tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-88234647550201061322024-02-20T16:44:38.089-05:00Meditating on MormonismA compilation of musings about religion and religious life.MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-78977223475531365512009-05-10T14:24:00.004-04:002009-05-10T14:45:00.074-04:00Mother's Day<div style="text-align: justify;">On this day, many wonder how to honor motherhood and mothers without adding to the burden of those whose mortal trials include an absence of the pitter-patter of little feet on the floor of their home. As I've had many occasions to reflect on Mother's Day, from many angles and perspectives., I thought today would probably be the most appropriate time of any to think some on this topic.<br /><br />As a child, growing up, it was exclusively a chance to remember and make more vivid the memory and appreciation for all that my mother has done (and continues to do) for me. This obvious tone to the day continued uninterrupted until I married and found myself commemmorating my own mother, as well as honoring the woman I chose to be the mother of my children. When difficulties conceiving and bearing children broke that natural sequence, I was forced to reconsider the meaning of Mother's Day.<br /><br />During the years when our yearning went unfulfilled, I found meaning in the many ways that women can fulfill many roles of mothers, regardless of their parental or marital status. Nevertheless, I also recognized that none of this filled the void in the hearts of those whose opportunity it might never be to carry a child whom they would then raise as a mother. This became personal, and the weight considerable.<br /><br />Now, as I straddle the ever-shortening distance between that anxious and burdensome time, and another (just a few weeks until I'll have a double dose of daddy duty) which promises to be at least as anxious and burdensome, I found myself contemplative during the Mother's Day service this morning and throughout the day. The talks took me down a line of thinking that I hadn't discovered until today. Our Heavenly Father chooses the title Father. We call Him that, not because of any posterity He may (or may not) have had when He sojourned as a mortal man; rather, we call Him that because it is His divinely appointed and chosen title. By inference, Mother in Heaven holds a similar position of honor based on Her godhood, and holds that title for eternity, regardless of the presence/absence of mortal posterity preceding Her exaltation. We honor and reverence and worship our Heavenly Parents.<br /><br />This realization led me to think of those divine titles of Father and Mother as being less bounded by mortality. Instead, they are titles to which each of us aspires, regardless of the randomness that sometimes can accompany the giving of mortal life and which is associated with a mortal sphere, accompanied by mortal use of agency.<br /><br />No one on earth is truly a Father or Mother yet, but each of us aspires to achieve Fatherhood or Motherhood. So when we honor motherhood and mothers each second Sunday in May, we do so as a type or shadow of true Motherhood. And we honor the mothers in our lives as they strive to become Mothers. We recognize and appreciate the traces of divinity shown in mortal motherhood. And we recommit ourselves, regardless of whether we are children seeing only our mother, or unmarried adults yearning for love and family, or childless couples feeling bereft of opportunity and progress, or divorced parents striving to juggle both fatherhood and motherhood, or widowed or orphaned individuals who feel the longing for loved ones lost, or empty-nesters feeling like parenting somehow passed them by and reflecting on opportunities not created or not taken, or anywhere in between or further down the road. This sense of rededication, of making holy once again our sense of purpose in pursuing parenthood in its eternal sense, can serve as an inspiration every Mother's Day as we take in whatever messages have been prepared by well-meaning saints seeking to serve.<br /><br />We honor our mothers and our Mother, and hope that the mothers in our lives receive as divinely as they have given (and continue to give). And we aspire to the godly nature of their examples as they reflect and aspire to the parental concern and love of a Heavenly Father and Mother, who embody true Fatherhood and Motherhood.<br /></div>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-74754171885568301702009-01-25T21:53:00.000-05:002009-01-25T21:57:12.380-05:00What's the Difference Between Faith/Belief and Hope?When considering the scriptural trivecta of faith, hope, and charity, I often stop to pause more and consider what I mean by faith and charity more than I reflect on hope. Clearly, with the three appearing together repeatedly in scripture, there is more than a coincidental connection between them. Even so, however, the differences between the three may prove instructive in augmenting our implementation of each. I focus here primarily on the distinction between faith and hope, with the anticipation that such a line of thought will assist us in applying both (not to the exclusion of charity, also). <div><br /></div><div>Our everyday usage of "hope" includes a blend of temporal and spiritual. Some may say that they hope it snows tomorrow (or that it doesn't snow). Others might say that they hope to come into a large sum of money. In some situations, we might allege to hope that someone falls and breaks their neck. At other times, we hope that something we said did not hurt or offend another. All of these usages of "hope" can help us to find meaning in the way that the word hope appears in scripture.</div><div><br /></div><div>From these everyday usages, we can find hope in things both future and past. Hope can apply to things that are morally good or bad. In addition, hope might lie in something with a remote possibility or in something with a significant likelyhood of obtaining. As we analyze this, we may conclude that hope does not necessarily lend itself well to a categorizational approach of definition. Although many times hope involves confidence in an outcome, it does not always involve such confidence (i.e., the hope to come into a large sum of money). Nevertheless, it seems that one could not truly hope for the impossible (i.e., saying "I hope that the lawn mows itself tomorrow" seems to mean more that "it would be cool if..." than a true hope that I'll arise in the morning to find the grass has mowed itself). </div><div><br /></div><div>In this context, a necessary component of hope is belief that the outcome desired or hoped for is within the realm of possibility. From the example of hoping that something already said and heard did not offend another, we can see that hope does not have to be always forward-looking. Some hopes look forward, others look backward. We can truly hope that an accident victim who passed away did not suffer too much before passing. Similarly, we can hope that we will avoid a similar fate in the future.</div><div><br /></div><div>As such, hope suggests an openness to possibilities, or to a desired possibility, that is probable to some degree or another. Under such an approach, Elder Maxwell's distinction between proximate hope and eternal hope can guide the connection between our understanding of hope and faith. Proximate hope centers on things connected to our current, mortal, horizon. We hope for safety for our family or for professional success. Eternal hope seems to add to the general understanding of hope the component of faith. When Paul refers to a "lively hope" it seems he may be alluding to the same idea. Hope takes on added life when coupled with a choice to accept or believe as true a worldview that assists us to orient ourselves toward God and others and that allows us to organize our lives accordingly. </div><div><br /></div><div>Thus, faith seems to occupy the position of a belief-choice regarding a worldview. Faith does not imply knowledge (indeed, the two notions are considered distinct in the canon of scripture), but does imply a course of life predicated upon the choice to believe. At its root, any living in the world requires that we make certain belief-choices. We choose to believe in the connection between certain choices and consequences and reorder our lives based on this belief-choice. Similarly, we choose to accept a worldview including (or excluding) God's existence and reorient ourselves to our world, to ourselves, and to others as a result.</div><div><br /></div><div>In this manner, faith becomes a stabilizing force in our lives, supplying us with assurance and evidence for the life we have built upon it. Hope occupies the role of an openness (tied to optimism) to the possibilities in our lives and worldviews. In this way, faith and hope intertwine, with belief-choices contributing to our worldviews and the limits of our possibilities and hope reinforcing our faith, motivating us to take the needed steps to reorient ourselves to the new world (kingdom) created through our belief choice. (And, interestingly, this reorientation, when premised upon the doctrines of Jesus Christ, of necessity involves a charitable reorientation to the world.) In sum, faith and hope do not express the same thing, but mutually reinforce one another (again, not excluding charity, also), in a manner that makes hope enlivening.</div><div><br /></div><div>The perfect brightness of hope spoken of in holy writ comes through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as our Messiah and Redeemer. This principle opens up eternal possibilities and creates for us a new identity and thrusts us into a new creation. To instill faith and hope, however, requires that our initial interest or desire be met with the Lord's Spirit to infuse that interest or desire with the requisite change in worldview and orientation to possibility that the result is that we become new creatures in Christ--new, faithful and hopeful persons. Thus, again, the beginning and end of our study turns and returns us to seeking and obtaining the Spirit of the Lord, which will fill us with faith, hope and charity.</div>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-73507626565819508132009-01-25T20:34:00.004-05:002009-01-25T21:56:06.142-05:00window to the soul<div style="text-align: center;">"window to the soul"</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">oceans of clear blue water,<br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">opening up wide realms,</div><div style="text-align: center;">comfort, peace, desire,</div><div style="text-align: center;">intensity</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">blinking mirrors,</div><div style="text-align: center;">reflecting and refracting,</div><div style="text-align: center;">opening visions,</div><div style="text-align: center;">searching and revealing</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">beauty</div><div style="text-align: center;">without and within</div><div style="text-align: center;">encircled in sapphire</div><div style="text-align: center;">while encompassing</div><div style="text-align: center;">me</div>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-49496251122409284122008-11-01T11:02:00.005-04:002008-11-02T10:39:10.178-05:00The (False?) Faith/Doubt Divide<div style="text-align: justify;">Are faith and doubt truly and fundamentally incompatible? Because the concept of faith forms so fundamental a part our belief system, its contours merit careful attention. Likewise, the negative space surrounding it merits attention, which is the purpose of this post. <br /></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Faith sometimes carries an ephemeral sense about it, leading to the often assumed conclusion that faith may only exist intangibly. Despite many efforts to redefine faith as involving more than mere belief, such efforts rarely annhilate barriers that many have constructed from an upbringing focusing on faith as belief or as assent to certain ideas or concepts. A few of the more effective attempts of this manner to which I have been exposed redefine faith as belief + action or as "faithfulness." </div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Thinking upon these redefinitions has led me to evaluate what effect they might have on the "negative space" surrounding the idea of faith/faithfulness. I have heard many times that faith and doubt are polar opposites, which concept (at least on its face) received support in the Lectures on Faith (6:12). Notwithstanding the advantages of such a belief, its tendency to stigmatize any harboring of doubts as a betrayal of one's faith can itself create a crippling, chilling effect on both faith and doubt. For individuals whose inquisitive minds instinctively question and examine, even when maintaining faithful observance of covenants, the thought that questioning or reevaluating their beliefs might actually constitute a rejection of those beliefs can lead down a dark path paved by the great deceiver.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Rather than reinforce this false divide, making use of the concept of faith as faithfulness seems to restructure the "negative space" of doubt. Instead of seeing doubt or questioning as something to either avoid or embrace wholesale, the faith as faithfulness idea seems to suggest that in the gospel and in scripture, doubt should be understood as "doubtfulness" or acting on doubt--similarly to faith being understood as "faithfulness" or acting on faith. In this light, doubt loses its independent positive or negative connotation and may return to its rightful place alongside belief as means to an end (whether the end is good or bad depends on the direction that the belief and doubt lead us). Questions and inquiry and examination can allow a righteous individual to pursue righteousness and faithfulness as did Joseph Smith, without worrying whether his questioning of the various tenets of faith which surrounded him would eternally condemn him as a "doubter" or infidel. </div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Although faith as faithfulness and doubt as doubtfulness may not provide every answer or resolve all lines of inquiry, leaving these interpretations open can allow the believer to hold fast to their belief while evading the forces that would require an unquestioning belief in the face of doubt. Doubt can then act to strengthen belief in truth by allowing for questions and inquiry to uncover reinforcing truth, enabling intelligent belief and a spiritual way of learning truth by study and also by faith. Similarly, doubt and questioning and inquiry can provide means for discrediting the untrue by providing believers the freedom to hold fast only to true beliefs and not feel obligated to embrace every whim that might entice them down roads of human musings and sophistries.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The true believer may then proceed to "prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Romans 12:2). Faithfulness can include faithful doubting and questioning and inquiry so long as such faithfulness directs itself at bringing the faithful individual closer to God and to truth. In this manner, the possibility that faith and doubt may coexist in the same individual simulataneously without either threatening the security of the other seems real, provided that the individual retains the motivation to follow truth. Such a motivation seems to be the root of faithfulness. What doubt may remain can serve as a catalyst to further learning--an enabling power to the seeker for truth. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Only when doubt gives rise to doubtfulness--to unfaithfulness--should it be absolutely shunned. Otherwise, the beginning and ending point of faith is a perfect knowledge. As recounted in Ether, the brother of Jared "knew, nothing doubting." (Ether 3:19). Such a description should not be the touchstone of faith, but rather of knowledge. None of us should expect to begin our journey at the culminating point.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Faith strengthens into knowledge through experiences of faith--which by definition require belief in things as yet unknown, or in things where some question may remain. Thus, the absence of certainty becomes a hallmark of faith, allowing for faithful doubt, questioning and inquiry. These gifts--the gifts of faithful doubt, faithful questions, and faithful inquiry--may form the stumbling block of this age. To reject them is to reject the progress that they offer--even if that rejection is pronounced in the name of seeking certainty or knowledge. Thus, seeking to know, "nothing doubting" mistakes an end for the means to achieve it. To attempt to reach knowledge without first passing through faith--and tests of faith--only serves to limit our agency and our ability to progress, a form of self-damnation.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Knowledge and certainty do not come from discarding faithful questions, but rather from embracing them and the learning that they open unto us. We cannot be acted upon and not act, cannot shelve faithful inquiries instead of pursuing them, and expect to receive the blessings of the faithful--even the growth from faith to knowledge. Instead, the Gospel requires that we remain faithful despite the (initial, and possibly long-lasting) absence of knowledge. It requires that our faith persist in the face of doubt. Only then are we truly exercising faith and relying on it as our "evidence of things not seen" or known (Hebrews 11:1).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As faithful adherents to the Gospel, we must maintain our faith in the face of doubt. We must, as Paul described it, "against hope, believe[] in hope" (Romans 4:18). And through such faithful experiences--when faced with true tests of faith, requiring careful thought and questioning and study, even as we pass through the valley of the shadow of doubt--we grow in faith unto the perfect day when our faithfulness allows for the Spirit of God to answer all faithful doubt, questions, and inquiries. </div>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-40555569429379279992008-11-01T11:00:00.000-04:002008-11-01T11:01:59.615-04:00eden<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68); font-family: 'Segoe UI'; font-size: 13px; "><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span class="EC_apple-style-span"><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">cloak removed,</span></span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">covering hidden,</span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">absent longing returns</span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; "> </span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">justification fled</span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">when will, revealed</span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">and covered by</span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">Will,</span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">opened the path</span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">leading away</span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">toward the reentry</span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; "> </span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">fruit half-eaten</span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">tangy and sweet,</span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">the bloodstain </span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">lingers on lip</span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">as longing eyes</span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">engrave</span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; "> </span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">ungraven image</span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">eye of faith encompasses</span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">yet fading forms</span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">shadow</span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; "> </span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">rippled reflections </span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">reveal failings,</span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">sustain new stature</span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; "> </span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">a new creature emerges and</span></span></p><p class="EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="line-height: normal; font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;color:black;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; ">returns,</span></span></p></span>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-43821308256585509342008-09-21T20:55:00.002-04:002008-09-21T21:48:30.860-04:00On Being MissionariesMy time during the interval between my last post and this one has been largely filled with thoughts geared toward my current calling as Ward Mission Leader. I brought upon myself a flurry of activity in that regard by suggesting that we challenge our Ward to engage ourselves as member missionaries more actively during the month of September, and most specifically during the week between today and next Sunday. As a part of this, the Bishopric gave me opportunities to teach the August 31 fifth Sunday lesson to our priesthood and Relief Society on this topic, and followed that by asking my wife and me to speak in Sacrament meeting today. I also presented a musical number on clarinet, engaging me in the meeting from several angles as I prepared the music and arranged "Hark All Ye Nations" and "Rejoice, the Lord is King" into a unified medley.<div><br /></div><div>That said (and with apologies for my delay in writing), I have had several thoughts that might be of use to any who might read this post, and from which I may benefit for having written. Foremost is the focus on being missionaries rather than on doing missionary work. Elder Bednar's talk about preparing for missionary service by being missionaries now rather than any "one true and living missionary preparation regiment" informed this train of thought greatly. I find myself responding with more enthusiasm to a challenge to be a missionary than a challenge to do missionary work. In viewing the command to be missionaries this way, I have focused on 2 Corinthians 3:1-3 wherein Paul sets the Saints up to be the epistles (or letters of introduction) of Christ to those around them. They are epistles written not with ink, but with the Spirit of God; written not on tables of stone, but on the fleshy tables of the heart. In this way, we become witnesses, missionaries in the true sense of having been sent on a mission. As we integrate the gospel and teachings of Jesus Christ into our lives, our instinctive response, forming a part of the pattern of the plan of happiness, becomes a missionary response. Thus, our interactions with others naturally gravitate toward our experiences with the Lord from time to time, creating opportunities to share our witness without any awkwardness, stiffness, or discomfort. </div><div><br /></div><div>The notion of being a missionary and of sharing our testimony or sharing our witness turns the mind to what being a witness truly entails. The notion of testimony and witness becomes particularly significant to one trained in the law, and conditioned to view experiences and events in terms of evidence. In the legal profession, effective witnesses must give competent testimony, must limit their testimony to relevant topics, and must convey credibility to their testimony such that a skilled advocate may use their testimony together with that of other witnesses to craft an entire case.</div><div><br /></div><div>Similarly, the Lord, acting as our Advocate with the Father, creates a case. Our testimony must first be competent. This means that it bases itself on actual events and experiences with which we have firsthand knowledge. We give testimony about what we have experienced. Thus, our personal experiences with the Lord form the foundation of our testimony. It is important to note that we need not be every kind of witness. Not every witness in a legal trial gives expert medical evidence, expert forensic analysis, eyewitness accounts and character evidence. Nor need we feel obligated to check every box in giving our witness of each facet of the gospel each time an opportunity arises to bear testimony. We merely need to impart our experiences with the Lord.</div><div><br /></div><div>Related to this concept, witnesses are to limit their testimony to relevant evidence. Statements about a witness' family might be accurate and true; however such statements would have no relevance to what that witness observed about her workplace in the days leading up to an incident. In the same manner, we need not testify to every gospel principle during every opportunity to bear testimony of which we avail ourselves. In conversations relating to our family, we can limit our testimony effectively by sharing how the gospel has given our family a foundation on which we find stability despite the tumultuous times surrounding us, perhaps including an anecdote about family prayer or family home evening and inviting those hearing the testimony to join us the next time. Or we can talk about how blessed we feel to have a living prophet who can issue warnings, as did President Hinckley in October 2001 when he made reference to Joseph's dream almost exactly seven years prior to our current economic turmoil. Relevant testimony need not be formulaic--in fact it loses power when reduced to trite, contrived or repetitive statements rather than a sincere and simple statement of our experience.</div><div><br /></div><div>We find our testimony through our own experience with the Lord. Zechariah recounts a vision with which each of us can identify in Zech. 3. In this vision the accuser, Satan, points to our filthy garments; whereupon the Lord replaces those filthy garments with clean white clothing and a royal crown upon our heads. He invites us to walk in His ways and keep his charge. If we so do, he promises us that we will judge his house and keep his courts and that he will give us places to walk among those that stand by. In effect, our Advocate with the Father opposes Lucifer, the prosecutor seeking the spiritual death penalty for our sins. Jesus pleads our cause (Isaiah 51:22), entering a plea of not guilty by reason of atonement. At this point, we become witnesses of Jesus Christ--his epistles and missionaries.</div><div><br /></div><div>When we have genuine experience upon which to draw and we give relevant evidence, our witness may be joined with others to form a compelling case, sufficient to meet any standard of proof, whether it be more than a scintilla of evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt, or anywhere in between. </div><div><br /></div><div>Peter admonished us to "sanctify the Lord God in [our] hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh [us] a reason of the hope that is in [us] with meekness and fear" (1 Pet. 3:15). As we become missionaries and understand the mission we have been given (Jacob 1:17), we can act on the calling that we have each received as a result of our desires to serve God (D&C 4) and share our witness of God at all times and in all things and in all places that we may be in (Mosiah 18). Then we take upon us the image of Christ, even to the point of having that image engraven upon our countenances (Alma 5) as the Lord engraved us upon his palms and his feet. </div>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-12119728153952816492008-08-08T12:08:00.000-04:002008-08-08T12:08:12.040-04:00Ceasing our Worship of the God of the Lost Keys<div align="justify">This post has been brewing in my mind for some time, but before I get too far into it, I do want to make clear that in no way am I suggesting that God does not care about us personally or that He is unable (or unwilling sometimes) to intervene. The thrust of my post intends to force us all to rethink the way or ways in which we approach the true and living God. So without further ado...</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">We all know the pattern of the story, a desperate moment of searching for the lost keys followed by an intent prayer that leads to the rediscovery of the missing keys. Although not involving keys, I have had similar experiences myself, both in the literal sense, and in the spiritual/symbolic sense. So I do not say that the stories do not stem from faithful individuals approaching the God of the universe and receiving from His tender mercies. Usually, these stories come from spiritually sensitive individuals who love God and seek to find His hand in their lives.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">That said, I wonder if we (more accurately if I) have become complacent or idolatrous in our (my) approaching God as a result of such experiences? I find, sometimes, that my experiences in prayer have been shaped negatively when I reflect on such "lost keys" moments, and extend that reflection to my worship as a whole. In other words, I find that my overall outlook may have been distorted through the lens of the "god of the lost keys." This phrase merely serves as shorthand for the larger phenomenon. Sometimes our experience with God seems more pragmatic than spiritual. We approach Him more as the latest, best technology--as the truly universal remote control which can function in ways that science could only dream. We ask (and expect!) blessings that short-circuit the growth process, then complain when we perceive any so-called failure of the "technology." </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">Religion, at least in my view, should entail more than perfunctory statements of thanks, followed by a wish list that could as easily be directed by a child toward Santa Claus. The "false gods we worship," as so aptly taught by President Spencer W. Kimball, do not only include the temporal. Perhaps more commonly, we transform the true and living God into our own personal god, complete with our own personality (granted, with improvements to achieve our perception of what perfection should be), with our desires (sometimes adding what we wish we desire, too), and with our perspective.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">When we fall prey to President Kimball's "false gods," we disobey God and give preference to the things of the world. Perhaps more insidiously, though, when we fall prey to the "god of the lost keys" worldview, we obey--but our obedience is to a degenerate form of the true God which we have created through our interpolations. Rather than making idols out of the things of the world, we create a false god by reshaping God to more completely match up with our preconceived notions of what "God should be like" regardless of scripture or revelation. We pave our own shortcut to "god" by molding notions of the divine to conform to ourselves instead of transforming ourselves as a response to the divine presence in our lives. We cling to our self-created characterization of god (idol worship, if ever an idol has been worshipped) instead of opening our minds to accept that perhaps His thoughts really are not our own, nor His ways ours--instead of acknowledging that our understanding of God must continue to grow or our line-upon-line learning must come to an end and we will lose that which we have been given.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">To elaborate further with an example, we may decide based on our opinion or "learning" that God desires for us to take a certain course of action which we have found desirable--perhaps something significant like marrying a certain partner, pursuing a particular career, or having children. When we decide that this is God's will for us and make it a matter of prayer and worship, we effectively limit God's role, setting up a "god of the next decision." This god wants us to act a certain way, and if this god fails to bless us in ways that we perceive would open the way before us to arrive at our desired destination, the god may fail us. If we do receive the desired blessing(s), we instincitvely attribute the result to the desire of this god. </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">Behind all of this, however, lies our discernment in ascertaining whether our own desire may have departed from the will of the true God, or whether God really has left the decision up to our own exercise of agency. If such is the case, attributing the success or failure of the venture to the "god of the next venture" or to our version of god merely reinforces our own conception of god as technology. We think that God should function as the power which enables us to achieve that which science is still too limited to do for us. In effect, we rely on ourselves and on the arm of flesh to a point, then when our own power finds its limit point, we turn to the "god of the lost keys" to do what we want, when we want it.