gentiles in
their support, convinced me that the sin of polygamy in the fathers was bearing
its fitting fruit in an epidemic of sexual immorality among the children. (...)</i><br />
<br />
<i>Nevertheless the impressions I received in the streets and from the
testimony of scandal-hating people, without regard to creed, convinced me that
sexual morality in Utah was much lower than in any other American community I
had visited, and but little higher than in Continental Europe.</i><br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
That point point about sexual morality being a <i>weak</i> point (the
one-and-only weak point) of Mormons a century ago, makes for an interesting
contrast with modern times. And it is perhaps an encouragement to modern
Mormons. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
A Church of England Priest the Rev. HW Haweis published <i>Travel Talk</i> in
1896 in which he reported on a vist to Salt Lake City of 1893:<br />
<br />
<i>...what I saw and what everyone may see spoke for itself. I saw a happy and
contented people, a clean and sanitary city (...) neat houses and prosperous
farms, well-behaved children, venerable elders, agreeable and cultivated
ladies... </i><br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
The fascinating thing is that we now know that the travellers' eye witness
accounts were correct, and the surprising numbers of people who wrote
specialist (referenced, supposedly scholarly) books about 'The Mormons' -
several of which were distributed some 5000 miles way to Newcastle upon Tyne
England - were wrong; very wrong, absurdly and wickedly wrong.<br />
<br />
This strikes me as an early example of political correctness based on and in
the mass media. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
One more matter. When I became interested in Mormonism a few years ago I got
the impression that the Mountain Meadows Massacre was something which had been
hidden and suppressed until recently; and it was an atrocity that modern
Mormons were supposedly having to come to terms with.<br />
<br />
Not so. It features in all these early anti-Mormon books and the Rev Haweis
goes so far as to remark on the "everlastingly quoted Mountain
Massacre".<br />
<br />
So, not such <i>new</i> news, after all...<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
All in all - my morning in the library confirms CS Lewis's advice on the value
of Reading Old Books. <br />
<br />
* *</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Christianity and the shape of history</span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The grand strategy of Christianity in
relation to the world is something that I find myself speculating upon from
time to time.<br />
<br />
Given the long wait of the ancient Hebrews for Messiah, it would seem that
there needed to be social preconditions for the Incarnation to stand its best
chance of achieving its goals.<br />
<br />
Because human free will is real, and Men are and were free to reject salvation;
so social conditions - specifically the state of Mens' minds - is important;
thus God must work with society, as best as may be.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
It would seem that the pagan Roman Empire provided the best chance for the
Gospel - since it was both multi-national and highly religious
(multi-religion): providing the optimal possibilities for the new faith to
spread (i.e. the best chance that many Men would <i>choose</i> Christ).<br />
<br />
It is to the credit of the many individuals who embraced Christianity under the
pagan Emperors, that the Empire swiftly became Christian with the foundation of
the Second Rome at Constantinople.<br />
<br />
The Christian Roman Empire endured for over a thousand years; after which a
Third Rome (self-consciously so) emerged in Moscow - to end utterly in 1917.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Always it seems that God works to spread his Gospel; and Empire is one way this
may happen - but only if Men will it.<br />
<br />
Many Empires have arisen in Christendom, and it is as-if some were hoped, or
perhaps intended, to become the site of the Fourth Rome and a new Christian
Roman Empire.<br />
<br />
Medieval and modern Western Europe as a whole had opportunities, but in the end
Men chose schism and warfare over the possibility of Christian Empire; and the
individual states rejected Christianity as the focus of their societies, hence
incipient Empires were not <i>primarily</i> Christian and missionary, but at
best the Gospel would follow-behind commercial and military priorities. <br />
<br />
Perhaps Madrid, or Paris, or Amsterdam, or London, or Berlin was meant to be a
Fourth Rome - but no, it did not happen.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, a New World was found; and North America became a focus of Christian
hopes, then a place where the ground was prepared by phases of revival.<br />
<br />
Perhaps there was the divine intention of a North American Christian empire
with Philadelphia as the Fourth Rome?<br />
<br />
But the US people <i>en masse</i>, as a whole, chose otherwise; and descended
into civil war, materialism, another civil war, and modernity.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
The emergence of Mormonism was another chance, with great possibilities and
remarkable achievements emerging rapidly and very obvious - but the national
response was instead to seek <i>extermination </i>of the budding movement;
again, and again, and again.<br />
<br />
Extermination of the Mormon religion was the national, indeed, international,
choice of Men.<br />
<br />
The policy of extermination failed in that objective; but the policy
nonetheless successfully prevented what might, perhaps, have become a Mormon
Empire; with Salt Lake City emerging as the Fourth Rome. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Behind all this I imagine Jesus Christ working tirelessly to expand the
possibilities of spreading His Gospel - often aiming at the 'ideal' of a
Christian Empire - a Fourth Rome, a Third Byzantium; but always, necessarily,
working <i>via</i> the free choices of Men.<br />
<br />
Also, I imagine the workings of His Adversary Satan and his minions; also
tireless in his spreading of lies, encouragement of hatred, selfishness,
short-termism; destruction of beauty and virtue...<br />
<br />
...focusing his destructive efforts often on any budding hopes of Christian
Empire...<br />
<br />
...aiming to subvert, destroy and invert; aiming to infiltrate and convert any
existing Good Empire into a Demonic Empire.<br />
<br />
(...such as The West has now become - reaching-out internationally to attack
Good, to destabilize and foment civil violence and war. The demonic Empire of
the West may seem to be a failure - and by conventional military standards it
surely is - but in the past fifteen years it has triumphantly succeeded in
facilitating, enabling and concealing the torment and killing of millions of
Christians worldwide; especially in the Middle East and Africa. Clearly, at
some level, that is its primary strategy.) <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
It really is much, much easier (requires less time, effort, resources) to
destroy than to create order.<br />
<br />
It is easier to pursue short-term and selfish goals than to love patiently.<br />
<br />
Hence Good is always swimming against the stream of natural resistance.<br />
<br />
In the end, the prophecies are of utter failure, <i>on this earth</i> - with
destruction of the world.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
This world is doomed as surely as Ragnarok seemed inevitable to the Norse
pagans; and the Giants of disorder and destruction shall eventually triumph
despite the courage of the heroes.<br />
<br />
Yet Ragnarok will be (and is being) delayed; for so long as fresh souls are
being saved. <br />
<br />
Ragnarok <i>will</i> happen, the pagans were correct about that; but Christians
know there is another and better world to come after Ragnarok - and that makes
all the difference.<br />
<br />
* *</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Mother in Heaven</span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">One of the values of having a
metaphysical stance which includes the possibility of <b>It Just Is</b> as an
acceptable <i>terminus</i> to the demand for causal explanation - is that
it ends the infinite regress, and the problems which that brings with it.<br />
<br />
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: normal;"><a href="http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/three-ultimate-metaphysical.html"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="color: #473624;">http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/three-ultimate-metaphysical.html</span></span></a></span></span><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<br />
*<br />
<br />
The Mormon belief is that we are in some literal sense the children of
God. then there is the fact that on earth children are produced by two parents.
