Truth: Dangerously Transcendent

 “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” – John 8:32

Truth is fascinating. It seems to be an abstract idea that we attempt to give an incredibly concrete definition. The idea of truth also seems to vary from person to person, sometimes significantly. I recently re-read “The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect” by then Elder Boyd K. Packer and this is partially a response to that. I think of Truth as having two main sub-categories: Factual or Historical Truth and Transcendent Truth, relating to right and wrong, doctrine, unchanging principles to live by, etc. That distinction helps explain some of the divergence in opinions about what Truth is.

The two categories are more fluid than rigid and I think that they can support each other, but problems can be encountered when someone holds that what they perceive as Factual Truth to be Transcendent Truth and then they stumble upon Facts that destroy their image of the ‘Truth’.

One of my favorite things about Mormonism is the eternal thirsting for truth that is evident and encouraged by almost all of the early leaders of the Church. The encouragement supports seeking after both categories of truth. John Taylor, third President of the Church, said it beautifully:

 “We are open for the reception of all truth, of whatever nature it may be, and are desirous to obtain and possess it, to search after it as we would for hidden treasures; and to use all the knowledge God gives to us to possess ourselves of all the intelligence that he has given to others; and to ask at his hands to reveal unto us his will, in regard to things that are the best calculated to promote the happiness and well-being of human society.

If there are any good principles, any moral philosophy that we have not yet attained to, we are desirous to learn them. If there is anything in the scientific world that we do not yet comprehend, we desire to become acquainted with it. If there is any branch of philosophy calculated to promote the well-being of humanity, that we have not yet grasped, we wish to possess ourselves of it. If there is anything pertaining to the rule and government of nations, or politics, if you please, that we are not acquainted with, we desire to possess it. If there are any religious ideas, any theological truths, any principles pertaining to God, that we have not learned, we ask mankind, and we pray God, our Heavenly Father, to enlighten our minds that we may comprehend, realize, embrace, and live up to them as part of our religious faith. Thus our ideas and thoughts would extend as far as the wide world spreads, embracing everything pertaining to light, life, or existence pertaining to this world or the world that is to come. … They would soar after the intelligence of the Gods that dwell in the eternal worlds. They would grasp everything that is good and noble and excellent and happifying and calculated to promote the well-being of the human family.

There is no man nor set of men who have pointed out the pathway for our feet to travel in, in relation to these matters. There are no dogmas nor theories extant in the world that we profess to listen to, unless they can be verified by the principles of eternal truth. We carefully scan, investigate, criticize, and examine everything that presents itself to our view, and so far as we are enabled to comprehend any truths in existence, we gladly hail them as part and portion of the system with which we are associated. If there is any truth in heaven, earth, or hell, I want to embrace it; I care not what shape it comes in to me, who brings it, or who believes in it; whether it is popular or unpopular, truth, eternal truth, I wish to float in and enjoy.”

Taylor’s quote stands in stark contrast to the ideas put forth by Packer. He pushes for accepting truth wherever it is found, while Packer cautions about avoiding some facts and truths because they can damage faith. While the cautions from Elder Packer are well intentioned, I don’t think that hiding Truth is the answer. Particularly given the consequences for faith if we hide the truth. . Given that faith by necessity requires a foundation in “things which are not seen, which are true” (Alma 32:21), can we really have true faith if it’s based in something that is not True?

An integral piece of my understanding of God is that he knows all Truth, so the instruction to avoid and deliberately hide or cover up some parts of known truth, troubles me. Doing so would in effect cripple our ability to progress and become like God. A natural extension of limiting faith.

Perhaps there is a Truth that transcends Fact, an idea explored by a friend and relevant here as well as to the ideas of Paul H Dunn, the (in)famous general authority who told ‘true’ stories to illustrate principles that ended up being less than factual. Transcendent Truth enables an account or story to be true, yet utterly fictional. I find powerful truths in Harry Potter, Star Wars, A Tale of Two Cities, Les Miserables, The Lion King, and even The Dark Knight. The truth of these works of fiction is powerful, regardless of being devoid of fact.