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">Recognizing that we too frequently transform the workings and will of God into our own degenerate form of divinity, we may reflect back on our experiences to discern when we are projecting our "god of the lost keys" onto our lives and when God truly has a hand in directing us. We may find that what we thought several years ago must have been God's influence was instead our own frailty convincing us that God intended one course when it was merely our own god usurping the throne and enticing us toward that which we had wanted more than we wanted to accept God.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">The perspective that I find opening a way for "tender mercies" while maintaining a more proper worship of the true and living God recognizes my limitations and God's power. With this altered orientation toward God and the world, I still find myself in the same desperate times when I need my keys (literally and figuratively) more often than I would like. However, at those moments of need, I find myself striving to approach God without an expectation that God will act as a key-finder, and instead with the perspective that I worship a good, just God, who will listen to me and permit me to struggle. I may ask for help, but leave it at that, or ask for help to overcome my forgetfulness and to remember, rather than help to find. A very subtle difference, yet reflective of a different relationship with God. One which strives to worship Him as a son of God, and one which acknowledges His hand in my life, even when I may not always recognize it or may mistake my own hand for His. Yet one which is shaped by His undying love despite my amateur attempts at discerning and at worshipping. </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">Replacing our worship of the "god of the lost keys" requires a willingness to continue learning, and to abandon the dross and filler that we have permitted to enter into our conception of God. We must realize our limitations and act in faith by acknowledging the existence of God and becoming better acquainted with him through His hand as it truly acts. Such faithfulness embraces much of the gospel, but goes deeper, grounding itself in a relationship between God and man, Creator and creation, Father and son, which only remains a true relationship for as long as it has no endpoint, no moment (at least during mortality) when we feel that we truly "know" what we need to know. For the moment that we think that we have figured it out or that we know enough, our knowledge evaporates.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">Thus, the quest is to authentically experience the divine in our lives and to respond appropriately. When we depart from this to suggest any arrival, we have surely arrived, but at a destination we thought we were avoiding. Therefore, let us cast down any idols, whether of wood or stone or plastic or merely individual conceptions of God, and bow before Him who is mighty to save, for this is our only authentic response to His voice.</div>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-26545404588895252502008-07-29T12:11:00.002-04:002008-07-29T12:29:52.863-04:00A New Perspective on the Naaman Narrative<div align="justify">As I reflected on Naaman's story this weekend, the richness of the story's symbolism dawned on me in new light. We are familiar with the basics of the plot line and I find no need to rehash them here. Suffice it to say that he, as a foreigner (Gentile), sought instruction from the prophet to cure leprosy and received counsel to wash seven times in the Jordan River.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">Having laid out the basics of the narrative, consider the role of foreigners/Gentiles in the context of the Jewish nation. They were considered as lacking the necessary covenants to obtain the fullness of the salvation promised to the children of Israel. In this light, the identity created by communities makes Naaman's identity as foreigner important in the trajectory of this story.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">Naaman consults an Israelite to overcome leprosy--and not any Israelite, a prophet. Paul likened the prophet of Old Testament times, the high priest, unto Jesus Christ--even linking Jesus as the reality of which the prior high priests and prophets had served as types and symbols. In this light, we can rightly consider Naaman to have approached the Lord to overcome leprosy.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">This turns our attention to the condition of leprosy. Ancient societies saw leprosy as one of the more abhorrent diseases. The condition which led skin to decompose and fall off of the bones merits such avoidance as appears in the Old and New Testaments. Indeed, this condition presents as a kind of living dead. Lepers remain alive, while living out a life of death. Symbolically, sin constitutes leprosy. A sinner lives, yet dies every moment. Sin creates death out of life and a mortal in a condition of sin must remain so and live out his or her days in a living demise.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">The cure proposed by the prophet acting in the role of the Messiah simply asked Naaman to wash seven times in the Jordan River. This prescription, however, draws on likewise rich symbolism. The history and future of Jordan merits attention at the outset. Jordan is where the children of Israel entered the Promised Land--a point of crossing. Tradition held that Abraham may have likewise traversed Jordan when he first entered Palestine. Jordan's significance culminated when Jesus "crossed" Jordan at His baptism, following his time in the wilderness in echo to (and fulfillment of the type of) the Exodus. Thus, Jordan becomes the symbol of entrance into Israel, and hence, into the covenant relationship with God.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">Having seen the symbolism of Jordan, we may turn to the instruction to wash in Jordan. If Jordan may be understood as the covenant, a leper may wash in the covenant--may be washed in the atoning blood of the great and last Sacrifice--and overcome leprosy. The living death may be overcome. The instruction to wash seven times draws on the number seven's symbol of perfection and divinity. This reinforces the divine power and symbolism of Jordan, and also emphasizes that the crossing into the covenant must be complete. That a departure would render the conversion incomplete and the leprosy would remain. In this manner, Naaman's experience casts a pattern which should (must) be followed by all prospective initiates into the gospel covenant. True conversion requires all to approach the High Priest and respond to His call, which will require acting on instructions that may seem foolish or rudimentary, yet which inevitably lead to the Promised Land.</div>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-87402009746452532232008-07-24T10:21:00.006-04:002008-07-24T11:02:10.903-04:00On Priesthood: Organization (Part 1 of 3)Does the organization of the Priesthood teach more than the lists of duties often associated with it? How can the revelations organizing the Priesthood impact our lives more than by offering checklists? As I proceed, hopefully some thoughts begin to form...<br /><br />[Parts 2 and 3 will address the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood (2) and the Keys of the Priesthood as compared with Power in the Priesthood (3)]<br /><br /><div align="justify">The Priesthood of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as revealed most elaborately in D&C 20, 84 and 107 and as practiced in the modern church finds two primary subdivisions: Melchizedek and Aaronic. These subdivisions, made explicit in section 107, raise questions regarding the nature of priesthood (many of which will require significantly more thought than I have yet given them), including the following, divided by verse in that section:</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">Verse 1<br />Should we regard this division of priesthood as indicative of inherent and eternal differences or divisions? Or do the modifiers (Melchizedek, Aaronic and Levitical--and Patriarchal) serve some purpose other than that of classifying or subdividing priesthood? </div><div align="justify"><br />Why does the Lord describe "two" priesthoods when using three descriptive modifiers? </div><div align="justify"><br />How is a Latter-day Saint to understand this priesthood framework in light of the rituals of the ancient and modern temples? How did the Lord intend for Joseph and the Elders to receive it in the nineteenth century? How does that voice to nineteenth century members resonate today? </div><div align="justify"><br />Given the introductory language of the heading to the Section, when was this early portion of the Section received? </div><div align="justify"><br />Is the Lord saying that the Levitical priesthood is included in the Aaronic? Or in the combination of Aaronic and Melchizedek? Does the temple answer this question fully? </div><div align="justify"><br />Verse 2<br />Is addition to providing Latter-day Saints seeking for cursory answers with an explanation, is the Lord attempting to incorporate by reference the typology of Melchizedek's ministry? Not to mention the "King of Righteousness" element...<br /><a id="Verse_3" name="Verse_3"></a><br />Verse 3<br />"Holy" raises many implications and potential avenues for intertwining the Priesthood with the temple, the law of sacrifice, and the atonement, to name a few...<br />What "Order" is being referenced? (Patriarchal? United? ...)<br /><a id="Verse_4" name="Verse_4"></a><br />Verse 4<br />Which name was being respected or reverenced? Calling it the Melchizedek Priesthood omits the phrase "after the Order of the Son of God." Was the concern for "Son?" Or "God?" Both of which are frequently used by Latter-day Saints... </div><div align="justify"><br />How does referring to the Priesthood as "Melchizedek" respect the Supreme Being's name? How does it reverence the name? How does it avoid too frequent repetition (given the other contexts in which both "Son" and "God" are used)?<br /><a id="Verse_5" name="Verse_5"></a><br />Verse 5<br />What other authorities exist in the church? Aaronic priesthood? Other priesthoods? Other authority? What other offices? </div><div align="justify"><br />What is an appendage to the priesthood? What has been identified as such? How do they append the Priesthood? Is the Lord seeking to turn our minds to Paul's teachings on members individually and collectively? </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">Verse 6<br />To what does the Lord refer in calling the divisions "grand heads?" What sort of imagery is being used? </div><div align="justify"><br />The Lord apparently equates the Aaronic and Levitical Priesthoods. Yet why use different names? Is/should one be preferred over another as Melchizedek is preferred to its prior name referenced in verse 2? Do the modifiers "Aaronic" and "Levitical" describe the same authority, but refer to the differing ways of receiving that authority? </div><div align="justify"><br />What about priesthood lends itself to this division among a "greater" and "lesser/prepatory"? </div><div align="justify"><br />What do we learn from priesthood lineage? Is it just about tracing our authority to God? Or does knowing one's priesthood "genealogy" create a new identity to reorient us toward an eternal (kingdom of priests)? </div><div align="justify"><br />What does the right or privilege of ordination to the priesthood reveal to us about the way that the Lord administers his kingdom? </div><div align="justify"><br />Textually, the introductory "But" seems to suggest that this passage is meant to appear contradictory to the prior verses, suggesting a line of understanding that initial passage toward reading verses one through five as suggesting a unity of priesthood, whereas verse six acknowledges that despite the unity, subdivisions may also exist.<br /><a id="Verse_7" name="Verse_7"></a><br />Verse 7<br />Continuing the theme of subdivisions, the Lord indicates that the office that had initially been the highest office in the Church (with Joseph and Oliver acting as First and Second Elders, respectively), pertains to the subdivision of the Melchizedek priesthood. </div><div align="justify"><br />Why would the Lord use the word "office" to describe the priesthood? Is the word intended to evoke secular themes of political offices? Can that trajectory direct a careful student toward oaths of office in understanding the "Oath and Covenant" of the priesthood? </div><div align="justify"><br />Why phrase it "the office of an elder" rather than merely "the office of elder?" Should the phrasing change our understanding or preconceived notions of what an office means? </div><div align="justify"><br />This verse, in its entirety, seems to underpin the teaching (in <a title="D&C 84:29" href="http://feastupontheword.org/D%26C_84:29">D&C 84:29</a>) that elders are an appendage to the Melchizedek priesthood.<br /><a id="Verse_8" name="Verse_8"></a><br />Verse 8<br />What context informs our understanding of what "the right of presidency" means?<br /></div><div align="justify">Verse 9<br />Again, an understanding of the temple seems essential for an informed discussion of "officiating in all the offices." Likewise, the phrase "Presidency of the High Priesthood" raises questions such as "what makes the 'High Priesthood' unique?" "How does it differ from the Aaronic and Melchizedek?"<br /><a id="Verse_10" name="Verse_10"></a><br />Verse 10<br />The history of "high priests" seems to parallel the history of this section, with some parts revealed earlier than others and a fragmentary understanding informing prior iterations. How does the office of high priest differ from other offices? (Consider quorum size restrictions, presiding authority, etc., and compare the context of the early church with more contemporary times.) </div><div align="justify"><br />The list of "elder, priest . . . teacher, deacon, and member seems intended to incorporate by reference Section 20. How do the two sections intersect? </div><div align="justify"><br />By specifying "priest (of the Levitical order)" does the Lord intend to draw a distinction between Levitical priests and Aaronic priests? Or is the phrase from verse 6 equating the two intended to blur that distinction? Given the theme of a unified priesthood with subdivisions, this parenthetical reference may prove instructive in providing insight to the Lord's teachings on priesthood... </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">Verse 16 </div><div align="justify">What significance can we as readers attribute to the phrase "legal right" in verse 16?</div><div align="justify"><br />Why would the Lord introduce the concepts of "legal rights" to Priesthood offices and of literal descendants having such rights in the context of the bishopric instead of connecting them to the Patriarchal Priesthood?</div><div align="justify"><br />Verse 17 </div><div align="justify">In what other circumstances is the verb "officiate" used?</div><div align="justify"><br />Does verse 17 suggest that the First Presidency (the Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood) has the responsibility to call and set apart and ordain all bishops? Or just the Presiding Bishop?</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">And is the phrasing of verse 17 intended to suggest that a literal descendant with a legal right to the office need not be called, set apart nor ordained?</div><div align="justify"><br />Verse 18 </div><div align="justify">How should we understand holding keys, specifically keys of all spiritual blessings, as constituting "[t]he power and authority" of the Priesthood?</div><div align="justify"><br />Verse 19 </div><div align="justify">What significance should be given to the allusion to Revelation and the New Testament concept of "mysteries" in connection with a description or elaboration of the privileges, power and authority of the Priesthood?</div><div align="justify"><br />Verse 20 </div><div align="justify">How do priesthoods hold keys?</div><div align="justify"><br />What principled distinctions can be drawn from the keys held by the two (greater and lesser) priesthoods? Does the "temporal versus spiritual" distinction break down when actually examining the keys held? If so, is one difference that of temporality: pre- versus post-salvation?</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">Initial Thoughts</div><div align="justify">Although this post does not endeavor to undertake answering all of these questions, I do offer initial thoughts (with credit to Joe Spencer who has developed these thoughts with me). As noted in the section heading, "various parts [of this revelation] were received at sundry times, some as early as November 1831." As a matter of fact, it is the later portion of the revelation that was received earlier: the first 58 verses seem without a doubt to have been received on March 28, 1835, while most of the remainder of the section can be found in the Kirtland Revelations Book under the date of November 1831 (some additions were made to the earlier text when it was included in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants). The "various parts" would seem to have been united eventually on the somewhat tenuous grounds of their being something of a consistency of theme in the revelations: nominally, "ON PRIESTHOOD," as the heading read in the 1835 D&C. But there is certainly warrant for reading the first 58 verses of this section in isolation from the remainder of the text.</div><div align="justify"><br />Reading the revelation in this way perhaps diffuses an overly taxonomic reading: rather than being obsessed with hierarchical divisions of the church's labor, the revelation might be read as concerning itself primarily with sorting out the meaning of the ancient priesthood and the way this ancient meaning is to be translated into the modern situation (especially in terms of the Kirtland House of the Lord). The theme of the ancient priesthood runs right through the whole revelation: not only is there an explanation, from the very first verses, about the provenance of the name of the high priesthood, but the revelation comes to its climax in an exploration of the ancient Adam-ondi-Ahman experience and how it bears on the meaning and place of the priesthood. It is apparently in light of these details that this revelation is best interpreted.</div><div align="justify"><br />Given that overall heading ("ON PRIESTHOOD") the Lord deliberately instructs on the nature of Priesthood power by juxtaposing an assertion of "two priesthoods" with three names "Melchizedek," "Aaronic," and "Levitical" in verse one. This introductory remark to versus 1-58 suggests a desire to transgress the boundaries that a more superficial, hierarchical approach to priesthood might impose on a reader, while recognizing the instructive power of a range of descriptive modifiers for priesthood power. Significantly, the Patriarchal priesthood is not specifically mentioned in this verse, although it may arguably appear obliquely in verse three where the "Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God" adds to the three names of verse one. In approaching this revelation from such a backdrop, the ensuing discussion of "grand heads," "offices," "power and authority," "keys" and "offices" seems to manifest a voice of instruction focusing not on an organizational flow chart, but rather on priesthood genealogy and the relational significance attached to the "priesthoods."</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">Beginning with verse 21, this revelation radically altered the saints' understanding of the priesthood, systematizing and organizing it so that it might function as a form of government, in addition to its "cultic" role, dwelt upon in the previous verses. Each verse that follows in this revelation is worth very careful consideration: each has had a major impact on the structure of the Church, as well as on the understanding of the priesthood.</div><div align="justify"><br />The setting is significant. 1835 marks the establishment of church government--an incredibly controversial moment in LDS history now and then ("apostasy" from the Church's organization--as opposed to apostasy from the Church's moral standards or from the contents of a particular revelation--might well be said to center on this very moment of institutionalization, both in Joseph's day and even now). The same year also marks the supersession of the "Book of Commandments" by the "Doctrine and Covenants," the latter text radically altering the former--most obviously in focus and function, but also in actual wording. More still, 1835 is also marked by the acceleration of the work on the Kirtland House of the Lord, with its accompanying emphasis on priesthood. Though this revelation comes early in the year, all of these events form a sort of aura around it.</div><div align="justify"><br />Perhaps still more significant is the immediate textual setting: what follows not only marks a sort of "departure" from previous revelations on the priesthood, it makes a "departure"--as it were--from the characterization of the priesthood offered in the previous twenty verses! But this very fact ensures that what follows is not, strictly speaking, a departure. Rather, something is being added--by the Lord, it must be remembered--to the priesthood ("added" might be the best word to be used here: the governmental structure of the priesthood does not appear to be "eternal"; cf. <a title="D&C 84:29" href="http://feastupontheword.org/D%26C_84:29">D&C 84:29-30</a>, <a title="D&C 107:5" href="http://feastupontheword.org/D%26C_107:5">D&C 107:5</a>). Government for the Church, in other words, is a duty the Lord decided to assign to the priesthood (which, in and of itself, was not of governmental function). All these details, it should be hoped, establish the absolute importance of what begins with verse 21.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">Verse 22<br />This verse marks the first instance of the word "quorum" in scripture. Besides its numerous appearances in the following verses, it only shows up elsewhere in <a title="D&C 124:62" href="http://feastupontheword.org/D%26C_124:62">D&C 124:62</a> and <a title="D&C 124:117" href="http://feastupontheword.org/D%26C_124:117">117ff</a>. The institutional importance of a word so seldomly used in scripture suggests that these two revelations are vital for understanding the role and development of the structure of the priesthood in terms of government. (If a broad characterization of section 107 as over and against section 124 is justified: section 107 deals with the introduction and grounding of quorums, while section 124 basically only mentions quorums because the revelation provides names for some specific positions in those quorums. In other words, section 107 is "theoretical," whereas section 124 is "practical." However, it should not be missed how much the "practicality" of section 124 establishes the vitality of more "theoretical" section 107: the institutional importance of the quorums of the priesthood is not a late phenomenon, but something that developed rather quickly--within the lifetime of the prophet Joseph.</div><div align="justify"><br />It is vital to note that in this passage (as it extends through to <a title="D&C 107:37" href="http://feastupontheword.org/D%26C_107:37">verse 37</a>), however, the quorums that are discussed are only the quorums that govern the Church in the broadest sense. The word "quorum," then, appears to have been understood in its more "official" sense. In fact, by 1835, the less official senses of the word were mostly obselete (see the OED entry on "quorum"), and the 1828 Webster's dictionary lists only meanings that bear on official practices (all implying, interestingly, a situation of judgment or justice). The establishment at work in these verses is not, it must be understood, the establishment of the hierarchical quorums of the priesthood. Rather, it is the establishment of a governing system of quorums/councils who have the authority to conduct the business of the entire Church. <a title="D&C 107:32" href="http://feastupontheword.org/D%26C_107:32">Verse 32</a> is perhaps the clearest confirmation of this point: these several quorums (apparently meaning only the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, and the Quorum of the Seventy) "constitute the spiritual authorities of the church." In short, this first instance of "quorums" in scripture is an establishment, not of the quorums of the priesthood, but of the quorums of general authorities in the several and balancing levels of authority. Hence when, later in the revelation, the Lord discusses the "quorums" of the priests, teachers, and deacons, He never uses the term "quorum" at all (see <a title="D&C 107:85" href="http://feastupontheword.org/D%26C_107:85">verses 85-90</a>, a series of verses quoted there from an otherwise unpublished revelation of November 1831). (It might be noted further that even in D&C 124, there is never mention of a quorum in the Aaronic Priesthood. Though there is some discussion there of the quorum of the elders, the wording is complex, and this might be only a reference to the quorum of the seventy. The implication seems to be that, at least at first, quorums were only a question of the High Priesthood.)</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">D&C 107: 39</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">Here the Lord introduces the office of patriarch, calling those to be ordained to the office, however, "evangelical ministers." Juxtaposed with the lengthy explanation of "this order of the priesthood" that begins with the next verse and continues through verse 57, the title seems odd--and for a number of reasons. The following verses suggest a single line of patriarchs, whereas the commandment in this verse suggests that a number of different patriarchs are to be called in different places. Further, the following verses suggest the most ancient, Old Testament setting for the office, whereas the title "evangelical ministers" has a decisively New Testament flavor (not least because "evangelical" derives from Greek). Finally, though in the following verses it is clear that the patriarchs were part of a more complex covenantal situation (see especially verse 40), the "evangelical ministers" to be called are to be called quite simply "by revelation." In short, the lengthy explanation of the most ancient order of patriarchs seems more to frustrate than to ground this verse (verse 39).</div><div align="justify"><br />However, that the lengthy explanation turns almost immediately to Adam, in whom "this order was instituted" (verse 41), is quite suggestive: the New Testament flavor of "evangelical ministers" might just imply that in the Second Adam, the order has been made new, has been taken up into the logic of charity, has been opened up so that all might become "literal descendants of the chosen seed" through adoptions as sons (in the Son). In other words, the difference between the office named in verse 39 and the office described at length in verses 40-57 should be felt. The priesthood after the order of the father (the "patriarchal" order), once so perfectly exclusive, has been made "available" through the equally "available" priesthood after the order of the Son (from son to father) that Jesus Christ liberated through atonement. The purpose, then, of the lengthy description of the "original" patriarchal order might be at least twofold: on the one hand, the passage establishes the erstwhile exclusivity of a priesthood order now opened up through the available effects of the atonement; on the other hand, the passage deals at length with the meaning and possibilities of the office that remain, even though the possibility of receiving the order has changed.</div><div align="justify"><br />The subsequent history of the office of Patriarch may validate this understanding as the lineal descendants of a single family (Joseph Smith, Sr.) served as Presiding Patriarch to the Church until Eldred G. Smith was given emeritus status in 1979. The recent teachings of President Boyd K. Packer indicate that a patriarch acts in a prophetic role (Oct. 2002 General Conference). Although not sustained as such (perhaps non-sustained callings provides food for thought in another vein altogether), stake patriarchs act in a prophetic capacity for their stake,just as the Presiding Patriarch was explicitly sustained as a prophet, seer, and revelator. The trend toward making the prophetic role available to each stake suggests that the role may extend to the more fundamental units of the church until each household ideally has a patriarch acting in the role of prophet for the family unit. Although speculative, this trajectory validates the textual description of the patriarchal order and the Second Adam opening history back toward the original patriarchal order, thus dividing and uniting history simultaneously.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">Quorums (and not)</div><div align="justify">With the office of patriarch as an interesting segue, I turn to the offices of priesthood. These offices are Deacon, Teacher, Priest, Elder, High Priest, Seventy, Apostle, Bishop and Patriarch. My order deliberately divides those offices which have associated quorums from those which do not. Bishops and Patriarchs, while also High Priests, do not have their own quorums. </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">This division parallels some of the history of the priesthood in which the office of High Priest under the Levitical (Aaronic) Priesthood during the days of the early Jewish Priesthood shares the similarity of presiding over a group of (Aaronic) Priesthood holders with the modern office of Bishop. The reference in section 107 to a legal right to the office of bishop suggests a lineage-based trace tied to that office which has since faded, but lingers in scripture to remind us that this office historically followed the family tree, passing from father to son. </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">Similarly, the office of Patriarch shares ties to the Patriarchal Priesthood held by Adam, Enoch, and Noah. This office, which in those ancient days carried with it the presidency of all Priesthood, also passed from father to son. In its restoration form, the office of Patriarch remained a lineal authority until recently. As mentioned above, the familial ties of this office suggest an intent that men become prophets to their household. As the church units decrease in size until the Patriarchal order is reinstituted, the number of Patriarchs and Bishops will increase until each (family) unit could ideally be presided over by a unified head, both Bishop and Patriarch, so to speak.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">The remaining offices each have a quorum associated therewith and their responsibilities are tied inextricably to the organization of the Church. Perhaps the entire trajectory of Priesthood is intended to create (High) Priests and Priestesses, to base family units on (shared?) Priesthood power between a husband and wife sealed by and endowed with that power. A return to Adam-ondi-Ahman, as foretold in section 107 and pre-figured in the Fall.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">Perhaps...</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">Postscript</div><div align="justify">The name of the Melchizedek Priesthood comes from one Melchizedek, a High Priest to whom Abraham paid tithes. Some have posited that the absence of Biblical references to Melchizedek could point toward a different figure from Genesis who may have held the title, Melchizedek ("king of righteousness"). Most suggestions identify Shem, Noah's son, as Melchizedek, due to the timeline with Shem's life overlapping that of Abraham, and traditions which held that Noah became incapacitated toward the end of his days and that Shem presided in Noah's stead. The Times and Seasons, under the editorship of John Taylor, equated Shem with Melchizedek and B.H. Roberts, in his The Truth, The Way, The Life (which I will review soon), elaborated approvingly on these suggestions.</div>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-39515505220490843022008-07-06T21:24:00.005-04:002008-07-06T21:48:02.248-04:00To my future children...<div align="justify">This morning, I stood in a circle as my cousin blessed his newborn baby boy. As I contemplated this circle, my thoughts turned to my future children and to the pattern enacted by the ordinance this morning. As I have not yet been blessed with children, I thought that this would be an appropriate occasion to contemplate some of what I felt with them in mind.