The Rules and The Source

Take a moment and think about Dungeons and Dragons. Did any of you play this game as children? Are you Satanists now? Just curious…

I played D&D (or AD&D, at the time) quite a bit growing up. The guy who was our regular DM (ie. the dude who ran the game) always tried to straddle the line between strict adherance to the rules and fudging them to make it the game funner for those participating. We had two kids who consistently went out of control. One who would go off and play with other gamers and come back with these spectacular magical items which, he would then insist, our DM allow him to use in our game. The DM would agree and then destroy the items at the first convienient opportunity. The other kid would consistently get fed up with the slow pace of the game (at around the hour mark) and then spend the rest of the game trying to get the rest of us killed. He would always start the game with some random new chaotic good character and, by the end of the night, he would be some random dead chaotic evil character. I look at that last paragraph and realize what a geek I was (and probably still am).

So, aside from embarassing myself with my high-school nerditude, I think that AD&D (or games in general) may help explain the difference that Geoff J and I appear to be having regarding the manner in which the atonement is expressed in the repentance process. As you have likely guessed, I will, of course, be comparing God to Gary Gygax.

Gary Gygax wrote the rules of AD&D. He came up with manner in which one generates a character (ie. the role that one plays in the game). He developed the manner in which those characters can change over time. He explained who you could be, what you could be, and why you could be it. He established the rules.

Within the parameters of the rules, you could develop your character. You could go on adventures, chop up orcs, drink potions, find treasure, etc. All of these experiences allowed your character to develop over time, helping you to become better. The changes that your character experienced were of two sorts: first, when you received a certain number of experience points (ie. an arbitrary measure of how much your character had learned/developed over time), you were granted the next level (meaning that you received new powers and abilities); second, your character changed because of the experiences themselves (at least, it would if you were a good role player). You might get 2000 experience points for defeating a dragon or something, but if all of your friends died in the process, you were expected to play the game from then on like someone whose friends had died helping him defeat a dragon. Events were meant to have psychological, as well as physical, effects (which was why the two above geekier-than-I kids were particularly obnoxious).

Why Gary Gygax is like God: Gary established the rules. Without Gary, there are no rules. I do not mean that there are no other games and that there are no rules in those other games. I mean that, without Gary, we would not have had these games to play by these rules. Any character development that you accomplished in that game was accomplished by meeting the requirements that Mr. Gygax set out. Without Gygax’s consideration of the need for development, there is not development. This does not absolve you from personal responsibility in developing your character (it is a time-honored adage that if you let someone else play your character in a role-playing game, your character will get killed). If you want to develop the character, you have to do something. You just have to follow the rules that Gygax established in order to do the something. In this manner, I would say that Gary is like God.

Why Gary Gygax is not like God: well, aside from the obvious, AD&D does involve creation ex nihilo. Your characters do not exist until you sit down, roll dice, and make them. However, I don’t believe that this is a killer to the argument. In role playing, like in any other role, you put yourself into the world. You are introduced into the world of the game from elsewhere and you make a form of yourself for participation within the game. Reality contains no NPC’s (ie. roles filled by the DM, as opposed to players).

So, if God has established the rules for this world, what does “natural” change mean? If it means that these changes occur according to the rules of the world, I am happy to go along with that (for at least as long as we are in an physical, fallen world). God has established the rules and we progress or regress as we follow them. There doesn’t appear to be another set of rules (for this world) and it appears that those who try to overturn the rules (ala my two friends) fail. Geoff might describe this as a passive role for God, but I tend to think that the rules are tailored too closely to the individual for this to be the case. In other words, while both Geoff and I have to be baptized and believe in Christ in general, some of the challenges that we face are individual (Geoff won’t have to learn to love my in-laws; I won’t have to deal with Geoff’s co-workers).

To be frank, I am not too happy with the above model, but I have put all the thought into it that I want for today. What do you all think?

I Ain’t Got No Body

Okay, enough of these posts on things that can actually have an effect on our daily lives! I need instead to delve into the mysteries, to things I can’t possibly know, and don’t need to know, you know?