I don’t know whether faith must be based in Factual or Transcendent Truth. Perhaps it can be in both. I lean towards faith being tied to the Transcendent. This allows members to gain faith in Joseph Smith with the mythologized version of history, as the focus is to teach Transcendent and not Historical Truth. The myth is not inherently fictional, myths often have Historical Truth as well. The trouble lies in Transcendent Truths also being labeled Historical Truths. Yet, I believe and have experienced, the strengthening of faith that comes from embracing truth. My faith needed (likely still needs) to be examined and even purified a bit, but I continue to adapt and find the freedom that comes with embracing and floating in eternal truth.   

Mormonism: Pragmatically Supernatural?

I’ve been thinking recently about two sides to Mormonism that seem to contradict and pull away from each other, creating tension. One side is the mystical or supernatural, while the other is the pragmatic.

There have been great comments about both sides throughout the Mormon intellectual world and some that aren’t directly pertaining to the question, but sparked thought for me. A few months back, an atheist visited an LDS sacrament meeting and was impressed with the pragmatic values that were taught. Later I read a couple of pieces from Sunstone about the importance of mysticism within Mormonism and the need to reclaim it. After that, I read the series about Mormonism and Transhumanism on RationalFaiths.

I was torn back and forth between mystical/supernatural and pragmatic. The transhumanism pieces, while not blatantly preaching pragmatism, suggested to me a pragmatic worldview, where God is an evolved human being, that we can work to reach the exalted state through science and technology, not through some spiritual transformation. A complete response would take too much time and space for this, but would be interesting.

Essentially, I felt compelled to try and reconcile two competing world views- the supernatural and the pragmatic. It seems easy to dismiss the supernatural as the stuff of myth, fantasy and children’s stories and to embrace the pragmatic, especially when there is such a benefit to the pragmatic aspects of Mormonism. However, while some may be spiritually satisfied with such a view, I cannot advocate such an approach. The supernatural feeds my faith and stokes my inner fire of curiosity.

Yet, something holds me back from fully accepting a supernatural world. Perhaps it is the ridicule that often greets those that express beliefs in ghosts, aliens and other unexplainable phenomena. Outside of religion (honestly, probably outside Mormonism), I am extremely skeptical of any supernatural events occurring. If I hold that God is a God of miracles and is the same yesterday, today and forever, why would the miracles and angelic visitations that accompanied the faith of the saints throughout the Old and New Testaments and the early days of the Church in the Latter days stop now? They wouldn’t.

Perhaps, I simply wish that the supernatural was more prevalent in our lives, so I could be a Jedi/wizard/mutant/superhero. That may be, but I know that I have had experiences with a ‘reality surpassing normal human understanding or experience,’ like that found by mystics. Such an experience serves as the foundation of my still abiding belief in God and Mormonism, with other experiences strengthening and building upon that foundation.

Without the supernatural and mystical elements and experiences, I would not have a burning desire to remain in the Church. Although, perhaps what seems supernatural is really in accordance with higher laws of science and nature and would appear completely pragmatic and rational, if we understood more. I don’t know how much things can and will be explained, nor do I know if that explanation can be as detailed as a scientific proof for the chemical reaction of photosynthesis.

Does the power of God inspire more faith if it can’t be explained? Would magic seem as awe-inducing if it were explained away with theories and formulas? Did The Force lose some of its cool, when it was stripped down to midi-chlorians? Maybe science is magic or magic is science and the same wonder from the unexplained can transfer to the transcendent explanation. Perhaps there is no innate special spiritual gift and we can all harness the laws of nature to work miracles and advance the work of the Lord. It’s about learning.

That’s the harmony between the mystical and pragmatic. What seems mystical is simply in line with a higher order of pragmatism, that once learned will enhance the experience with what was once mystical. No longer is it unexplainable, no longer need you stand as a bystander. Armed with knowledge, you can participate in the miraculous and supernatural. You can understand the why and appreciate the execution that much more for the art that is required, the beauty that accompanies it.

Believing in the supernatural and mystical is striving for a pragmatism that works in the ‘reality perceived as essential to the nature of life’ that mysticism interacts with. Thus, the truth appears to be found within competing contradictions.