</div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br /><br />The circle surrounding each newborn echoes circles that will encompass them throughout their life. Circles including confirmation to the Church, priesthood ordinations, blessings of comfort, setting apart blessings, circles formed around altars of the temple, circles of family study and prayer, and ultimately a circle carrying them to their resting place at the close of mortality. Such circles turn the mind to lingering traces of the arms of redeeming love that encircled us prior to birth and that may again encircle us.</div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br /><br />Similar circles may accompany occasions such as birthdays, Christmas, and other events and commemorations that turn the mind forward and backward. Such times cause reflection and contemplation. One is reminded of the pattern and way of life.</div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br /><br />During times of pondering and meditation, a biography of sorts shows itself. This biography may include learning about family, both immediate and extended. Knowing the members of the circles of our lives enriches our understanding of our roots and deepens our appreciation for what we now have. Likewise, we may come to know our family of faith, learning of pioneers, patriarchs, and ultimately of Father and Son. All of these form a part of our own biographies. We are shaped and informed in large measure by these familial biographies.</div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br /><br />Another biographical sketch that we may benefit from annotating and keeping current is a biography of our testimony. Certain events of life mark us indelibly and teach us of ourselves in inimitable ways. When we experience such phenomena, we live the writing of the biography of our testimony. Whether recorded or not, this biography of testimony becomes a foundation to an integrated life. As spiritual truths are integrated, welded together, and allowed to yield more truth, we participate in the authorship of this biography: a book of life. </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br /><br />In reflecting this evening on the baby blessing this morning, I am reminded of the many circles of which I have been a part, as well as others formed to surround me. My biography, both of family and of testimony, has been shaped and marked by members of these circles. I anticipate forming additional circles, and ultimately being marked by the marks as the Savior encircles me in the arms of His love.<br /><br />I hope to allow the in-progress book of (my) life to fully imprint upon me the image and countenance of the Lord, such that I may experience the eternal round that will return me to the loving embrace echoed in the circles I envision for my children, and that I hope will form around me upon my departure from this mortal sphere.</div>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-78652347701524039832008-06-25T08:24:00.004-04:002008-06-26T12:05:10.135-04:00On Milk and Meat...<div align="justify">You're probably thinking 'Not another post on Sunday School!' Not that I've posted profusely on the topic, but the milk and meat theme tends to be a hot-button issue on the bloggernacle. My goal isn't to rehash what we usually say on the subject, but rather to reframe the discussion slightly.</div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify">In 1 Corinthians, 3:2, Paul explains to the saints at Corinth that his instruction has progressed along a milk-meat axis, so to speak, saying "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able." It is this verse to which Latter-day Saints point in justification for their assertions that Sunday lessons be premised on the "milk" of the gospel, leaving the "meat" for other occasions. </div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify">Setting aside the oft-repeated rejoinders to this line of thinking for now (addressed in some of my earlier posts which suggest that teaching and learning requires some degree of "discomfort"), I opt here to take Paul at face value, and evaluate the effectiveness our milk before meat approach to gospel learning.</div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify">With missionary work being an appropriate beginning point for such an evaluation, I turn to the Preach My Gospel manual which contains the material of instruction for our introductory lessons to the gospel. These lessons rely on scripture and point the student toward the Spirit to receive further instruction beyond the lessons. In this manner, the teaching and learning promoted by the missionary lessons transcends the "teacher" and "student." Thus, lasting conversion becomes a reasonable aim to such lessons given the focus and emphasis on experience with the Divine. It seems that the lessons progress from the fundamental to the particular, allowing for a deepening of testimony prior to immersion in the smaller points of the laws of the gospel. Perhaps this model might be one way of approaching milk and meat. It seems incomplete, however, in that the more fundamental teachings seem more "meaty" (for lack of a better word) than those regarding the specifics of tithing or the Word of Wisdom. Thus, we must look further to determine what we really mean about milk and meat.</div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify">Another approach allows for milk to be obtained at official Church functions, with meat being an individual pursuit following up on the foundation laid by the distribution of milk. This seems to be a preferred mode of instruction in our Sunday School classes. By keeping doctrine pure and basic, we give starting points to the more "mature" while avoiding the discomfort that might uproot the testimonies of those who have just come to the milk of the gospel recently. Sunday School lessons typically (although not by absolute requirement) offer an overview of passages of scripture with a few thoughts, targeted at either increasing awareness of scriptures or at providing inspirational/devotional moments. This approach does a good job of offering opportunities to delve more deeply into scripture if the students act on the starting points articulated in class and actively study to answer some of the "hard questions" or "hard doctrines" mentioned in passing during the meetings. The approach does not offer, however, a pattern for study, in that it tends to visibly show milk as the desirable end unto itself without it leading to meat. Paul surely did not intend his statement to suggest that the saints at Corinth would (or should) never eat the Gospel's meat. Similarly here, the Sunday School approach seems to occupy a necessary and good place within our teaching and learning structure; however, if left on its own, it would be insufficient. "[N]either yet now are ye able" (1 Cor. 3:2) seems to almost emphasize the future involving a feast upon the meat of the gospel. </div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify">Where, then, do we turn next? Worship services generally, occupying their place on our Sabbath, would seem to provide a suitable forum for learning and receiving "meat." Indeed, the sentiment expressed by Prophets and Apostles that our saints should come away from worship services having been nourished and fed, rather than entertained or appeased, suggests that Sunday services are an appropriate, if not necessary, place for "meat" to be served.</div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify">If so, how do we resolve the seeming paradox before us? How should gospel instruction and learning be approached?</div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify">Perhaps before considering this, we ought to evaluate how personal study and learning fits into the framework described above. Personal study is bounded by counsel to avoid "deep doctrines." Notwithstanding this, we are also encouraged to make daily, meaningful study of the scriptures a part of our lives. Again, a seeming paradox presents itself. How does one feast so as to comply with the latter portion of advice without crossing into the uncharted territory of the former?</div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify">One approach to personal study may offer a way of splitting the horns of this dilemma, and it should appear familiar. Nephi describes it as "liken[ing]" all scripture unto us. 1 Ne. 19: 23. This approach, however, often turns into a superficial twisting or wresting of scripture to justify our pre-existing and preconceived notions of what scripture means rather than a means for allowing the scriptures to unfold themselves to us.</div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify">To avoid this, perhaps the exercise of "likening" merits reevaluation. Should scriptural contortionism be a competition in the spiritual olympics? Or would we learn and teach better if we learned a different method of likening?</div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify">How else can we liken? One approach that I have found useful relies on the patterns and themes and transcending stories of scripture to shape my life. This does not mean that I twist the scriptural accounts to inject my contemporary understanding or problems into it; nor does it mean that I project my current understanding of doctrine or theology (whatever I may define that to mean) onto the scriptures. Rather, this manner of likening attempts to grapple with the questions and problematics presented in scripture and evaluate the God who stands behind each account. In this way, I attempt to gain knowledge, but also to learn about learning. Articulating this approach will probably require more than this post to flesh out; however, the basic principle of attempting to present personal learning in a way that permits a balanced diet of milk and meat seems important.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">In this vein, one final thought seems to merit attention. In more than one instance, the scriptural record uses a peculiar phrase. First appearing in Numbers 11:12, then recurring in Isaiah 49:23 (quoted in 1 Ne. 21:23), and again in 2 Nephi 6:7 and 10:9, the phrase at issue refers to "nursing fathers." This phrase might seem like a significant departure from the theme introduced above. Notwithstanding this change in focus, the phrase bears reflection. When prophets in these verses refer to queens as "nursing mothers," the phrase carries none of the jarring paradox that "nursing fathers" brings to the scene. </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">How can this phrase contribute to the preceding discussion? First, I note the obvious: males do not nurse their young. I only make mention of this obvious biological fact because this creates the underlying question of these verses. If kings shall be their nursing fathers and queens their nursing mothers, the prophets are attempting to teach a truth beyond the nourishment of children. In what sense, then, can kings act as nursing fathers just as queens act as nursing mothers? This can become clearer by determining what we mean by "to nurse." In this sense, it seems that the phrase refers to breaking down milk into meat. This returns us to the opening thoughts of this post. Perhaps gospel learning and teaching serves this same purpose. If so, then the ongoing calls to teach in the gospel (such as Home and Visiting Teaching, among others) provide opportunities and obligations for each member to feast upon the meat of the gospel through personal study and then to break it down into milk such that it can be presented in a teaching/learning context such as that mentioned above which gives preference to the public instruction focused on milk. In this way, these programs, which for other purposes may be less than necessary in some contexts, provide each member the medium through which a balance of milk and meat is possible. How to engage in this process of breaking down meat into milk, however, merits future attention...</div>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-76791598934746814152008-06-15T18:34:00.004-04:002008-06-15T18:54:38.164-04:00Living with our Filter<div align="justify">No, despite the title, this post has nothing to do with inappropriate website content or food (or water) storage. But it does draw on a basic concept that I recall being introduced in chemistry classes when dealing with tangible, physical filters. From those classes, we may recall the concept in its rudimentary form: that a filter functions by allowing particles of certain shapes or sizes to pass through it while preventing others from passing through the barrier. </div><br /><div align="justify">This basic idea from the physical sciences has provoked some thought in my understanding of how we obtain spiritual knowledge "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little" (Isaiah 28:10, 13) and "receive[] . . . and continue[] in God [to] grow[] brighter and brighter untill the perfect day" (Doctrine and Covenants 50:24). My thinking leads me to believe that we ourselves act as filters for what light and truth we permit to pass through our self-imposed barriers and mark us indelibly for eternity. Under such an analogy, the growth we experience is most closely tied to our openness to learn new truths. Absent such an openness, we prevent continued progress by stagnating what we permit to pass through our filters (ourselves).</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">The analogy to which I refer, is premised on our being our own filters. Our experiences and background, both in mortality and in our pre-mortal life, shape those filters and allow for certain spiritual relationships to shape us and affect us. At the same time, when we have experiences with the Spirit, those experiences in turn transform us into a new filter, which allows different experiences and avenues for Spiritual relations to pass through the filter and affect us in new ways. Thus, we become filters, but also ever-transforming filters. This phenomenon helps to explain how we can turn to the scriptures or ordinances of the Gospel repeatedly and see "new" truths in them each time. Our experiences have changed us, and a change in us changes the filter through which we see and receive new insights and truths. </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">If this analogy holds, we have a great responsibility for our progress, both in constantly engaging in the transformative process of gospel learning and in preserving our openness to so learning. When either of these is lacking, we stand at risk of losing even that which we have. Moreover, we act as filters by our selectivity in choosing in which experiences and activities we will participate or engage. By using our agency (selectivity) and remaining open to learning, we allow for opportunities to transform ourselves and renew our minds (Romans 12:1-2) and learn to live with our filter as a means to the eternal end of living with our Father.</div>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-89469504663282189422008-06-06T08:16:00.000-04:002008-06-06T08:32:33.700-04:00Addendum to "On Transcendence": Personal Restoration<div align="justify">Posting this recent series on transcendence has, together with discussion at <a href="http://mormonmatters.org/2008/06/04/our-foundation-stories-part-ii-the-meaning-of-the-first-vision/">http://mormonmatters.org/2008/06/04/our-foundation-stories-part-ii-the-meaning-of-the-first-vision/</a>, led me to revisit to a talk I gave a few years back when I was assigned to discuss Joseph Smith's First Vision as a part of a Sacrament Meeting with the theme of "The Restoration" (the other speaker was the Bishop's daughter who had recently returned from missionary service in Kirtland). My remarks that day reflected a theme that makes this addendum to my series appropriate. </div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify">For Latter-day Saints, founding stories or "myths" (which description reflects no comment on the content's truth value) share the transcending quality that they tend to repeat themselves in adherents' lives. We can consider ourselves Adam/Eve, Abraham, and so forth as we consider the founding stories associated with those figures. If so, the First Vision should present not merely the story of the beginnings of the Church as an institution. Indeed, it should also not limit itself as representing the story of one prophet's call to the ministry (nor should we so limit it). Rather, our evaluation of the First Vision should reveal to us some of who we ourselves are. In this spirit, we can look first at how Joseph understood his experience, then at how his experience shapes our own experiences.</div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"><strong>Understanding Joseph's Experience<br /></strong><br />Many interpretations of this experience are possible, yet Joseph's earliest account of it reveals his thoughts on its significance. He framed his narrative beginning at age twelve, when his "mind became seriously imprest with regard to all the importent concerns for the wellfare of my immortal Soul" (sic). Given this context, the tone of his account reveals a great sensitivity to his sins and his desire to overcome them. As recorded by Frederick G. Williams in that account of 1832, Joseph retold his experience as follows:</div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify">"[M]y mind become excedingly distressed for I became convicted of my Sins ... and I felt to mourn for my own Sins and for the Sins of the world ... therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy forthere was none else to whom I could go and {to} obtain mercy andthe Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in [the] attitude of calling upon the Lord [in the 16th* year of my age] a pillar of {fire} lightabove the brightness of the Sun at noon day come down fromabove and rested upon me and I was filld with the Spirit of God and the [Lord] opened the heavens upon me and I Saw the Lord and he Spake unto me Saying Joseph [my son] thy Sins are forgiven thee. go thy [way] walk in my Statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory ... and my Soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great joy and the Lord was with me but could find none that would believe the hevenly vision. . . . Nevertheless I fell into transgression and sinned in many things which brought wound upon my Soul and there were many things which transpired that cannot be writen and my Fathers family have suffered many persecutions and affliction." </div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify">The way that Joseph narrates this experience suggests that even in 1832, he understood his First Vision as bearing more on his conversion and salvation than on a prophetic call or on the beginnings of the Church as an institution. </div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify">This First Vision does not present a checklist of important doctrinal and theological truths that Joseph learned through his experience. Rather, it shows us a young boy who received comfort and love and joy as an answer to his conversion/repentance. As such, and given our modern (re)interpretation of this extraordinary event, the First Vision presents itself through Joseph's eyes more as a conversion narrative than as a founding event. Joseph had great concern for his sins and his relationship to God, therefore he presented himself before God and obtained a remission for his sins. His narration indicates an awareness of the apostate condition of the world (see appendix for the full account, as well as Joseph's other accounts), yet the significance of the event to Joseph was the joy that came through forgiveness.</div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify">As with Joseph, so each of us finds ourselves in the midst of apostasy. Paul's teaching that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23) holds in each of our lives as it did with Joseph Smith. Although Latter-day Saints believe in The Restoration, each sin that brings us short of the glory of God returns us to a state of personal apostasy. If we attune ourselves to that consequence as did Joseph, we can experience the same joy as did he through a personal restoration. We can engage with Joseph's story in this personal way regardless of our membership status and can carry it forward with personal significance. Doing so reenacts the First Vision and eliminates the distance between us and the story. By destroying this distance, we become a part of the story and can feel its power as we read it--not just in the sense that it marked the inception of a dispensaion or a prophetic call. We can read it as a type of our experience(s) with the Lord. In this way the First Vision becomes more than a story and becomes a pattern with transcendent power, enabling the faithful to return to it repeatedly and reap the rewards of the Restoration. </div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify">*****</div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify">Appendix: Joseph Smith's Accounts (see <a href="http://www.lds-mormon.com/fv.shtml">http://www.lds-mormon.com/fv.shtml</a>)</div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"><strong>Joseph's 1832 Account of his Experience</strong></div><br /><div align="justify"><strong></strong></div><br /><div align="justify">"At about the age of twelve years my mind became seriously imprest with regard to the all importent concerns for the wellfare of my immortal Soul which led me to Searching the Scriptures believeing as I was taught, that they contained the word of God thus applying myself to them and my intimate acquaintance with those of differant denominations led me to marvel excedingly far I discovered that [they did not {adorn}] {instead} Of adorning their profession by a holy walk and Godly conversation agreeable to what I found contained in that Sacred depository this was a grief to my Soul thus from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the sittuation of the world of mankind the contentions and divions the wickeness and abominations and the darkness which pervaded the {of the} minds of mankind my mind become excedingly distressed for I became convicted of my Sins and by Searching the Scriptures I found that {mand} [mankind] did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament and I felt to mourn for my own Sins and for the Sins of the world for I learned in the Scriptures that God was the same yesterday to day and forever that he was no respecter to persons for he was God for I looked upon the sun the glorious luminary of the earth and also the moon rolling in their magesty through the heavens and also the Stars Shining in their courses and the earth also upon which I stood and the beast of the field and the fowls of heaven and the fish of the waters and also man walking forth upon the face of the earth in magesty and in the Strength of beauty whose power and intiligence in governing the things which are so exceding great and marvilous even in the likeness of him who created {him} [them] and when I considered upon these things my heart exclaimed well hath the wise man Said {the} [it is a] fool [that] Saith in his heart there is no God my heart exclained all all these bear testimony and bespeak an omnipotent and omnipreasant power a being who makith Laws and decreeeth and bindeth all things in theirbounds who filleth Eternity who was and is and will be fron all Eternity to Eternity and when I considered all these things andthat [that] being Seeketh such to worship him as worship him inspirit and in truth therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy forthere was none else to whom I could go and {to} obtain mercy andthe Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in [the] attitude of calling upon the Lord [in the 16th* year of my age] a pillar of {fire} lightabove the brightness of the Sun at noon day come down fromabove and rested upon me and I was filld with the Spirit of God and the [Lord] opened the heavens upon me and I Saw the Lord and he Spake unto me Saying Joseph [my son] thy Sins are forgiven thee. go thy [way] walk in my Statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life [behold] the world lieth in sin {and} at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the Gospel and keep not [my] commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to this ungodliness and to bring to pass that which [hath] been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Apostles behold and lo I come quickly as it written of me in the cloud [clothed] in the glory of my Father and my Soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great joy and the Lord was with me but could find none that would believe the hevenly vision. . . . Nevertheless I fell into transgression and sinned in many things which brought wound upon my Soul and there were many things which transpired that cannot be writen and my Fathers family have suffered many persecutions and afflictions."</div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"><strong>Joseph's 1835 Account</strong></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify">"Being wrought up in my mind respecting the subject of Religion, and looking at the different systems taught the children of men, I knew not who was right or who was wrong, but considered it of the first importance to me that I should be right, in matters of so much moment, matter involving eternal consequences. Being thus perplexed in mind I retired to the silent grove and there bowed down before the Lord, under a realizing sense (if the bible be true) ask and you shall receive, knock and it shall be opened, seek and you shall find, and again, if any man lack wisdom, let of God who giveth to all men liberally & upbraideth not. Information was what I most desired at this time, and with a fixed determination to obtain it, I called on the Lord for the first time in the place above stated, or in other words, I made a fruitless attempt to pray My tongue seemed to be swoolen in my mouth, so that I could not utter, I heard a noise behind me like some one walking towards me. I strove again to pray, but could not; the noise of walking seemed to draw nearer, I sprang upon my feet and looked round, but saw no person or thing that was calculated to produce the noise of walking. I kneeled again, my mouth was opened and my tongue loosed; I called on the Lord in mighty prayer. A pillar of fire appeared above my head; which presently rested down upon me, and filled me with un-speakable joy. A personage appeared in the midst of this pillar of flame, which was spread all around and yet nothing consumed. Another personage soon appeared like unto the first: he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee. He testified also unto me that Jesus Christ is the son of God. I saw many angels in this vision. I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication. . ."</div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"><strong>1838 Account (as reflected in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith-History)</strong></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify">Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, “Lo, here!” and others, “Lo, there!” Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist.<br /><a name="6"></a><br />For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued—priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions.<br /><a name="7"></a><br />I was at this time in my fifteenth year. My father’s family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church, namely, my mother, Lucy; my brothers Hyrum and Samuel Harrison; and my sister Sophronia.<br /><a name="8"></a><br />During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.<br /><a name="9"></a><br />My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.<br /><a name="10"></a><br />In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?<br /><a name="11"></a><br />While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.<br /><a name="12"></a><br />Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.<br /><a name="13"></a><br />At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to “ask of God,” concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture.<br /><a name="14"></a><br />So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally.<br /><a name="15"></a><br />After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.<br /><a name="16"></a><br />But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.<br /><a name="17"></a><br />It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!<br /><a name="18"></a><br />My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.<br /><a name="19"></a><br />I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”<br /><a name="20"></a><br />He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. </div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify"><strong>Wentworth Letter Account</strong></div><br /><div align="justify"></div><br /><div align="justify">When about fourteen years of age I began to reflect upon the importance of being prepared for a future state, and upon enquiring the plan of salvation I found that there was a great clash in religious sentiment; if I went to one society they referred me to one plan, and another to another; each one pointing to his own particular creed as the summum bonum of perfection: considering that all could not be right, and that God could not be the author of so much confusion I determined to investigate the subject more fully, believing that if God had a church it would not be split up into factions, and that if he taught one society to worship one way, and administer in one set of ordinances, he would not teach another principles which were diametrically opposed. Believing the word of God I had confidence in the declaration of James; "If any man lack wisdom let him ask of God who giveth all men liberally and upbraideth not and it shall be given him," I retired to a secret place in a grove and began to call upon the Lord, while fervently engaged in supplication my mind was taken away from the objects with which I was surrounded, and I was enwrapped in a heavenly vision and saw two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other in features, and likeness, surrounded with a brilliant light which eclipsed the sun at noon-day. They told me that all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as his church and kingdom. And I was expressly commanded to "go not after them," at the same time receiving a promise that the fulness of the gospel should at some future time be made known unto me. </div><br /><div align="justify"><strong></strong></div>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-66275104770902125402008-06-04T11:15:00.002-04:002008-06-04T11:16:18.926-04:00On Transcendence: Conclusion (6 of 6)Conclusion: Transcending Experiences<br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />Given the above material on transcending experiences, it appears that much of the meaning central to Judeo-Christianity derives itself from some form of transcending event. The events all seem to deal with separation—either establishing it or overcoming it. Other events could certainly qualify as transcendent; however, for our purposes here, we can now reflect on transcendent events and their significance. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Creation, fall, atonement, and conversion all involve an experience and the object of that experience. We usually speak not merely of creation, but of the creation of the world. Similarly the fall refers specifically to the fall of Adam and Eve. The atonement is the atonement of Jesus Christ and conversion is the conversion of [for example] Abraham. Because each of these transcending events involves the event and its object, they teach about experience with the sacred. The events could not happen without an object; however, an individual cannot create the event. The event marks the crossing (or transcending) of the individual with the sacred, overcoming the separation alluded to in our section on the creation. Thus transcending events illustrate how such experience with sacred things reveals itself. Because of this self-revelatory nature, the nihilistic outlook on the sacred dissolves into a transcending testimony in each individual of the meaningful moments that connect the individual experience with the transcendent.</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />The relationship between subject and object in transcendent events was mentioned in connection with conversion. This relational approach to events seems to defy other attempts to describe them. An event might be characterized as happening to a subject. Under this view, the subject remains seemingly stationary whereas the objects around it move about, causing changes to result. This seems inadequate to describing the transcending events described above. Likewise, attempts to characterize such events as involving the subject undergoing all of the changes (through some modifications in the subject’s manner of perception) fail. Such an attempt would ignore the influence of every subject on the objects with which it comes in contact. Both theories fall short of lived experience because of the interconnectedness between subject and object. As an illustration, the relationship indicated above between a faithful reader and a scriptural text seems illuminating. When the reader explores the various facets of the text, the reader’s subjective experiences may seem to change the experience of reading, despite the object’s seemingly stationary position. On the other hand, the scriptural text works changes in the reader such that an attentive reader is altered by each reading. Thus, when a reader truly engages in an active reading of the text, the text changes the reader. But the reader also does incorporate his or her individual experiences separate from the text with the reading. So the reader changes the text.