Category: Doctrine

If you have a spare half-hour or so, please read the following chapter from the Brothers Karamazov, “Rebellion“. Now, I give this reading to my students to prove two points: first, that utilitarianism has some fundamental flaws; and second, that atheists can be good moral thinkers too. (I should hasten to add that Dostoevsky was devoutly, fanatically Orthodox Christian, it is his character here who is an atheist (kinda)).

This chapter comprises the most thorough and convincing argument against a Benign God that I have ever stumbled across. It is not so much the examples that Ivan uses, but rather it is the fundamental question that he asks: If it is true that all injustice will be corrected in the end and we will all be filled with God’s infinite compassion (even for those who have despitefully used and abused us), what exactly is the reason for all the suffering in the world?

This is somewhat different than the question I heard all the time on my mission: Why would a Benign, All-powerful Deity let bad things happen to Good people? How? The people who I talked to on my mission were generally upset that people suffered, that is true, but they usually operated from a position of assuming that there would be no reckoning in the afterlife, that the afterlife was offered only as a balm to the weak-headed who couldn’t get along in this life without supposed other-worldly support.

Ivan, on the other hand, is looking straight at the possibility that God will make it right, that God will really correct the inequities that we have suffered in life. For Ivan, there is nothing more unjust than the establishment of justice after this life, because he reckonizes that there are some injustices that can only be overcome in us through divine help. The mother is unlikely to be able to forgive the murderer of her child without divine aid. The abused daughter is equally unlikely to be able to forgive her parents. So, in order to make everything Christian here, God is going to have to intervene to help the wronged forgive their abusers.

But, if God can intervene and make it possible for us to forgive or if forgiveness is sometimes impossible without his aid, what exactly is the point? If life is just a series of tests to show us how we are nothing without God, how does suffering (in particular the suffering of children) make this point more clear? If God can make it all better with a wave of his hand once we’re dead, why put us through it in the first place? How does suffering teach us anything if its effects are only overcome through divine intervention? Is God a sadist or a megalomaniac?

These are actually some hard questions that aren’t necessarily quickly dismissed by a reference to opposition in all things. The system that God has established for bringing his children back to Him appears terribly inefficient. The whole world is drenched in the blood of the innocent, is all of it necessary for our redemption?

I believe in a benign, all-powerful creator. I believe that we have been given free will. I believe that this establishes some limits on how God can interact with us and it makes it possible for us to sin. I believe that if there was any other way to get us back to Him, knowing the things that we should know and being the beings we should be, he would have used it. Think about how he had to answer the following question:

Tell me yourself, I challenge your answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature- that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance- and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth.

God loves us a great deal. He has spilt an awful lot of blood for us. It is my sincere hope that someday I will make it back so that I can tell Him face-to-face how grateful I am that He did what he had to do.

Dear reader,

I am once again, too lazy/busy to come up with an actual topic for discussion (although I do have a couple that I am pecking at on the keyboard). That said, the discussion from my last post has gotten me thinking about the books that we read in the church.

What book have you read that has best helped you to understand the atonement?

Here are the ground rules for this discussion:
1. The scriptures are disqualified (this isn’t because I don’t like them (the opposite is quite true) but because it is a too easy answer).
2. Explanations are not necessary but are appreciated.
3. Books do not need to be limited to the LDS publishing market.
4. More than one entry is acceptable.

As for me, I think the best book I have ever read for helping me understand the atonement in The Brothers Karamazov (runners up include Believing Christ, The Miracle of Forgiveness, and Pilgrim at Tinker Creek). I like it because it is concerned with how the atonement plays out in the real world. There are no easy answers in the book and the atonement remains hidden through much of it, but it is there throughout. For all its realism, the book is nowhere near reality, but Dostoevsky is exceptionally good at exploring the extremities of human existence which is as good a place to test the reality of the atonement as any (and better than most). It is a glorious thought experiment and a powerful testimony of the workings of Christ and his atonement, brought to us by an alcoholic, compulsive-gambling, religious fanatic. I love this book so much that I make my students read bits of it each semester. So, there is that.

