I really don't care much about blogging, but this one needs some comment. The pastor and church in Gainesville, Florida that threaten to burn the Quran on the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks is the subject.
I'd like to say two things to start:
1. The First Amendment protects his actions.
2. He shouldn't do it.
The First Amendment protects speech generally. There are certain forms of speech that aren't protected, such as threats to intimidate or incitements to violence. I'm not going to analyze it here, but I don't think this falls into either category (no matter how general my brief descriptions of the exceptions are).
If someone wants to burn a book or a flag or post on the internet things that others--even a majority of people--find offensive, they can do that. But if this pastor purports to follow Jesus Christ, he won't.
My concerns are manifold, but a couple are:
1. Burning the Quran, a book that many (likely more than 1 billion) peace-loving people look to as a source of inspiration, spiritual guidance, and connection to God, is a terrible symbolic gesture to get at terrorists. Someone hating America and choosing to burn the American flag is successfully attacking a potent symbol of the people and policies they hate. Like it or not, it sends a potent message. But a terrorist who purports to be a Muslim does not speak for Islam and does not follow the tenets of the Quran consistently. It'd be paramount to burning the American flag, not to express hatred or opposition to America, but to the KKK. The KKK may hide behind the First Amendment--itself being a symbol of America--but the KKK is inherently un-American. The organization has a history of offending the constitutional rights of others, through terrorism, murder, racism, disorder, etc. Burning the American flag to protest the KKK, which traditionally makes a mockery of the constitution, makes no sense. Burning the Quran to protest people who make a mockery of its teachings likewise makes no sense.
2. As General Patraeus has pointed out, images of a group of Americans burning the Quran is likely to incite anger and opposition and threaten the safety and lives of Americans (and I would say possibly others, including Christians generally) abroad. This pastor's actions could result in the deaths of others. I've heard it argued that the irresponsible reaction of others should not change our behavior. I disagree. We don't live in a vacuum. If I see a crazy man ranting and raving in the road and wielding a gun--clearly unstable and unpredictable--am I justified in taunting and ridiculing him? Can I justify it by arguing that his decision to shoot people in reaction to my taunts is an outrageous response? No--that would be socially irresponsible and the argument is disingenuous. We can't pretend we live in a vacuum and that our actions don't affect others and contribute to the things they do. This pastor cannot escape the consequences of his actions and is partly responsible for the foreseeable outcome.
3. It is patently un-Christian. This pastor (and I'm deliberately omitting his name) apparently considers himself a Christian. Would Jesus Christ, after whom a Christian purports to align him or herself, engage in such shenanigans in order to make his point? No. Christ was not shy to condemn hypocrisy and harm to children, among others, and even engaged in symbolically significant demonstrations (take the cleansing of the temple, which was both directly and symbolically significant) but He never stooped to half-baked symbolic gestures in order to unnecessarily defend. The Man who stated "Blessed are the peacemakers" would frown on this behavior. This pastor is not following Christ. And the Sept. 11 terrorists weren't following the Quran.
I have other objections, but those hit on my main points.
I've heard it argued that this pastor has the constitutional right to burn the Quran and that his right is being infringed when we discourage his behavior. Really???? I reject outright two unspoken premises to that argument. First, just because we have a constitutional right doesn't mean we should exercise it in every manner (the corollary to that is that a legal right does not create a moral obligation). Second, speaking out against someone's free speech does not mean we're demeaning the constitution or infringing on that speech.
On the first point, morality overlaps with the law, but they're not the same. I have a legal right to sue my neighbor for a fence encroaching on my property, but that does not mean I'm morally justified in taking that conflict into court. I believe that despite the legal right to sue, we shouldn't sue unless we've made an effort to resolve things another way (there are exceptions, of course, such as needing a restraining order to protect oneself physically, among many others). If we look to what the law PERMITS us to do as guidance for how to BEHAVE, then society will fall apart. Everyone has a legal right infringed upon or offended everyday. The courts would be inundated with endless lawsuits if we confused our RIGHT to sue with the idea of whether we SHOULD sue.
So this pastor may have the free speech rights to burn the Quran, but that doesn't mean he's morally justified in it. I would say his decision is not only foolish, but unnecessarily offensive to countless people who in deep earnestness and sincerity look to the Quran with well-founded reverence and for spiritual inspiration and guidance. Those who have been touched by the Quran's teachings and consider it a potent symbol of their faith and loyalty to God are likely to be offended and hurt by this pastor's actions. Not all of them, but enough to make it socially irresponsible and unnecessarily offensive.
On the second point, how does speaking out against something someone says--even though protected by the Constitution--offend the Constitution? The same amendment he invokes to burn the Quran, I invoke to say he shouldn't. I don't believe the government should prevent him. That's what the Bill of Rights does--it protects against government infringement. And I don't believe that I, despite my misgivings, should prevent him. But that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea. And my expressing that does not in any way prevent him from doing whatever he chooses to do: burn or not.
So those are my thoughts. I have much more to say, but I have work to do. But I want my opinion to be unambiguous, so I'll restate it here: I think the pastor has the constitutionally protected right to burn the Quran and I hope with all my heart he doesn't and I think he's foolish if he does. And if he does and it leads to the death or injury of another, his hands aren't clean. He may or may not be guilty of bloodshed at that point, but he's certainly not perfectly innocent. He can't ignore the effects of his decisions and he's arrogant if he ignores those, such as General Patraeus, who are better positioned to know of its potential impact.
Let's not get so wrapped up in philosophizing about the pastor's rights that we forget the more relevant question of what he should do. The fact that he has a right to burn the Quran does not mean he should. Legal rights do not impel us to exercise them in every way.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Scriptures
Mormons believe in the Bible, insofar as it has been translated correctly. Having studied a couple foreign languages, having taken classes in translation, and having done a little lay interpretation work, I know somewhat of the hazards of translation and interpretation. Even the simplest concept or sentence can lose meaning in the translation. Idioms can't be translated directly without becoming nonsensical and losing their meaning. Translating often becomes a balance between being true to the original text and communicating meaning properly.
Take for example the simple French phrase "de rien." If someone says "Merci" (meaning "Thank you"), someone might say "De rien" in reply. "De" can be translated most often as "of" or "from" into English. "Rien" is usually translated as "nothing." But it would be nonsensical to translate "de rien" as "of nothing" or "from nothing." What the phrase suggests in French is that what is being thanked is not a big deal. It could be translated into English as "It's nothing" or "Don't worry about it" or "No problem" or many other things. But each one is somewhat different and has a slightly different meaning in English from the French.
When you take a much more complicated sentence, the hazards multiply.
I'm not going to attempt to make this a linguistic discussion, but translation invariably loses something. Some translaters are extremely adept at maintaining meaning, but often they have to take great liberties in doing so.