</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />This examination, then, allows individuals to identify events in their own lives that transcend themselves and in so doing to find meaning beyond the individualistic and (hence) selfish nature of modern living. Examining ourselves within the context of the world as it presents itself to us allow us to partake of viewpoints that might otherwise be overlooked. By incorporating all such points of view, we find that the meaning that many feel they have lost was really hiding within the relationship that the individual has with the world around him. When a transcending event changes that relationship (by adding to or taking away from some degree of separation), the individual changes as does his understanding of the world around him. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />It seems, too, that transcending events can happen without our realizing that they have. One could undergo the change without recognizing that anything is different. Thus, as responsible and striving individuals, if we want to find the transcendent meaning in life, it becomes our task to study the history of the world and its religious, literary, philosophical, and other realms in order to identify what is transcendent in us. When this has been accomplished to even a small degree, through self-reflection, we find that our efforts in recognizing transcendence have paid large dividends and that our lives have been enriched thereby. Such continued self-reflection and outward reaching as seem warranted in our future endeavors as a result of this introductory evaluation of the significance of and meaning inherent in transcendent experiences can expand our understanding until we have satisfied our longing for meaning and true living.</div>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-13710689619911209122008-06-03T12:23:00.003-04:002008-06-03T12:31:18.442-04:00On Transcendence: The Conversion of Abraham (5 of 6)The Conversion of Abraham<br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />Because all of the preceding events lead to conversion, I have put more emphasis on its transcendent nature than on previous events. One’s conversion incorporates the transcendence of these other events to make each individual a self-subsistent part of a converted community. To further explain, we must first consider the event of conversion, and then evaluate conversion in general. The example of Abraham has been used in this discussion although any example could suffice.</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />When discussing conversion, many religious people make use of a wide range of definitions, some of which are contradictory. These well-intentioned attempts to describe or even to break down and analyze a significant religious phenomenon often result in misunderstanding regarding the experiences or phenomena composing conversion because of apparent contradictions resulting from imprecise or inaccurate definitions. When seen in light of a more experiential understanding of conversion, these religious definitions of conversion seem to clarify themselves. Applying a phenomenological approach to attain more general understanding of conversion, then, allows a wider range of persons to mutually understand the phenomenon of conversion.</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Because the term conversion could be applied under many different circumstances, a “universal” definition of this experience cannot rely on a particular understanding of conversion derived from one’s limited experience. Even the collection of several understandings would prove problematic if presented as a definition. This limitation on our experience forces us to consider conversion more as an event as well as more particularly. By examining the experience of conversion, we come to see that acceptance of a set of beliefs, often cited as the definition of conversion, can neither fully define nor accurately describe conversion, since I may say that I am converted to Platonism (or to Cartesian thinking or to other philosophical positions) in the sense that I consider myself a student of (or a “believer” in) Plato’s writings, feeling, perhaps, that I have adopted the requisite beliefs to such a self-identification. Yet I might continue to learn additional philosophical beliefs (for example, Postmodern criticism of Plato’s dialogues) that would be included in the set of beliefs required to be “converted” according to a strict set of necessary and sufficient conditions for conversion as it is often defined. Thus, our description of conversion must reach beyond such an adoption of beliefs to incorporate the possibility of “continued conversion.” Additionally, our discussion of conversion might lead us to conclude that the process of conversion takes a convert through a series of steps, the combination of which forms “complete” conversion. This conclusion, however, if posed as a definition would neglect to recognize the ongoing character of the conversion process and would fall into the same hole as the earlier example, assuming finality to accompany the completion of this set of steps. I could accurately say that, though I was initially converted to Platonism, I continually change and refine my vision of this philosophical view through constant re-readings and re-evaluations of my previous understanding, continuing that conversion on a regular basis. Many academics find that after many years they no longer concord with themselves in some of their earlier publications. They undergo a gradual change of opinion as they re-focus their attention and discover new ways of seeing. They might even say that they had been converted from their earlier beliefs to a deeper understanding within their field. Having evaluated these understandings of conversion, we might begin to think that nothing could describe conversion universally. To resort to an absolute relativism, however, would prematurely ignore some key aspects of conversion—in fact, it would preclude understanding of the most basic aspects of conversion. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Having now evaluated several examples of failed descriptions of conversion, we might evaluate and attempt a positive explanation of this phenomenon. A converted person changes her values and beliefs. Conversion, however, encompasses more than these changes as seen from earlier examples. To be converted, one not only adopts new values and beliefs, but a new vision of the world around her. She recognizes that her position in relation to this world changes as both she and the world change. The constant changing of individual and world yields a new relationship between the two. When the individual recognizes this change and comports herself according to these new relationships, her state would be recognized as “converted.” Thus, the phenomenon of conversion is accurately reflected in describing conversion (though admittedly in simplified form) as a shift in relations between individual and world. This can be reflected linguistically in the terms metanoia from Greek, בוש (shuv) in Hebrew, and conversio from Latin. These terms each have been translated as conversion in English, but they carry connotations that can add to our understanding of the word “conversion,” itself. The Greek term, literally translated, means new or transformed mind, suggesting a renewal process. This term has also been seen as alluding to a process of turning with, suggested by the Latin phrase. This linguistic insight lends support to the experiential description of conversion as a constant change in relations. Similarly, the ancient Hebrew term (shuv) was used as a term for both repentance and for physically turning. The repentance aspect of the turn suggests a change in orientation to the divine, whereas the physical turn literally involves a change in orientation to the world. All of these linguistic examples corroborate the evaluation of conversion experiences as a change in relations. When one is converted, one’s relationships and relations to the world completely change, though such changes may seem gradual to the one changing (or being changed). Granted, these changes might seem minimal, nevertheless, the presence of change in one’s relations to the world creates a new model of Heidegger’s concept of being-in-the-world. Conversion, thus, entails a different way of being-in-the-world. This change can be described through a dialectic between phenomena and descriptions of phenomena (Ricoeur’s “Manifestation and Proclamation”). The individual changes through experience, thus being informed by her experiences. That world, on the other hand, changes as a result of these experiences. The two sources and recipients of change mutually inform one another. This dialectic creates a constantly changing world. The change evident in the world, however, does not constitute conversion; the subject who converts (or who is converted) has no role in that dialectical change. Instead the constantly changing world creates opportunities for relations between a constantly changing individual and his constantly changing world to change. When such changes take place, that individual could then be considered a convert. This “conversion” includes the adoption of new beliefs, but it is not limited to that aspect of conversion. It also allows for the continual refinement or rethinking of beliefs, yielding the “continuous conversion” that was problematic in the above examples of attempted definitions to prescribe what conversion means. This phenomenal account of conversion requires further examination, but to incorporate any such examination, we must move from generalities to specifics, requiring a focus on a narrower universe of discourse. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Religious Conversion </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Having established this preliminary understanding of conversion, the relation of conversion to religious living can now be evaluated. Because of my own limitations with other religious worldviews, I limit my discourse to Judeo-Christianity. I would suggest that a key component of religious conversion involves relational changes in respect to authority. Both Judaism and Christianity have clear authoritative heads after whom they are named. When a person is converted to these religions, her relation to Yahweh or to Christ radically changes. The Yahwistic or Christian conversion involves a relationship with the authority figure. This relationship can lead to one’s recognition that this deity’s way of being-in-the-world supersedes one’s own. Such recognition leads the believer to adopt a way of being attributed to the recognized deity. Thus, the singular change in relation to deity can lead to a complete reversal of one’s way of being-in-the-world in drastic cases (as in the case of Paul, for example). Such conversions are often cited as examples of “religious” conversion. By examining specific examples of conversion, we can approach a fuller understanding of the phenomenon of religious conversion. Scriptural examples (specifically biblical examples) provide a common ground for the Judeo-Christian tradition. By examining these examples of conversions, our own conversions can become clearer and more focused. Significantly, these experiences were not written to enable the conversion of the person whose experience was recorded. These conversion narratives have a different purpose, which can be seen through careful study of the narratives themselves. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Abraham’s Conversion Narrative: Genesis 17 </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Abraham’s conversion narrative provides a particularly useful narrative as the first such experience recorded in detail. The experience narrated in Genesis 12-25 shows Abraham’s change of identity and relation to the world. In this light, as noted in The Encyclopedia of Judaism, Abraham appears under the heading of “Conversion in the early books of the Hebrew Bible,” even though conversion is not specifically mentioned during this early period of Jewish history (Neuser, I: 113). As such, it merits consideration in an analysis of religious conversion. Adding to this merit, the implicit allusions to Abraham as an initial conversion to Yahweh leading many subsequent prophets to record their own conversion in terms of Abraham’s (see accounts of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Paul for examples) makes an understanding of Abraham’s experiences key to understanding the phenomenon of religious conversion in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Because of its status as foundation of Yahwism, Abraham’s conversion merits further analysis as a conversion narrative. Such analysis enables us, as readers and as heirs to the Judeo-Christian tradition, to relate to Abraham and to see our own conversion experiences in light of his own. Thus, our understanding of conversion in general can be enhanced through a careful examination of Abraham’s experience, which textually focuses on the events of Genesis 17. To achieve a phenomenological understanding of this, we turn now to hermeneutics of scripture to aid us in our pursuit of a better understanding of religious conversion. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />The experience recorded in Genesis chapter 17 forms the apex of a chiasm beginning in chapter 12 and continuing until chapter 25. This highlights its significance in the life of Abraham and in the biblical tradition. The Abrahamic story is the first biblical narrative to offer details in its story-telling. Earlier accounts recount the mythic origins of humanity. Abraham’s narrative offers itself as the beginning of the Hebrew people and hinges on the experience of chapter 17 as a landmark event in the history of that civilization although details from the entire Abrahamic narrative prove relevant to a description of that experience. Though the phenomena of the chapter could be described differently, the most widely accepted opinions of Genesis 17 paint the picture of Yahweh establishing his covenant with Abraham. This understanding incorporates the changed relation to authority relevant to our earlier discussion of religious conversion. The narrative portraying Abraham’s experience suggests several changes in relationships. To most understandably analyze this conversion experience, a brief exegesis of Genesis 17 proves helpful.</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Exegesis of Genesis 17 </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Biblical scholars have asserted strongly held beliefs about the text of Genesis 17. They use historical and textual evidences to precisely address the event of Abrahamic conversion. Most of these analyses concentrate on circumcision as the token of the Abrahamic covenant. To understand this event, then, it becomes helpful to examine the scholarly work relating to Abraham’s experience. Specifically, their insight to the history and language used aid in understanding the message of the scriptural passage. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Jewish legends describe Abraham’s conception, birth, youth, and adulthood as miraculous (Ginsberg I: 185-308). These legends specifically identify the experience of Genesis 17 (also recorded in Gen. 15) as the formation of a new identity for Abram (I: 235). This identification portrays Abraham’s background in astrology as context for the experience when Abram looks on the stars and is informed that he will have multitudinous posterity. The legends word this change as a Yahwistic statement: “Thou art a prophet, not an astrologer!” (Ginzberg I: 235). Abram accepts this statement, even though his own astrology had informed him that he would bear no children. Because Yahweh establishes this relation with Abram and changes his identity (renaming him Abraham) Abraham’s life undergoes corresponding changes. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />The text makes several allusions to Abraham’s name and to his family ties, emphasizing the shift in identity inherent in this name change (Wenham I: 20-21). The relationship between a new name and a new identity has continued throughout history, making the two almost synonymous (Plaut 119; see also Kertzer I: 273-277). Genesis 15 and 17 portray Abraham as a stranger (Gen. 17: 8), significantly indicating that his ties to his father and his father’s household have been severed (making reference to the condition established in Gen. 12: 1-3). This essentially means that Abraham has been disinherited from all earthly ties. He has no “home” to which he could go for security or for gain. The establishment of the covenant between Yahweh and Abraham assures Abraham that he will “walk with [Yahweh]” (Gen. 17: 1). This assurance is followed with the promise of posterity for Abraham. This covenant is deemed “everlasting” (Gen. 17: 7), which can also be translated as “perpetual, eternal, or as the vanishing [limit] point” (Strong’s word [#5769] is םלוע or olam). Because of this promise, Abraham’s potential (or the limit point of his existence, speaking of limits mathematically) seems insured by Yahweh. This positive assurance, accepted immediately by Abraham (Gen. 15:6; Ginsberg I: 235), replaces the lost identity and inheritance that Abraham suffered as a result of his dedication to Deity. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />In addition to identity and inheritance, the word “flesh” receives emphasis and significance in the text of Genesis 17. Circumcision literally involves the removal of flesh. Additionally, the promise of posterity makes implicit ties to flesh (or mortality). Yahweh specifically identifies “the flesh of your foreskin” as “a token of the covenant” (Gen. 17: 11). Being uncircumcised literally meant being exposed (Strong, word #6189, לרע, or erel). Thus, by removing this exposure, Abraham became covered (or expiated, see Strong, word #3722, רפכ, or kaphar). The irony of removing flesh (or his own body, his identity, etc., see Strong, word #1312, רשב, or basar) to cover or expiate suggests another level of depth in the covenant established by Yahweh. The irony evident in this juxtaposition emphasizes the fundamentality of expiation in the Yahwistic tradition, making use of existing ideas to convey new meanings, thus redefining adherents. This covenant would provide means of establishing an expiated (or covered) identity, different from that of the flesh or self. The establishment of this new identity becomes evident through the textual emphasis on the flesh. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Circumcision forms the token of the covenant established by Yahweh with Abraham and with his posterity after him. This practice merits consideration, as its institution forms the apex of a chiasm found throughout chapter 17. Genesis chapter 17 can be seen as a single large chiasm or as two related chiasms (Wenham II: 17-18). The large chiasm hinges on Yahweh’s third speech (verses 9-14) wherein circumcision is established as the token of the covenant being set forth with Abraham. The two related chiasms culminate with signs of oaths, one of which is circumcision. This format also falls within a larger chiastic structure of the entire Abraham narrative (Genesis 12-25) as the apex of the entire story. Since chiastic structure emphasizes the central portions, the text itself was written to powerfully show the importance of Genesis 17, and, within that chapter, to show the importance of the covenant as shown through its token: circumcision. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />The ancient practice of circumcision antedates Abraham’s biblical encounter with it. Historically, the practice was often associated with puberty or marriage as a coming-of-age experience (Plaut 118-119). Egyptian circumcision is attested by archaeological finds dating as early as 2400 B.C.E. (Gollaher 1). This practice, explains Gollaher, was most likely not a procedure for health benefits, but “was partly about purification” (5). He goes on to describe the ancient Egyptian circumcision as “a matter […] of moral, spiritual, and intellectual refinement” (6). This historical context of circumcision allows for reinterpretation of the token given to Abraham in terms of the previously existing traditions regarding circumcision. Abraham probably saw this token as a sign of his spiritual rebirth, to be relived in each child born into his family just as would an Egyptian father, but would see that ritual differently due to its timing. The rebirth would take place almost literally at birth, as the practice was prescribed to take place at the age of eight days, (Gen. 17: 12) giving new meaning to the existing practice. The element of grace becomes significant in this reinterpretation, emphasized by the covering (atoning or expiating) suggested in and emphasized through the irony of removal of flesh to cover as mentioned above. This history of circumcision indicates that the ritual instituted in the Abrahamic narrative incorporated an existing practice to be used differently than it had traditionally been used. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Abrahamic Conversion and General Conversion </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />From this exegesis, Abraham’s experience reveals itself as clearly being a conversion as described above. The faithful reader finds this experience both troubling and reassuring. This recognition of the narrative as a conversion account yields a dialectic between individual conversion experience and the account of Abrahamic conversion, where the two experiences inform and change one another. The individual may read Abraham’s conversion and interpret it according to his understanding, thus informing the narrative through his own background. Similarly, the reading of this account can change the individual’s understanding of his own conversion experience like Paul understood his own conversion in terms of Abraham. This relationship forms a dialectic through this process of mutually informing one another to form a hybridized understanding of conversion. The questions of why one’s experience differs from Abraham’s and of how one’s experience conforms to the pattern set forth in Genesis 17 naturally arise from consideration of Abraham’s experience as a conversion account. To answer these, one cannot resort to simple comparisons of components of each experience, for such comparison yields two absolutely distinct phenomena, the individual’s and Abraham’s. Rather, one finds the typological patterns that hold in each (for example, the figure of spiritual rebirth may recur in many conversion experiences). These patterns can expand our general and our religious definitions of conversion to yield a more precise and more specific understanding of conversion. We can consider what Abraham’s experience as recorded in Genesis 17 teaches about conversion in general and how it portrays Yahwistic conversion. These issues bring us back to a phenomenology of conversion (and of Abrahamic conversion), returning from our excursion into the realm of exegesis. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Yahwistic conversion comprises a basic tenet of the Abrahamic conversion narrative. The narrative forms the basis of Israel’s national identity. As such, the Abrahamic experience introduces a covenant of election. This election identifies the members of the Yahwistic community. Abraham and his descendents are circumcised to indicate their membership in this household of faith. As such, they submit to a “father” figure of authority. This submission is represented in circumcision and signifies that the circumcised individual considers himself a member of Yahweh’s elect people. Further, this covenant establishes a dichotomy between the covenant people and the others (Gentiles) who remain uncircumcised. This dichotomy forms a key identifier for subsequent generations who participate in the everlasting covenant. Thus, Abraham’s experience establishes his role as a “king,” drawing on the kingship undercurrent in the text as Abraham is portrayed as being inducted into the kingdom of God with the patriarch-kings (Plaut 116). This kingship relies on his relation to Yahweh, making it contingent on his conversion experience. Additionally, this theme of kingship contrasts to the recurring examples of wicked kings prevalent in the Old Testament (as in Nimrod, king during Abraham’s life). Thus, Abraham is set up as an example of righteousness, alluded to by subsequent adherents to Yahwism. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Another precedent established in the Abrahamic conversion narrative introduces the complete or perfect nature of the change. Just as circumcision involves the complete or perfect (Hebrew does not differentiate between the two) circle, Abraham’s experience indicates complete and everlasting submission to Yahweh, who further tests this submission in the subsequent account of Isaac’s sacrificial ordeal. Because of the emphasis in the narrative of the everlasting nature of the covenant, these elements of perfection and everlastingness evident (though not obvious) in the language of the text draw extra attention to the complete submission involved in the covenant. The Yahwistic conversion as portrayed in Abraham’s experience serves as a model for submission, which can be followed in other experiences. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Probably the most significant overarching theme in the Abrahamic conversion narrative shows his family and worldly ties. These relations illustrate the depth of Abraham’s conversion experience and provide the rationale for so naming this narrative. Abraham has been previously (Genesis 12) instructed to leave his father, his kin, and his household. These specifics also represent the entire identity that Abraham (Abram) had built for himself within his world. He is essentially removed from the world. Further, by renaming him, Yahweh literally removes Abram, himself, from the world. He is replaced by Abraham. The significance of a name in the ancient world underscores this change of relation (Kertzer I: 273-277). Abraham loses himself completely before being restored to existence by Yahweh. All former ties are broken, only to be replaced more fully by his “new” father (Yahweh). This replacement involves receiving (not choosing) a new name. Further, Abraham not only receives much more than he had lost as an inheritance: he is promised land and posterity and he receives (through the experiences recorded from Gen. 18-25) an enormous estate, which the text deliberately emphasizes. In addition to these new ties to the world, he is introduced into the household of Yahweh. These textual nuances emphasize the family nature incorporated into the Yahwistic covenant, and hence into Yahwistic conversion. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Finally, the circumcision ritual introduced in Genesis 17 and its changes in purpose help to explain the textual emphasis on flesh. In circumcision, flesh is literally removed. This removal can represent the many removals to which Abraham was subjected. By portraying this in the token of the covenant, his experience is relived in the ritual undergone by his descendents. The faithful adherents to the covenant receive a renewal of the promise just as Abraham’s relations, represented by the flesh, were replaced by the covenant as explained above. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Abrahamic Conversion as “Informing” Personal Conversion Experiences </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />This exploration of conversion began with general statements regarding conversion. To succinctly describe conversion, the change of relations within a person and between that person and his world comprise the phenomenon of conversion. Clearly this process of relational change continuously renews itself. Abraham’s experience illustrates the theme of renewal and of submission. These elements seem to appear in religious conversions aside from Abraham’s, marking a type or pattern for religious conversion, which many have seen and continue to see in terms of scriptural examples of conversion. They might represent themes or types that could enhance one’s understanding of his conversion experience, but this dialectic cannot be reduced to one causing the other—an individual’s conversion being caused by her understanding of Abraham’s conversion (for example) or her understanding of Abraham’s conversion being caused by her individual conversion. Instead, each scriptural conversion narrative can help to illustrate different aspects of the entire conversion process. Among analyses and examinations thus performed, the Abrahamic elements of conversion can be seen through such themes as renewal and submission. Narratives like those of Paul, of the Book of Mormon’s Alma the Younger, and of Joseph Smith, Jr. merit attention to Latter-day Saints exploring the vastness and depth of scriptural conversions as well as of their own. From such analyses, a fuller, generally understandable conception of conversion as a phenomenon can result. Textual narratives allow for specific conversion experiences to influence our understanding of religious experience and conversion, past, present, and future. The examination of conversion through scriptural examples enables the religious person to understand his conversion in terms of Abraham’s experience (as Luke arguably understands Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus). This understanding changes the phenomenon of conversion and contributes to the interpretation of his past experiences as he finds the types evident in the Abrahamic account in reinterpretations of his own conversion. This complicated process enables the philosopher to examine the complexities of conversion phenomena and to evaluate the interconnectedness of conversion narratives and conversion experiences on an individual level.</div>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-19960296061631492532008-05-28T10:40:00.004-04:002008-05-31T22:36:06.283-04:00On Transcendence: The Atonement of Jesus Christ (4 of 6)<div align="justify">The Atonement of Jesus Christ </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">Since the events of both creation and fall indicate a transcendent theme of separation, they lead to questions of unity. The purpose of the atonement is to unite men and women to God, resolving the tension inherent in the separation introduced through the creation and the fall. A comparable example of a transcendent experience that unites the separated is the marriage of a man and woman. Interestingly the scriptures use marriage as a symbol of the Covenant, enabling Israel (bride) to unite with the Lord (Bridegroom). If we look, we can see traces of the atonement and its scriptural equivalent each day in marriage and family. Is it a wonder that these issues have been a center of attention among leaders for decades? The atonement presents itself as a transcendent experience in each life that recognizes these similarities and changes as a result of the transcending theme of unity that can come about through the atonement of Jesus Christ.</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Before further analysis of the transcendent character of the atonement, an overview of applicable events may prove helpful. The events of the atonement have often been confined to the events on the cross. Some attempts have recognized its grandeur by expanding this timeframe to include all events from the agony of Gethsemane to the triumphal appearance at the Garden tomb and others even widen the timeframe to encompass the final week of Jesus’ life in its entirety. To appropriately include the transcendent nature of this act, given the eternal ministry of its Actor, it might be more appropriate to make the event of the Atonement inclusive of all of time. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Because the scriptures reveal Jesus as the Yahweh of the Old Testament who created the world and gave the Law (of Moses), we can push back the beginning end of the atonement to include all of recorded time. Even this (seemingly) generous expansion of the timetable, however, neglects to recognize that Jesus is the firstborn (even before Adam) and that He knew Job “when the morning stars were together” singing for joy (Job 38:7). This consideration leads us to consider that the atonement extends back eternally to the pre-mortal world. Similarly, the conversion experiences that employ the power of the atonement extend its efficacy and carry the event to the present. It is in this light that one can consider the ministry of Jesus to begin well before Bethlehem (or even Eden for that matter!) and to extend beyond Calvary and the empty tomb. Therefore, I cannot enumerate all of the events of the atonement. Nonetheless, a summary of the key acts of vicarious sacrifice can suffice for our purposes here. In Gethsemane Jesus “sweat as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground” (Luke 22:44). This suffering constituted the cup of reconciliation that overcomes the separation between God and His creations on an individual level each time that one creation chooses to follow the “doctrine” or ethic revealed in experience with the sacred. Following this, the events of a cruel betrayal and (mis)trial were succeeded by torture and finally death by crucifixion. These brutal events and Christ’s mastery of the situation attest to His transcendent character and attributes of perfection. After enduring this, He arose on the third day, overcoming the death that had captured all of humankind previously. This arising opened an exit through which all will eventually pass; “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15: 22). </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />John’s account of Jesus’ life and ministry seems to revolve around the recognition that His ministry was the archetype of eternity. In the first chapter of John, we read John’s narrative speaking to the reader as well as to the first century audience: “Behold the Lamb of God” (John 1: 29). This theme ties Christ’s life to the era of sacrifice, emphasizing that all such sacrifices were emblematic of the ultimate sacrifice that John describes. The events of the fourth Gospel indicate Jesus’ compassion and divinity. Jesus declares Himself to be the Christ on several occasions (John 5: 43; 6: 35, 48, 51; 8: 12, 58; 10: 11, 14; 11: 25; 14: 6; ;15: 1, 5; 18: 5, 6, 8), using the phrase “I am” which was the equivalent of the forbidden pronunciation of YHVH (Yahweh or Jehovah). </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />John portrays the divine Lord, showing miracles throughout His ministry from the transformation of water into wine evident in Cana to the ultimate miracle at the Garden Tomb where He appeared as the risen Savior. Some miracles were not unprecedented events. Water nourishes grape vines which yield grapes that can be used to make wine all of the time. Likewise, a few grains can yield many and two fish can produce hundreds or even thousands of offspring naturally. But the Lord, in transforming water into wine and in feeding thousands from five loaves and two fishes, illustrated that He could control the elements such that the natural processes could be accelerated instantaneously to produce miraculous events. In similar fashion, John narrates Jesus calming the Sea of Galilee during a storm, healing illnesses and injuries, and performing many miracles where He seems to transcend time in His ability to yield results that would otherwise require much more time.</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Other miracles performed and related in John’s gospel suggest power to act in ways inexplicable to science or reason. Jesus forgave sins and healed otherwise incurable conditions. This command over all things indicates that the Lord’s power transcends all that is comprehensible to humanity. Likewise, His teachings present opportunities to shock their recipients with the seemingly contradictory nature of their message, yet with the verifiable results attached to their observance. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />In presenting “the Lamb of God” (John 1: 29), John shows the atonement as a supreme act of sacrifice and an exemplary use of choice or agency. John does not give details of the Savior’s moments in Gethsemane, but picks up the narrative with the betrayal, when the reader pictures the Lord following the agonizing hours of suffering in the garden. Given Luke’s description of the sweat being as blood, we can imagine Jesus standing on the night that John suggests is the night when each household would sacrifice its Passover lamb, His clothes stained with blood. As He stood, the events of betrayal indicate that He identified Himself, then turned His attention to those around Him. He tried to protect His disciples and to show love and mercy to all. He healed one of the soldiers who was to place this Lamb into the hands of those who would complete the sacrifice. In showing this, then showing the rebirth of the Resurrection, John proclaims throughout his gospel, “behold the Lamb of God” (John 1: 29). This presentation of a Lamb that transcends all other sacrifices illustrates a theme of transcendence prevalent in the atonement.</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />This transcendence can be seen in the theme of death and rebirth so prevalent in literary and religious traditions. I am not aware of any major religious tradition that has excluded this theme from its ritual or its canon. All sacrificial offerings prior to this “great and last sacrifice” (Alma 34: 14) were merely pre-representations of Jesus Christ’s life, sacrifice, death, and ultimate triumph over all things. The events of the resurrection open this possibility to all. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />When individuals’ lives are directed to possibilities introduced by the resurrection and the atonement, they receive a measure of hope to add to their faith. This hope directs their thoughts forward, leaving behind any sufferings that they may have experienced or may yet experience and replacing these events with the expectation that the Lord will replace such sorrows with surreal celestial solace. The inception of this hope informs their living, changing the way that such individuals view the circumstances and things around them. With an attitude open to possibilities, despair has no power over them. Because of this power made possible by the atonement, such individuals are enabled to develop themselves, becoming embodiments of the principles taught through the transcending events that are operative in their lives. By presenting a theme so rich in its symbolic counterparts, the atonement of Christ can be seen in the seasonal cycles and the harvest patterns. The separation established during the creation and the fall is overcome by the atonement, which reunites Creator and creation and which unites body and spirit in a perfect condition called soul (see D&C 88: 15). This gives a unity to the themes of transcending experiences in that they separate or overcome separation. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />In addition to the theme of separation and overcoming separation, transcendent events seem to involve both an event and participants in the event. Since the participants in these events recognizably cannot experience the event on their own, each event transcends itself to reveal within it and testify of itself of a Creator, Redeemer, Converter, Visitor, and Sealer—Jesus Christ! We now ask ourselves, seeing the transcendence of the Atonement a little clearer, ‘how does this play a role in my life each day?’ For an answer, we can turn to the scriptures in Alma. “And they began from that time forth to call on his name; therefore God conversed with men, and made known unto them the plan of redemption, which had been prepared from the foundation of the world; and this he made known unto them according to their faith and repentance and their holy works” (Alma 12:30). The last two words of this verse have intrigued me. Holy works. When examining their roots in Latin, one discovers that holy can be written sacra and works comes from the Latin root facer. When combined, these words sacra and facer form the basis of the word sacrifice. To truly live the Law of Sacrifice, or the Law of Holy Works, then, transcends ordinary experience to embrace a life founded on Christ, the “great and last sacrifice” (Alma 34:14). This transcendence extends further to include living a life unified by the Atonement and by true conversion to perform Christian (in its highest sense—meaning to act as Christ) works.</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />For further insight, we can turn to Mormon 9: 29 where we read: See that ye are not baptized unworthily; see that ye partake not of the sacrament of Christ unworthily; but see that ye do all things in worthiness, and do it in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God; and if ye do this, and endure to the end, ye will in nowise be cast out. The key phrase from this verse comes when Moroni exhorts us to “do all things in worthiness.” The word “worthy” connotes something “of worth,” when taken literally. The exhortation to act worthily, then, means to perform actions “of worth.” We can be married or sealed to Christ, “sealed His own” (Mosiah 5:15) if we will perform such works. As an example, we can examine the works of the Savior. He healed the sick and lame, gave sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, and speech to the mute. He forgave, taught, and even raised the dead. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Can we not act similarly? We can visit the sick, mourn with those that mourn (Mosiah 18), offer comfort and friendship, bring others to drink of the living water (John 4) and to eat of the bread of life (John 6), and raise ourselves and others from among the spiritually dead as well as administering to temporal needs. We can act as “saviors on Mount Zion” (Obadiah 1:21). We can offer a broken heart and a contrite spirit (2 Ne. 2:7) in service to God and to others. In short, we can perform on a microscopic scale what the Lord has performed on His divine scale for all of us. In this way, the atonement becomes transcendent and meaningful to each of us. It not only holds a prominent place in our doctrine, but also shapes our way of living as we strive to follow the Savior and to become living testimonies (2 Cor. 3:2-3), showing the transcending significance of our Master’s sacrifice.</div>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-79235891528084644162008-05-28T10:38:00.002-04:002008-05-29T08:05:57.627-04:00On Transcendence: The Fall of Adam and Eve (3 of 6)<div align="justify">Our evaluation of the creation seems incomplete without giving some consideration to the fall of Adam and Eve as presented together with the creation story in the opening chapters of Genesis. The fall presents several ideas and themes which elaborate on the themes of creation and bring the transcendent qualities of those myths to a head through the universality and unity of the themes tied together through these narrative accounts. In the story of the fall, we find aspects of the atonement’s transcendence as will be shown in the following section. Similarly, the themes of the first deception, the beginnings of evil, and the results of individualism and comparison come to mind when considering the transcendent nature of the fall.</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />The narrative of the fall portrays both Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden and shows their being beguiled by a serpent. The pun in the Hebrew language emphasizes the similarities between serpent and human who were subtil (ערום or arum Gen. 3:1) and naked (ערומים or arumim Gen. 2:25). This similarity seems to betray a difference in nature between the humans and their Creator. The pair of Adam and Eve resembles the serpent or the animal creations in some ways more than they resemble their Creator in whose image they had been formed. This irony indicates that the separations established during the creation perhaps divide more than appearances might indicate. Although the man and woman appear similar to Yahweh, their actions resemble those of the serpent. The separation evident transforms to become a seemingly insurmountable chasm when they partake of the forbidden fruit. Only when these events have their complement, the atonement, do they reveal that these degrees of separation find their subsequent reversal. Nevertheless, the events of separation seem to establish a tension, leading one to question when the separated elements will be reunited. </div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />The Garden location directs attention to the availability of fruit, but more importantly to the lush location where all seemed paradisiacal. The presence of fruit and the general lushness bring to the surface the green coloring and its theme of fertility that became apparent in our evaluation of the creation. An additional theme appears in that the phrase “garden of Eden” in Hebrew meant both this Garden location and heaven, where God dwells. By equating the two localities, the language allows modern readers to glimpse the culture begun through the myths of creation and fall. The society that came out of these was one in which the trek to the Garden was most desirable, even when such a trek required traversing a desolate intermediate ground. This theme recurred in the history of the Hebrew people with the Exodus, then the captivities under the Assyrians, the Babylonians, and other nations. Because the people drew meaning from the foundational narratives of creation and fall, informed by this trek through barrenness into a promised land, the Hebrew nation was able to continue without despair taking over their existence. </div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />A later trek to another Garden (of Gethsemane) ultimately made possible the return to the Garden. But fallen mankind would never return to its pre-fall status. This realization begs the question of whether the fall hindered humankind’s progress forever. Because God carried out the creative process by His word, the conclusion that God could likewise bring about a different result than what occurred in Eden seems logical. But such a conclusion seems to ignore the inherent ability of each individual to choose his or her own path. In evaluating Eden, then, we benefit from the theme of separation introduced in the creation and the tension that this theme leaves intact until some reunification comes about. Through separation, we find that humankind learns much that was unavailable prior to the separation itself. By initiating humankind’s existence separated from God, the fall brings about a state in which men and women have a choice between belief and disbelief. Either option exercises faith (the difference is in what object the faith is being exercised). Thus, the fall brings about a condition of faith unavailable prior to the separation of man and God. Such a realization leads our inquiry into the nature of the fall through the theme of separation to the foundation of faith. Since we observed God’s actions in the creation, we can see the necessity of faith in constructive existence. God spoke and through the power of faith, the words He uttered were obeyed and fulfilled. Likewise, in humankind’s condition following the fall, all of humanity was given a new possibility, unrealized and unnoticed prior to the taking of the fruit: humankind is now capable of developing a faith akin to that of its Creator.</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />The temptation to partake of the fruit presents an interesting dialogue between the serpent and Eve. When presented with a new way of living opposed to that prescribed by God, her temptation begins. The end result is that she partakes and brings for Adam to do likewise so that they can remain together and fulfill the command to “multiply and replenish the earth” (Gen. 1:28). The ensuing “courtroom” scene brings sentencing or judgment upon all involved, man, woman, and serpent. Interestingly, Adam and Eve’s banishment from the garden is accompanied by their being clothed in “coats of skins” (Gen. 3:21). This act of covering with coats of skins implies that an animal gave its life for their benefit. The Hebrew language directly connects covering with atoning as will be mentioned below. This union between fall and atonement indicates a pattern that seems to mirror our individual experiences in many ways. The act of disobedience exemplified in Adam and Eve can be widely misunderstood; however, it seems to indicate the beginning of discernment between opposites. They asserted their own wills and this assertion against that of Yahweh became the source of difficulty and trouble in their lives. Clearly the possibility to partake of the forbidden fruit existed before the serpent used it to present an alternative to the pair’s way of living; yet they never seemed to consider the alternatives as available until another whose cunning appealed to them presented the choices in a new light. The consciousness of other points of view became the defining characteristic of humanity as well as the cause of its fall. The ensuing mortal life became paved with roads leading in different directions to see which path the pair (and their counterpart, humanity) would choose. Their experiences with the sacred presented them with one alternative, yet their experiences with another creature and with themselves as “other” from God opened up a multiplicity of means to infinite ends. The use of their power to deliberate and choose differentiated “good” from “evil.” Thus the fall distinguished good and evil, continuing the pattern of separation in the same vein as the creation had established.</div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />Individualism became a possibility when the man and woman recognized the independence of their existence from that of others around them. Interestingly, the first response to this possibility was to act collectively, the couple choosing to remain together and thus to preserve their unity. Since that time, some civilizations have preferred individualism whereas others still prefer collective thinking. Adam’s statement that husband and wife should “be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24) suggests that the possibility remains open to acting both individually and collectively at the same time when individuals have been successfully united. </div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />The actions of Adam and Eve transcend their circumstances when we consider what the story of the fall relates. We find therein the beginning of choice and consciousness. Since these form such an integral part of each life, we can see that Adam and Eve’s unique experiences transcend specific situations to apply to all of humankind. When experience reveals to us sacred elements of life, we can respond using our choice and consciousness. The different ways of responding that are available to us lead to differing consequences and, hence, to distinct destinations. The problems of ethics might disappear when “the good” is defined according to the ultimate consequences that present positive possibilities in our daily decisions. In this light the events of the fall become crucial commencements rather than a disappointing disaster. One’s outlook on life depends on which interpretation prevails. From Adam and Eve’s choice to act collectively, we can derive the importance of family and of marriage. Likewise, the collective mentality suggests that overall success flows more from an uplifting influence on all than from a competitive impulse to drag others below one’s own status. When such an outlook prevails, the synergistic result elevates humanity as well as all individuals that are a part of that humanity.</div>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-58486906717813491792008-05-25T23:10:00.003-04:002008-05-27T12:01:33.252-04:00John Taylor: Apostolic Author“John Taylor: Apostolic Author”<br /><br /><div align="justify"><br />Epithets earned in resolute defense of Mormon belief, such as “Champion of Right” and “Defender of the Faith,” recognize John Taylor’s complex and influential life.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn1" name="_ednref1">[1]</a> Little emphasis, however, has been placed on a significant and especially important aspect of his life: his writings. Scholarly treatment of his influence as an author is very limited and often neglectful of his historically significant literary contributions. One biographer even reduced Taylor’s major contributions to missionary and ministerial aspects, almost completely ignoring all other facets of his life.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn2" name="_ednref2">[2]</a> Through authorial excellence, Taylor exercised a written influence as great as or greater than was his oratory prowess. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Joseph Smith once admonished, “John Taylor, I believe you can do more good in the editorial department than preaching . . . you can write for thousands to read; while you can preach to but a few at a time.”<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn3" name="_ednref3">[3]</a> If the founding figure of Mormondom regarded John Taylor’s potential to teach in print as greater than his already established missionary endeavors, Taylor’s written imprint should be most carefully examined. A similarly intriguing statement from Brigham Young, Smith’s successor, emphasizes the importance of Taylor’s literary ministry even more directly. He proclaimed:</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />With regard to brother John Taylor, I will say that he has one of the strongest intellects of any man that can be found; he is a powerful man, he is a mighty man, and we may say that he is a powerful editor, but I will use a term to suit myself, and say that he is <a name="LPHit1"></a>one of the strongest editors that ever wrote.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn4" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn4" name="_ednref4">[4]</a><br /><br />This bold opinion held by the Mormon church’s first two presidents seems largely overlooked by scholars. Among the few scholarly attentions paid to John Taylor’s authored works is a discussion of his early works in defense of Mormon beliefs in the book, Men With a Mission, where Taylor’s writing is portrayed together with that of other Apostles, showing the development of an influential group of LDS authors.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn5" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn5" name="_ednref5">[5]</a> Biographies on Taylor’s life rarely provide a detailed examination of his prolific writing career, preferring to mention his literary contributions superficially and chronologically.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">During the early 1850s Members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were sent to the East coast of the United States of America to publicly announce and defend the Church’s practice of polygamy.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn6" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn6" name="_ednref6">[6]</a> This mission was important in John Taylor’s literary development. Editing the New York City newspaper, The Mormon, during that period won him the mentioned praise of Brigham Young. These important events not only developed the theology of the infant church, but provided an evolutionary environment in which their authorial talents would be magnified. The emphasis placed by the Mormon church on writing cannot be ignored, nor can the impact of the Englishman, John Taylor, on the written record in early Mormon history, be neglected.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">The range of style in the church’s early authorial endeavors has been analyzed and outlined in Appendix A of Mormon History, by Ronald W. Walker, David J. Whittaker and James B. Allen. They suggest that Orson and Parley P. Pratt represent the styles used and define the spectrum of thought contained in early Mormon writing.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn7" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn7" name="_ednref7">[7]</a> Such a continuum is categorized by Parley on one extreme, writing with a “malleable”and artistic style of writing, who tended to elaborate on a theme and define it through an almost poetic description.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn8" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn8" name="_ednref8">[8]</a> The other end, associated with Orson Pratt, presents a contrast, using similar themes, but with a more logical, legalistic approach to defend Mormon thought.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn9" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn9" name="_ednref9">[9]</a> John Taylor’s authorial influence thus seems to be overshadowed in scholarly examination of early Mormon writings, which, instead, emphasizes the Pratt brothers. As John Taylor’s authorial contributions are read and analyzed, they could be compared with one or both of these bookend figures, but are more accurately and distinctively classified as a diplomatic effort to reconcile the two stylistic extremes. Taylor’s writing displays influence from both ends of this literary spectrum, as he diplomatically utilizes the advantages of both styles to unify the promulgation and defense of Mormon doctrine. Diplomatic style, in early Mormon writing, would represent a reconciliation between contrasting styles and viewpoints to elaborate on and to defend established religious ideas.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">Concurrent to these stylistic changes were thematic changes in LDS church leaders’ remarks in church conferences and elsewhere. Gordon and Gary Shepherd suggest that “ leader rhetoric reflects . . . organizational and ideological changes.”<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn10" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn10" name="_ednref10">[10]</a> The church’s emphasis appears to have developed similarly to the transition represented in the rhetoric of John Taylor’s literary works. In his early works, Taylor tended to address predominant themes, but as his unique style developed, he applied it to less common topics which have since seen much more attention. As the coinciding of thematic and stylistic changes of the period with John Taylor’s writings and leadership indicates, his writings exercised a change in the thirty years following their respective publications, which was induced by the development of a unique, diplomatic literary style, a major cause for the development of Mormon theological thought.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">Logical Strains<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">An examination of John Taylor’s major literary works begins with The Government of God, his 1852 response to European philosophy and ideology.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn11" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn11" name="_ednref11">[11]</a> This doctrinal exposition was written during Taylor’s mission to Great Britain, France, and Germany. He was disgusted with the ideological revolutions native to the European region regarding the issue of “legitimacy”<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn12" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn12" name="_ednref12">[12]</a> in religious organizations.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn13" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn13" name="_ednref13">[13]</a> As a result of frequent debate among religious scholars, Taylor found himself identifying the ideal world government in a government established by God, rather than a system invented by man.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn14" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn14" name="_ednref14">[14]</a> He sought to describe the attributes of God’s government in clearly definable terms. The style demonstrated in such a reflects Taylor’s manner of religious debate and logical reasoning. It demonstrates a fusion between the styles embodied by the Pratt brothers. Taylor presents his ideas in a logically sound, legalistic manner, while maintaining the artistic–and at times poetic–style, characteristic of his later works.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">John Taylor’s arguments on man’s freedom to choose are particularly representative of the artistic aspect of his style. Building on the theme of free agency from several different viewpoints, Taylor uses examples from both scripture and everyday life to illustrate his argument. His example of the relationship between father and son represents an elaboration on this theme, suggesting that a father cannot force a son to obey. God’s government is then paralleled to the fatherly figure of the example, showing that God does not force men to respect His laws but encourages obedience through principles of righteousness. Taylor suggests that “nothing but the wisdom, power, and blessings of God can restore” the world to perfection,<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn15" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn15" name="_ednref15">[15]</a> effectively emphasizing the superiority of divine government and artistically drawing attention to God’s perfect capacity.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">The concluding remarks of The Government of God represent the same pattern of thought and beauty of expression. Taylor summarizes his arguments, describing the requirements for men to receive salvation through Jesus Christ. This description includes phrases which present the hope that mankind can be redeemed. Recognizing Christ’s triumph over man’s government, Taylor suggests that only upon the realization of such a victory can men “live and flourish eternally in possession of that immortality which Jesus...promised to the faithful.”<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn16" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn16" name="_ednref16">[16]</a> Not only is the logical congruity sketched in these closing arguments sound, but the passage presents an artistry which cannot be ignored.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">These eloquent passages represent, however, only a part of the style manifest in The Government of God. Its first page presents the logical reasoning, similar to Orson Pratt’s style. Taylor makes several hypotheses based on the conditional “if” and then completes the logical equation, suggesting that if things are as we now know them, then that is the result of their obedience to divine law.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn17" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn17" name="_ednref17">[17]</a> Later in presenting God’s perfect government, similar legalistic arguments are made to prove the desired point. In showing that none of the Christian churches with whom Taylor debated in Europe had God’s authorization, all possibilities for obtaining such authority are outlined and subsequently disproved by this skilled author, appealing to his audience’s common sense.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn18" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn18" name="_ednref18">[18]</a> Later, arguments pertaining to the need for prophets and apostles, as well as the establishment of the kingdom of God on the earth, are presented both similarly and rationally.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn19" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn19" name="_ednref19">[19]</a> These arguments further illustrate the author’s purpose of presenting evidence to support his case and to eliminate potential doubt.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">Overall, this initial literary achievement displays both sides of the stylistic spectrum outlined by Walker, Whittaker and Allen, with a style joining the two “bookend” views. It presents passages typical of the artistic, poetic Parley, and maintains the legal, rational approach of Orson. To attach either stylistic label to Taylor’s work would be inconsistent, it representing a diplomatic fusion of style in accomplishing its objective. The influence of Taylor’s writings on the church can be readily seen in the prevalence of the “Kingdom of God” theme in church conference addresses. During the thirty years following Taylor’s publication of The Government of God, this theme peaked and quickly became one of the most addressed topics in the church.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn20" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn20" name="_ednref20">[20]</a> John Taylor’s diplomatic writing approach had resounding repercussions.