What have you read?

As I see it, we have a hierarchy of belief in scripture. In other words, we give more authority to certain types of scripture than to others.

Here is how I think we rank it, from most authoritative to least authoritative:
1. Statements acknowledged as directly from the Lord made over the pulpit in General Conference by the current President of the Church
2. Statements made over the pulpit in General Conference by current members of the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve
3. Statements made by Joseph Smith in a church setting
4. The Standard Works
5. Statements made over the pulpit in General Conference
6. Statements made by the current First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve in a church setting
7. Statements made by Joseph Smith
8. Statements made by former general authorities in general conference
9. Church-related statements made by current general authorities in a non-church setting
10. Books written by general authorities, intended for church audiences
11. Books discussing scripture written by non-ecclesiastically authoritative Mormons (eg. Hugh Nibley, Sidney Sperry, etc.)

What do you think? Are there categories here that shouldn’t be? Are there categories that I missed? Did I get the ordering messed up?

I’ve been thinking a bit about the Anti-Nephi-Lehi’s of late. They were clearly deep in sin, in particular murder. They had killed a lot of people for bad reasons and, with the introduction of the Gospel into their lives, they realized what the price to be paid for that really was. Think about this as you’re reading Alma 17-22. Have you noticed that the first thing on the lips of Lamoni and his wife is gratitude for the mission and mercy of Christ? Look at the prayers of Lamoni and his father. They are the prayers of the penitent who have realized that they have really screwed up.

Then you get the moving story of the Anti-Nephi-Lehi’s burying their weapons of war. It is symbolic of a covenant that they have made to never shed blood again, a covenant made because they have already shed so much blood. As a result and as a condition of their repentance, they are vowing to completely forsake the sin of killing, even at the risk of their own lives. In part, they can do this because they, like God, realize that death is meaningless in the Gospel if you are prepared, if you have hope.

So they are slaughtered, refusing to defend themselves because of a promise made to God, a promise made to secure their own salvation.

Move forward a few years and the Anti-Nephi-Lehi’s are known as the people of Ammon and are living in the Nephite homeland. The Lamanites are invading and using the mass defection of the people of Ammon as one of their many reasons for invading. If they do nothing, it is not they who will be in (immediate) risk, it is their sworn-defenders. Other people will die for them, because of the oath that they swore.

Obviously this is disturbing to what was once a warrior people. They can defend themselves and probably do it better than the Nephites (they think). Additionally, the Nephites are facing recruitment challenges in the army because of internal divisions. The Nephites could use their help. But they have sworn an oath to never shed blood again. It was a key component of their repentance process. Nonetheless, they begin to consider breaking the oath in order to save their new home and their new friends.

The prophet of the church tells them that God would not be pleased if they did this.

Think about it. There is no evil in what the Ammonites were planning. They are explicitly motivated by the ideas that motivate the rest of the Nephite army. They are hoping to defend those who have helped them, to express gratitude by saving the lives of their saviors. But, because of the oath that they previously made with God, they cannot. What must it be like to sit and watch on the sidelines when you feel like you could save those struggling? So instead they offered up their sons as a substitute army and taught those boys to fight well and faithfully.

There are times when we run into what we consider to be conflicting commandments. The choice between two goods can be just as confusing as the choice between two evils. How should we best negotiate these moments? The people of Ammon turned to the prophet. Nephi followed the promptings of the Spirit. Is this sufficient advice? I think it should be, but the practical use of it is vague. What do you think?

Well, the will of the people has been made known and the goatee was too important to be ignored. I’m sure this will come up in Relief Society in a couple of years.

This week, we will try something a little different:
Historical Mormon Doctrine Smackdown!

Which of the following two uncanonized yet influential bits of prophetic discourse is more influential in the church nowadays: The King Follett Discourse or The Family: A Proclamation to the World?