The Fall: An Alternative View

A companion piece to 'The Troubling Implications'. 

I propose an alternative view of the Fall, due to considerations of the surrounding circumstances and other doctrines, the role of Satan in causing the Fall, and latter-day parallels that shed light onto a plausible explanation for the conflicted situation.  

First, a few terms should be defined that help clarify some of the issues. The Fall, as an essential pillar of salvation, refers to the partaking of the fruit, and the resulting spiritual and physical death, not necessarily to the transgression of the laws of God. A transgression is different from a sin and the partaking of the fruit is justly termed a transgression (Articles of Faith 1:2). A sin is an action that is inherently immoral and thus wrong, while a transgression is an action against some temporary command or law, such as speeding (“The Great Plan of Happiness” Oaks).  Thus, the partaking of the fruit was not inherently wrong or immoral, but something about the circumstances designated it as a transgression, contrary to the will of God, which is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, only possible by the eventual eating of the fruit (Moses 1:39, 2 Nephi 2).

Campbell provides some interesting support for this idea, although she uses it for other purposes, “She [Hebrew scholar, Dr. Nehama Aschkenasy] found that command as used in the Creation story was from a different verb form, whose usage connotes a strong, severe warning, perhaps a statement of law, that was possibly temporary in nature, so that at some future, unspecified time it might not apply.” (Campbell 43)

Second, a brief overview of an alternative way to approach the Fall. If Adam and Eve had not partaken of the fruit in opposition to God’s command, there would have been further instruction, ultimately resulting in a command to partake of the fruit. Therefore, Adam and Eve both transgressed the commandments of God, giving in to temptation to act contrary to God’s will, and leaving Satan as the great deceiver and counter to God’s ultimate goodness.

Third, scriptural and doctrinal support that leads to this conclusion. Scripture and doctrine work in harmony to create a fully-realized picture of how God interacts with man. Therefore, a view of the Fall that ignores the methods, words, and actions of God throughout scripture, will ultimately be flawed. In order to fully understand the Fall, and other essential doctrines, a consideration of how other doctrine and scripture relate to it is necessary.

1 Nephi 3:7 states: “And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.”

Nephi explains and testifies that there is always a way to accomplish what God has commanded us to do. In the case of Adam and Eve, there must have been a way prepared for them to be able to multiply and replenish the earth and not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If there were not a way for both to be kept, then 1 Nephi 3:7 would be false. The verse necessitates that a way be provided, in conventional interpretations of the Fall, this is not considered, maintaining the assumption that Adam and Eve had to break one of God’s commandments. This belief seems to go against the central belief that we can keep all of God’s commandments, it is possible.

Further, the text suggests that God intended to teach Adam and Eve more, perhaps to elaborate on the details of his plan, which was disrupted by Adam and Eve’s transgression. Moses 4:14 reads, “ And they [Adam and Eve] heard the voice of the Lord God, as they were walking in the garden…”. This is prior to God’s ‘discovery’ of their transgression, seeming to suggest that another purpose was behind His visit to the Garden. Whatever God intended to teach is not recorded, as He must deal with Adam and Eve’s transgression and the serpent’s temptation of Adam and Eve.

Here are some commonly raised objections to the alternate view:

• ·      God can’t force people to do something that hurts
• ·      How would physical and spiritual death enter the world
• ·      No agency then

In response to the first objection, I suggest looking more closely at the scriptures. Examples abound of God commanding people to do things that cause them harm, but in the end are good for them. A God that could not do so would be incredibly short-sighted and limited. More kind than loving. Recently, Elder D. Todd Christofferson has addressed this concern in a general fashion, using the story of the currant bush, told previously by Hugh B. Brown. The moral of the story is that God ‘prunes’ us, which hurts, but allows us to reach our fullest potential, to be what it is that we were meant to be. In this sense, if it really were in the best interests of God and the only way to ‘bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man’ was for Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit at the time they did, then God would have commanded it to be so.