Further, the Mormon doctrine is that all Men are either male or female
from before mortal life - and the complete unity of Man is therefore the dyad -
a <i>couple</i> sealed in eternal marriage.<br />
<br />
Considered together, all these tend to imply that God the Father must also have
a 'consort' specifically a Wife, and also a Father and Mother in infinite
regress. <br />
<br />
God's wife is termed Mother in Heaven. <br />
<br />
</span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: normal;"><a href="http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Mother_in_Heaven" target="_blank"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="color: #473624; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Mother_in_Heaven</span></span></a></span><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<br />
*<br />
<br />
I would classify the belief in a Mother in Heaven as (on the whole) mostly a
'folk' belief among Mormons because it is not <i>required</i> of Mormons, and
there is virtually nothing on the topic (explicitly) in Mormon scriptures, and
the belief in a Mother in Heaven has from not-much to zero impact on the major
aspects of Mormon life and discourse. <br />
<br />
On the other hand, belief in a Mother in Heaven is not ruled-out by
LDS authorities (as the linked entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism makes
clear) - and the reality of a Mother in Heaven has apparently been a belief
held by Presidents and other General Authorities (including, probably,
Joseph Smith - if the King Follett discourse is regarded as definitive
rather than speculative thinking-aloud). <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
The Mormon belief in a Mother in Heaven is therefore not so much a matter of
revelation or teaching, as a matter of the logical extrapolation of <i>implicit</i>
doctrine. <br />
<br />
<i>If</i> the principle of parenthood is taken to be universal, <i>then</i>
every person must have two parents - including God the Father - <i>ergo</i> God
must have a Wife , and must have been the Son of another God. <br />
<br />
But the principle of parenthood need not apply to God the Father. <br />
<br />
If God the Father Just Is - eternally; then he may also be:<br />
<br />
1. The unique instance of a parentless personage; and also <br />
<br />
2. The unique example of a being neither male nor female, but one who <i>alone</i>
is able to procreate spiritual children. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Indeed, if these two things are accepted as part of primary reality (they
Just Are); then this disposes of almost all the most significant arguments that
Mormons are not-Christian. <br />
<br />
Because such a God is the One God - past, present and future; He is
primary, unique, eternal, unbegotten, Father of all - and so on. <br />
<br />
In sum, God the Father is not just the one God of this universe, but the one
God of all reality - and He is unique in his Nature.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
To assume that God the Father Just Is also disposes of any <i>necessity</i> for
positing a Mother in Heaven.<br />
<br />
My impression is that the Mother in Heaven is a long way from being central to
Mormon doctrine - since it is possible to go for months, or even years, of
reading books, articles, theology and journalism about Mormonism and not
to come across any reference to Mother in Heaven: indeed, to forget about the
idea altogether...<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
My interpretation is that some Mormons have been led, by their metaphysical
assumptions concerning the universality of sex and parenthood, to generate
theological modifications including infinite-regress of parents (and universes)
and a Wife for God the Father - but these additions have made very little
(if any) difference to the actual 'popular' daily beliefs and practices of most
devout Mormons. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
In this respect, it seems that the Mormon Mother in Heaven has developed in a
manner opposite to the Roman Catholic conception of the Blessed Virgin
Mary - Mother of God. <br />
<br />
In the Catholic tradition, the veneration of Mary was first established in the <i>popular</i>
everyday practice of liturgy, prayer, iconography, art and devotional life
generally - and only later, sometimes many centuries later - were theological
modifications (e.g. the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception) introduced to
justify and explain these practices.<br />
<br />
So the Catholic Mother of God was venerated in practice primarily and
long before theory; while the Mormon Mother in Heaven seems to be mostly
(for most people) a projection of theological theory; and not much (or at
all) venerated in practice. <br />
<br />
* *</span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Wives and husbands – to submit or to complement?</span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Traditional Mainstream Christians
(Protestants and Catholics) tend to insist that in a marriage the
wife should "submit" to her husband - that specific word <i>submit </i>is
used a lot.<br />
<br />
By contrast, Mormons (who are - let's be honest - the experts on marriage and
family in the modern world, and who are free-er of the taint of liberalism/
leftism/ feminism than most other Christian denominations) say the following:
<br />
<br />
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><i><span style="background: white; color: #39362d; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">By divine design,
fathers are to <b>preside </b>over their families in love and righteousness and
are responsible to provide<b> </b>the <b>necessities of life and protection</b>
for their families.</span></i><span style="color: #29303b; font-size: 12pt;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span></span><i><span style="background: white; color: #39362d; font-size: 12pt;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
Mothers are primarily responsible for the <b>nurture of their children</b>. </span></span></i><span style="color: #29303b; font-size: 12pt;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span></span><i><span style="background: white; color: #39362d; font-size: 12pt;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one
another <b>as equal partners</b>.</span></span></i><span style="color: #29303b; font-size: 12pt;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span></span><i><span style="background: white; color: #39362d; font-size: 12pt;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual
adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.</span></span></i><span style="color: #29303b; font-size: 12pt;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span></span><span style="background: white; color: #39362d; font-size: 12pt;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-size: 12pt;">From <b>The Family - a proclamation
to the world</b>:<br />
<br />
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><a href="http://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="color: #473624;">http://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation</span></span></a></span></span><span style="color: #29303b; font-size: 12pt;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<br />
*<br />
<br />
I think Mormons are absolutely correct to emphasize complementarity of distinct
domains within the 'standard' marriage rather than dominance-submission.<br />
<br />
In any specific domain one or other sex has the responsibility; but neither has
overall dominance; neither is overall required to submit. <br />
<br />
(Complementarity of husband and wife is, of course, a fundamental part of
Mormon theology; in that husband and wife both <i>need each other</i> for
optimal theosis and progression to the highest Heaven or celestial kingdom.