The King Follett Discourse has more information about family relations in the eternities than we really seem to know what to do with

The Family: A Proclamation to the World has both too much and too little information regarding family relations in this world (or just the right amount, depending on who you ask, I’m sure).

Please vote in the blogpoll on the right. Please comment on this our democratic process below.

Sometimes I wonder if I am going about all of this all wrong.

Take Adam, for instance. He is told to sacrifice animals, so he does. He doesn’t bother to ask why; He doesn’t care to ask for how long. He just sacrifices animals.

For that matter, Adam doesn’t really seem to bother with trying to work things out on his own at all. He just humbly does what he is told and operates on the belief that at some point he will get an explanation. And then, at some point, he does.

Are we going about this whole thing in the wrong way? Should we really be trying to figure anything out on our lonesome? How does Adam’s example work with D&C 9:7-9? Is there anyway to avoid producing the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture, while pondering the scriptures on our own?

My predictive abilities were better this past week as I had thought the Prophet would prove to be more influential than the Apostle (shocking, I know).

But, on to this week’s match-up:

Which is the more important, little-known, latter-day prophet:
President George Albert Smith or President Howard W. Hunter?

G. A. Smith: I think he was an eagle scout.
H. W. Hunter: May have also been an eagle scout.

In addition to voting in the poll on the right, please impress me, your friends, and your relatives by relating whatever you might happen to know (without having looked it up on the internet) about these two great men. You’ll note that I have the eagle angle locked up.

Not to be overly literal, but the Book of Mormon has a notion in it that I am having a hard time wrapping my head around: faith in the name of Christ.

Let’s look at a couple of passages:
Mosiah 1:11 – 12

11 And moreover, I shall give this people a name, that thereby they may be distinguished above all the people which the Lord God hath brought out of the land of Jerusalem; and this I do because they have been a diligent people in keeping the commandments of the Lord.
12 And I give unto them a name that never shall be blotted out, except it be through transgression.

Mosiah 3:9

9 And lo, he cometh unto his own, that salvation might come unto the children of men even through faith on his name; and even after all this they shall consider him a man, and say that he hath a devil, and shall scourge him, and shall crucify him.

Mosiah 3:17

And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.

Mosiah 5:8 – 10

8 And under this head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free. There is no other name given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives.
9 And it shall come to pass that whosoever doeth this shall be found at the right hand of God, for he shall know the name by which he is called; for he shall be called by the name of Christ.
10 And now it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall not take upon him the name of Christ must be called by some other name; therefore, he findeth himself on the left hand of God.

So what do you make of this? There are several other examples, these are ones that I just happened to stumble across today.

According to the first Article of Faith, it is Christ himself that we are supposed to have faith in. Why do we have all this information about having faith in his name? King Benjamin’s whole speech is an attempt to get his people to do things with this name? What is the significance?

Could it be another instance of the vicarious nature of the Gospel? By taking Christ’s name upon ourselves are we allowing the Atonement to take effect in our lives? Faith in the power of the name to ward off evil? Faith in the name as an intermediary with the Father? Faith in the power with which we are endowed when we take his name upon us? Faith in the power of prayer and the opportunity thereby to petition God (always done in Christ’s name)? These possibilities of interpretation just came off the top of my head. How do you think this doctrine should be taken?

Well, the ‘nacle has spoken and it turns out the Eliza was a greater historical figure. Who knew? I certainly didn’t, I predicted a runaway for Emma.

In this week’s version, we ask the following question:

Who has had a greater effect, internally and externally, on how the Church is perceived: Ezra Taft Benson or Bruce R. McConkie?

Ezra Taft Benson, a prophet of the Lord, Eisenhower’s agricultural secretary (at a point when people cared about the agriculture secretary), member of the John Birch society, inspired to flood the earth with the Book of Mormon, utterer of “Beware of Pride” (one of my favorite conference talks).

Bruce R. McConkie, member of the quorum of the Twelve Apostles, author of several doctrinal treatises (the most influential being “Mormon Doctrine”), a Biblical autodidact, famously and humbly retracted statements regarding Blacks and the Priesthood, utterer of “The Purifying Power of Gethsemane” (one of my alltime favorite conference talks).