The Bible is an ancient text. It has been translated, transcribed and even outright modified countless times. Even the sincerest errors have created wildly divergent meanings. I'm not sure how many versions of the Bible exist in English alone, but there are many. The different translations can help understand the original Hebrew and Greek texts. They can also contradict each other or create even slightly different meanings.
To illustrate, I'm going to choose just one verse of scripture from the New Testament. If you click on this link, you can see that Matthew 4:17 reads variously. Among the translations of this short sentence are:
From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."
From then on, Jesus began to tell people, "Turn to God and change the way you think and act, because the kingdom of heaven is near!"
From that time Jesus went about preaching and saying, Let your hearts be turned from sin, for the kingdom of heaven is near.
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
From that time began Jesus to proclaim and to say, 'Reform ye, for come nigh hath the reign of the heavens.'
As you can see, even this simple sentence can be interpreted to mean different things, each of which might support a different viewpoint. Do we need to repent? Turn to God? Turn from sin? Do penance? Reform ourselves? Is it the kingdom of heaven that is near? The reign of the heavens? Arguably, they mean the same thing. And yet they don't say the same thing. I'm no expert on language or on religions, but I can imagine that the translations result in different practices and doctrines and ideas.
And that's just English. I can only imagine how a Hmong translation as compared to a Xinca translation might differ.
My point is that LDS embrace the Bible as scripture, while acknowledging that it may not have been translated perfectly and that different groups have made changes over time to support their own teachings. Also, until the printing press, transcriptions were done by hand. Mistakes were carried forward from transcription to transcription.
Despite the problems of translation and transcription, the Bible contains important teachings and is an indispensable text. We learn about the purpose of life, the importance of moral living, the life of the Savior, the acts and teachings of the Savior and apostles, the commandments, etc. There are endless stories and teachings of great value. The Bible is the word of God, to the degree something isn't lost or changed in translation. The Bible itself refers to other books of scripture that are lost (perhaps dozens, such as the Book of Enoch)--it's apparent that much more was out there of great value that is not available to us today and that the Bible as a compilation of ancient texts is not the sum total of all revealed word.
LDS embrace other books of scripture, namely The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. Each is a sacred text that reveals the will of God and eternal principles and each helps us understand the Bible so we're not victims of lost meaning.
The Book of Mormon has been translated into 83 languages in whole, and 26 other languages in part (assuming Wikipedia is current and accurate). I imagine each of those translations carries different assumptions or meanings--again, the hazards of translation can cause problems. However, the manner in which the English version came about is unique and presents an interesting story about why we believe The BofM is of particular value and accuracy.
The Book of Mormon contains the writings of ancient prophets, which were inscribed at the time on metal plates. For the most part, the writings cover the period of about 600 BC to 400 AD. There is also a section that is much more ancient and contains an abridgement of the records of a group scattered at the time of the destruction of the Tower of Babel and the confounding of languages. Near 400 AD, one of the prophets, Mormon, compiled and edited many of those writings into what is now known as The Book of Mormon. His son, Moroni, witnessed the destruction of their people and took that compilation, also engraved on metal plates, and safeguarded them until shortly before he died. He then buried them in the ground.
In the early 1800s, after Joseph Smith had what we call the First Vision, Joseph Smith was visited by an angel--the deceased Moroni who had buried those plates. As Joseph Smith later explained:
"Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box. This stone was thick and rounding in the middle on the upper side, and thinner towards the edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above the ground, but the edge all around was covered with earth. Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate, as stated by the messenger." JS-History 1:51-2.
By means of the Urim and Thummim, Joseph Smith began translating portions of the plates he uncovered. In other words, Joseph Smith did not use a dictionary or even a Rosetta Stone, but claims he translated the text through divine revelation. His claim is unique: either he received the translation from God, or he made it up. If one believes his claim, then as a divinely revealed text, it's free from the hazards I described above of multiple translations and changes over centures and millennia. (If one does not believe it, then it's a hoax and fabrication.)
The Book of Mormon has since been translated into many languages, introducing the possibility of first generation error in the translation process in other languages. However, the original English translation can be referred to--so each subsequent translation in a particular language does not have to rely on the original and can improve on the previous translation. Not to mention that English is the closest thing we have to a universal language today, thus (not coincidentally, in my opinion) making it available to much of the world.
Having read The Book of Mormon more than any other book (I would estimate around 35 times), and having studied it with diligence over the past 20 years, I am quite familiar with it. I have used it as a source for finding answers to life's challenges, as a lift when I'm down, as a guide for when I'm lost, and a source of inspiration and intelligence. It has served me well. I can attest that it is true and has positively influenced my life. I have tested its principles and applied its teachings and found its fruit good. While reading it, my mind is frequently opened and I have found deep satisfaction, peace and joy.
Mormons believe that anyone can gain a similiar assurance and knowledge that The Book of Mormon is true. Moroni himself wrote as follows:
"And when ye shall receive these things [The Book of Mormon], I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost." Moroni 10:4.
The formula for receiving that knowledge is therefore: (1) to receive these things (i.e., read, study and ponder them); (2) ask God (through prayer) if they're true, with sincerity, real intent and faith in Christ; and (4) the truth will be manifested by the power of the Holy Ghost.
To recognize the Holy Ghost, you need only review your mind and heart. I will address this elsewhere, but in brief, the Holy Ghost communicates through thoughts and feelings. Not just any thoughts and feelings, but through enlightenment and strokes of ideas (thoughts) and exalted feelings (such as peace, joy, comfort, and other fruits of the Spirit). When we think and feel these things, we can have a spiritual confirmation that they're good and true. What is unique about a spiritual witness of the truth, however, is that accompanying those feelings is a sense of conviction or assurance or confirmation that something is just and true.
The invitation is extended to all to put The Book of Mormon to the test to determine for oneself whether it is true or a hoax. I have put it to the test time and time again and offer testimony that it's true and the word of God.
Take for example the simple French phrase "de rien." If someone says "Merci" (meaning "Thank you"), someone might say "De rien" in reply. "De" can be translated most often as "of" or "from" into English. "Rien" is usually translated as "nothing." But it would be nonsensical to translate "de rien" as "of nothing" or "from nothing." What the phrase suggests in French is that what is being thanked is not a big deal. It could be translated into English as "It's nothing" or "Don't worry about it" or "No problem" or many other things. But each one is somewhat different and has a slightly different meaning in English from the French.
When you take a much more complicated sentence, the hazards multiply.
I'm not going to attempt to make this a linguistic discussion, but translation invariably loses something. Some translaters are extremely adept at maintaining meaning, but often they have to take great liberties in doing so.
The Bible is an ancient text. It has been translated, transcribed and even outright modified countless times. Even the sincerest errors have created wildly divergent meanings. I'm not sure how many versions of the Bible exist in English alone, but there are many. The different translations can help understand the original Hebrew and Greek texts. They can also contradict each other or create even slightly different meanings.