Also, note the important supplementary passage on the contingent need for<i>
individual adaptation</i>.)<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
And this difference within marriage corresponds to my observation that Mormon
women have a large, important and distinct role in the LDS church; while, by
contrast, among traditional Mainstream Christians (such as conservative
evangelicals) women typically have a very subordinate, less essential and
indistinct role in the church - defined by exclusion and patronage - rather
than an 'of right' complementarity.<br />
<br />
Both the CJCLDS and traditional Mainstream Christians are <i>patriarchal </i>religions
- but to formulate this in terms of 'submission' creates (I believe) a false,
and sometimes hazardous, tendency for Christianity to collapse into the pattern
of its most formidable rival - a patterns which is goes against the grain of
Christianity's fundamental nature.<br />
<br />
This tendency of traditional mainstream Christianity <i>institutionally </i>to
marginalize women can be resisted, and often it has been and is resisted; but
the tendency remains because it is theologically rooted.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
NOTE: In the above passage from the Proclamation, I dislike the use of the word
'equal' because equal, in practice, gets to mean sameness; and the sexes are
not the same - they just are complementary.<br />
<br />
**<br />
<br />
FURTHER NOTE: The mistake people make in this (and other) matters regarding
complementarity is that they look for <i>symmetry</i>. In fact, complementarity
is necessary precisely because of the <i>lack</i> of symmetry.<br />
<br />
The primary thing about family (for Mormons) is motherhood, which can be
defined quickly, simply, single word. Fatherhood is secondary and needs more
words to describe. Women are (in essence) mothers, (worthy) men are priests -
but motherhood and priesthood are not symmetrical. Very obviously not!<br />
<br />
(For Mormons) Healthy women just are mothers, but men must be worthy to be
priests. In the church the priesthood is primary, in the family motherhood is primary
- but not in the same way. The priesthood and Relief society (the women's
organization) are complementary in the church, but not symmetrical - and the
priesthood is primary.<br />
<br />
In Catholic Christianity celibacy is primary, men are primary - because men are
priests. Motherhood comes below celibacy, and celibate female religious are not
necessary. The church is necessary for salvation - but only men are necessary
to the church: therefore women are not (religiously) necessary to Catholics. <br />
<br />
In traditional Protestant denominations, the family comes above celibacy, but
men dominate the family and the church alike, in a symmetrical fashion; because
men are always the leaders and women must always submit (whatever the
circumstances). In religious terms, men and women are individuals and
equivalent in value. Women are not religiously necessary, but neither are men,
except in the church - but (for Protestants) the church is not necessary.<br />
<br />
And in Christianity's most formidable rival something similar prevails: all men
submit to God, men have duties of worship, all women submit to all men, women
are not religiously necessary.<br />
<br />
Only in Mormonism are both men and women necessary and also the church
necessary; but not to salvation, only to the higher levels of theosis. </span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">**</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">How Mormons looks to Mainstream Christians is
pretty much how Mainstream Christians look to secular culture</span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Given that mainstream Leftist secular
culture is so obviously bankrupt - intellectually, artistically, and especially
morally; given that mainstream secular culture is filled with despair - so very
obviously engaged in ever-more frenzied distraction and intoxication - a
society without hope, without purpose, without meaning - self-hating and
suicidal - attaining motivation only in self-righteous hatred...<br />
<br />
<i>Given all this</i>, Mainstream real Christians often find it hard to
understand why secular society, secular people, don't simply <i>admit their
failure and turn back to religion</i> - but instead adopt an ever-more hostile
and ridiculing attitude to Christianity.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
To understand this, Mainstream real Christians might reflect on their own
attitude to Mormonism - the <i>a priori </i>negativity, the wilful ignorance,
the prevailing attitude of incredulity, hostility and ridicule. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Secular people see Christian beliefs through negative spectacles, as merely
ridiculous - childish, absurd, wishful thinking, arbitrary stuff conjured out
of nothing with zero evidence: actually <i>embarrassing</i>.<br />
<br />
For seculars, it is not a matter of Christians being wrong 'on balance', or
them having some validity but but more wrong than right - Christianity is
simply bizarre.<br />
<br />
Secular people find it incomprehensible that any sane and intelligent person
could believe the <i>utter nonsense</i> that Christians believe.<br />
<br />
Therefore, it is inferred that Christians are neither sane nor intelligent, and
logically must be treated as idiots or lunatics - capable of doing great harm
(if given the chance) - and therefore, necessarily, people who <i>ought</i> to
be excluded from all positions of power, responsibility or influence (including
parenthood). <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Against this, actual Christian behaviour is irrelevant - how Christians <i>actually</i>
behave in the real world is completely and totally irrelevant.<br />
<br />
It does not matter one jot whether actual Christians are generally nice to
seculars, have (overall) better ethics, make better neighbours, are more
fertile, have stronger marriages, are more charitable, are happier, more
hopeful, more motivated and find their lives meaningful. <br />
<br />
What Christians actually<i> do</i> in real life and personal experience makes <i>not
the slightest difference</i> - because, 'unfortunately' from the secular
perspective Christians are cringe-inducing idiots and lunatics, <i>who believe
nonsense for no reason</i> - and people like that (obviously!) need to be
watched and cannot be trusted.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
And (<i>mutatis mutandis</i>) it is much the same for Mainstream Christians
with respect to Mormons.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
So, if Mainstream Christians struggle to comprehend why it is that they are
damned-if-they-do and damned-if-they-don't by secular culture; why despite all
attempts of all kinds, they have zero impact on Mainstream attitudes - they
merely need to <i>look within</i>: look at their own attitudes to the Mormon
church.<br />
<br />
As Mainstream Christians find Mormonism to be merely a mixture of fraud,
gullibility, oppression, cultic manipulation, wishful-thinking - and sinister
ulterior purpose - <i>that </i>is how <i>you</i> look to the secular world (in
so far as you are devout real Christians).<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Christianity is judged not by results, but by its assumed-intent; not by
(overall) behaviour, but by a negatively-framed and selected perception of its
ideology and the - possible, inferred - consequences of that
perceived-ideology.<br />
<br />
The more that Christians succeed in living Good lives, the more that secular
culture sees the results as a product of weird, zombie-like fanaticism.
<br />
<br />
Mainstream real Christian: Consider how Mormons look to you; that is pretty
much how <i>you </i>look to secular people.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Mainstream Christians <i>must</i> strive to lead good lives, of course; but
should not suppose that doing so will have a <i>political</i> effect, should
not suppose that being good Christians will bring secular culture even one
millimetre closer to repentance and conversion.<br />
<br />
Even if mainstream Christian denominations succeeded in living as well as the
best Mormons - and they have a long way to go to achieve this - then they could
not expect that this would have any greater effect on secular culture than the
exemplary qualities of Mormon life have had on Mainstream Christianity.<br />
<br />
The root problem with modernity is not (real) Christians' behaviour and
attitudes to secular culture; but the opposite. And this may be something that
Christians cannot fix.<br />
<br />
It may, indeed, be something that is unfixable - as was so often the case in
the Old Testament (or, for that matter, <i>The Book of Mormon</i>).