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">Transitional Works<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">Although the focus here is to examine more closely Taylor’s major literary contributions, other works that provide evidence of John Taylor’s distinctive writing style should be mentioned. John Taylor penned several poems which were published in church-sponsored periodicals, such as the Millennial Star. Among these, “Lines” is illustrative of the author’s distinct, artistic style. It contains such passages as:<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">Thou hop’d for this. At length it came; and thou<br />Appear’d on this terraqueous ball,<br />Body and spirit; a living soul, forth<br />From the hands of Elohim<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn21" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn21" name="_ednref21">[21]</a>–eternal<br />As himself–part of thy God . . . .<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn22" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn22" name="_ednref22">[22]</a><br /><br />This selection portrays well the poetic style of John Taylor as he expresses the nature of man’s soul as the offspring of God. The word “terraqueous” was artistically chosen to reflect a connotation rather than a denotation, portraying a feeling in addition to an idea. Such usage reflects Taylor’s artistic tendencies. Representative of the legalistic end of the spectrum, Taylor’s arguments in defense of polygamy might be carefully examined, especially the debate carried on between he and the Vice President of the United States, Schuyler Colfax<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn23" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn23" name="_ednref23">[23]</a>.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">The Artistic Apostle<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">John Taylor concluded his major authorial contributions in 1882 with what one prominent biographer considers to be his culminating work<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn24" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn24" name="_ednref24">[24]</a>, An Examination into and an Elucidation of the Great Principle of the Mediation and Atonement of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn25" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn25" name="_ednref25">[25]</a> (hereafter referred to as The Mediation and Atonement). This book’s style closely resembles that of The Government of God, although it relies more heavily on the artistic side of the spectrum to diplomatically join the stylistic continuum.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">The logical aspects of this work are somewhat more difficult to isolate, as Taylor uses faith in scripture as the rational basis for much of his argument. His distinctive, logical style is abundant, however, in his discussion of man’s need for a Savior. Taylor presents the idea of free agency, similar to the theme discussed in The Government of God, and shows that man’s imperfection results in sin and error. He then indicates that the only realm of possibility existing for man’s salvation is through “an infinite, expiatory atonement.”<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn26" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn26" name="_ednref26">[26]</a> Outlining all possibilities and subsequently eliminating those that are unreasonable, Taylor illustrates a very logical argument for the claim that all men rely on the atonement. This legalistic approach is also used in presenting the argument that Jesus Christ was the “only personage capable” of performing this eternal atonement.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn27" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn27" name="_ednref27">[27]</a> Such reasoning elaborates on the established themes, while relying on the logical reasoning of his audience.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">Taylor’s discussion of divine law displays a similar style. His statement that “all the works of God connected with the world which we inhabit . . . are strictly governed by law” is bold in nature, but supported throughout the passage by logical reasoning.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn28" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn28" name="_ednref28">[28]</a> His reasoning presents astrological movements, plant and animal life, and man’s existence, each as evidence supporting such a declaration. Taylor goes on to elaborate that as “God is unchangeable, so are also his laws, in all their forms, and in all their applications.”<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn29" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn29" name="_ednref29">[29]</a> By using such a logical approach, John Taylor shows his classical training and demonstrates his love for reason. References such as these suggest that John Taylor relied on logic in presenting and defending his arguments. He shows this in addressing similar subjects in both major literary works and demonstrates in each a mastery of the spectrum’s logical side.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">John Taylor displays in The Mediation and Atonement an artistic and descriptive talent presented, but not relied upon, in The Government of God. His poetic style radiates in presenting the ancient tradition of animal sacrifice. He describes Jesus as “the Being provided before the foundation of the earth . . . prophesied of . . . and also on account of whom the sacrifices were offered up,” demonstrating a rhetorical talent of emphasizing the point, repeating essential information, and characterizing the artistic side.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn30" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn30" name="_ednref30">[30]</a> His choice of words also represents a poetic style absent in other works.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">Taylor also uses repetition as a literary means of emphasis. This technique is abundant in The Mediation and Atonement and presents a major stylistic attribute in his writing. A powerful segment illustrates this principle and the emphasis that it gives to the overall argument:<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">The Savior thus becomes master of the situation–the debt is paid, the redemption made, the covenant fulfilled, justice satisfied, the will of God done, and all power is now given into the hand of the Son of God–the power of the resurrection, the power of the redemption, the power of salvation, the power to enact laws . . . He becomes the author of eternal life and exaltation. He is the Redeemer, the Resurrector, the Savior of man and the world.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn31" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn31" name="_ednref31">[31]</a><br /><br />Taylor abundantly uses literary techniques in this eloquent portrayal of the position occupied by Jesus Christ. The rhetoric used in emphasizing the effect of Christ’s sacrifice places great importance on the fact that a reconciliation has been provided to bridge the gap between God’s law and man’s imperfect condition. Saying that “the debt is paid”<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn32" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn32" name="_ednref32">[32]</a> and reiterating this idea with parallel phrases such as, “the redemption [was] made, the covenant fulfilled, justice satisfied, [and] the will of God done,” Taylor shows a beautiful and artistically masterful use of parallelism.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn33" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn33" name="_ednref33">[33]</a> Later, he uses a similar pattern in describing Jesus as the “author of eternal life and salvation,” followed by three other parallel ideas.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn34" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn34" name="_ednref34">[34]</a> The realm of Christ’s power is similarly described in four different, parallel phrases, each with similar meaning. Such use of rhetorical and powerful literary techniques portrays John Taylor’s proficiency as an artistic author.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">Another artistic attribute described by Walker, Whittaker and Allen is that of taking a specific element or topic and being “malleable and literary” with it; the author might toy with the idea before moving on.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn35" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn35" name="_ednref35">[35]</a> This technique is employed several times by John Taylor in The Mediation and Atonement. A good example is Taylor’s discussion of deviation from established law. The law of gravity is discussed, followed by examples of how it can be defied. Playing with the idea of exceptions to the rule, Taylor mentions magnetic forces attracting or repelling, birds flying, and hot air balloons floating as evidence that laws are, at times, overcome by other forces strong enough at specific locations to supercede the general rule.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn36" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn36" name="_ednref36">[36]</a> These passages clearly demonstrate that John Taylor’s logic is balanced by his artistry. He is able to clearly present a rational argument, while writing poetically, with an artistically logical style. His authorial contributions display full use of the stylistic spectrum exemplified by Orson and Parley Pratt and thus create a unique, diplomatic style.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">This new style influenced Mormon leaders’ treatment of Jesus Christ as a theme within the church. Until this time, Christ had been the topic of relatively few church conference addresses.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn37" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn37" name="_ednref37">[37]</a> In the thirty years immediately following Taylor’s publication of The Mediation and Atonement, however, Jesus was the topic in twice as many conference talks, proportionally. He has since become one of the most often addressed themes in the Mormon church.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn38" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn38" name="_ednref38">[38]</a> Modern authors have followed Taylor’s innovative example, as in James E. Talmage’s publishing of Jesus the Christ<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn39" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn39" name="_ednref39">[39]</a> and Bruce R. McConkie’s Messiah series.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn40" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn40" name="_ednref40">[40]</a> John Taylor led this revolution in Mormon thought and used his “leader rhetoric” to bring the church into its modern philosophy.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn41" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn41" name="_ednref41">[41]</a><br /></div><br /><div align="justify">Identifying a New Style<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">While categorizing Taylor’s writings according to the spectrum outlined by Walker, Whittaker and Allen may be helpful, these seem to be specific to Orson and Parley Pratt (and arguably other authors), but less pertinent to John Taylor. Among other possible descriptions are the terms “definitive”, “editorial”, and “diplomatic.” Definitive writing might, in this context, be described as using differing or contrasting approaches and styles with the objective of defining religious thought and philosophy. It has been shown that John Taylor used differing points of view to defend and define Mormon thought. His work, The Government of God, seems to be especially representative of this description, as it defines God’s and man’s forms of government, using both artistic and logical lines of reasoning. It might be argued that this term applies well to Taylor; however, since his objective was not to define, his writings cannot accurately be labeled “definitive.”<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">The “editorial” style differs from others in that it is not seeking to define an idea, but to logically give purpose to or to unify the ideas and styles of others. This style certainly is manifest in Taylor’s writings, although it is less prominent in his major literary works. The compilation of a variety of opinions and styles to support an assumption has been pointed out in both The Government of God and The Mediation and Atonement. This style is applicable to John Taylor as an author, but it somewhat disregards his original ideas and artistic contributions.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">The most accurate categorization of Taylor’s works is the term “diplomatic.” Diplomatic style, in early Mormon writing, would represent a reconciliation between contrasting styles and viewpoints to elaborate on and to defend established religious ideas. The purposes of both artistic and logical styles are retained, but the objective of their inclusion is to portray an existing idea in a different perspective. Since John Taylor’s writing is moderate in scope and style, it serves as a middle ground between the extremes of Orson and Parley Pratt. Taylor uses similar methods to theirs, but with a different purpose and outcome. His writing is thus not distinctly editorial, nor is it absolutely definitive, but is best categorized as diplomatic.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">After close analysis, the spectrum represented by Orson and Parley P. Pratt is helpful in examining the writings of John Taylor. It does not, however, fully represent all of the major literary traditions which have since arisen, nor does it include all authors both contemporary and subsequent to the Pratt brothers. John Taylor’s style follows neither of those styles, but combines them diplomatically, creating a moderate, yet effective manner of presenting his ideas. Taylor’s calling as apostolic author was fulfilled and magnified in both the content and the development of his significant literary contributions. He used both traditions contemporary to his life, but with them suited his own purposes by unifying the styles in the promulgation of faith and belief distinctive to the “Defender of the Faith,”<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn42" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn42" name="_ednref42">[42]</a> creating what is now identified as the diplomatic style in early Mormon writing.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">Because many of Taylor’s stylistic authorial contributions are not recognized, the theological development which he furthered is likewise overshadowed. Thematic transitions in Mormon thought closely parallel Taylor’s writings and subjects. Following his publication of The Government of God (during the years 1860-1889), the “Kingdom of God” theme appears in conference addresses more frequently than in any other period of church history.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn43" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn43" name="_ednref43">[43]</a> More importantly, Jesus Christ is emphasized in eras following his publishing of The Mediation and Atonement more than ever before.<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn44" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_edn44" name="_ednref44">[44]</a> The ideological shift between 1860 and 1900 coincides nicely with the shift in Taylor’s writings. The stylistic development portrayed in John Taylor’s literary achievements is not only interesting, but indicative of a greater ideological trend to emphasize similarities with other Christian faiths rather than to dwell on differences between Mormons and others. The unique diplomatic style developed by John Taylor was a major cause of both literary and theological change, which continues to shoe it influence in modern Mormon thought.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Notes<br /><br /><br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref1" name="_edn1">[1]</a>.Francis M. Gibbons. John Taylor: Mormon Philosopher, Prophet of God (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1985), p. 21; B. H. Roberts. The Life of John Taylor (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1963), p. 87.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref2" name="_edn2">[2]</a>.Francis M. Gibbons. John Taylor: Mormon Philosopher, Prophet of God (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1985), p. 235.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref3" name="_edn3"></a>2.B. H. Roberts. History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1978), vol. 5, p. 367.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn4" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref4" name="_edn4">[4]</a>.Brigham Young. “Testimony to the Divinity of Joseph Smith’s Mission,” in Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., (London: Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot, 1854-1886), vol. 4, p. 34.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn5" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref5" name="_edn5">[5]</a>.James B. Allen, Ronald K. Esplin, David J. Whittaker. Men With a Mission (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), p. 259-261.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn6" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref6" name="_edn6">[6]</a>.Samuel W. Taylor. The Kingdom of God or Nothing: The Life of John Taylor, Mormon Militant (New York: Macmillan; London: Collier Macmillan, 1976), p. 175.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn7" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref7" name="_edn7">[7]</a>.Ronald W. Walker, David J. Whittaker, and James B. Allen. Mormon History (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001), pp. 201-204.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn8" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref8" name="_edn8">[8]</a>.Ibid., 204.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn9" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref9" name="_edn9">[9]</a>.Ibid.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn10" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref10" name="_edn10">[10]</a>.Shepherd, Gordon and Shepherd, Gary. A Kingdom Transformed: Themes in the Development of Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1984), 2.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn11" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref11" name="_edn11">[11]</a>.John Taylor. The Government of God (Liverpool: S. W. Richards, 1852).<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn12" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref12" name="_edn12">[12]</a>.John Taylor. The Gospel Kingdom, ed. G. Homer Durham (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1987), p. xxx.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn13" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref13" name="_edn13">[13]</a>.Ibid, xxviiii-xxx.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn14" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref14" name="_edn14">[14]</a>.John Taylor, Government of God, p. 2.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn15" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref15" name="_edn15">[15]</a>.Ibid., 56-57.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn16" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref16" name="_edn16">[16]</a>.Ibid., 118.<br />[17].Ibid., 1.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn18" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref18" name="_edn18">[18]</a>.Ibid., 60.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn19" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref19" name="_edn19">[19]</a>.Ibid., 89,96.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn20" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref20" name="_edn20">[20]</a>.Shepherd, Gordon and Shepherd, Gary. A Kingdom Transformed: Themes in the Development of Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1984), 243.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn21" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref21" name="_edn21">[21]</a>.Elohim is the title used by Latter-day Saints to refer to God the Father, see Keith H. Meservy. “Elohim,” Scriptures of the Church: Selections from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1995), p. 291-292.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn22" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref22" name="_edn22">[22]</a>.John Taylor. “Lines,” The Latter-day Saints’ Millenial Star (Liverpool), vol. 8, pp. 178-179.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn23" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref23" name="_edn23">[23]</a>.For an account of these debates, see Schuyler Colfax and John Taylor. The Mormon question; being a speech of Vice-President Schuyler Colfax ... a reply thereto by Elder John Taylor and a letter of Vice-President Colfax published in the "New York Independent", with Elder Taylor's reply (Salt Lake City, Deseret News Office, 1870).<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn24" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref24" name="_edn24">[24]</a>.Samuel W. Taylor, Kingdom of God, 278, 295.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn25" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref25" name="_edn25">[25]</a>.John Taylor. An Examination into and an Elucidation of the Great Principle of the Mediation and Atonement of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Publishing, 1892).<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn26" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref26" name="_edn26">[26]</a>.Ibid., 96-97.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn27" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref27" name="_edn27">[27]</a>.Ibid., 136-137.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn28" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref28" name="_edn28">[28]</a>.Ibid., 163.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn29" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref29" name="_edn29">[29]</a>.Ibid., 168.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn30" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref30" name="_edn30">[30]</a>.Ibid., 125.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn31" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref31" name="_edn31">[31]</a>.Ibid.,171.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn32" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref32" name="_edn32">[32]</a>.Ibid.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn33" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref33" name="_edn33">[33]</a>.Ibid.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn34" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref34" name="_edn34">[34]</a>.Ibid.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn35" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref35" name="_edn35">[35]</a>.Ronald W. Walker, David J. Whittaker, and James B. Allen. Mormon History (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001), p. 204.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn36" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref36" name="_edn36"></a>[36].John Taylor, Mediation and Atonement, 167-168.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn37" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref37" name="_edn37">[37]</a>.Shepherd, Gordon and Shepherd, Gary. A Kingdom Transformed: Themes in the Development of Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1984), 242.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn38" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref38" name="_edn38">[38]</a>.Ibid.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn39" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref39" name="_edn39">[39]</a>.James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1915; reprint, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983).<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn40" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref40" name="_edn40">[40]</a>.Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1979); idem., The Mortal Messiah, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book 1979); idem, The Millenial Messiah (Deseret Book, 1979).<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn41" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref41" name="_edn41">[41]</a>.Shepherd, Gordon and Shepherd, Gary. A Kingdom Transformed: Themes in the Development of Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1984), 2.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn42" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref42" name="_edn42">[42]</a>.B. H. Roberts. The Life of John Taylor (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1963), p. 87.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn43" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref43" name="_edn43">[43]</a>.Shepherd, Gordon and Shepherd, Gary. A Kingdom Transformed: Themes in the Development of Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1984), 243.<br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn44" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8823464755020106132#_ednref44" name="_edn44">[44]</a>.Ibid., 242.</div>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-54738346687124149992008-05-25T23:08:00.002-04:002008-05-25T23:13:38.918-04:00"life of Book"<div align="center">"life of Book"<br /><br />opening,<br />leaves turn,<br />poetry and prose,<br />brim with beauty,<br />elegance, opportunity,<br />grace.<br /><br />reading, page by page,<br />hunger never quenched,<br />encompassed by<br />words<br />enamored, enveloped.<br /><br />plot unfolding,<br />all familiar<br />but new<br /><br />gifted storyteller<br />consuming while increasing,<br />ever becoming and<br />yearning,<br />receiving.<br /><br />awakening as i dream,<br />your leaves fly by<br />renewal, transformation,<br />nostalgia for tomorrow.<br /><br />blank pages, filling in,<br />return to beginning<br />and end,<br />a Book<br />without beginning,<br />a story<br />without<br />end.<br />ever<br />opening,</div>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-55269228579214356562008-05-25T22:32:00.007-04:002008-05-28T10:25:56.988-04:00On Transcendence: The Creation of the World (2 of 6)<div align="justify">Nearly every civilization has relied on some form of creation myth to explain its system of morality and to justify its religious system. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, this creation myth has played a part in ritual as well as scripture for millennia. The most renowned book of scripture in the tradition begins with accounts of creation which set the stage for the remainder of the tradition. The accounts of creation should be understood as coming from two sources as recognized in biblical sources as the “Yahwist” author and the “Priestly” author. Because of the importance attached to these accounts, one might wonder how a creation story such as that pieced together in Genesis could change how we relate to the world around us. This question would soon lead to transcendent qualities that creation myths narrate themselves.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">We read in Genesis 1 that “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1, KJV; all Biblical references are to the KJV unless otherwise noted). Similarly, Genesis 2:4 states that “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” Both of these verses speak of beginnings, but to take this theme of beginnings as our starting point would ignore the presuppositions that precede that theme. Although both creation accounts commence with “beginning statements,” they both suppose existence prior to this state of creation described during the remainder of the stories. The phrase “In the beginning” begs the question ‘the beginning of what?’ leading our thoughts to consider the purpose of the creation story. Neither attempts to scientifically or philosophically account for a creation ex nihilo, rather, they recount the beginning of humankind. These “beginning statements” illustrate that the story picks up in the middle of things and recounts the founding events, the transcending creation of life that happens in every person’s life at some point (or points) in time. The “deep” mentioned in Genesis 1 already existed. Similarly the Yahwist’s account of creation makes no attempt to explain the origin of matter; rather, it tells “the generations of the heavens and of the earth” (2:4). This beginning involves the introduction of certain differences between Creator and creature/creation. Such differences can illustrate some of the transcending qualities of creation. When united with the account of the “fall” of Adam and Eve these differences also show human nature and potential.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">The seventy-fourth Psalm, recognized as one of the earliest documents discussing creation, describes the creative act as “working salvation” (Psalm 74:12-17). This act of salvation seems to also allude to a previous existence from which humankind can be saved through the conditions initiated by this creation. The salvation referred to in Psalms could also allude to the battle against chaos often represented in ancient traditions through some reenactment of the battle at the outset of each new year. The account of creation and the additions of the “fall” seem to indicate that this redemption or salvation from chaos remains uncertain due to the separation inherent between Creator and creation.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">Inherent in this theme of battle and conflict is the relationship between the profane and the sacred. The conflicting forces in the battle and conflict seem to represent these polar opposites. Thus, a dual nature is associated with life, the inner self juxtaposed with the natural self. In such a dual state, the reflective person will find conflict that can only be resolved through the type of salvation prototype set forth in the Psalm. Without such an act to work our “salvation” from the inherent conflict in our creation, the life created will never reflect the potential within it.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">Creation myths seem to set forth the distinction of sacred and profane. Although these topics may be discussed and compared in depth, for the purpose of examining transcendence we may be justified in leaving a more extensive discussion of their natures to a later time. For the present, we note that the sacred experienced as sacred gives cause for reflection and worship. Although a precise definition may elude the reflective thinker, sacredness might be described as experience that goes beyond the temporal, physical nature of living common around us (the profane). Thus, when we experience the sacred, we cannot suggest that we cause it. Such experiences seem to give themselves to our perception. We cannot create sacred experiences. Attempts to do so inherently are profane as we attempt to force our temporality and momentary desires onto the sacred, which has no permanent connection to such things.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">Despite this lack of permanent connection, many traditions engage the sacred through establishing sacred space. Such a space would feel exempt from time and from the profane. By setting up sacred spaces, communities distance themselves from the mundane, worldly life that typically engages them. They set boundaries to temporal existence. The lack of permanent connection between sacred and profane might suggest that crossing such boundaries would be impossible; however, when the communities enter their sacred space, they bring with them their temporal self. This suggests that the experience with the sacred (whatever is so designated) becomes a marking, transcending experience. In Creation stories, the sacred and profane are set up as different places entirely: the biblical Eden versus the fallen world correlates with the sacred opposed to the profane.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">Memory corroborates this designation of transcendent experience as experience which crosses the bounds of the profane and enters the sacred, connecting the two. Both private and collective memories seem to be informed and shaped by the experiences that seem to transcend the profane and delve into the profound depths of sacred existence. Private memories are marked, shaped by our perception and also by what we choose to remember. Since memory is such a rich topic for discussion, I will only say that private memory seems reciprocally defined by private forgetting. Whenever we realize that we have forgotten something we are, in reality, remembering our forgetting and plumbing the depths of our memory to prevent such forgetting. As we experience sacred events, such as those resembling Creation, we can either remember or forget. In either instance, the event, be it private or collective, seems embedded in memory, leaving the constant (or, more commonly, the intermittent) remembering or forgetting to the one having the experience of the sacred giving itself.