The next objection raises a hypothetical problem, which there is not enough scriptural information to either support or refute. However, I propose that the eating of the fruit would result in physical death, regardless of whether it was in line with or against God’s command. Spiritual death may not have entered the world immediately, but with the loss of innocence, it would only be a matter of time before Adam and Eve made a mistake that would result in spiritual death.

The third objection seems to imply that obedience to the commandments robs us of our agency. This is clearly not doctrinal and therefore not an issue for God to command Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit. To further respond to a related concern, that opposition would only exist if God offered two opposing commandments, I would point to Lucifer in the pre-mortal existence, who chose to disobey the Father, without any contradicting commandments (at least as far as I know).

To avoid contradictions in theology and avoid unhealthy and incorrect implications that may subconsciously seep into our thought from the traditional view, opening our minds to an alternative is necessary. While the alternative I suggest is not the only option, it can serve to bring a return to a more complete and cohesive theological system, void of contradictions. It has helped me understand the events of the Fall and place them in a larger context, coloring my view of other events and how I conceptualize God’s working with humankind.

Note: James E. Talmage’s teaching that the commandment given to Adam and Eve to not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was the first incarnation of the Word of Wisdom, further supports the idea that it should not have been violated without strict counsel to do so. Otherwise, we would be free to interpret the modern Word of Wisdom as we see fit, partaking of alcohol and other substances to ‘enlighten’ us, because we know better than God and can fulfill his true plan by breaking the lesser commandments.

The Fall: Troubling Implications

The Fall of Adam and Eve is a seemingly simple yet potentially, incredibly complicated facet of theology. It is essential to Mormonism often termed as one of the ‘three pillars’ alongside the Creation and the Atonement. The Fall has troubled me for most of my life. I couldn’t wrap my head around why two conflicting commandments were given. The conventional view I heard in Church that celebrated Eve’s decision to partake of the fruit contrary to God’s command only served to deepen my confusion. (For a breakdown of the types of ideas that I heard and found commonplace amongst members of the Church see here or the book Eve and the Choice Made in Eden by Beverly Campbell).

I’ll briefly review what I found to be the conventional view. Eve is held in high regard for being beguiled by Satan and seeing the bigger picture to which Adam was blind. Further, this interpretation states that Adam and Eve should be praised for their sacrifice and great choice to disobey the Father’s explicit command to not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The idea being that the greater commandment was to multiply and replenish the earth, which was impossible without eating the fruit. At least three troubling implications arise from this interpretation.

First, that sometimes for the better good we should give-in to the temptations of Satan.

Second, that we cannot keep all of the commandments of God, and sometimes we need to break them, only able to fully fulfill God’s will by violating His revealed will (the commandments).

Third, that Satan was in fact enticing Adam and Eve to fulfill the larger purpose God had in store for them and therefore, was acting in line with God and deserves our respect and adoration for knowing that his job was to tempt Adam and Eve to disobey God to actually obey God. Satan is really just fulfilling his own purpose and should be exalted for doing what he does. The implication beyond this is even more troubling, if Satan was really furthering God’s plan all along, then we can and will be punished for doing the will of God (Genesis 3:14).

Occasionally this concern will be addressed using the following verse:

“And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent, (for he had drawn away many after him,) and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world.” (Moses 4:6)

The claim is then made that Satan didn’t know God’s plan and unwittingly played into it, after which he was cursed above all the beasts of the field. This is a difficult position to maintain with troubling implications. I believe that a key part of the verse is the last clause- ‘wherefore he sought to destroy the world’. The structure is difficult to interpret precisely, but is open to the interpretation that Satan in beguiling Eve thought that the world would be destroyed and God’s plan frustrated. However, he didn’t take into account that God’s plan cannot be frustrated by any one individual and will always move forward, with something done to compensate for any mistakes that individuals make along the way. So, Eve eating the fruit at that time was contrary to the will of God, but would not lead to the destruction of the world that Satan wanted, because ‘he knew not the mind of God’.

If you accept the other interpretation, the implication is that sometimes the devil tempts us to do God’s will and we should in fact give in to temptation. In addition, not only is the devil an accomplice with God in accomplishing his work, but he played a key role in bringing to pass our mortality. Should we rejoice in Satan’s part in the Garden of Eden as well? It would appear not, as he was cursed ‘above all cattle, and above every beast of the field’ and if God curses us when we do His will, well, it seems useless to obey.