<br />
<br />
**</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Evidential basis of the Book of Mormon</span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">In a nutshell, I regard the matter of
the <i>evidential nature</i> of the <i>Book of Mormon</i> (BoM) as a microcosm
of the nature of Mormonism, which is itself a microcosm of Christianity. <br />
<br />
That is to say <i>there is evidence on both sides</i> - evidence that the Book
of Mormon is true - in the sense of being what it says it is; and other
evidence that it is <i>not</i> true.<br />
<br />
So that there are grounds for belief and also grounds to reject belief - and
ultimately there is a choice to be made. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
As Terryl Givens has said, the whole way that the production, the existence, of
the Book of Mormon explains itself, and the way the BoM was explained-by Joseph
Smith - with such concrete exactness and wealth of specific detail (the size,
weight, location of the gold plates, the instruments of translation, the
convoluted history of the visitations and manuscript etc.) presents a stark
dichotomy: either such an elaborate and concrete story is basically true (with
some inevitable human errors and distortions), or it is an elaborate and
deliberate fraud (a fiction grossly elaborated from a mere handful of
unremarkable facts). <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
And - because the BoM is the root and basis of the LDS church, the same
argument applies to Mormonism - it is either essentially what it says
it is, or else an elaborate and deliberate fraud.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
The evidence is not all on one side, there is a significant balance of
evidence; not equal balance - whatever that would mean - but the mass of
unbelievers cannot accurately or honestly say there is nothing (or nothing
significant) to be said in favour of the reality of the BoM and Mormonism
itself; nor can Mormons accurately or honestly state that the evidence for the
book and the faith is overwhelming and could only be rejected irrationally or
maliciously. <br />
<br />
Even those who conclude that the BoM is a fraud cannot legitimately claim it is
an <i>obvious</i> fraud; even those who claim the BoM is the most important
book in the world cannot legitimately claim that its production and nature are
transparently and compellingly consistent with that status. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Furthermore, I feel that - <i>at this point in history and in The West</i> -
the situation for Christianity is closely analogous to Mormonism. <br />
<br />
CS Lewis put this crisply (although I would qualify his statement a little)
when he said that Jesus Christ can only be regarded as either what he said he
was; or else a deliberate fraud or insane. <br />
<br />
My qualification is that the idea of Christ being <i>insane</i> is not much
more plausible than that Joseph Smith was insane: considered as <i>men</i>
(because those who deny the divinity of Christ regard him as a man) both
functioned at far too high a level to be truly insane.<br />
<br />
Those who regard Jesus as insane are required to believe that Christianity was
fabricated by the Apostles - who would have had to be men of genius (and John
and Paul certainly were); those who regard Joseph Smith as insane would be
required to believe something similar - that Joseph Smith was surrounded by
geniuses who did the <i>real</i> work of writing the BoM, devising a radically
new theology, devising and organizing a new kind of church and so on -
attributing the heavy lifting to the likes of Sidney Rigdon, Brigham Young and
perhaps Parley Pratt and with Joseph Smith as a charismatic, inspired but
unwitting and crazed 'front' for these covert operations. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
So, in both instances it comes down to elaborate and deliberate fraud versus
truth.<br />
<br />
And neither mainstream Christians nor Mormons should be offended by
hypothetical fraudulent explanations of their churches - since <i>fraud is the
only intellectually rigorous explanation for not believing</i>.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Now, of course, there is no reason why a Christian who has faith in the
self-claimed divinity of Christ and is certain that Jesus was not a fraud;
there is no reason why such a person is in any way compelled by consistency (or
the similarity of the cases) to believe that 'therefore' the self-claim
of Joseph Smith that he was a prophet was genuine.<br />
<br />
It is logically possible that Jesus was genuine and Joseph Smith was a fraud.
(Which is, of course, the mainstream Christian view.) And the opposite (i.e. JS
genuine and JC a fraud) is <i>not</i> possible - because the fraudulence of
Christ would invalidate all of Joseph Smith's visionary and prophetic claims. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
BUT the evidential position for Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith is similar <i>to
the modern mind</i>, using evidence we have today and with that evidence
regarded as we regard it today: which is to say <i>there is reasonable and plausible
evidence on both sides</i> of the question, and that the ultimate decision of
truth or fraud must be a choice and a matter of faith, intuition, inspiration,
personal conviction.<br />
<br />
<i>The evidence does not decide the question for us</i> - we must necessarily
choose and we must know that we are doing the choosing; and yet we will (like
it or like it not) believe and live by our choice; because upon our choice
hinges the basic frame and understanding of our future life - our basic motivation
and sense of purpose.<br />
<br />
(Or, alternatively, our state of essential nihilism - characterized by
underlying alienation, incomprehension and demotivation.) <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
I think Mormons are considerably more aware of this reality of modern existence
as both <i>consciously chosen and yet believed with certainty</i> than are
Mainstream Christians - and that this is one of the strengths of Mormonism. <br />
<br />
**</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">A back-story to Mormon cosmology</span></b></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-size: 12pt;"></span></b><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">I find that my compulsive
philosophizing has generated a fairly complex schema to account for what I
regard as the major facts of existence: the basic components of reality.<br />
<br />
In a nutshell I am trying to explain Mormon cosmology here: I am trying to
flesh-out the 'back story'. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Initially there is matter, laws of nature - including moral laws, there is God
(the Father) (and perhaps a Heavenly Mother, I'm not sure: either God is the
one entity without sex, or the duality and incompleteness of sex are universal
facts, and the basis of all action and movement and purpose)<br />
<br />
...and there are individual (but not personalized) essences of agency, which
are differentiated by sex (i.e. male and female agents). <br />
<br />
At this point in history, only God has agency <i>and</i> free will - plus many
other great primordial powers and attributes. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
That is the set-up. The assumptions. This is what JUST IS.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
So we have an eternal pre-existence, eternal autonomy as pre-persons - but at
that point we had no self-awareness, and no capacity for free will - no
capacity to act.<br />
<br />
God wanted to have children, he wanted to raise-up these children to become
friends, eternal companions, allies in living... <br />
<br />
Why? Either because he was alone and lonely; or because he was an incomplete
half and eternally accompanied by a Heavenly Mother - such that the <i>basic
dynamic</i> of the universe is to seek completeness in celestial marriage and
the loving company of children, and therefore to raise these children to the
same maturity as their parents. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
When we became children of our Heavenly Father, our agency was additionally
endowed with conscious self-awareness and the capacity to choose and act - free
will. <br />
<br />
At that point we became disembodied spirits (spirit children)<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
So we <i>began</i> as an eternally pre-existent, unaware, tiny and helpless,
but <i>autonomous</i>, individual flame; to which (at some point in time) God <i>added</i>
the divine flame with consciousness and the ability to act - and we embarked
upon a spiritual existence.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
When we chose to come to earth and live this mortal and incarnate life, we did
this by earthly parents - so as we are born as mortals we have three sources of
'fire':<br />
<br />
1. The individual eternal flame of agency. Unique to us.<br />
<br />
(<i>This</i> is the reason why we have genuine and inviolable autonomy and are
not merely aspects of God. This is why we are of the same kind as God - we
share this basis. )<br />
<br />
2. The divine flame - shared with God and with all God's children. This is the
reason why all Men are brothers and sisters.<br />