To illustrate, I'm going to choose just one verse of scripture from the New Testament. If you click on this link, you can see that Matthew 4:17 reads variously. Among the translations of this short sentence are:
From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."
From then on, Jesus began to tell people, "Turn to God and change the way you think and act, because the kingdom of heaven is near!"
From that time Jesus went about preaching and saying, Let your hearts be turned from sin, for the kingdom of heaven is near.
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
From that time began Jesus to proclaim and to say, 'Reform ye, for come nigh hath the reign of the heavens.'
As you can see, even this simple sentence can be interpreted to mean different things, each of which might support a different viewpoint. Do we need to repent? Turn to God? Turn from sin? Do penance? Reform ourselves? Is it the kingdom of heaven that is near? The reign of the heavens? Arguably, they mean the same thing. And yet they don't say the same thing. I'm no expert on language or on religions, but I can imagine that the translations result in different practices and doctrines and ideas.
And that's just English. I can only imagine how a Hmong translation as compared to a Xinca translation might differ.
My point is that LDS embrace the Bible as scripture, while acknowledging that it may not have been translated perfectly and that different groups have made changes over time to support their own teachings. Also, until the printing press, transcriptions were done by hand. Mistakes were carried forward from transcription to transcription.
Despite the problems of translation and transcription, the Bible contains important teachings and is an indispensable text. We learn about the purpose of life, the importance of moral living, the life of the Savior, the acts and teachings of the Savior and apostles, the commandments, etc. There are endless stories and teachings of great value. The Bible is the word of God, to the degree something isn't lost or changed in translation. The Bible itself refers to other books of scripture that are lost (perhaps dozens, such as the Book of Enoch)--it's apparent that much more was out there of great value that is not available to us today and that the Bible as a compilation of ancient texts is not the sum total of all revealed word.
LDS embrace other books of scripture, namely The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. Each is a sacred text that reveals the will of God and eternal principles and each helps us understand the Bible so we're not victims of lost meaning.
The Book of Mormon has been translated into 83 languages in whole, and 26 other languages in part (assuming Wikipedia is current and accurate). I imagine each of those translations carries different assumptions or meanings--again, the hazards of translation can cause problems. However, the manner in which the English version came about is unique and presents an interesting story about why we believe The BofM is of particular value and accuracy.
The Book of Mormon contains the writings of ancient prophets, which were inscribed at the time on metal plates. For the most part, the writings cover the period of about 600 BC to 400 AD. There is also a section that is much more ancient and contains an abridgement of the records of a group scattered at the time of the destruction of the Tower of Babel and the confounding of languages. Near 400 AD, one of the prophets, Mormon, compiled and edited many of those writings into what is now known as The Book of Mormon. His son, Moroni, witnessed the destruction of their people and took that compilation, also engraved on metal plates, and safeguarded them until shortly before he died. He then buried them in the ground.
In the early 1800s, after Joseph Smith had what we call the First Vision, Joseph Smith was visited by an angel--the deceased Moroni who had buried those plates. As Joseph Smith later explained:
"He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants; Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book." JS-History 1:34-5
Having been directed by Moroni, he went and uncovered the plates, as he recounts here:"Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box. This stone was thick and rounding in the middle on the upper side, and thinner towards the edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above the ground, but the edge all around was covered with earth. Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate, as stated by the messenger." JS-History 1:51-2.
By means of the Urim and Thummim, Joseph Smith began translating portions of the plates he uncovered. In other words, Joseph Smith did not use a dictionary or even a Rosetta Stone, but claims he translated the text through divine revelation. His claim is unique: either he received the translation from God, or he made it up. If one believes his claim, then as a divinely revealed text, it's free from the hazards I described above of multiple translations and changes over centures and millennia. (If one does not believe it, then it's a hoax and fabrication.)
The Book of Mormon has since been translated into many languages, introducing the possibility of first generation error in the translation process in other languages. However, the original English translation can be referred to--so each subsequent translation in a particular language does not have to rely on the original and can improve on the previous translation. Not to mention that English is the closest thing we have to a universal language today, thus (not coincidentally, in my opinion) making it available to much of the world.
Having read The Book of Mormon more than any other book (I would estimate around 35 times), and having studied it with diligence over the past 20 years, I am quite familiar with it. I have used it as a source for finding answers to life's challenges, as a lift when I'm down, as a guide for when I'm lost, and a source of inspiration and intelligence. It has served me well. I can attest that it is true and has positively influenced my life. I have tested its principles and applied its teachings and found its fruit good. While reading it, my mind is frequently opened and I have found deep satisfaction, peace and joy.
Mormons believe that anyone can gain a similiar assurance and knowledge that The Book of Mormon is true. Moroni himself wrote as follows:
"And when ye shall receive these things [The Book of Mormon], I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost." Moroni 10:4.
The formula for receiving that knowledge is therefore: (1) to receive these things (i.e., read, study and ponder them); (2) ask God (through prayer) if they're true, with sincerity, real intent and faith in Christ; and (4) the truth will be manifested by the power of the Holy Ghost.
To recognize the Holy Ghost, you need only review your mind and heart. I will address this elsewhere, but in brief, the Holy Ghost communicates through thoughts and feelings. Not just any thoughts and feelings, but through enlightenment and strokes of ideas (thoughts) and exalted feelings (such as peace, joy, comfort, and other fruits of the Spirit). When we think and feel these things, we can have a spiritual confirmation that they're good and true. What is unique about a spiritual witness of the truth, however, is that accompanying those feelings is a sense of conviction or assurance or confirmation that something is just and true.
The invitation is extended to all to put The Book of Mormon to the test to determine for oneself whether it is true or a hoax. I have put it to the test time and time again and offer testimony that it's true and the word of God.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Literalism, Science and Stuff
I've been asked if I believe the Bible as a literal text. I've also been asked if I believe The Book of Mormon contains literally true stories, or if those stories are of useful value even if not true.
The answer to both questions is yes--I believe they are real stories and I believe there's some value to them even if they weren't real (although that value is quite limited). That doesn't mean, of course, that there aren't figurative passages or symbolism--of course the scriptures are replete with nonliteral literary devices. But LDS believe that Adam and Eve lived, that Noah lived and preached and that there was a Flood, that Jesus Christ lived and lives, etc. There is quite a bit of variation of thought about what was going on before Adam and Eve, whether the Flood was local or global, the age of the earth, among other things. The Church has never claimed it has all information on every subject--quite the contrary, it concerns itself with human improvement and bringing people unto Christ. Issues of evolution vs. creationism, how old the earth is, whether Adam has a belly button, and lots of other issues aren't terribly relevant to bringing people closer to God. They are interesting and worthy of study, but not really the point of Christ's Church. And yet . . .