These are the troubling conclusions that led me to reconsider my view of the Fall and eventually find an alternative view.

My thoughts are continued in 'The Fall: An Alternative View'.

The Divine

To kickstart my entry to the Bloggernacle/blogosphere, I thought my idea/conception of God and the Divine would be useful and provide a solid foundation to understand my language of faith (more on that explored elsewhere and here). For me, God is the source from which all else flows, so a shared understanding of who/what God is provides a clearer picture of the fountain from which I draw my spirituality.

If I were to narrow God down to a word, it would be Love (1 John 4:8). I thought this would be shared by others, but in a very informal survey of some friends, I was the only one that thought Love, Father being the most common answer. My fascination and fixation on Love may have something to do with being raised listening to The Beatles, internalizing the lyrics of the classic “All You Need is Love,” as well as reading Harry Potter, about a boy who was saved from death itself by love.

I believe God is a being (more accurately two Heavenly beings that are as 'one flesh') that embodies perfect love. Partially due to the union between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother- their perfect love unites them and allows them to care for us with perfect love. The image of God weeping from the Book of Moses (Moses 7:28) is a powerful scriptural example that shows one of the manifestations of such perfect love for imperfect beings.

One of my first experiences with the Divine, when I felt as though I was connected to something more expansive than myself, occurred when I was in high school. I had been questioning the truthfulness of Mormonism and the reality of God, so I decided to pray, asking if God loved me. As I plead at my bedside that night, I was enveloped in the warmth of the divine, the embrace of God, His/Her/Their love. That experience cemented my belief in God and Mormonism.

Along with God’s immense love, I believe in the agency of God, as suggested in Alma 42, that God could cease to be God. Rather than being compelled to be the way He/She/They is/are, it’s a choice. God chooses to give that Love, so essential to Her/His/Their nature to us, to me. There is genuine care that comes from God to me, a sense that when life’s rough and doesn’t make any sense, my frustration and pain is shared with God, that tears are shed in Heaven over the pain that I feel, however minor and insignificant that is in the grand scheme of things.

If God cares so much, why does evil and suffering abound in the world? Can’t God do something about that?—an age-old question that deserves more attention than I can give it, but was debated extensively at Mormon Matters and is worth a listen.

My partial solution to the problem of evil is to believe that God is not much of an interventionist, preferring to watch and let us humans figure things out for ourselves. We can get counsel and advice, but direct meddling or manipulating is not the way God works, most of the time. God clearly has an influence in our lives and that can be daily, constantly. For me that influence is more of the advice that parents and friends have given you that floats around and sticks out when you need it, as opposed to the parent that hovers and does everything for you.

God helps me find the good in any situation, the take-away, even when it may have been better to avoid the situation all together. I don’t particularly like the view of God giving us certain trials and hardships hand-selected for us, as it seems dangerously close to a Grand Chessmaster or Puppeteer that manipulates every aspect of my life. Having God be in that much control provides comfort to some, but pushes against my individualistic streak and, perhaps, my (hyper-active?) belief in agency.

I find the Divine, the traces of God’s love, scattered throughout everything. In particular, the scriptures, literature, film, music, ‘alternate voices,’ and priesthood service. As I identify Love as God, it is sometimes easy to blur the line between emotion and spirit, but we can’t forget “the truth that once was spoken. To love another person is to see the face of God.” (Evidence of my interweaving of canonized and secular sources of spiritual truth, in this instance courtesy of Les Miserables) I would expand the idea to include seeing acts of love, as well as loving others, allowing us to see maybe not the face, but perhaps the hands of God.

God’s love is Endless, which with some scriptural stretching can prove the never-ending list of things that don’t end in “If You Could Hie to Kolob” accurate (something I discovered during some ‘well-spent’ study hours as a missionary in Lithuania). That Love continues to touch me and push me to improve. Yet, while God is Love, that Love is incomplete without Truth, but that’s a subject for another day.