<br />
3. A family flame, blended from the individual flames of our earthly
parents.<br />
<br />
To this is added personal experience, as a consequence of our choices, the
choices of others, and the 'physical' constraints of earthly life. <br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
So we are compounded of these - we are unique individuals, and we are embedded
in relationships as Sons and Daughters of God, Family members, and a product of
our choices and chances including friendships and broader human society (maybe
Churches). <br />
<br />
Our purpose is <i>theosis</i>, to become like God: starting from our shared
essence with God to build upon this and to progress through incremental stages
of learning and experience; we are now in the midst of this process - being
incarnate mortals with avast history behind us including pre-mortal spiritual
existence - and an eternity before us of post-mortal first spiritual then
resurrected existence. <br />
<br />
And this process is <i>foundationally relational</i>, although we are indeed
individuals and intriniscally different from every other individual - we are
embedded in relationships: the relationships by virtue of sharing in the status
of being God's children, and also additional between-human family
relationships.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
More than this, the very movement, purpose and direction of reality depends
upon sexual differentiation - upon there being men and women neither of whom
are complete humans: the only complete human is a man and woman united,
eternally sealed, but this unity is internally structured: is of its nature
both dyadic and dynamic.<br />
<br />
Sexuality and its union in marriage, and its seeking fulfilment in children and
families bound by love, is what makes the universe <i>go</i>.<br />
<br />
**</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Note by Scribble – a micro-story</span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">There once was a wizard – in fact a
failed wizard.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">He was capable of magic, but as a
matter of fact actually did none, nor had he ever in his whole life done any
magic – although he talked about it a lot.</span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">So, he was not really a wizard at all
– because, at the very least, a wizard must be able to do magic – even if he
never actually does magic (for one reason or another).</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">*</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">This not-wizard was called Scribble
and he lived in a world where, officially, nobody could do magic for the simple
reason that magic did not exist – or so the officials said. Therefore anyone
who claimed to be a wizard was actually a not-wizard.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">This meant that all real wizards were
regarded as not-wizards – but the trouble was that there were several other
kinds of not-wizard. Some were real wizards who did real magic; others were
like Scribble – not-wizards who would have been magic wizards if only they had
been properly instructed, but in this world there was nobody to instruct them
(or, at least, nobody who would or could instruct them).</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">But there were also crazy-non-wizards
and fake-non-wizards. The difference was that crazy-non-wizards believed that
they were wizards but they were not; while fake-non-wizards knew they were not
wizards, but wanted other people to believe that they were.</span></span><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">*</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Scribble’s natural magic was indeed
very weak, although it was perfectly real. Even under the best possible
conditions, with the best possible teachers, he would never have been a Great
Wizard, nor even an average wizard.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">He would have been one of those minor wizards who fetch and carry, run
messages, look up technical details, copy out magic books and the like. And the
fact is that he would not have been very good even at that kind of basic work.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Yet he was not without talent. He had
a magical gift, however it was not a magical gift that was much valued by the
non-magic – and indeed it was not very impressive; although perhaps it should
have been valued a bit more than it was.</span></span><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">*</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Scribble couldn’t actually <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">do</i>
anything very well, but he was instead a kind of seer; that is to say a see-er,
and that is someone who sees what other people can’t.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">But, even here, Scribble was not the
kind of seer who attracts plum jobs with kings or warlords. Because Scribble
could not see into the future, which is what most people want seers to do.
Indeed he could not even see into the past, but only into the present.<br />
<br />
And for most people, in fact everybody who Scribble ever met, seeing into the
present just didn’t count as magic, they thought it was useless (even if it was
true, which they doubted) because (they reasoned): Who needs magic, who needs a
seer, to see what is in front of them and all around them?</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">*</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Because he was a seer but had not
developed his magic, Scribble made notes. He went around taking notes – people
thought it was a diary or journal, but it wasn’t even that! Anyone who looked
at Scribble's notes saw something too incomplete to be a diary and
insufficiently detailed to be a journal...</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">These 'notes' were not usually about
Scribble himself, his thoughts and opinions (which would not have interested
most people, but would at least have been understandable), yet neither were the
notes about the surrounding world (which might have been interesting to some
future historian) – they were apprently random. Little snippets about this and
about that.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Some seemed irrelevant, some seemed
very obviously wrong – but there were a few, a very few, which were actually
important; or perhaps a better word is significant. They might have been very
useful to certain people at certain points in their lives, if only they had
known about them, if only they had been interested enough to find them… but
that would have been like looking for a needle in a haystack!</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">*</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In the end, Scribble died, and all
his notes were left behind – as was the plan from long ago.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">And he found himself in a far off
land where he met his big brother, who was extremely solid and bright – and it
was only at this point that Scribble realized that he himself was <i>not</i>
solid and bright, but instead rather like a wisp of smoke!<br />
<br />
He also <i>felt</i> very different than in the old country. Scribble realized
that now he could perceive things very clearly indeed, and in particular he
remembered some extremely important things which he had almost completely
forgotten.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">At any rate, his big brother was very
kind – how wonderful it was to meet <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">him</i>
again! – and BB instructed Scribble in his new duties.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">It turned-out that Scribble's notes
might have some use after all. It turned-out that a 'Note by Scribble' was a
thing of some value; at least if discovered by the right person at the right
time and in the right circumstances...</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">*</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Scribble had a job in going back to
that place where he used to live, and delivering ‘notes’ to particular people
at particular moments when they <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">might</i>
(if taken notice of) be very helpful to them, especially when they had
asked for something of the sort.</span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Nothing very spectacular; nothing
like being one of the big brother’s wise men or strategists or healers, but
certainly a useful job: a job that needed doing.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">*</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">All this was excellent, except that –
being a mere wisp of smoke – Scribble found it hard to learn, and couldn’t
actually <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">do</i> very much. He had to rely
on other people for a lot. But, on the other hand, he knew what he knew, and
could do what he could do, and there were plenty of people of various types who
were more than willing to do for him those things he could not do for himself.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">*<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Later, Scribble was given a new body.