LDS have a strong philosophical heritage favoring study and learning of all kinds. "And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith. " D&C 88:118. Truth should be sought out in its many forms. Science, math, moral living--everything good. "If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things." Art. of Faith 13.
Like any community of people, LDS are going to have significant variation in beliefs. I asked a good (LDS) friend the other day why he thinks evolutionary theory (or any variation on it) is wrong. He pointed out some criticisms generally, but I think what I concluded was that it's aesthetically unappealing to him. I told him so--he disagreed at first, but I think he ended up agreeing with me. He's read a lot about it, studied it and generally disfavors it. In fact, I could say he has a degree of disdain for it. I think that his leaning pre-dated his study. I, on the other hand, have always leaned in the other direction--I'm aesthetically drawn to it. And so my studies confirm my biases.
I heard on NPR the other day "fundamentalism" defined as "believing that the scriptures are literal" and "seeing the world in black and white" and "having a clear sense of what's right and wrong." I'm paraphrasing. The gist of it was that they have a narrow view of the world and have greatly reduced the world to simple elements.
It's puzzling to me. Because I believe in right and wrong and believe the events in the scriptures really happened, but I don't see everything in black and white and don't always readily know what the best choice is or see the world as simple. So I'm not sure where I fall. What I do know is that reducing the existence of fossils to "a trick played by the devil to lead us astray" (which I heard once) really offends my sensibilities. I still puzzle over how the geological record is supposed to conflict with the Bible. I just don't tend to see contradiction, because I tend rather to synthesize science and religion.
Here are some quotations that I like (chosen pretty randomly from many of their sort). First, by Brigham Young, second Church president and prophet (mid to late 1800s):
“If, on the Sabbath day, when we are assembled here to worship the Lord, one of the Elders should be prompted to give us a lecture on any branch of education with which he is acquainted, is it outside the pale of our religion? Or if an Elder shall give us a lecture upon astronomy, chemistry, or geology, our religion embraces it all. It matters not what the subject be, if it tends to improve the mind, exalt the feelings, and enlarge the capacity. The truth that is in all the arts and sciences forms a part of our religion. Faith is no more a part of it than any other true principle of philosophy.” Journal of Discourses, v. 1, pp. 334-335.
And Orson Pratt, early apostle (1800s):
“The study of science is the study of something eternal. If we study chemistry, we study the works of God. If we study chemistry, geology, optics, or any other branch of science, every new truth we come to the understanding of is eternal; it is a part of the great system of universal truth. It is truth that exists throughout universal nature; and God is the dispenser of all truth – scientific, religious, and political. Therefore let all classes of citizens and people endeavor to improve their time more than heretofore – to train their minds to that which is best calculated for their good and the good of the society which surrounds them." Journal of Discourses, v. 7, p. 157.
So, in a sense, Mormonism comprises all truth.
I agree emphatically with that perspective. I don't see the need to create a false dichotomy between science and religion, to create an unnecessary conflict. Sure, a religious idea can be erroneous--I'm sure I have some religious opinions that are untempered and wrong. And science is certainly fallible--to the degree that we confuse a methodology with a body of thought, we can run amok. And paradigm shifts (in the Thomas Kuhn sense) suggest that significant changes in how we analyze data and view the world are going to continue forward.
So I believe "good" science and "good" religion. I don't believe every scientific fact or every religious idea. For example, I don't think biological classification is "true" science--it's useful and even cleverly arranged, but how do you classify a platypus? To me, it's not really science, but a good attempt at taxonomy in the most general sense. And, by way of another example, I don't believe in reincarnation. It's a religious principle that I reject.
Not great examples, but I think it illustrates the point that not all that is called science is true and not all that is called religion is true either. But true science and true religion go hand in hand. They are both subsets of the greater field of truth.
So I believe on the one hand that the Bible and The Book of Mormon are real stories about a real God and real people. And, on the other, I believe that the earth is really old, that fossils weren't planted to trick us, that space should be explored and that chemistry is worth knowing. These are all good things. They serve different purposes, but they're good. Understanding astrophysics isn't going to save your soul. And understanding the principles of morality isn't going to solve our fossil fuels problem.
There are certainly plenty of Mormons who are skeptical of some aspects of science. Most aren't, but some are. I suppose you have Mormons of every stripe. But my friend who rejects evolution isn't really rejecting science. I think that he would readily agree that science and religion go hand in hand. But I think first that he thinks evolution isn't all science (and I agree--much of it is not approached scientifically) and second he doesn't like the assumptions that go into it (and I don't fault him there either). For those LDS, and I think they're few, that are derisive of science, I think they are denying their own faith. I hope I don't offend. I think that someone who is LDS and understands the scriptures and the basic tenets of their faith is going to desire all learning out of the best books and seek understanding in all worthy fields. Sure, a certain percentage of scientific "fact" will ultimately be thrown by the wayside as incorrect, but that does not condemn the methodology. For empirically measurably stuff, it's a perfect method. For the non-empirical, it's flawed.
In the end, I'm both a man of faith and a man of science. I can't say that I'm proficient in any remarkable way at either, but what I mean to say is that I value them both and I believe in both. I believe in innovation and progress and I believe in fundamental morality. I believe in learning and understanding all good things and I believe in good and evil. I believe in life after death and I believe in biology and astronomy. I may not be well versed in religion and science, but I have the respect and reverence for both and I'm open to learning new things and using them to improve my life.
And that, to me, is what Mormonism is all about.
The answer to both questions is yes--I believe they are real stories and I believe there's some value to them even if they weren't real (although that value is quite limited). That doesn't mean, of course, that there aren't figurative passages or symbolism--of course the scriptures are replete with nonliteral literary devices. But LDS believe that Adam and Eve lived, that Noah lived and preached and that there was a Flood, that Jesus Christ lived and lives, etc. There is quite a bit of variation of thought about what was going on before Adam and Eve, whether the Flood was local or global, the age of the earth, among other things. The Church has never claimed it has all information on every subject--quite the contrary, it concerns itself with human improvement and bringing people unto Christ. Issues of evolution vs. creationism, how old the earth is, whether Adam has a belly button, and lots of other issues aren't terribly relevant to bringing people closer to God. They are interesting and worthy of study, but not really the point of Christ's Church. And yet . . .
LDS have a strong philosophical heritage favoring study and learning of all kinds. "And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith. " D&C 88:118. Truth should be sought out in its many forms. Science, math, moral living--everything good. "If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things." Art. of Faith 13.
Like any community of people, LDS are going to have significant variation in beliefs. I asked a good (LDS) friend the other day why he thinks evolutionary theory (or any variation on it) is wrong. He pointed out some criticisms generally, but I think what I concluded was that it's aesthetically unappealing to him. I told him so--he disagreed at first, but I think he ended up agreeing with me. He's read a lot about it, studied it and generally disfavors it. In fact, I could say he has a degree of disdain for it. I think that his leaning pre-dated his study. I, on the other hand, have always leaned in the other direction--I'm aesthetically drawn to it. And so my studies confirm my biases.