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">The Creator, titled “Elohim” by the Priestly author and “Yahweh” by the Yahwist author carries out the creative acts as recorded in the first chapters of Genesis. Each act represents a degree of separation. Before recounting the works of each “day,” I emphasize that to create inherently is to separate. To create requires a Creator distinct from creation. Thus, the myth of creation begins with this presupposition. The presupposition informs all subsequent events. By recognizing the assumption, we can acknowledge that by separating Creator from creation, we establish a theme for the remainder of the creative events. The Creation proceeds from this supposition with the separation of heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1). The next action (as recorded in Genesis) differentiates light and darkness (1:3), separating the two. The Priestly author states that “God divided the light from the darkness.” The succeeding event involves the difference and separation of waters; “God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament” (1:7). And so proceeded the creation with separation of land and waters (1:9-10), of each “kind” of plant life from the other kinds (1: 11-12), of the lights governing day and night in their several degrees (1: 14-19), and of all animal life “after their kind” (1:20-25). Finally, God separated man from all other creation and formed him “in his own image” (1:27) and out “of the dust of the ground” (2:7).<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">The beginning referred to in these accounts does not attempt to pinpoint the absolute beginning of all things; instead, these creation myths recount a primordial beginning prior to the biblical narrative that treats of a specific group of people. The events of the creation myths (by myth I mean a story of beginning rather than a fictional fable) as well as of all events from Genesis 1-11 seem to point toward the beginning of the history of the Hebrew people—toward the story of Abraham. Because of the nature of this beginning, the creation story intends to set the stage for a history, rather than to begin the history. Setting the stage with a creation performed by God (Yahweh) makes the historic events of Abraham’s life and Israel’s subsequent history fit together with the conception that the people had of God. The events depicted in the primordial history (Gen. 1-11) seem to lead to a beginning in time, whereas these same events appear almost independent of time. This independence creates problems for those who would calculate geological or anthropological history according to the Bible because the events set the stage for the beginning of the “covenant” people as introduced in the story of Yahweh’s covenant with Abram (Abraham—Gen. 12-24). The problem disappears when the events are considered in this context of primordial history. The events set the stage for the beginning, not of time or of the sacred, but of a people.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">Following the observation that the Creation story refers to a beginning, but not to any version of ultimate beginnings (could such a beginning be imagined by either the religious or the scientific person?), we note that “the Spirit [חור] of God moved upon the face of the waters” (Gen. 1: 2). The Hebrew word for Spirit is used to signify the English equivalent of spirit, breath, and wind. Thus, the account of creation leads us to the breath of life (or the breath of God), which later enters Adam and Eve (the same word is used in both instances). Because we later read that God created Adam and Eve in His own image and likeness, we receive from this account both a story of prehistory and an introduction of the characters in our narrative of life. The narrator portrays God as having life, breath (spirit), and personality. The earth is formed from its previous formless state (again suggesting that the story is not intended to answer the question of when the beginning was and what was prior to the beginning) in Gen. 1: 2 and this formation is succeeded by the declaration “Let there be light” (Gen. 1: 3).<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">When the narrative proceeds to recount the divine declarations constituting the creative acts, the absence of the narrator in the story seems significant. The reader, in evaluating the source of this creation myth, notices that the narrator does not purport to have been present in person as the events unfolded; nevertheless, the myth gives itself to us in narrative form. By using this narrative format, the requirement of the reader to establish some relationship with the text itself (and by extension with its author as well) seems to lead the reader to the issue of faith. In order to take the text seriously, which the text itself requires (otherwise the purpose of the Bible would be merely to add to a body of mythico-religious writings, not to separate itself from the body and establish a new identity), it is necessary that the reader have received some background knowledge or belief. This belief may come through experience with the sacred or through trust in one who has introduced the reader to the sacred; however it comes, the relationship with the text informs the reading, just as the reading informs the developing relationship with scripture.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">The narrative proceeds with God’s word constituting the creative power and act. By declaring “let there be light” (Gen. 1: 3), God initiates the process of creation. Significant to the Judeo-Christian tradition is the symbolism of light. By beginning the creation drama with its creation, the stage is set for all else to be seen. Since light sets off all non-lighted things as ‘dark,’ the initial act of creation separates light and darkness and also implicitly establishes opposites as the basis of creation and life. This theme of opposition brings meaning to individual lives which may experience intermittent times of difficulty and ease, of pleasure and pain, of joy and sorrow. Since the narrator presents a narrative based on this theme and the separation inherent in it, the trusting reader is led to look forward to unification and to the triumph of the Creator. Thus, the theme of salvation enters shortly after the creative act begins on the first day. Likewise, the threads of the narrative weave the reader into the middle of the primordial history with the reader’s fate intertwined with that of all creation. In the obedience of the elements to the word of the Creator, the concept of obedience implicitly attaches to all of creation.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">The second day involved similar processes, but initiates a new theme. During this period, God separated the waters above (called the Heavens) from the waters below that covered the Earth. Thus, the dual nature of existence opposing Heaven and Earth continued the theme of separation and opposition. In like manner, creation (and with it the fundamental aspects of life) continued in obedience to God. Unique to this event, however, is that the dual nature of existence, yet the subjection of this existence to God, seems to suggest that one is subordinate to the other. Thus order becomes a founding principle of life and existence. Similarly, God giving the waters above a name, “Heaven,” (Gen. 1: 8) indicates the importance of heaven, associating it with the other named things present to this point in the creation drama: God, heaven, earth, day, night, waters, spirit, darkness, and light. Interestingly, these named things all are associated with either heaven or earth. Earth experiences day and night as a result of God’s action of creating light and of its counterpart through the concept of opposition, darkness. Some of the waters were separated to form the heaven. Thus with earth, we associate day and night, light and darkness. The waters are separated, some remaining part of the earthly things and some becoming the foundation for heaven. The presence of water, spirit, and God in both heaven and earth suggests a connection between the two, despite the separation inherent in the creative act.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">In like manner, the division of heaven and earth resembles the spiritual and the physical realms of existence. Since the waters above that form heaven evidently are meant to refer to the clouds, the gaseous, substance of all that is of the heaven differs from the solidity of the physical that remains on the earth. Likewise, life turns on the recognition of things that are not as readily observable. By including the separation between heaven and earth, the author of the creation drama (and the Creator, Himself) draws attentive readers into the story, directing them to the resolution of the tension inherent in such a separation. The theme of duality carries into the remainder of the story, yet by leaving God present in the creation as connecting heaven and earth, the drama suggests that the recognition of the unobservable hinges on the recognition of God that a careful and faithful examination of the earth’s primordial history reveals.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">Following the separation of heaven and earth, the drama turns to the further separation of the earth into dry land and seas (Gen. 1: 10). In paralleling the separation of heaven and earth, the narrator turns the reader’s attention again to duality. The elements obey the command of the Creator as before, yet in this instance, the difference between the nature of the land and the seas seems more obvious and compelling. God divides them so that the desirable qualities of each can be enjoyed due to their uniqueness. Similarly, the duality points the careful reader ahead to the creation of humankind from the earth (man, “אדם” [adam] from earth “אדמה” [adamah]). The addition of the breath (or spirit) of life brings the man formed from the earth to life. In this manner, the creation drama presents a trajectory towards the ultimate creation which finds its life in both physical and spiritual. God is portrayed as the Overseer of both elements of creation, bringing the duality in harmony and resolving the tension remaining between the two varieties of life that might seem in conflict.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">The following episode in creation involves the giving of life by God to the vegetation of the earth (Gen. 1: 11-12), to animal life (Gen. 1: 24-25), and ultimately to humankind (Gen. 1: 26). Beginning with vegetation, the general life-giving theme of this period of creative activity, the vivid color imagery adds to the feel of the creation drama. The colors associated with light, dark, earth, and seas generally seem to be black and white, with shades of grey or brown mixed in. With the creation of vegetative life, a vibrant green is added. Since green is generally symbolic of fertility and reproduction, the color adds a theme to the creative act: namely that creation involves the sharing of that which is sacred with others. This theme seems to be embodied in an idea of consecration that has been a common element in many religious communities from antiquity through the Christian communities of the New Testament and beyond. That the notion of consecration enters in the life-giving of Creation suggests that the principle extends beyond any and all instances of attempted implementation of it.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">Likewise the addition of animal life contributes to the theme of consecration and life-giving. The creation of animals with variations and differences brings into relief the vast spectrum of creation, including many instances of giving and ordering. God’s commands are obeyed, bringing added order and adding to the level of existence and enjoyment in the creations. The variations reflect the personality of the Creator, offering a glimpse of His eternal vision and care.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">Between these two life-giving aspects of the creation, God set in order the lights of the heavens. He gave dominion to one to rule day, to others to be present and rule the night (Gen. 1: 14-19). This idea of dominion later arises again with God’s giving the man and woman, Adam and Eve, dominion over the remainder of creation (Gen. 1: 28). In such an act, God seems to establish a hierarchy. But in doing so, God does not designate any position within creation as inherently superior to another. This ordering of things seems merely to indicate that all creation is subject to something else. The man and woman, despite their dominion, are subject to their Creator. In setting up such a system, God teaches that a seemingly hierarchical system may, instead, allow for recognition of something superior, something sacred. This recognition, and the resultant opportunity to submit to that sacred thing, highlights the principle of sacrifice. The creation is not compelled to act by those to whom dominion is given; rather those with dominion are more responsible to sacrifice all to the Creator. Thus, all creations have meaning in their lives, no matter where they may fit into a perceived hierarchical structure.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">At the conclusion of these creative acts, God saw that all that He had created was good (Gen. 1: 31). This implicitly suggests that it was not evil. The opposition of good and evil involved in calling creation good allows the reader to reflect on the meaning of the word good. In the Hebrew language, the word for good, תוב or “tov” initially meant fulfilling the purpose for which one was created. By using this word to describe all that God had created, the narrator brings the reader, also one of God’s creations, into the description of being tov, being good or of at least being capable of being so described. The creation portrays all created things subjecting themselves to the commands of the Creator. The narrative technique employed allows this realization to become apparent because God is not portrayed as molding and shaping all of His creations; instead, God commands and the command comes to pass.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">Having presented a brief understanding of the creation drama, the themes of separation and salvation become evident. Their transcendent qualities might require more explanation. The Hebrew language used to connect these primordial events uses the vav-connective to join the stories into one account of primordial history. This connective also appears in dramatic presentations, suggesting that the creation story could be presented as a drama rather than as a special case form of narrative. This may seem trivial, but when acting a part becomes intertwined with the theme of origin, one can find oneself inseparably connected with the events depicted in this drama. One reading the account might actually find that the Creation drama includes a role for the reader. Such connection overcomes the separation so strongly emphasized in the story itself. One can see the world very differently when the founding events seem to portray us speaking with God face to face as though we were Adam or Eve. Similarly we find meaning in the salvation that God’s creative acts afford us from the impending and looming chaos around us. Surely these aspects of the Creation drama involve a transcendence that adds meaning to our lives.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">In like fashion, we each have our own beginning. The founding events of our life form the connection between us and the part of Adam or Eve that we play as we relive the Creation. None of us find ourselves present at the beginning of our lives (can anyone seriously claim to remember their birth?) just as the Creation myths recount events for which no eyewitness exists other than God. Because of such similarities, we find that founding events or primordial histories fit very well with our nature. Thus, the coincidence that creation stories abound in cultural traditions becomes logical in establishing a foundation for each tradition through recounted primordial events that explain one’s relationship with the world and with its Creator, identifying principles upon which each individual can establish this relationship and strengthen it. Likewise, the transcendent themes carry over beyond times of beginning, allowing for continual reinterpretation of the founding events informing our choices and behaviors. Thus the cycle of being informed and changed as a result of our beginning and our reflection thereon continues in our reevaluation of this experience as informed and changed by the event itself. The hermeneutic circle indicates that the event and its participant can be mutually changed through considered reflection on the impact each has in distributing meaning and interpretation to one’s life. When considered as such, stories of origin or of the Creation add to the body of transcending experiences. Seeing their pattern repeated in ordinary life suggests that one is acknowledging their transcendence and importing that quality to one’s own life as a source of meaning and inspiration.<br /></div><br /><div align="justify">The stories of how other groups originated or of how ideas, patterns, or even life itself originated reflect the same values and themes apparent in this analysis. Our reflection on and identification of these themes, and the meaning that flows from them, indicates the value of a study of origin to the educated person in establishing the fundamental principles of mutual understanding and meaning sought in much public discourse. As such aims are met, the value of a study of transcending experiences becomes even more apparent.</div>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-2634099170120664522008-05-25T21:34:00.004-04:002008-05-28T08:28:18.515-04:00On Transcendence: Introduction (1 of 6)<div align="justify">Introduction: Transcendence<br /><br /><br />If told that transcendence merits close analysis, an attentive student might wonder why the topic deserves such consideration, either philosophical or religious, given (for example) the recent developments in astronomy which enable one to see more of the universe and comprehend the uniqueness of Earth and its inhabitants. In addition, the science of genetics reveals the differences between even the most apparently similar pair of identical twins. These findings, though, no matter how they are construed, offer only pseudo-objective opinions about the vast, generally unexplored realm of being and existence. To further evaluate these findings, one might question the validity of the scientific method as this generation’s technology for truth, especially given its implicit faith in perception and observation which has resulted in many accepted scientific theories being rejected as the ability to “more accurately” observe and perceive has advanced. The very questioning of the scientific method as proposed often offends those whose personal religion has become the worship of technology qua technology, preferring their own inventions to any other thing as the object of their worship. These individuals place at least as much faith in their methods as previous generations have entrusted to God. I say that their trust is at least as great as those whose trust lies in God because most of the self-proclaimed “religious” of this day merely profess belief as an act of conformity or convenience and rarely act according to the beliefs that they so earnestly confess. Such life-changing commitment often remains unrealized because of the lackadaisical atmosphere with which they are comfortable. Compounding the problem, the relativistic rejection of transcendence as a viable source of meaning in life discourages the religious life in general. The effort requisite to attaining the transcendent life, which (incidentally) seems to offer the only true and lasting happiness, often seems too great and the rewards appear too distant or surreal to accept as possible. Just as philosophers have rejected many seemingly valid methods for assessing truth and validity, this age has the philosophical task of evaluating the merits of the technological society in which we now live and recognizing its inability to fully comprehend the world of experience that each of us inhabits and the meaning that this world offers us if we will receive what it is giving. Because of these responsibilities, I find the topic of transcendence to hold renewed life.</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />By transcendence, I do not refer to the overly-general sense of this term so often misemployed in its use. Many contemporary authors and speakers use this word to mean merely superb or universal. Such simple (pseudo-) synonyms allude to the quality of transcendence, but ignore its intensity, its meaning. I see no equivalence between such pseudo-synonymous terms and transcendence, and prefer to consider transcendence in its more literal and specific meaning of crossing or surpassing boundaries. This sense of crossing and passing brings to transcendence its power and true meaning. Because experiences can transcend personal, societal, political, and religious boundaries (all of which are imposed on the events or experiences artificially), one could refer to such experiences as transcendent; as existing beyond the world as we now perceive and observe it, but nevertheless existing. </div><br /><div align="justify"><br />This meaning gives life to some literary and religious topics that often are disregarded because transcendence (or transcendent experience) has been reduced to universality, rather than embracing the literary and historical idea of transcendence that has existed throughout recorded history. This transcendence finds its form in myth (including stories of origin), archetypes, and religious systems that proclaim a kind of transcendence in the deity who closes the hermeneutic circle of their worship and takes shape in the transcending need for humankind to partake in certain experiences exactly as these experiences have given themselves to others previously.</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />To explore this topic, I have selected experiences that seem to transcend time, culture, and all other boundaries, becoming accessible to all of humankind. Though not all share in these specific experiences, their merit lies in their transcendent nature, not in their universality. The events offer (or give) themselves as reaching beyond the existence as defined by societal norms. As such, I recognize that many who read of these transcending experiences will not relate completely to all of the examples presented. To expect this from my attempts here would be to misunderstand my purpose in this work. My aim is not to relate experiences to which all readers can relate; instead, I hope to convey how some particular recorded experiences transcend themselves and that this possibility could extend to others, renewing life’s meaning in our present nihilistic world. An underlying presupposition necessary to enable my completion of my desired task requires me to address topics with which I am familiar. Thus, I limit my discussion to Judeo-Christianity. I emphasize, however, that this limitation merely limits the scope of discussion and does not circumscribe the implications of my findings within this religious context. Because of the nature of the topic of transcendence, I feel warranted in some limitation to my subject matter; yet this limitation ironically opens up limitless possibilities for application of the philosophical topic of transcendence.</div><br /><div align="justify"><br />Although the topics presented here pertain directly to religion, the subject of transcendence merits attention even by those whose religion (or irreligion) does not accept these particular ideas due to the underlying philosophical outlook presented through these examples which can bring the aforementioned meaning to all lives, regardless of their religious orientation. The examples of transcending experiences presented in this work relay a message of meaning and hope to all. Public memory seems to have (perhaps deliberately) forgotten the idea of transcendence, and, as a result, many who might otherwise find happiness and satisfaction in life wander about purposelessly and meaninglessly, contributing to a mentality of the “here and now” that eliminates some possibilities from all who embrace such an attitude. I believe that the remedy to this malady of despair, almost pandemic in today’s society, lies in the remembrance of transcendence and its return to the forefront of the social conscience. Despair cannot withstand the introduction of transcending events into one’s life. Thus, by recognizing this transcendence, I find that my life carries meaning and hope beyond what I now see. Recognizing the importance of this topic, I find that the treatment that it receives here remains woefully inadequate; nevertheless, I hope that this work can serve as a stimulus to further thinking and incorporation of the ideas presented in it. If you find that you see yourself and the world around you—and the relationship between the two—have changed as a result of your reading this series and reevaluating the concepts that I present in it, then my efforts have served their purpose.</div>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-63440442900038411562008-05-20T09:32:00.006-04:002008-05-20T12:12:39.553-04:00The Forgotten<div align="justify">Sam, Shiblon, Hyrum, and others figure less prominently in the annals of history than do their counterparts, Nephi, Helaman and Joseph Jr.; however, with this post, I hope to focus on the lesser-known figures as we consider their contributions. By doing so, I hope to provide an opportunity for us to consider the oft-unacknowledged hand of many comparable figures in our own lives--and to take comfort in the Lord's approval of this more prevalent form of service in the kingdom. I call these "the forgotten" not because we do not know their names (although the scriptures have plenty of accounts of some "forgotten" whose names are omitted entirely, too), but because they do not figure as prominently in our collective memory--we have forgotten them in favor of other, more visible, figures.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">One of my favorite accounts of "the forgotten" comes immediately following Mormon's tribute to Captain Moroni. Without detracting from Moroni's leadership and exemplary life (which Mormon describes as having power to shake the powers of hell and resist the power of the devil), it seems appropriate to recognize the less-heralded, but likewise powerful influence of those whose contributions may not be announced as widely. As Mormon concluded his description of Moroni, he inserted what might appear to be an aside regarding others who he regarded equally with Moroni:</div><br /><div align="justify">18 Behold, he [Moroni] was a man like unto Ammon, the son of Mosiah, yea, and even the other sons of Mosiah, yea, and also Alma and his sons, for they were all men of God.<br /><a name="19"></a><br />19 Now behold, Helaman and his brethren were no less serviceable unto the people than was Moroni; for they did preach the word of God, and they did baptize unto repentance all men whosoever would hearken unto their words. </div><br /><div align="justify">Alma 48: 18-19. This passage implies that men and women of God could be likewise described as having power to shake hell and ward off the devil--even when they may not lead thousands in battle. (See Alma 48:17). By including Alma "and his sons," Mormon certainly includes Helaman, but also Shiblon and Corianton. That the same tribute could be applied to Shiblon and Corianton suggests that being an extraordinary historical figure is not a prerequisite to meriting praise similar to Captain Moroni. </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">In like manner, father Lehi paid tribute not only to Nephi's righteousness, but also to Sam, bestowing a blessing as recorded below:</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">11 And after he had made an end of speaking unto them, he spake unto Sam, saying: Blessed art thou, and thy seed; for thou shalt inherit the land like unto thy brother Nephi. And thy seed shall be numbered with his seed; and thou shalt be even like unto thy brother, and thy seed like unto his seed; and thou shalt be blessed in all thy days. </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">2 Ne. 4:11. "Thou shalt be even like unto thy brother." Lehi likens Sam, a virtual unknown to most of us, to Nephi, the great hero to so many Latter-day Saints! His position as patriarach of the family and prophet to the people attests to the veracity of this teaching. By recording this blessing, Nephi conveys to the modern reader, together with Mormon, the egalitarianism of the gospel. Nephi is not greater because he figures more prominently into Nephite history. Nor is Shiblon a lesser citizen because of the limited range of broadcast for his life's mission.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">Hyrum Smith and John the Baptist also present historical figures who recognized their more limited roles while serving with more recognizable figures. Said John, "He [Jesus] must increase, but I must decrease." John 3:30. Yet Jesus later taught "Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist." Luke 7:28. The Lord Himself praised Hyrum for "the integrity of his heart." Doctrine and Covenants 124:15. From such figures, we can see how the Lord uses us each differently, but values us equally. See Doctrine and Covenants 18:10. </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">Hoping you will forgive the personal aside, in a relative short time frame (I'm 27 at the time of this writing), I have held many callings, ranging from Aaronic Priesthood presidencies to Scouting to Sunday School to Bishoprics to Elder's Quorum positions to Primary to Missionary work to Activities to Home Teaching. Some of these certainly gave more visibility to my service than others. All rewarded me for my efforts to serve. Having experienced such a range of opportunities and having observed many who have served me, I have gained a greater appreciation for the service rendered by thousands and even millions of Latter-day Saints which falls into the category of "the forgotten." Men and women of God regularly give of self in worship of their Lord and their God. </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">So I post today to point out how we, as everyday adherents to the Lord's covenants, contribute greatly to the kingdom and (despite worldly accollades which gravitate to the visible contributors) merit mention alongside Nephi, Helaman, Joseph, Moroni, and the noble and great ones of yore. Although these faithful are often forgotten for a time, all are "alike unto God" (2 Ne. 26:33), known and remembered unto God. </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">As taught by Paul,</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.<br /><a name="2"></a><br />2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">Romans 12:1-2 (I'll post more thoughts on this passage another time). When Paul calls our living sacrifice of our bodies "acceptable" unto God, he uses language echoing that of the Father--the same Greek root is at work in describing our sacrifice as "acceptable" as when the Father describes Jesus as His Beloved Son in Whom He is "well pleased." May we find ourselves in the company of Sam, Shiblon, Hyrum, and the other "forgotten" in becoming well pleasing unto the Father.</div>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-11432206491694899062008-05-19T11:18:00.003-04:002008-05-19T11:52:01.097-04:00Distinguishing Nephite Anti-Christs<div align="justify"> If the argument that one “cannot tell of things to come” (Jacob 7:7) rings familiar to Book of Mormon readers as similar passages in Alma are read, it is probably because Sherem, like Korihor and other anti-Christs, denies not only the ability of God to give revelation, but many other foundational doctrines of the gospel. Anti-Christs have been evident for thousands of years. Their tactics are often similar or related, but their underlying beliefs sometimes differ. Such is the case among several of the Book of Mormon anti-Christs. While they are very alike in things such as strategy and outcome, their foundational and fundamental reasons for disbelief diverge. President Ezra Taft Benson has instructed us to “constantly ask ourselves, ‘Why did the Lord inspire Mormon (or Moroni or Alma) to include that in his record? What lesson can I learn from that to help me live in this day and age?’” (Benson, “The Keystone of Our Religion” 5). Thus, further studies of the similarities and differences among Book of Mormon anti-Christs--like Sherem, Nehor, Zeezrom, and Korihor--are necessary and should prove to be beneficial. Such a study, including both scriptural analysis and analysis and statements from others, will help to accomplish one of the purposes of the Book of Mormon--to expose the enemies of Christ and to strengthen His followers (Benson, A Witness and a Warning 3), and it may also lead to helpful insights in discerning truth.