This had long been promised, and Scribble didn’t have to earn it – but he
needed to wait until things had been finished in the old country.</span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Now they <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">were</i> finished, and all sorts of new plans were afoot, and Scribble
needed a new body to do a new and somewhat different job: a more demanding
job, indeed; a job that took more out of him, but which he found more
rewarding.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">It had taken a long time – or so it
seemed; and matters had been delayed more than ideally they might have been;
but Scribble had grown. He found he could learn more rapidly and more securely
than ever before.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">*<br />
<br />
Life opened out before him!<br />
<br />
Now: his first task before starting the job was to look for that lady he once
had known and loved, but had somehow lost touch with some time ago.<br />
<br />
She was here somewhere, he knew.<br />
<br />
He had another chance.<br />
<br />
And this time, he hoped, things might work out even better than they worked out
before. Scribble had - after all - learned something.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">**</span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></span></div>
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Note: This micro-story came to me in a lump after brooding on JRR Tolkien's
wonderful allegory <i>Leaf by Niggle.</i> Aside from literary quality and
length, one difference is that Tolkien's is on the theme of Roman Catholic
theology, incorporating purgatory etc; while <i>Note by Scribble</i> is a
Mormon allegory.</span></span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: x-normal; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">**</span></span></div>
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">Metaphysical implications of the Mormon belief in Heavenly Mother/ </span></span></h3>
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">Mother in Heaven</span></span></h3>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">I have previously written (above) about the Mormon belief
in a Heavenly Mother or Mother in Heaven who is God's wife, and mother
to all his spirit children (including you and I).</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">I
have continued to read and meditate on this matter - and have been
convinced that a belief in Heavenly Mother is more than just a 'folk
belief' as I had supposed, but is pretty-much canonical in the CJCLDS. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">This study of authoritative sources by was what finally convinced me: </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><a href="https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=8669&linkURL=50.1PaulsenPulidoMother-482bf17d-bbc5-4530-a7cc-c1a1b7e5b079.pdf">https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=8669&amp;linkURL=50.1PaulsenPulidoMother-482bf17d-bbc5-4530-a7cc-c1a1b7e5b079.pdf</a></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span class="mw-headline" id="David_L._Paulsen_and_Martin_Pulido.2C.22.22A_Mother_There.22:_A_Survey_of_Historical_Teachings_about_Mother_in_Heaven.22.2C_BYU_Studies.2C_50.2F1_.282011.29" style="font-size: normal;">David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido,<a class="external text" href="https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=8669&linkURL=50.1PaulsenPulidoMother-482bf17d-bbc5-4530-a7cc-c1a1b7e5b079.pdf" rel="nofollow">""A Mother There": A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother in Heaven"</a>, <i>BYU Studies</i>, 50/1 (2011)</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span class="mw-headline" style="font-size: normal;">*</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span class="mw-headline" style="font-size: normal;">The
reality of a Heavenly Mother has, naturally, many profound metaphysical
- as well as theological and practical - consequences.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span class="mw-headline" style="font-size: normal;">It
should be noted that the reality of a Heavenly Mother seems to be
asserted mostly on the grounds of authoritative revelation; but also on
'logical' grounds that since gender - being either a man or a woman - is
a fundamental, pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal reality for humans; and
since humans are made in the image of God and are of the same 'kind'; it
would make sense if this principle extended to God. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span class="mw-headline" style="font-size: normal;">*</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span class="mw-headline" style="font-size: normal;">The
matter of 'where did God come from?' is often answered by Mormons in
terms of an infinite regress: our God was once a mortal man who was
spirit child of another God - and so on. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span class="mw-headline" style="font-size: normal;">(This is monotheist in the sense that there is but one God <i>for us - relevant to us, in our part of total reality;</i> and these other Gods have absolutely nothing to do with us <i>at all</i> - except as a source of our God). </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span class="mw-headline" style="font-size: normal;">*</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span class="mw-headline" style="font-size: normal;">But another way to answer the question of the origin of God is that <i>He always was</i>. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span class="mw-headline" style="font-size: normal;">This is what I believe (or what I <i>choose</i>
to believe - since metaphysics are essentially a matter of choice, and
stand behind Christian doctrine and not necessarily affecting or
affected by it). </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span class="mw-headline" style="font-size: normal;">So,
if God always was; was God the creator, the originator of Mother in
Heaven? This would mean that God was the (one and only?) exception to
the rule that gender is primary and fundamental - because on this model,
God had either no gender or contained both genders. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span class="mw-headline" style="font-size: normal;">Or was our Heavenly Mother also eternal - was She always? So that God the Father and Heavenly Mother are <i>coeval</i> and were always divine? </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span class="mw-headline" style="font-size: normal;">*</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span class="mw-headline" style="font-size: normal;">In other words, since the Mormon understanding of divinity is <i>within</i>
an also-existing universe with laws and realities within-which God
operates; the question is whether eternity contained 'the universe' and <i>one</i> God (without gender) - from whom Mother in Heaven later arose in some way?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span class="mw-headline" style="font-size: normal;">Or did eternity contain 'the universe' and <i>two</i> Gods - one male and one female? </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span class="mw-headline" style="font-size: normal;">I
choose to believe the second: that there is no exception to the rule
that gender is primary and fundamental to Man - so Heavenly Mother was
coeval with God the Father: they existed as divinities from eternity. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span class="mw-headline" style="font-size: normal;">*</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span class="mw-headline" style="font-size: normal;">Note:
What about the rest of us? Did we not too exist from eternity? Yes we
did - that seems necessary to explain the reality of free will/ autonomy
and also evil. However we were individual essences or
potentialities with no 'powers'. But only God the Father and Heavenly
Mother were divine. They took these essences and we became their
children - divine children. The plan of Happiness/ Plan of Salvation is
the very long term hope and intention that at least some of us
children will choose-to learn-to become 'adult divinities' (if I may put
it that way) like to God the Father and Heavenly Mother. Just as
earthly children may mature, grow and learn to become like their earthly
parents; always children of their parents but now children who are also
- in addition - friends. It is a yearning for loving friends to <i>share</i>
their universe which motivated God the Father and Heavenly Mother to
embark on the extraordinarily complex, contingent, risky and painful
plan of salvation and happiness. Within the constraints of our universe
it is, apparently, the <i>only</i> way for us to achieve divinity -
although we are free to reject the plan, and to reject progress towards
divinity and to stop at any point in the path to full God-hood. Speaking
<i>personally</i>, I am at this point too selfishly daunted by the idea
of suffering the empathic pain intrinsic to full divine parenthood to
want to aspire to the highest possible theosis - and would hope to stop
somewhere short of that state. But in the course of eternity no doubt
this may change. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span class="mw-headline" style="font-size: normal;">**</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">(Theme continued...) </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">Male and female roles are not symmetrical but instead of a <i>different nature</i>, different in nature the one from the other.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">The
way the complementarity of the sexes is (in contrast) usually (but
misleadingly) described is a very 'masculine' way (suitable to public
discourse, by analogy with societal policy arrangements) - for instance
that The Man is 'in charge of' X and The Woman 'in charge of Y' (e.g.
the idea that Woman is in charge of House and Family, and Man ICH The
Family Economy and Foreign Policy) - but this never rings true, even
with respect to humans.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">And even less so with gods -
since any such division seems to invite unification as one being; just
as any 'division of powers' tends to collapse into a unity of power. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">*</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">But if the reality is that <i>the complementarity is of natures and qualities</i> rather than domains of jurisdiction, then that seems closer to reality for humans, and more comprehensible for deities.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">If
one being is of a certain nature and another being of a different and
complementary nature - then these natures cannot be united in a single
being - because they are incompatible.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">*</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">If
you think of the character of the ideal mother and the character of the
ideal father - these two simply cannot be combined in a single being;
because many of the perfections of the one are opposed to the other.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">(Just think of actual examples of the best of good families - if you know any.) </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">A
hybrid mother-father is not, in fact, a combination of mother and
father but necessarily something else altogether (most likely an
averaged compromise - inferior to either individually; or something
which oscillates from one to the other nature - and therefore partakes
of the inhuman).</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">*</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">This argument is simply at the level of common sense and common experience. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">An androgynous being does not combine the man and woman but is an intermediate average; and neither does a hermaphrodite.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">There is, in fact, nothing that combines the male and female in a full and real sense.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">*</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">So,
in trying to understand, define, formulate ideas about Mother in Heaven
- I think we must beware of trying to impose quantitative symmetries
which would not be applicable to earthly humans.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">An
analogy would be a Great Man - a great political or religious leader, a
great creative genius - someone who had personally vastly influenced
public life ... Imagine (as sometimes happens) that the Great Man always
insists, and with perfect truth, that 'I owe it all to my Wife', that
he 'could not have done it without my Wife'.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">Now if we
tried to understand this truthful statement in terms of the Great Man's
public works we would be missing the point completely - that would be to
regard the Great Man's wife as merely some kind of servant - yet that
is clearly not the situation; it is not what is implied by the truthful
statements of the Great Man himself.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">Typically, it is
not possible for an outsider to know what is meant by the Husband's
truthful statement 'I could not have done it without her. The Wife's
work is outwith the public domain, hidden from external view - it is
absolutely real and solid and yet at the same time somehow covert,
implicit: a Wife's work is a mystery in a way that the Husband's work is
not a mystery. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">My guess is that something very
similar applies to Mother in Heaven. The role and function of God the
Father is primarily understandable because it is public, outward,
creative; but the role and function of Mother in Heaven is solid and yet
mysterious.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><i>*</i></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><i>Mother in Heaven's role is fundamentally and intrinsically mysterious </i>but
not for any esoteric or difficult to understand reason; but 'simply' in
the same way and for the same reason that any Wife's role may be
mysterious in relation to the attainments of any Great Man: real and
absolutely necessary - yet opaque to the external eye. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">**</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">What is the single most important and
positive thing that differentiates Mormonism from mainstream
Christianity in the modern West?