I heard on NPR the other day "fundamentalism" defined as "believing that the scriptures are literal" and "seeing the world in black and white" and "having a clear sense of what's right and wrong." I'm paraphrasing. The gist of it was that they have a narrow view of the world and have greatly reduced the world to simple elements.
It's puzzling to me. Because I believe in right and wrong and believe the events in the scriptures really happened, but I don't see everything in black and white and don't always readily know what the best choice is or see the world as simple. So I'm not sure where I fall. What I do know is that reducing the existence of fossils to "a trick played by the devil to lead us astray" (which I heard once) really offends my sensibilities. I still puzzle over how the geological record is supposed to conflict with the Bible. I just don't tend to see contradiction, because I tend rather to synthesize science and religion.
Here are some quotations that I like (chosen pretty randomly from many of their sort). First, by Brigham Young, second Church president and prophet (mid to late 1800s):
“If, on the Sabbath day, when we are assembled here to worship the Lord, one of the Elders should be prompted to give us a lecture on any branch of education with which he is acquainted, is it outside the pale of our religion? Or if an Elder shall give us a lecture upon astronomy, chemistry, or geology, our religion embraces it all. It matters not what the subject be, if it tends to improve the mind, exalt the feelings, and enlarge the capacity. The truth that is in all the arts and sciences forms a part of our religion. Faith is no more a part of it than any other true principle of philosophy.” Journal of Discourses, v. 1, pp. 334-335.
And Orson Pratt, early apostle (1800s):
“The study of science is the study of something eternal. If we study chemistry, we study the works of God. If we study chemistry, geology, optics, or any other branch of science, every new truth we come to the understanding of is eternal; it is a part of the great system of universal truth. It is truth that exists throughout universal nature; and God is the dispenser of all truth – scientific, religious, and political. Therefore let all classes of citizens and people endeavor to improve their time more than heretofore – to train their minds to that which is best calculated for their good and the good of the society which surrounds them." Journal of Discourses, v. 7, p. 157.
So, in a sense, Mormonism comprises all truth.
I agree emphatically with that perspective. I don't see the need to create a false dichotomy between science and religion, to create an unnecessary conflict. Sure, a religious idea can be erroneous--I'm sure I have some religious opinions that are untempered and wrong. And science is certainly fallible--to the degree that we confuse a methodology with a body of thought, we can run amok. And paradigm shifts (in the Thomas Kuhn sense) suggest that significant changes in how we analyze data and view the world are going to continue forward.
So I believe "good" science and "good" religion. I don't believe every scientific fact or every religious idea. For example, I don't think biological classification is "true" science--it's useful and even cleverly arranged, but how do you classify a platypus? To me, it's not really science, but a good attempt at taxonomy in the most general sense. And, by way of another example, I don't believe in reincarnation. It's a religious principle that I reject.
Not great examples, but I think it illustrates the point that not all that is called science is true and not all that is called religion is true either. But true science and true religion go hand in hand. They are both subsets of the greater field of truth.
So I believe on the one hand that the Bible and The Book of Mormon are real stories about a real God and real people. And, on the other, I believe that the earth is really old, that fossils weren't planted to trick us, that space should be explored and that chemistry is worth knowing. These are all good things. They serve different purposes, but they're good. Understanding astrophysics isn't going to save your soul. And understanding the principles of morality isn't going to solve our fossil fuels problem.
There are certainly plenty of Mormons who are skeptical of some aspects of science. Most aren't, but some are. I suppose you have Mormons of every stripe. But my friend who rejects evolution isn't really rejecting science. I think that he would readily agree that science and religion go hand in hand. But I think first that he thinks evolution isn't all science (and I agree--much of it is not approached scientifically) and second he doesn't like the assumptions that go into it (and I don't fault him there either). For those LDS, and I think they're few, that are derisive of science, I think they are denying their own faith. I hope I don't offend. I think that someone who is LDS and understands the scriptures and the basic tenets of their faith is going to desire all learning out of the best books and seek understanding in all worthy fields. Sure, a certain percentage of scientific "fact" will ultimately be thrown by the wayside as incorrect, but that does not condemn the methodology. For empirically measurably stuff, it's a perfect method. For the non-empirical, it's flawed.
In the end, I'm both a man of faith and a man of science. I can't say that I'm proficient in any remarkable way at either, but what I mean to say is that I value them both and I believe in both. I believe in innovation and progress and I believe in fundamental morality. I believe in learning and understanding all good things and I believe in good and evil. I believe in life after death and I believe in biology and astronomy. I may not be well versed in religion and science, but I have the respect and reverence for both and I'm open to learning new things and using them to improve my life.
And that, to me, is what Mormonism is all about.
Friday, August 21, 2009
The Commandments
I think in a time and place where freedom is so emphasized and valued, the notion of commandments--such as the Ten Commandments--seems silly and outmoded to many. I think many people see the commandments as arbitrary constraints on freedoms. Others see them as outmoded morality guidelines. I think LDS tend to view commandments as freeing, not constraining.
I think a basic example can begin to illustrate the point. LDS believe in the Word of Wisdom. The Word of Wisdom is from modern scripture and is a commandment relating to the law of health. It was recorded in 1833 and encouraged eating grains, fruits and vegetables, while avoiding tobacco (among other things). As a commandment, faithful LDS live by it. But it is not constraining--it is liberating. By eating well and avoiding addictive substances (including alcoholic beverages and "hot drinks"--tea and coffee), I have more physical freedoms than I would have otherwise. I also am free from addiction to tobacco, which enslaves a lot of people. To reduce it quite simply, I have more freedom on whether to smoke right now than someone addicted to or formerly addicted to cigarettes. It doesn't tempt me or bother me in the least and I'm happy to choose not to. Nothing but my own decision stops me. Someone addicted to cigarettes can spend the day haunted by the compelling longing to smoke.
To be clear, I'm not gloating and find no pleasure in someone else's suffering. I'm merely trying to illustrate how commandments aren't there to arbitrarily confine. They're there to help and increase our personal freedoms. Whether it's a commandment to tell the truth (and not bear false witness) or to serve others or to keep the Sabbath holy or not to steal, there are good reasons for them and they bless my life and free me to be willing to follow them.
A modern apostle, Boyd K. Packer, has compared obedience to flying a kite. While it may appear at first that the string holds the kite down, in reality it holds it up. Not all that appears to confine actually does confine. Sometimes willing submission to wisdom is true freedom. As LDS, we don't think of commandments as constraints on behavior, but as guide posts to greater happiness and freedom. Just as a parent may counsel a child to go to bed at a reasonable hour so he isn't sleepy and incoherent the next day, so does our heavenly Father give us kind instruction to help us. The child who willingly submits to the counsel to go to bed early will be fresher in the morning because of it. A person who submits to God's commandments will have a similar blessing connected to the obedience. "And when we receive any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." D&C 130:21.