So there you have it. Please vote in the blogpoll on your right!

A few week’s back there was a discussion on Issues in Mormon Doctrine regarding the relative number of revelations and signs in the church nowadays as opposed to during the Joseph Smith period. One of the fundamental questions asked was, to paraphrase, why has the initial outpouring of revelation stopped?

I don’t know. To be honest, I am not entirely certain it has. There is Geoff J‘s take and there is Ben S‘s. But, in reading the Book of Mormon today, I came across some interesting stuff.

Let’s start with 2 Nephi 26:13:

13 And that he manifesteth himself unto all those who believe in him, by the power of the Holy Ghost; yea, unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, working mighty miracles, signs, and wonders, among the children of men according to their faith.

This seems pretty straightforward. God’s manifestations are contingent on context, that context being provided by faith. So, if we have the faith to see the miracles, we will see them. However, this seems like a too-easy answer and it is.

To demonstrate, let’s read Ether 12:12

12 For if there be no faith among the children of men God can do no miracle among them; wherefore, he showed not himself until after their faith.

Now, some people are of a mind that every new day is a miracle. We’ll adopt their approach for the moment. Apparently, they, through their faith, allow God to continue to produce new days. This seems terribly limiting on God. Do we really believe that we have this kind of power? That the power of God is dependent on the faith of his children? Even if you are demanding classical miracles (ie. healings, tongues, etc.), the requirement of human faith (flawed as it usually is) seems to place some sort of human control over divine will.

Here’s another interesting passage, Moroni 7:35 – 38:

35 And now, my beloved brethren, if this be the case that these things are true which I have spoken unto you, and God will show unto you, with power and great glory at the last day, that they are true, and if they are true has the day of miracles ceased?
36 Or have angels ceased to appear unto the children of men? Or has he withheld the power of the Holy Ghost from them? Or will he, so long as time shall last, or the earth shall stand, or there shall be one man upon the face thereof to be saved?
37 Behold I say unto you, Nay; for it is by faith that miracles are wrought; and it is by faith that angels appear and minister unto men; wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain.
38 For no man can be saved, according to the words of Christ, save they shall have faith in his name; wherefore, if these things have ceased, then has faith ceased also; and awful is the state of man, for they are as though there had been no redemption made.

Here we see human limitations being placed on the Atonement itself. If there is anything that God wants, it is for His children to return to Him. How is it even possible for human faithlessness to deny God what He most wants? It is hard to reconcile this idea with that of an omnipotent creator.

Unless you have an idea of a self-limiting creator (which we have). The limitations on God are self-imposed as a necessary step in granting us free will. Apparently, there was no other way. As a result, we, by our limited faith in God, create limits on how He can interact with us personally. But there appears to be a way around this.

Faith, as the scriptures above point out, is a means whereby miracles can be wrought. Why? Because faithful prayer gives us access to the mind and will of God and, in those cases, we can ask Him to do for us what he would like to do. The limitation that God has self-imposed seems to be that He can bless us as He would like to do, but we must sincerely ask Him to. If we are willing to seek out His will and ask Him for His help in accomplishing it, our blessings, revelations, and miracles can presumably be limitless.

Regarding the revelation issue from the first paragraph then, if the revelatory nature of the Church has changed, the reasons may be twofold. First, perhaps we don’t have so much revelation because people don’t sincerely want God to weigh in on the matters of the day (think about the internal church discussions over gay-marriage propositions in California). Second, as the church has expanded, the need for a central source to get the kinds of revelations that you see in D&C 12, 14, 15, and 16 has gone away. Perhaps people, in approaching the Lord directly, are receiving these sorts of revelations themselves. So, my guess is that a combination of a lack of desire for institutional revelation and an increased emphasis on personal revelation (perhaps to give the Brethren more time to work on other issues) has brought about the current situation. For better or for worse…