</span></span></h3>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><br />
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2051">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2050" style="font-size: normal;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This 'dyadic exaltation' aspect of Mormon theology increasingly seems like the key issue: the doctrine that while salvation is </span>available<span style="font-family: inherit;"> to all (if they choose it), the <i>highest </i>theosis (state of divinity) is for a husband and wife (and their family) united in eternal marriage.</span></span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2051">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: normal;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2051">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">Therefore, marriage and family are <i>at the very heart </i>of God's plan for the salvation and exaltation of Man. </span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_1927">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_1926" style="font-size: normal;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">*</span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_1927">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: normal;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_1927">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">There
is essentially nothing Biblical to support this doctrine, and it was
never known to be a feature of the historical and traditional Christian
churches; nonetheless you can see that Christians seem independently to
have 'discovered' something of the sort at various times and places.</span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2046">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2045" style="font-size: normal;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The
fact that Joseph Smith made it explicit, and received revelations on
this topic - is (for me) a compelling proof of, or reason for, the <i>necessity</i>
for the Mormon Restoration of the Gospel - because without explicit
revelation on this topic, the core necessity for marriage and family is
simply </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">not strong enough</i><span style="font-family: inherit;">
in other Christian churches to survive (even in principle) the long
term destructive pressures being put onto marriage and family in modern </span>secular<span style="font-family: inherit;"> societies.</span></span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2048">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2047" style="font-size: normal;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">*</span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2048">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: normal;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2048">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">Why
not strong enough? Because Catholics are tempted to retreat into
celibacy as being (anyway) their highest form of spiritual life; while
Protestants/ Evangelicals are tempted to retreat into the individuality
of Grace (without any need for any particular earthly arrangements).</span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2048">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: normal;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2048">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">And
all non-Mormon Christians regard marriage as 'merely' a temporary
expedient of earthly and mortal life while will disappear in Heaven -
thus, insofar as they develop an other-worldly and post-mortal
perspective (as Christians should) - so mainstream Christians will tend
to downgrade the importance of marriage and family.</span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2048">
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2048">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">Thus mainstream Christians are not doctrinally <i>compelled </i>to defend
marriage and family. And M&amp;F are incrementally and rapidly
collapsing in mainstream Christianity. And this collapse of marriage and
family will (and is intended to) <i>take down</i> those Christian churches. Not just in theory - but here and now, as things actually are, in the modern secular West.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">*</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">Anti-Christian Secular Leftism has evolved and <i>probed </i>at
mainstream Christianity over the generations, attacking here and
attacking there, and it has at last found this weakness - this Achilles
heel - of marriage; and have broken through, and the churches have
given-way, and the enemy is pouring into the breach. </span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2059">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2058" style="font-size: normal;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">*</span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2059">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: normal;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2059">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">Only Mormonism explains <i>why </i>marriage and family are of eternal significance - plenty of Christians <i>feel </i>that this is so, and that marriage and family are (somehow, potentially) of <i>primary and eternal</i> importance - but only Mormons can actually back this up with revelation incorporated into theology.</span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2062">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2061" style="font-size: normal;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">*</span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2062">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: normal;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2062">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: normal;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">My interpretation is their <i>either</i>:<i> </i></span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2062">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: normal;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2062">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: normal;">1<i>. </i>It
was intended (by God) that the early stage of Christianity was to be
dominated by celibate ascetics (because he foresaw the effects of the
collapse of Empire) - but this has changed in the Latter Days. O</span><span style="font-size: normal;">r else:</span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2086">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2085" style="font-size: normal;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">2.
That the necessary revelations about marriage and family were either
lost or eliminated from the scriptural record - and were not, in the
end, restored by the Reformation (as perhaps God hoped) due to an
excessive and exclusive focus on the Bible, and the contingent but
rooted Protestant misunderstanding that there was no other legitimate
source of revelation (the falsehood that the Bible is sufficient, and
uniquely sufficient; as well as necessary). </span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2084">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: normal;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2084">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: normal;">Therefore the Restoration of the Gospel by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints became </span><span style="font-size: normal;"><i style="font-family: inherit;">necessary - </i><span style="font-family: inherit;">to complete the unfinished work of the Reformation, and to correct the deformities which had arisen in consequence.</span></span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2082">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">*</span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2082">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: normal;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2082">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">Of
course there is a lot more to Mormonism than that - but as things stand
in the West this is probably the single most important and most
relevant thing. </span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2077">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">Whether
the CJCLDS can continue to withstand the sustained and increasingly
aggressive attack on its core doctrines by modern secular Leftism is
another matter - but at least they <i>are </i>core doctrines for the LDS, so things are set up as well as they could be. </span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2077">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: normal;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2077">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">As always, it is up to <i>people</i> to be courageous and discerning. </span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2077">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: normal;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1400003175211_2077">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">**</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">A theory of the Atonement </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">*</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">I have been reading Terryl L Givens's most recent scholarly book about Mormonism - <i>Wrestling the Angel - The foundations of Mormon thought: Cosmos, God, Humanity </i>(Oxford University Press, 2015), and my verdict is that the book is simply superb. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">By
my evaluation; Givens is one of the most sheerly intelligent writers
alive, and also a man whose thought processes and evaluations are
extremely congenial to me - he is 'on my wavelength' in an intellectual
sense, and has a similar set of priorities in the domain of theology and
religion.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">In general, I find Givens's account and
explication of Mormon theology to be completely satisfying; the
exception is The Atonement, the various theories of which he explores in
a useful and thorough fashion, before concluding that (as a statement
of fact) there is no satisfactory and comprehensive Mormon theory of the
Atonement - its importance is central to modern Mormonism, but its
nature and operations are essentially regarded as a mystery. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">While
I hope that this suffices for most people, I am continually 'bugged' by
a personal need to understand - or at least know more about - the
nature of the Atonement; and having finished Givens's book I felt that
for the first time I may be able to articulate a theory which satisfies
me - which, in other words, satisfies the constraints I understand to be
necessary for an adequate theory from a Mormon metaphysical and
theological perspective. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">*</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">In a
nutshell, this theory is the idea that Christ's Atonement was about
repentance, rather than sin as such; and that Christ's sufferings (in
the Garden of Gethsemane and on The Cross) were a suffering of the
agonies of repentance for Man - rather than a suffering of the sins of
Man. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">By his Atonement, therefore, Christ enabled all Men
to repent and be saved - by the simple (and 'easy') act of accepting
Christ's supreme act of vicarious repentance - this replacing the
'impossible' demand of Men to repent each and every one of their sins
individually and wholly. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">*</span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">How do I get to this theory?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">The
basic 'set-up' is my conviction that human agency (or free will - the
ability of all men to be a 'first cause' or 'unmoved mover' - i.e.