Willing submission to commandments is freeing and invigorating, not constraining and demeaning.
Here are some excellent thoughts on the subject for those interested.
I think a basic example can begin to illustrate the point. LDS believe in the Word of Wisdom. The Word of Wisdom is from modern scripture and is a commandment relating to the law of health. It was recorded in 1833 and encouraged eating grains, fruits and vegetables, while avoiding tobacco (among other things). As a commandment, faithful LDS live by it. But it is not constraining--it is liberating. By eating well and avoiding addictive substances (including alcoholic beverages and "hot drinks"--tea and coffee), I have more physical freedoms than I would have otherwise. I also am free from addiction to tobacco, which enslaves a lot of people. To reduce it quite simply, I have more freedom on whether to smoke right now than someone addicted to or formerly addicted to cigarettes. It doesn't tempt me or bother me in the least and I'm happy to choose not to. Nothing but my own decision stops me. Someone addicted to cigarettes can spend the day haunted by the compelling longing to smoke.
To be clear, I'm not gloating and find no pleasure in someone else's suffering. I'm merely trying to illustrate how commandments aren't there to arbitrarily confine. They're there to help and increase our personal freedoms. Whether it's a commandment to tell the truth (and not bear false witness) or to serve others or to keep the Sabbath holy or not to steal, there are good reasons for them and they bless my life and free me to be willing to follow them.
A modern apostle, Boyd K. Packer, has compared obedience to flying a kite. While it may appear at first that the string holds the kite down, in reality it holds it up. Not all that appears to confine actually does confine. Sometimes willing submission to wisdom is true freedom. As LDS, we don't think of commandments as constraints on behavior, but as guide posts to greater happiness and freedom. Just as a parent may counsel a child to go to bed at a reasonable hour so he isn't sleepy and incoherent the next day, so does our heavenly Father give us kind instruction to help us. The child who willingly submits to the counsel to go to bed early will be fresher in the morning because of it. A person who submits to God's commandments will have a similar blessing connected to the obedience. "And when we receive any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." D&C 130:21.
Willing submission to commandments is freeing and invigorating, not constraining and demeaning.
Here are some excellent thoughts on the subject for those interested.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Christ the Mediator
I mentioned previoiusly that in order to make full use of the atonement and to be freed of our bad choices and to be cleansed from them, Christ was sent by our heavenly Father as a mediator for us. As Mediator, He answers the demands of justice while also extending mercy to us. Justice demands that a violation of eternal law be punished. A lie violates eternal law. Murder does as well. If we commit any violation of any eternal law, justice demands that a punishment be paid.
Part of that punishment is simply the knowledge that we have violated a law: "Wherefore, we shall have a perfect knowledge of all our guilt, and our uncleanness, and our nakedness; and the righteous shall have a perfect knowledge of their enjoyment, and their righteousness, being clothed with purity, yea, even with the robe of righteousness." 2 Nephi 9:14.
That guilt is inevitable when we understand fully, after we die, the gravity of our bad choices. Justice requires not only that we feel the guilt of violating the law, but that we suffer all the consequences of our choices.
Those without an understanding of the laws of happiness and goodness, such as young children, are not punished. The atonement answers for them. It would not be just for a person to be punished for a sin they don't understand is a sin. But for those of us who know we've done something wrong--whether an act of dishonesty or an explosion of temper--we cannot avoid the consequences. These princples are expressed in The Book of Mormon:
"Wherefore, he has given a law; and where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him. For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful monster, death and hell, and the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel. But wo unto him that has the law given, yea, that has all the commandments of God, like unto us, and that transgresseth them, and that wasteth the days of his probation, for awful is his state!" 2 Nephi 9:25-27.
So the innocent are spared, according to the laws of justice, but the knowing are not.
Except that those who choose wrong over right can repent. This is where Christ as Mediator intercedes for us. An excellent article can be found here. Boyd K. Packer, a modern apostle, explains how Christ mediates for us and comes between us and punishment, not frustrating justice, but answering the demands of justice while extending mercy.
In brief summary, he compares a sinner to a debtor. A debtor borrows money from a man and promises to repay. But, foolishly, he wastes his time and when the loan is due, he doesn't pay his creditor. The creditor demands justice--payment or jail (debtor's prison). The debtor asks for mercy. The creditor demands justice. Neither one is satisfied. So the debtor goes to prison and the creditor gets his justice.
A friend of the debtor approaches and offers to pay the debtor's debt for the debtor. The creditor can't complain--he's getting justice (his payment). The debtor then agrees to pay back his friend according to his friend's specifications--it's far better than jail. Justice is satisfied, but the debtor's request for mercy is met as well. Mercy doesn't frustrate justice--both mercy and justice are satisfied.
Christ is the friend. He mediates for us. When we sin, justice demands that we pay the price. But we can't. Christ intervenes and pays the price. Justice is satisfied. But Christ also extends the mercy we hunger for when facing a moment of truth. We then agree to do things His way when we accept His payment. His way is to follow His commandments. Because He's selfless, the obedience is beneficial to us--it's obeying the laws that govern happiness. We willingly give ourselves over to Him.
That is the atonement. I'm grateful for the Savior's willingness to be punished despite His perfection and lack of guilt. I don't want Him to suffer for my errors and to pay my price, and yet that's the only way to be rescued from my own errors. I know He wants me to accept His offering. If I don't, His sacrifice was in vain for me. Through constant repentance, I can eventually free myself entirely from bad choices. I have experienced that cleansing process--it is real. And it's an essential part of the plan of salvation.
Part of that punishment is simply the knowledge that we have violated a law: "Wherefore, we shall have a perfect knowledge of all our guilt, and our uncleanness, and our nakedness; and the righteous shall have a perfect knowledge of their enjoyment, and their righteousness, being clothed with purity, yea, even with the robe of righteousness." 2 Nephi 9:14.
That guilt is inevitable when we understand fully, after we die, the gravity of our bad choices. Justice requires not only that we feel the guilt of violating the law, but that we suffer all the consequences of our choices.
Those without an understanding of the laws of happiness and goodness, such as young children, are not punished. The atonement answers for them. It would not be just for a person to be punished for a sin they don't understand is a sin. But for those of us who know we've done something wrong--whether an act of dishonesty or an explosion of temper--we cannot avoid the consequences. These princples are expressed in The Book of Mormon:
"Wherefore, he has given a law; and where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him. For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful monster, death and hell, and the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel. But wo unto him that has the law given, yea, that has all the commandments of God, like unto us, and that transgresseth them, and that wasteth the days of his probation, for awful is his state!" 2 Nephi 9:25-27.