I was reading 3rd Nephi recently, and finally hit the verse that I had previously assumed was mere theory within the church. It seemed like Authoritative theory, but I still thought there might be some wiggle room. Nope. This verse pretty much clears up who the God of the Old Testament was. Ok, fine, I can deal with that – it’s what I’ve been told.

But that got me thinking (oh no!) How was Jesus able to do the things he did, like creating the world and stuff, before becoming a resurrected being? Aside from Him needing to come to Earth to save us all, it doesn’t seem like He needed the ‘mortal challenge’ in order to progress. For that matter, 3rd Nephi suggests that he did the righteous smiting on them before he was resurrected. (Didn’t the darkness lift afterwards?) So, he did all of that world-changing again without a physical body?

I guess I had been led to believe that Jesus was the Firstborn of Heavenly Father, but was pretty much in the same boat as the rest of us, prior to coming to Earth. (Clearly not the case.) There was talk on another blog* about how intelligences / spirits might have been created, but it would seem that not all were created equally. Granted, we can’t all have been Saviors, but it does make me wonder how all of that happened. Perhaps one day it will all become clear. (FWIW, I can see the simple answer to this: He was a member of the Godhead, even pre-mortal.)

* I’m feel like I’m breaking some sort of Bloggernacle rule by not explicitly linking back to the referenced blog, but I really don’t remember where that was.

Teaching, Learning, the 1,000 little changes, and the nature of exaltation/atonement

This is in response to the gauntlet that was thrown down by Geoff J (although I should note that he was only responding to my gauntlet).

In his parable of the piano, Geoff is trying to negotiate the roles of the individual spiritual agent in relation to the role of God in the Atonement and Exaltation (I am in the camp that believes (as apparently Geoff agrees) that one cannot successfully talk about one without invoking the other). Specifically, God gives everyone a piano that they could not get on their own and then God spends years and years training up the kid in piano, giving all the necessary skills, guidance, instruction, encouragement, discouragement, etc. necessary to get the orphan (us) to be as good a piano player as the instructor is. This places the responsibility for our salvation squarely on our shoulders; Although God gave us the piano as a gift, we must learn to play it individually. He cannot play it for us. (Geoff, please correct me if I am misinterpreting here).

If anyone has been following this debate (as I am sure you all are), you will note that whenever I disagree with Geoff, I initially point out that I mostly agree with him and find his parables helpful (his comments here reinforce that impression). Since patterns must be followed, I will do the same here. Taken individually, I agree with all of the sentences in the above paragraph. I just think that the sum is greater than the whole that paragraph creates.
Continue reading “Teaching, Learning, the 1,000 little changes, and the nature of exaltation/atonement”

CallingAndElectionMadeSure (CAEMS)

I considered tacking this onto the end of David J.’s welcome post (of which I am trying not to be covetous of his responses.)

John C. made an allusion to my unusual religious upbringing; well, here it will be revealed in this system of things. (hint)

When reading about the Second Anointing, the topic of “Calling and Election made sure” featured prominently. When I was investigating the church, I had heard the phrase, and it sounded pretty much like the topic title. All one word and completely incomprehensible. (Much like FamilyHomeEvening.) When I got someone to explain it to me, it sounded very similar to a concept in the religion I had grown up in. In that religion, certain people (usually in leadership) would get a special feeling that they had been chosen to be a special servant of God and sit at his right hand. In other words, they would get to be one of the 144,000 mentioned in the book of Revelation (Chap 14) . Now, this “special feeling”, in LDS terms, could be likened to the Holy Ghost, which it sounds like modern interpretations of the Second Anointing are tending towards.

So, having this background, I wondered if the CAEMS might refer to the 144,000 for us, too. John C. thought not.

In case it’s not really obvious, I grew up as a Jehovah’s Witness. I was quite active until I was about 14 or so, when I began to question some of the doctrines that didn’t really make sense. Unable to get any good answers from them, I felt the need to seek elsewhere, which ended me up here. =)

So, any speculation, comments, words of wisdom on the similarities of these two versions of Heavenly Selection? I can’t actually believe that it is THE Holy Ghost visiting the Witnesses, so what gives?

Metaphorical Mormon Smackdown: Iron Rod Edition!

Well, as usual, my inspiration for posts comes from BCC. I was going to discuss the merits of the seer stone vs. the Urim and Thummim, but I just wasn’t as inspired as I was by this idea. Go with me on it.