genuinely to choose from within ourselves and not as a consequence of
prior causes) is due to our eternal pre-mortal existence and primary
autonomy. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">In other words Human agency is <i>not</i> from God, <i>not</i>
a gift from God - it is a given fact of reality; which God must
work-around, and which God cannot overwhelm or obliterate (even if He
wanted-to - which I do not think he does). </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">Agency just is a fact of existence. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">*</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">So
the Atonement takes place against a back-drop of ineradicable agency -
God's 'problem' was to advance Men towards divinity in this context. It
seems that incarnation and mortality are absolutely necessary for Man to
make spiritual progress towards divinity - therefore I infer that the
single most important thing about incarnate life is death.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">Death is the gateway to incarnate immortality. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">*</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">I
accept that we all, as pre-mortal spirit, volunteered to undergo life
on earth and death. But the big problem anticipated for this 'plan'
would have been that mortal life of earth entails sin (we are too weak,
temptations too numerous and strong), and sin renders us unfit for
resurrection to immortality. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">(If we - as we are in mortal
life - were resurrected to immortality, then that would be a kind of
Hell; to benefit from resurrection our souls must be purified and our
bodies perfected and yet we remain our-selves - and this process of
pre-resurrection purification and perfection can only be done with our
consent. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">This is salvation - being saved to eternal life ('life' referring to incarnate immortality, as our-selves). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">Resurrection to happiness depends on repentance - and that is all it depends upon. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">*</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">My
understanding is that nobody - none of the pre-mortal spirits which we
were - would be so reckless and foolish as to volunteer to risk
mortality under such difficult conditions <i>unless there was special provision that salvation would be easy and straightforward</i>. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">If
our individual salvation required recognition, acknowledgement and
repentance of every single sin; then salvation would be a rare
occurrence - perhaps nobody would ever be saved. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">Thus,
provision was made that mortal men should be saved by the vicarious
Atonement of Jesus Christ - He would save us; and all that each of us
would need to do would be <i>freely to choose to to accept Christ's act on our behalf</i>. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">*</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">So
the divine Son of God was incarnated and died - and by this account
Christ's death was the single most important thing he did; but his death
would not have been efficacious unless he had also performed the
Atonement; and the Atonement must be about repentance. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">Without Christ's Atonement, repentance would be <i>de facto</i>
impossible - since there is too much to repent, and because our
knowledge of what needs to be repented is partial and distorted. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">So, as mortals, we could never know the <i>full</i> extent of our transgressions - and therefore we would not even know what had to be repented.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">And
while we were 'working through' discovering and understanding all the
multitude of things that needed repenting, then we would be accumulating
more sins...</span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">Because the nature of repentance is recognition and acknowledgement - repentance is knowing that we have <i>objectively</i> sinned which is vital; and knowing how so many of our attitudes and actions are at-odds-with the divine plan. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">In
a nutshell, full repentance requires a full knowledge of reality, and
knowledge of our denials of reality (denials by thought and deed). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">Since this is impossible, it can only be done <i>for</i> us. And it <i>was</i> done, by Christ's Atonement. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">*</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">I take it as axiomatic that for a Christian, Christ's Atonement must be <i>absolutely necessary</i>. That is, necessary to the salvation of Men. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">Since repentance is a psychological act; then this psychological act must be made effective. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Since specific repentance for each and every sin is impossible, <i>effective
repentance absolutely requires that repentance be simplified to a
single decision that encompasses all other decisions. </i></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;"><b>It was Christ's Atonement that made repentance into a single decision. </b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">*</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">My
understanding is that before He died, Christ repented all the sins of
everyone who had lived and died up to that point - all who lived before
Him - and it was the pain of this vast act of Atonement which he
apparently underwent mainly in Gethsemane and on The Cross.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">After
His death and resurrection, Christ continued, and He continues, to
repent the since of all who lived and died after He did, and those live
and die now - and He continues to suffer for that reason. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">So
Christ's Atonement made effective repentance possible - from this act,
we may by a single choice accept that God loves us, that He is wholly
good; and that God's plans are for our benefit - and by repentance we
permanently ally ourselves with these plans. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">*</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;"><b>The Atonement gave mortal life on earth a fail-safe mechanism. </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">This was necessary. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">Many
or most - or perhaps all - people who are incarnated as Men, and who
volunteered to be incarnated as Men, lead terrible lives which render
them in need of repentance on an epic and virtually impossible scale.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">But
this need will have been fore-known, and our Loving Father who wants
everyone to be saved (that is, everyone who will consent to be saved -
He cannot force anyone to be saved - nor would He wish to compel them
even if He could)... our Loving Father made provision for this outcome;
so that <i>we would be saved <b>anyway</b></i> by the shortest and
simplest and most-accessible of acts: the simple acceptance of the gift
of full-repentance which Christ did for us, and which He offers to give
us. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">Because of the Atonement we have nothing more to
do than recognise the nature of this gift and accept it; and our reward
is the happiness of eternal incarnate life as our-real-selves (with a
purified soul in a perfected body). </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">*</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">Even
the weakest person born into the worst circumstances can achieve this
acceptance of a gift - when each of us was and will be presented, after
death, with a restoration of our pre-mortal state of full understanding
of the divine plan. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">Of course, we will (as free agents) be able to reject this gift - and to choose damnation. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">This is why mortal incarnate life was and is a <i>real risk</i>, and why it was essential that all who underwent it (all of us,that is) were volunteers who knew the risks. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">Mortality
offers the possibility, even the probability, of spiritual progress
towards divinisation; it also contains the ineradicable risk that at the
end of it all, we might reject salvation and damn-ourselves. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-size: normal;">Our
loving Father would not have set up this plan of salvation unless the
odds of salvation were stacked in our favour; so the odds are indeed
stacked in our favour - and to do this was the work of Christ's
Atonement. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">But no matter how favourable the odds of salvation - salvation <i>cannot</i> be guaranteed, because of the primary reality of agency. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: normal;">*</span></div>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
</div>
</div></div>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com