So the innocent are spared, according to the laws of justice, but the knowing are not.
Except that those who choose wrong over right can repent. This is where Christ as Mediator intercedes for us. An excellent article can be found here. Boyd K. Packer, a modern apostle, explains how Christ mediates for us and comes between us and punishment, not frustrating justice, but answering the demands of justice while extending mercy.
In brief summary, he compares a sinner to a debtor. A debtor borrows money from a man and promises to repay. But, foolishly, he wastes his time and when the loan is due, he doesn't pay his creditor. The creditor demands justice--payment or jail (debtor's prison). The debtor asks for mercy. The creditor demands justice. Neither one is satisfied. So the debtor goes to prison and the creditor gets his justice.
A friend of the debtor approaches and offers to pay the debtor's debt for the debtor. The creditor can't complain--he's getting justice (his payment). The debtor then agrees to pay back his friend according to his friend's specifications--it's far better than jail. Justice is satisfied, but the debtor's request for mercy is met as well. Mercy doesn't frustrate justice--both mercy and justice are satisfied.
Christ is the friend. He mediates for us. When we sin, justice demands that we pay the price. But we can't. Christ intervenes and pays the price. Justice is satisfied. But Christ also extends the mercy we hunger for when facing a moment of truth. We then agree to do things His way when we accept His payment. His way is to follow His commandments. Because He's selfless, the obedience is beneficial to us--it's obeying the laws that govern happiness. We willingly give ourselves over to Him.
That is the atonement. I'm grateful for the Savior's willingness to be punished despite His perfection and lack of guilt. I don't want Him to suffer for my errors and to pay my price, and yet that's the only way to be rescued from my own errors. I know He wants me to accept His offering. If I don't, His sacrifice was in vain for me. Through constant repentance, I can eventually free myself entirely from bad choices. I have experienced that cleansing process--it is real. And it's an essential part of the plan of salvation.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The Plan of Salvation
LDS believe that we have an eternal nature--that we've existed always (in one form or another) and that we will always exist. We believe that before we were born, we lived in the presence of our heavenly Father, that as His children, we have divine potential, and that He wants us to progress to be like Him, just as any parent would want for his or her children.
We were different from our Father in a couple significant ways. First, we were imperfect and capable of sin. Second, we did not have bodies, whereas God had a perfect, resurrected body. In order to become perfected and receive a body, we needed to come to earth. On earth, we would be given a body and retain our agency and choose what we would do with our bodies. We had never had bodies before and had existed only as spirits. When it was announced that we were going to have a chance to come on earth and experience physical bodies, we rejoiced.
And yet, on earth we knew we would sin and still be imperfect and therefore unlike God. And because of the Fall of Adam, and due to Adam and Eve's choice to partake of the forbidden fruit, we knew we would die and lose our physical bodies. But our Father was aware that we would still fall short if He didn't prepare a way for us to overcome our tendency to sin (and sin again) and to restore our physical bodies.
To do this, He sent His firstborn Son, Jesus Christ. Christ was the only perfect person to be born on earth. His mission, in part, was to suffer for our sins, taking upon Himself the punishment demanded by justice. Justice demands that laws be enforced. A broken law results in punishment. Only a perfect offering could satisfy the demands of justice. Christ, in His perfection, was able to pay the infinite price of mankind's evil deeds. And, in His mercy, He allows us to turn to Him and accept that offering. His willingness and act of taking our punishment is part of the atonement.
But even with the effects of sin being overcome, we still are unlike God because our bodies will die. This is where the other significant part of the atonement comes in--Christ allowed Himself to die in order for Him to overcome death. On the third day after His death, He was resurrected--He received a perfect, immortal body. Because of His resurrection, He unlocked the gates of death and all mankind will be resurrected.
Between these two aspects of the atonement, we are redeemed from the mortal experience. Our purpose in life--to become like our heavenly Father--can be accomplished.
However, while resurrection is given to all mankind, being redeemed from our sins is not automaticly given to us. We need to turn from our sins and repent. Repentance consists of acknowledging our mistakes, turning from them and turning toward God. Through repentance, we can be cleansed of our mistakes and errors and made new. We then, acknowledging that Christ paid the steep price for our sins, offer ourselves to Him willingly. Through this process, we progress bit by bit, day by day, year by year, and so forth until we are perfected (which will take us a long time after death).
In this manner, God's plan for us before we came to earth is fulfilled--we overcome our tendency to sin and receive a perfect, immortal body. Then we live forever in the presence of our Father.
After we die, our bodies and spirits are separated, though. Our bodies decay, but our spirits live on in the Spirit World. They await the resurrection. When all of our Father's spirit children have been born and the mortal experience comes to a close, Christ will return to earth to reign. During a period of 1000 years, there will be peace on the earth. At the end, all will be judged according to their choices in mortality and be held accountable for all they said and did. Each person (with a few exceptions) on earth will receive an inheritance in a kingdom of glory according to their use of the atonement and their willingness to repent and live as Christ has directed us. Those inheriting the highest kingdom of glory (the celestial kingdom) will be able to continue to progress.
This plan--to come to earth, to experience life, to repent and accept the atonement, to be resurrected and to inherit a kingdom of glory--is known as the plan of salvation. It is the purpose of life. It is why we came to earth. It's where we're going after we die.
This is a brief sketch and I've skipped some important elements, but it's enough to give an over-view and flavor of where we came from, why we're here and where we're going. What it ignores for the most part is how we get where we're going. In brief, it's to follow God's commandments and live as how he'd have us live. In order to understand that, it's important to understand Christ's role as mediator and how he balances the demands of justice and mercy. That will be the subject of another post.
I remember learning these things as I met with the missionaries. I think everyone that's lived to a certain age on earth has wondered about the purpose of life. It's given me great perspective and helped me to make better choices to understand what life is all about. While I make poor decisions all the time, I behave better and make better choices because I have a sense of the big picture. It enables me to make choices that are of eternal value rather than those that are merely of momentary value.
I also know that there's a reason to try and that change is truly possible. I think a lot of people feel powerless to break bad habits and really change their character. But through the atonement, real substantive change is possible. The foregiveness and cleansing that comes from being forgiven of my errors gives me freedom to start anew without the baggage of my past bad choices. And I can feel myself progress, bit by bit.
The plan of salvation also gives me a knowledge and assurance that there's a reason to make good choices, that every choice, good or bad, has a consequence. I may be free to choose as I will, but that does not mean that I can choose the consequences of my actions (or to avoid them entirely). Just as I can't turn off the laws of physics, I can't turn off eternal laws. Selfishness, dishonesty, anger, violence--in brief, any bad choice--brings consequences that can be painful and even destructive. Good choices, such as service, kindness, generosity, hard work, honesty--they all bring good consequences in our lives. It's inevitable.