What metaphor more accurately describes the Iron Rod from 1st Nephi 8: a handrail or a divining rod?

Hand rail: well, the thing extends along a river and a path and people are supposed to hold onto it. What more do you want?

Divining Rod: (I admit I am cribbing this idea from this) I have personally long been unsatisfied with the hand rail approach (do we have any evidence of these in the ANE?). However, we do have evidence of the use of arrows and sticks as forms of divination.

Why is this an issue? Because if the divining rod metaphor is the one that we should be using, doesn’t it make the dichotomy between “Iron Rod” and “Liahona” Mormons discussed here a bit pointless?

Vote and comment below.

Hagia Sophia

When we were considering what to name our first child, whom we thought would be a girl, we briefly discussed the name Sophia. I like the name for what it means and also for the biblical (and possible Canaanite) imagery surrounding it. My wife, Tana, did not particularly like the name however. When I asked why, she responded that she could see kids teasing our future child, taunting with names like “Hagia Sophia, Hagia Sophia”.

After some time and some perspective, she withdrew her objections and we gave the name to our second child (although Tana does prefer the Sofia spelling).

In the moment, Tana did not stop to think about the implications of her fears. The likelihood of a schoolyard bully integrating the name of a cathedral in Byzantium into an insult is minimal. Tana simply didn’t like the name at the time and this was the reason that popped into her exceptionally well-educated head.
Continue reading “Hagia Sophia”

Honor Among Warriors, Zerahemnah

So, I’m going through the Book of Mormon in response to President Hinckley’s Challenge, and I came across this passage this weekend.

(Alma 44:8 )
And now it came to pass that when Zerahemnah had heard these sayings he came forth and delivered up his sword and his cimeter, and his bow into the hands of Moroni, and said unto him: Behold, here are our weapons of war; we will deliver them up unto you, but we will not suffer ourselves to take an oath unto you, which we know that we shall break, and also our children; but take our weapons of war, and suffer that we may depart into the wilderness; otherwise we will retain our swords, and we will perish or conquer.

I realize that Moroni is bound by his oath to Zerahemnah when he offers terms for surrender, but it seems rather honorable for Z. to not be willing to swear an oath “which we know that we shall break.” Given the history of the Lamanites, this seems likely.

In a way, it seems that killing Z. and his army has become an exercise in hunting a dangerous natural predator. Sharks attack people at the beach, not because they are mean or evil, but because it’s their nature. Somehow, despite Zarahemnah’s ill-fated personal attack on Moroni, I can’t help but feel a little sorry for him. He was just acting according to his nature. (Such as it was, we all have choices.)

Any thoughts on this?

My apologies that this is not nearly as deep and philosophical as John C.’s posts, but hey, sometimes lighter is good. =)

Introducing FaithHopeLove

Well, we’re growing today. I would also ask you to give a warm welcome to Jon (aka FaithHopeLove). He is an old friend of the family with an interesting religious past (which I will let him reveal in due time). He is what he had to say by way of introduction:

My name is Jon (no H) and I have known John C. for more than 20 years.
The earliest memory I have of him is that he refused to eat tomatoes
because he thought they were gross. Now, it appears that he’ll eat
just about anything.

I’m on the cusp of 35, married, no children, but three beautiful
cats. I’ve lived in Utah for 12 years, and that’s about 12 years too
long for me. I long to be back in the tropics of Florida, but, alas,
my wife has strong ties to family here.

In case you were wondering, my username comes from an album
title by the progressive rock band, King’s X.

Please welcome FHL to FPR.

Introducing David J

Faith-promoting Rumor is pleased to announce the addition of David J to our blog. He will post occasionally on topics of import to him and, as always, he must agree with me on whatever I write. Here he is in his own words:

I grew up in California, served in Brazil, hold a B.S. in Accounting and decided to switch gears and study Hebrew Bible in 2003. I have two kids (1 each). When not studying, I enjoy back-country backpacking, watching professional football, and playing racquetball. I don’t like American cars, brown carpet, and Microsoft products (I have all 3).

Please make him feel welcome here in our little corner of the Bloggernacle.