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> In studying anti-Christs, one should first establish, at least to some extent, what defines an anti-Christ. Elder Bruce R. McConkie defined an anti-Christ as “an opponent of Christ,” “one who is in opposition to the true Gospel, the true Church, and the true Plan of Salvation,” and “one who offers salvation to men on some other terms than those laid down by Christ” (McConkie 39). The four Book of Mormon characters mentioned above can all fit under this definition of an anti-Christ. Melvin A. and Melvin G. Cook, LDS scientists, described an anti-Christ as “one coming falsely in the name of religion” (Cook 279). Using these as a working definition, we can begin to analyze similarities and differences among anti-Christs.</div><div align="justify"><br /> Many striking resemblances among Book of Mormon anti-Christs are recognized by members of the Church. Robert Millet describes several of these similarities among anti-Christs. He uses Sherem as a pattern for anti-Christs, saying that they tend to deny the need for Jesus Christ, use flattery to win disciples, accuse the brethren of teaching false doctrine, have a limited view of reality because they refuse to exercise faith, have a disposition to misread and thereby misrepresent the scriptures, and ask for signs (See Nyman 175-190). Although the many similarities are usually recognized, the unique fundamental reasons for disbelief in each anti-Christ are often neglected. Through a more careful examination of Sherem, Nehor, Zeezrom, and Korihor, both the similarities among and the differences between them will become more evident. By comparing and contrasting these “enemies of Christ” (Benson 2 p. 3), one can be more aware of the buffetings of Satan and be better able to remain firm in his or her testimony of Christ. Distinguishing among anti-Christs may also allow for improved relations with those of other faiths who disagree with our beliefs as we strive to engage in religious dialogue.</div><div align="justify"><br /> In addition to original analysis of the scriptural record concerning these Nephite apostates, many other LDS scholars have commented regarding these anti-Christs. In the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, R. M. Frandsen remarks, “the Book of Mormon profiles many subtle and sophisticated aspects of antichrist characters, though the text refers to only one of them as antichrist” (Ludlow 17). Commentary from various sources will be interspersed with analysis of scripture.</div><div align="justify"><br /><strong> Sherem</strong></div><div align="justify"><br /> Careful analysis of Jacob 7, recounting Sherem's confrontation with Jacob, leads one to believe that Sherem’s primary objection to the prophet, Jacob, is his argument that Jacob taught the people to “pervert the right way of God, and keep not the law of Moses which is the right way; and convert the law of Moses into the worship of a Being” (v. 7). Sherem is adept in the language of the people. He “preached...things which were flattering unto the people” (v. 2). Sherem’s fundamentalist attitude is the primary cause of his disbelief. He questions the prophet’s interpretation of the law, seeing his own as superior. Sherem’s reasoning in believing the law but not the Being is shaky at best. He protests Jacob’s testimony of Christ in saying that all men, including Jacob, “cannot tell of things to come” (v. 7); yet later, Sherem says that he knows “that there is no Christ, neither has been, nor ever will be,” (v. 9). His own flawed argument could be used against that statement. This circular reasoning demonstrates Sherem’s warped sense of logic. Sherem asks for a sign to prove the reality of the power of the Holy Ghost. Upon reception of an afflicting personal sign, he admits that he taught wrongly and confesses the Christ (v. 17) before dying as recorded in verse twenty. This fate of admitting error and recognizing Christ is typical among Nephite anti-Christs.</div><div align="justify"><br /> In describing a unique quality of Sherem, Hugh Nibley said that “the interesting thing about Sherem is his convincing performance as a devout and active churchman who is not attacking the gospel but defending it” (Nibley 1, An Approach to the Book of Mormon 365). Sherem becomes adept at playing the part of a concerned church member when his intentions are not to save the Church, but to build his own church (i. e. the church of Sherem)--even to the extent of addressing the prophet as "Brother Jacob" (Jac. 7:6). His own (mis)informed opinions are pitted against God’s will as revealed through the prophet, reflecting his individualistic approach to doctrine. Rather than embracing the role of a prophet, Sherem prefers to lean on his own understanding. Sherem is distinguished by his opposition to the prophet Jacob’s interpretation of scripture. He disputes the validity of the prophet’s statements, and he disrupts the balance between personal and collective revelation. We will be able to compare this reason for dissension with that of the other anti-Christs after examining each of them more closely.</div><div align="justify"><br /><strong> Nehor </strong></div><div align="justify"><br /> Nehor, another anti-Christ, mentioned in Alma 1, is described as “a man who was large, and was noted for his much strength” (v. 2). He preaches his own interpretation of the gospel, saying that “all mankind should be saved” (v. 4). He teaches a <em>laissez faire</em> version of the gospel often adopted by those who don’t want to expend the effort required by more stringent religious beliefs. He suggests that priests should become popular and be supported by their congregations. A major reason for Nehor’s dissent is his pride. He wants to be popular and acceptable in the sight of his peers, disregarding God’s judgement of his actions. He wants an easy religion and teaches for the purpose of gaining money and prestige (priestcraft). Since such a religion works (people support him in it), he wants to facilitate it. Nehor murders Gideon and is sentenced to die. Like Sherem, before dying, Nehor admits to teaching false doctrine (v. 15), continuing the pattern of “deathbed” repentance among anti-Christs. Clearly, Nehor is, despite resemblances to Sherem’s story, another breed of anti-Christ distinct from Sherem.</div><div align="justify"><br /> Nehor sounds much like the other anti-Christs, especially Korihor, in preaching “that all mankind should be saved at the last day” (Alma 1:4, compare to Alma 30:17). Nibley describes Nehor as “ great orator, a powerful personality, a very persuasive speaker...a real evangelist,” showing Nehor’s qualifications to be a leader. Unfortunately, Nehor’s pride destroyed his potential to be a good leader. Nehor preached “a more relaxed religion” which attracted people to it. He wanted to find a message that would make himself popular and rich. He opted for a doctrine requiring few, if any, morals. Nibley describes the growth of a standard-less Church, saying that “everybody was willing to join because they didn’t have any standards at all,” thereby requiring nothing of believers and, in return, guaranteeing their salvation. This philosophy is much different than the other anti-Christs although their questions and fates are similar (Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon, Sem. 2 p. 216-220).</div><div align="justify"><br /> In Cook’s Science and Mormonism , they present four types of religion. Nehor’s teachings seem to fit their description of "liberalism" (Cook 217-218). "Liberalism" in this context teaches that things are now good and that they always will be so, and could perhaps be more accurately described as "All is Well in Zion." Such a philosophy makes everything acceptable. This philosophy attracts followers because unfavorable conditions are removed and no changes in behavior are necessary or required. Nehor’s arguments can be found similar to other anti-Christs by applying the need for opposition as seen in Second Nephi. If everything that men did was good, then no bad exists, meaning that no law is in effect. By following this line of reasoning (see 2 Ne. 2:13), we can conclude that there would then be neither Creator nor creation. Nehor denies God by denying His Plan of Salvation. Nibley refers to him as “Nehor, the Great Liberal” (Nibley 1365-366). Nehor’s all-is-well-in-Zion approach to religion distinguish him from the other anti-Christs.<br /><br /><strong> Zeezrom</strong></div><div align="justify"><br /> Zeezrom, whose story is found in Alma chapters 10 through 12 (especially Alma 11), is a third anti-Christ. Since Zeezrom is later converted, some may question my inclusion of him in this discussion of anti-Christs. To briefly explain, he is included here because of his anti-Church arguments. Zeezrom is a lawyer skilled in the language of the people and learned in arts and cunning (Alma 10:15). He questioned Amulek endeavoring to make Amulek “cross his words” (Alma 10:16) or contradict himself. By his line of questioning, one can assume that Zeezrom is familiar with the Church and its teachings. Zeezrom is chosen to represent a group of lawyers opposing Alma and Amulek. He is described as being “expert in the devices of the devil” (Alma 11:21). His conflict with Alma and Amulek is not one of genuine concern over Church doctrine, as Nehor professed, but is a blatant yet fruitless effort to find fault with either the Church or its leaders. Zeezrom bluntly shows such intentions when, in Alma 11:22, he tries to bribe Amulek to deny God’s existence. Zeezrom is a man appointed to seek out and to arouse contention. His anti-Church arguments and questions are not those of an apprehensive or genuine investigator; rather, they are the futile efforts of those in opposition to find fault with an organization and with a people. </div><div align="justify"><br /> Zeezrom likes to twist words and questions against people and to contort others’ statements in his own favor. His logical mind constantly searches for a contradiction or logical fallacy as a target for his oppositions. His questions in Alma 11 are specific and target doctrines which tend to be controversial or easily misunderstood: “Is there more than one God?” (v. 28); “Shall he save his people <em>in</em> their sins?” (v. 34, emphasis added); “Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?” (v. 38). Although Amulek is able to answer each of these questions, Zeezrom’s intentions are to disprove Church doctrine by a series of lawyer-like questions designed to produce improper reasoning in Amulek’s answers. When these questions fail to confound Amulek, we see Zeezrom’s heart change. In Alma 12:8 his questions take a new direction, showing his change of heart. Zeezrom’s heart is softened at least partly because, in addition to being true, the gospel is logical. This change of the heart leads to Zeezrom’s eventual conversion to the Church and wholehearted acceptance of Christ. Zeezrom was anti-Church and therefore anti-Christ by Elder McConkie’s definition, but is not of the same conviction as Sherem or Korihor, since he did undergo a complete reversal of course similar to Alma the Younger and Paul.</div><div align="justify"><br /><strong> Korihor</strong></div><div align="justify"><br /> Korihor, described in Alma 30 and referred to textually as an anti-Christ (v. 12), displays both an atheistic and an agnostic approach as an anti-Christ. While resembling Sherem in arguing that “no man can know of anything which is to come” (v. 13), Korihor argues in a different direction by trying to discredit primary doctrines of the gospel. Korihor denies prophesy and revelation by discrediting the scriptures, calling them “foolish traditions of your fathers” (v. 14). He then takes an empirical approach in denying Christ, saying: “ye cannot know of things which ye do not see” (v. 15). He proceeds to tell the people that hoping for a remission of sins, which comes only through the atonement, “is the effect of a frenzied mind” (v. 16) and “that there could be no atonement made” (v. 17). He uses these arguments to teach that mankind “fared...according to the management of the creature” (v. 17) and that men succeed according to their own strength. All of these foundations and subsequent conclusions leads Korihor to teach that a person can commit no crime. He denies God, revelation, scripture, the atonement and the resurrection. Korihor wants all truth to be derived from his personal experience. Not only does he not believe, but he cannot comprehend anyone else’s belief because he does not personally have experiences supporting others’ beliefs. Korihor uses these arguments, similar to Sherem’s, to be not only anti-prophets, but anti-religion; proving Korihor to be a more extreme type of anti-Christ than was Sherem, despite their similar fates and tactics.</div><div align="justify"><br /> Korihor is probably the anti-Christ most analyzed by LDS scholars. His<br />arguments appear modern although they were prominent anciently as well. C. C. Riddle, in his article, “Korihor: The Arguments of Apostasy” said that “Korihor took what might be called a philosophical approach to destroying faith in our Savior” (Ensign, Sept. 1977, p. 18). Riddle proceeded to characterize Korihor’s arguments. Korihor argues empiricism, suggesting that all knowledge comes from experience (Riddle 18). This empirical approach appeals because it calls for no faith, requiring tangible evidence. While this “sign-seeking” is common to anti-Christs, Korihor relies upon it most heavily. As Nibley said, “His method was to subject all the claims of prophetic religion to a rigorous examination based upon his own experience” (Nibley 1 367-369). This statement seems to sum up Korihor’s argument for empiricism. According to Riddle, Korihor also presents humanist reasoning, believing that all success must come from human performance (Riddle 18-20). Such humanist perspectives appeal because they engender a sense (although a false one) of self-worth--pride. Korihor’s last major method for argument presented by Riddle is relativism. He claims that all actions of mankind are acceptable and justified (Riddle 20-21). Such arguments and propositions were popular then as they are now. </div><div align="justify"><br /><strong> The Anti-Christs Classified</strong></div><div align="justify"><br /> In classifying the anti-Christs, one must again rely on both scriptural analysis and the statements of other authorities. Brother Millet, although pointing out many similarities among the anti-Christs, refers to Nehor as “a different type of anti-Christ” (Nyman 189, emphasis added), recognizing their differences between them as well. Gerald Lund wrote an article in the July 1992 Ensign (pp. 16-21) entitled, “Countering Korihor’s Philosophy.” This article dealt with Korihor’ anti-religious arguments similar to the article by Riddle. Lund divided these arguments according to philosophical terms: metaphysics, axiology, and several types of epistemology. Metaphysics deals with the nature of reality, axiology with ethics and values, and epistemology with how to find truth. Although Lund uses the types of epistemology to specifically discuss Korihor’s systems of teaching, this paper is an attempt to fit those systems which he mentioned to the several anti-Christs, showing their distinguishing characteristics through their arguments. Lund outlines several epistemological systems including authoritarianism, rationalism, pragmatism, and empiricism as recognized means of learning and discerning truth. </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"><em>Empiricism</em></div><div align="justify"><br /> Although the other anti-Christs do rely upon this method of finding truth, Korihor relies upon it most heavily and seems to be a good character to associate with the term empiricism. Korihor’s arguments can be identified under all of the above four recognized classifications; however, his distinguishing characteristic is his empiricism. As Lund says, “Korihor will consider only evidence that can be gathered through the senses” (Lund 21). As we have seen, Korihor is a “sign-seeker” desiring tangible evidence to support any claim before he will believe it to be true. Korihor desires to ascertain truth only through his own experience. He denies others’ beliefs because he hasn't personally had experiences to confirm their beliefs. Certainly these attributes of Korihor fit Lund’s description of empiricism--truth which is gathered from observations and personal experiences. </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"><em>Rationalism</em></div><div align="justify"><br /> Similarly, Zeezrom epitomizes rationalism. He asks many questions to Amulek, trying to logically force Amulek into contradicting his own words. Zeezrom is a lawyer who feels that the truth must be proven. His series of questions not only shows his own familiarity with the doctrines taught by God’s prophets, but also shows that his primary concern and objection is that several doctrines unique to Alma and Amulek’s religion be logically resolved. Although Zeezrom asked these questions in a confrontational manner, he endeavored to try the Church according to the test of reason. When Zeezrom found his questions answered logically and completely, he began to doubt his own arguments. Once the gospel was justified by reason in Zeezrom’s logical mind, his heart could begin to feel the Spirit testifying of its truth. Zeezrom became a believer and staunch supporter of the religion which he had previously attacked so vehemently upon the resolution of his major concern--its reasonability. The change produced in Zeezrom once his rational mind was appeased suggests that his major method of finding truth was rationalism.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"><em>Pragmatism</em></div><div align="justify"><br /> The philosophy of Nehor, too, resembles a major epistemological system; namely that of pragmatism--finding truth by what works (if something works, it must be true). Nehor’s appeal to public demand, doing whatever was popular, reveals much about his epistemology. He sees that teaching lower and lower standards was popular. Nehor does what would work for everyone. He finds a set of beliefs to coincide with any lifestyle, including his own. This effort to please everyone is evident in Nehor’s teaching that all men will eventually be saved. He tries to find ways to justify this claim, but later recanted his teachings. Nehor’s pragmatic approach to religion was and is popular, but neglects the stability found in truth. Instead of finding a religion and then living in accordance with it, Nehor tried to create a religion to apply to any lifestyle. For this reason, Nehor can be classified under the epistemological system of pragmatism.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"><em>Authoritarianism</em></div><div align="justify"><br /> Sherem, the final anti-Christ presented, fits under the heading of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is explained as “the system by which truth is learned from those who are authorities or experts” (Lund 16). Sherem’s disagreement with Jacob is definitely attacking Jacob’s expertise and authority. Sherem claims that the people have been led astray because of Jacob’s incorrect interpretation of the law. Thus, a major part of Sherem’s dispute is not the doctrine as much as it is the discrepancy between his and Jacob’s interpretations of the doctrine. Sherem wants a “real” authority to support Jacob’s words before he will believe the Lord’s doctrine as taught by His inspired prophet, Jacob. Clearly, Sherem relies upon authoritarianism to find (or dispute) the truth.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"><strong> Conclusion</strong></div><div align="justify"><br /> Such a method of classification helps to differentiate within the broad spectrum of anti-Christs. As the differences between them are seen, each prophet’s response to these epistemological arguments opposing the gospel becomes more readily examinable. Such analysis may aid Latter-day Saints in confronting the many philosophies of man in opposition to their religious beliefs. Moreover, such an examination allows for an improved ability to recognize the balance between epistemological systems in individual belief choices. By seeing the patterns, similarities and differences in Nephite anti-Christs, we can more accurately see where those patterns are or could be reflected in our own lives and determine how these narratives should shape our response to them. </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> It is also important to note that no amount of reasoning can lead one who has chosen to oppose to the gospel to believe. As Lund recognizes, divine revelation is as necessary as any other epistemological system in discerning truth (Lund 16-17). Since man is fallen, one cannot expect mankind, unaided, to come to a perfect understanding of truth. “In spite of the abundance of knowledge and learning available to man, no man will be able to utilize it for the purposes of coming ‘to a knowledge of the truth’ without the assistance of divine revelation” (Cook 279). While members of the Church should not exclude other systems of epistemology, divine revelation assumes top priority in the restored gospel. Authoritarianism, rationalism, pragmatism, and empiricism play crucial roles in aiding all men in their quests for truth. However, only when these and other systems of learning are combined with divine revelation will mankind be able to seek for and accurately discern truth: “knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come” (D&C 93:24). </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"><strong>Works Cited</strong><br /></div><div align="justify">Benson, Ezra Taft. “The Keystone of Our Religion.” Ensign (January 1992) 2-7.<br /></div><div align="justify">-- . A Witness and a Warning. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1988.<br /></div><div align="justify">Cook, Melvin Alonzo, and Cook, Melvin Garfield. Science and Mormonism. U. S. A.: Deseret News Press, 1967.<br /></div><div align="justify">Ludlow, Daniel H. , Ed. Encyclopedia of Mormonism: Jesus Christ and His Gospel. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1992.<br /></div><div align="justify">Lund, Gerald N. “Countering Korihor’s Philosophy.” Ensign (July 1992) 16-21.<br /></div><div align="justify">McConkie, Bruce R. Mormon Doctrine. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Ind., 1976.<br /></div><div align="justify">Nibley, Hugh W. An Approach to the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co.; Provo: F. A. R. M. S., 1988.<br /></div><div align="justify">-- . Teachings of the Book of Mormon. Transcript of lectures presented in a Book of Mormon class at B. Y. U. Provo: F. A. R. M. S., 1993.<br /></div><div align="justify">Nyman, Monte S., and Tate, Charles D. Jr. The Book of Mormon: Jacob Through Words of Mormon. Provo: Religious Studies Center B. Y. U., 1990.</div>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-89680893955968826532008-05-13T08:39:00.004-04:002008-05-13T11:31:32.577-04:00Mother's Day Thought--Seeing Alma 55-56 Differently<div align="justify">During sacrament meeting on Mother's Day, during the annual recitation of the passages in Alma 55-56 about Helaman's 2000 sons and the faith of their mothers, I had an interesting thought. I wondered, for the first time, what percentage of all the sons of the "people of Ammon" the 2000 constituted. It seems highly unlikely that all of the Anti-Nephi-Lehi sons enlisted in Helaman's army, leaving us with the enlightening understanding that when we praise the mothers (and fathers) of these brave boys, we praise them despite the "failings" of those absent sons.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">By this, I mean that the fact that some of these parents may have raised sons who did not engage in this overt and visible "success" does not diminish their stature as righteous mothers and fathers. Our praise for them, which has become such a part of our Mother's Day commemorations, is just as valid as it ever has been--even when we recognize that they may not have achieved 100% "success" as we or they may have defined it.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">In the same manner, we might think about how those parents would have been accutely aware of the sons who did not participate in this act of bravery, perhaps even thinking that they had failed as parents. These wonderful converts and their sons, both enlisted and not, teach us not only of the positive influence that parents can exert, of which righteous children can testify; they also teach us that in our own feelings of inadequacy as parents we can take comfort, knowing that our perceived failings will pale in comparison to the overarching successes we will achieve. In this way, the story of the stripling warriors can be a comfort for those who feel guilt or remorse on Mother's Day, reminding them that the Church honors all parents who truly seek to provide righteous parenting--not just the few (if any) parents who may feel that they have achieved perfection in parenting.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">***Disclaimer: As much as we desire for parenthood, my wife and I have not yet been blessed with children. As such, my authority on a topic such as this is limited to my experiences as a son and as a husband preparing to become a father in the due time of the Lord.</div>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823464755020106132.post-5315890334771390002008-05-07T09:58:00.004-04:002008-05-07T10:38:56.102-04:00On Testimony: Preliminary Thoughts<div style="text-align: justify;">As Latter-day Saints, we meet once each month in a testimony meeting. Within the context of "Mormon" parlance, the word "testimony" conjures many lines of thinking. Instruction on what should or should not have a part of the shared testimony in monthly testimony meetings and in other contexts has often limited itself to the propriety of certain kinds of expressions. "Travel logs" and "thank-you-monies" have been condemned, whereas statements asserting "knowledge" of fundamental beliefs such as "God lives, Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith is a prophet, the Book of Mormon is true, and the priesthood has been restored" have been approved. (As taught, eloquently and insightfully by Elder Oaks in our most recent conference of April 2008 here http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-10,00.html). My purpose here is not to drift into such minutia; rather, I hope to address the subject more broadly as well as raise some questions that I (and anyone who happens to join me on here) may find interesting in our continuing meditations.<br /><br />As an attorney, testimony tends to have a more specific meaning (in some regards) for me than, perhaps, for others. Additional perspectives from other angles always enhance such understanding as well. Courtroom testimony does not concern any specific subject. Instead, advocates elicit relevant testimony from witnesses to point to events out of the courtroom and lend credence to a certain narration of the "facts." Witnesses are not said to "have a testimony," nor is their testimony considered as an "other" apart from them. Indeed, cross-examination and counter-witnesses may be brought forward by an adverse party to destroy the credibility of a witness's testimony. The testimony of a witness constitutes the sum of their words, supplemented by any relevant thoughts or actions that can be shown to strengthen or weaken that testimony.<br /><br />Webster's 1828 Dictionary offers the following on testimony:<br /><p><b>"TEST'IMONY</b>, n. [L. testimonium.] A solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact. Such affirmation in judicial proceedings,may be verbal or written, but must be under oath. Testimony differs from evidence; testimony is the declaration of a witness, and evidence is the effect of that declaration on the mind, or the degree of light which it affords.</p><span><dd>1. Affirmation; declaration. These doctrines are supported by the uniform testimony of the fathers. The belief of past facts must depend on the evidence of human testimony, or the testimony of historians.</dd><dd>2. Open attestation; profession. ...</dd><dd>3. Witness; evidence; proof of some fact. ...<br /></dd><dd>4. In Scripture, the two tables of the law. ...<br /></dd><dd>5. The book of the law.</dd><dd>6. The gospel, which testifies of Christ and declares the will of God. 1 Cor. 2. 2 Tim.1.</dd><dd>7. The ark. Ex.16.</dd><dd>8. The word of God; the Scriptures.</dd><dd>9. The laws or precepts of God. "I love thy testimonies." "I have kept thy testimonies."</dd><dd>10. That which is equivalent to a declaration; manifestation.</dd><dd>11. Evidence suggested to the mind; as the testimony of conscience. 2 Cor.1.</dd><dd>12. Attestation; confirmation."</dd><dt><br /></dt></span>None of these definitions, most prevalent at the time of the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, suggests that individuals gain a testimony which could be considered external to themselves. Given the legal context which seems relevant to every way in which the word "testimony" would be used in testimony-bearing situations pertinent to the Latter-day Saints, the courtroom understanding seems an appropriate window to illuminate the meaning of testimony.<br /><br />More carefully then, the first crucial component of true testimony consists of elicitation of testimony by an Advocate. Thus, testimony presents itself less as an answer from God and more as our response to His call. Instead of pridefully assuming that we can dictate the terms of our answers, we must humble ourselves to hear His call, then respond appropriately. Further calls follow until we have sufficient experience to express our witness ("testimony") in relevant ways.<br /><br />Relevant testimony is the point of testimony to which I alluded above which has received extensive treatment in instruction from Church leaders. We are instructed that we share our witnesses about certain kinds of experiences. This instruction could be perceived as limiting our witness and pigeonholing it in ways that stifle spiritual growth. Understood in the light of expressing experiences that reflect the call-response-call-response... world-view, however, the instruction merely gives shape to our expressions. When we have an experience where we recognize the Lord's hand in our lives such that an appropriate declaration of that experience would form a cogent and credible witness of the Lord, we will find transcending patterns of experience to which we can parallel our own.<br /><br />These patterns allow the individual witnesses (and the opposition from cross-examination and extrinsic "character" evidence for each individual) to corroborate facts "external" to the collective testimony of all of the witnesses. The Advocate can weave an elaborate tapestry of witnesses into a pattern supporting the transcending experiences of each individual, echoed over eternity. (See also http://www.angelfire.com/planet/morrisonwritings/transcendence.doc). Credibility of witnesses then becomes important.<br /><br />This issue of witness credibility brings me to my closing thoughts in this preliminary sketch of testimony. Each individual experiences God individually. The credibility of a witness's declarations depend, at least to a degree, on the witness's actions and intentions (thoughts) regarding those declarations. In this way, gospel witnesses become living "testimonies." Indeed, Paul taught, "<i>ye are</i> manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart" (2 Cor. 3:3). Thus, bearing testimony becomes a matter of becoming rather than declaring. Our statements merely reflect the relationship we have chosen in response to our Advocate with the Father and His call. Testimony meeting, then, does not consist in trite declarations of knowledge (however defined); rather, it ideally presents the voices of witnesses expressing their experiences of becoming living testimonies--and in so doing embodying the Advocate and echoing His call, eliciting further testimony.<br /><br />As a final note, enduring to the end merely consists of resisting attacks on the credibility of our witness--maintaining a relationship of affirmative response to the Advocate's call.<br /><br />Thoughts? Limitations on my courtroom approach that I'm not seeing? Criticisms? Do we objectify out of meaningfulness testimony by other approaches? And can this approach mesh with Alma 32?<br /><br />I'll gather more thoughts on this and post again later...<br /><br /><br /></div>MattMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17837019798571067399noreply@blogger.com0