And because there's a purpose to life, we shouldn't just slide through life as though it were some big vacation. We have a purpose on earth and we should be anxiously engaged in it while we're alive. It's a time to prove oneself and work hard to progress. Understanding the plan of salvation helps me spend my time wisely and fruitfully.
We were different from our Father in a couple significant ways. First, we were imperfect and capable of sin. Second, we did not have bodies, whereas God had a perfect, resurrected body. In order to become perfected and receive a body, we needed to come to earth. On earth, we would be given a body and retain our agency and choose what we would do with our bodies. We had never had bodies before and had existed only as spirits. When it was announced that we were going to have a chance to come on earth and experience physical bodies, we rejoiced.
And yet, on earth we knew we would sin and still be imperfect and therefore unlike God. And because of the Fall of Adam, and due to Adam and Eve's choice to partake of the forbidden fruit, we knew we would die and lose our physical bodies. But our Father was aware that we would still fall short if He didn't prepare a way for us to overcome our tendency to sin (and sin again) and to restore our physical bodies.
To do this, He sent His firstborn Son, Jesus Christ. Christ was the only perfect person to be born on earth. His mission, in part, was to suffer for our sins, taking upon Himself the punishment demanded by justice. Justice demands that laws be enforced. A broken law results in punishment. Only a perfect offering could satisfy the demands of justice. Christ, in His perfection, was able to pay the infinite price of mankind's evil deeds. And, in His mercy, He allows us to turn to Him and accept that offering. His willingness and act of taking our punishment is part of the atonement.
But even with the effects of sin being overcome, we still are unlike God because our bodies will die. This is where the other significant part of the atonement comes in--Christ allowed Himself to die in order for Him to overcome death. On the third day after His death, He was resurrected--He received a perfect, immortal body. Because of His resurrection, He unlocked the gates of death and all mankind will be resurrected.
Between these two aspects of the atonement, we are redeemed from the mortal experience. Our purpose in life--to become like our heavenly Father--can be accomplished.
However, while resurrection is given to all mankind, being redeemed from our sins is not automaticly given to us. We need to turn from our sins and repent. Repentance consists of acknowledging our mistakes, turning from them and turning toward God. Through repentance, we can be cleansed of our mistakes and errors and made new. We then, acknowledging that Christ paid the steep price for our sins, offer ourselves to Him willingly. Through this process, we progress bit by bit, day by day, year by year, and so forth until we are perfected (which will take us a long time after death).
In this manner, God's plan for us before we came to earth is fulfilled--we overcome our tendency to sin and receive a perfect, immortal body. Then we live forever in the presence of our Father.
After we die, our bodies and spirits are separated, though. Our bodies decay, but our spirits live on in the Spirit World. They await the resurrection. When all of our Father's spirit children have been born and the mortal experience comes to a close, Christ will return to earth to reign. During a period of 1000 years, there will be peace on the earth. At the end, all will be judged according to their choices in mortality and be held accountable for all they said and did. Each person (with a few exceptions) on earth will receive an inheritance in a kingdom of glory according to their use of the atonement and their willingness to repent and live as Christ has directed us. Those inheriting the highest kingdom of glory (the celestial kingdom) will be able to continue to progress.
This plan--to come to earth, to experience life, to repent and accept the atonement, to be resurrected and to inherit a kingdom of glory--is known as the plan of salvation. It is the purpose of life. It is why we came to earth. It's where we're going after we die.
This is a brief sketch and I've skipped some important elements, but it's enough to give an over-view and flavor of where we came from, why we're here and where we're going. What it ignores for the most part is how we get where we're going. In brief, it's to follow God's commandments and live as how he'd have us live. In order to understand that, it's important to understand Christ's role as mediator and how he balances the demands of justice and mercy. That will be the subject of another post.
I remember learning these things as I met with the missionaries. I think everyone that's lived to a certain age on earth has wondered about the purpose of life. It's given me great perspective and helped me to make better choices to understand what life is all about. While I make poor decisions all the time, I behave better and make better choices because I have a sense of the big picture. It enables me to make choices that are of eternal value rather than those that are merely of momentary value.
I also know that there's a reason to try and that change is truly possible. I think a lot of people feel powerless to break bad habits and really change their character. But through the atonement, real substantive change is possible. The foregiveness and cleansing that comes from being forgiven of my errors gives me freedom to start anew without the baggage of my past bad choices. And I can feel myself progress, bit by bit.
The plan of salvation also gives me a knowledge and assurance that there's a reason to make good choices, that every choice, good or bad, has a consequence. I may be free to choose as I will, but that does not mean that I can choose the consequences of my actions (or to avoid them entirely). Just as I can't turn off the laws of physics, I can't turn off eternal laws. Selfishness, dishonesty, anger, violence--in brief, any bad choice--brings consequences that can be painful and even destructive. Good choices, such as service, kindness, generosity, hard work, honesty--they all bring good consequences in our lives. It's inevitable.
And because there's a purpose to life, we shouldn't just slide through life as though it were some big vacation. We have a purpose on earth and we should be anxiously engaged in it while we're alive. It's a time to prove oneself and work hard to progress. Understanding the plan of salvation helps me spend my time wisely and fruitfully.
This Blog and LDS Doctrine
You can see in the header to this blog the statement that I don't speak for the LDS Church and what I say isn't LDS doctrine. While I'm trying my best to be accurate, I'm just one of around 14,000,000 people who is a member of the Church--I don't have any role or position in the Church that allows me to speak on its behalf. I'm just trying to present the teachings as I understand them. I doubt any two members of the LDS Church think alike. The ideas are as varied as the members.
I'd like to think that my blog is an accurate reflection of Church teachings, but I don't pretend that it won't reflect some of my biases, ill-founded assumptions and peculiar ideas. It's not my goal to reflect any of that, but it's an inevitable reality.
Even individual Church leaders (which I'm not) don't speak for the Church as a whole. Here is the Church's own statement on the subject, of which the following is an excerpt:
"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted."
So while I hope that nothing I write here is at odds with LDS doctrine, it inevitably will be just my slanted view. I am open to comments correcting any misstatements or inaccuracies. Despite all this, I hope some readers find this blog helpful.
I'd like to think that my blog is an accurate reflection of Church teachings, but I don't pretend that it won't reflect some of my biases, ill-founded assumptions and peculiar ideas. It's not my goal to reflect any of that, but it's an inevitable reality.
Even individual Church leaders (which I'm not) don't speak for the Church as a whole. Here is the Church's own statement on the subject, of which the following is an excerpt:
"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted."
So while I hope that nothing I write here is at odds with LDS doctrine, it inevitably will be just my slanted view. I am open to comments correcting any misstatements or inaccuracies. Despite all this, I hope some readers find this blog helpful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)