Thinking about time

When I think of history I like to think of the relationship between the Divine and temporal time using the analogy of the Crucifix.  On the horizontal axis, we have earthly (temporal) linear time.   Event A is followed by event B which is followed by event C etc.  In regard to the vertical axis, this is where the Divine pierces earthly time. The Divine is eternal, not subject to time, but is beyond it. 

When thinking about history then, we have to consider when and where the divine pierces earthly time, as this historical context is important (meaning that, if the intervention failed then it would need to be undertaken at ‘another time’ which means the intervention may well look different.  This is because the consciousness of human beings does actually change over (long periods of) time, and this means, how we relate to the Divine changes over time too. Therefore, how the divine ‘touches us’ will also change.

Now, when we are situated somewhat after the historical event, we have two different ways of understanding it: (1) historically, as we are accustomed too, and (2) from the perspective of eternity – that is, attempting to apprehend the motivation purpose for the Divinity’s intervention, from the point of view of the Divinity itself (the true nature of a spiritual event can only be understood in the spiritual itself.  Any attempt to understand such an event with ‘fallen’ thinking will only get us so far).  Only in this way, can we comprehend the greater picture of the spiritual event – by combining both the earthly and heavenly perspectives.

Church membership reaches 15 million, but active members...drop? grow?

In the last General Conference we were told that membership had reached 15 million.  This figure doesn’t really mean much – people who stop attending the church don’t necessarily ask for their names to be removed from the system – hence they are members, just not active.  What would be really interesting to hear is what the total active membership is.  

Ward clerks collect these figures weekly, they are the guys who walk up and down the aisles during sacrament meeting, counting and scribbling figures in a note book. The numbers are then fed into quarterly reports, and ultimately end up on a desk in SLC. 

Total active membership is known to the Brethren, so there is nothing stopping them from disseminating the figures.  Let us not forget the words of Church historian Elder Marlin K. Jensen who said the Church is facing the greatest period of apostasy since Kirtland.  What that really means is probably up for debate. But one can reasonably assume, therefore, that the membership figure noted above does not fairly represent the number of active members.  Moreover, the Church may actually be shrinking in terms of active participation. We just don’t know, because we are kept in the dark.  Sure, there are spiritual reasons for being on the 'record' as a member of the Church, but what of those who have walked away for one or another reason? Ought we be ignoring them? All are important to the Lord - what ever we do to the 'least' we do to the Lord.  So I take the announced figures with a grain of salt – and they (the Brethren) well know they are largely meaningless.

Taking the Red Pill (Part One): Life just ain’t what it used to be

The LDS Church, much like many other churches, have a strong focus on sin and repentance. Sin is the breaking of a divine or moral law – such as a commandment. To repent is to feel regret or sorrow for one’s sinful actions (“broken heart and a contrite spirit...”), and to resolve not to commit the sin again. The repentance process often includes confession – the acknowledgment of the wrongdoing to a person with the appropriate priesthood authority. One can also confess to the Lord directly, after all, the priesthood is simply acting on His behalf.

The LDS Church also has a strong focus on authority - not merely the authority of the priesthood, but the authority of 'the Brethren'.

The moral commands or admonitions that we are asked or told to follow are found outside of ourselves, they are external, and as such these moral commands are imposed upon us, even if done willingly. How this can be reconciled with our divine potential for freedom (see previous posts) has to be determined by each of us individually. 

Unless we ourselves are the source of this moral impetus, irrespective of whom has spoken it to us – whether the a Prophet or your Parent – our freedom has been violated. There is no two ways about it.

We have yet to internalize the ‘law’.

The Lord Himself has said that He has fulfilled the Law, he fulfilled it in His own being. Christ can be out teacher.

[As an aside, if God himself won't intervene when atrocious acts of evil are perpetuated to ensure our liberty is maintained, then ought He also be consistent with other factors – such as 'moral commands'? Or, have we just not yet realized such contradictions? After all, He can't tell us without violating the very freedom he is protecting/nurturing. Just a thought]

One of the obvious facts concerning receiving moral guidance from outside of us, is that most people today do not find a connection to being told what to do, irrespective of how sound the commandment may appear. This is one reason why traditional Christian approaches to the divine are being rejected by most Westerners, particularly the young: the traditional approach is not in accordance with their own soul-spiritual needs. And this is for good reason. 

Humanity is no longer a child. It has grown up since it left its paradisaical state [*]. It has grown up through 2000 years of Christianity, and other spiritual influences, and quite frankly, the traditional approach is no longer spiritually appropriate. It may be comfortable, even welcomed by many – but that does not make it appropriate. Certain drugs may make you comfortable and happy too, should we all pop some pills? I admit these are bold words. Challenging words even. But the path of the red pill [**] is not easy.

Only when we choose to become spiritual adults, and not to rely on other human beings for moral guidance (for help, sure. For advice, sure. But we ought to try and make up our own mind. Thats why we have our 'own' mind), can we take the steps necessary to begin to realize our divine potential – our divine nature, our divine right, to be truly free human beings. But we first have to let go of the old ways, and take a bold step and learn to ‘internalize the law’. And herein lays the challenge...

[*] See my earlier post on when the Lord said to become like little children. 

[**] This is reference to pop-culture symbols from the Matrix movie.

The Will to be Free

The freedom we believe we have is an illusion, albeit a necessary one. It is an illusion through which we may become truly free (to paraphrase Nigerian writer Ben Okri), if only we woke up. "Awake, awake, put on strength" (Isa 51:9, 2 Neph 8:9). What we have is a potential to be free. 

Our potential for freedom is a divine gift. If we do not develop this gift we remain prisoners of the world, unable to truly love. Love can only be a truly free gift, without expectations, without caveats, without conditions. To love is to realize our divinity.

That we are not yet truly free beings means that we are mostly driven by that which is unconscious or semi-conscious in us. Even in our normal everyday thinking, we are hardly conscious of the process of thinking, but only the result or the object of our thinking. This is normal. We may, in hindsight review how we have thought and say ‘it was logical’, but we never generally are conscious of thinking while we are thinking: our attention is never directed toward itself.

In the LDS Church we are fond of referring to ‘promptings of the spirit’ or ‘feeling the spirit’ but in all honesty, we (generally - I'm sure some do) really have no idea where these promptings or feelings come from, let alone have absolute certainty who or what is behind them. Sure, we may have an idea that we have been taught, and of course, these feelings may well be something Good, but still, we are not absolutely certain of this with the same certainty and clarity we have of some mathematical concepts for example.  My point is, that unless we are conscious of our soul-processes (and thinking, feeling, and will belong there) then we are not free. For we are unconscious or only semi-conscious of where our thoughts, feelings, or will impulses arise.

One purpose of us being in this world is for us to realize our freedom; we are no more born free than we are born with a law degree. We have to earn it. We are born with a potential; we have to exert our will to be free. The Lord gave us this potential, this seed. Through our efforts, we can water and nurture this seed.  But this requires us to delve beneath the surface of that which enters our consciousness as thoughts, and feelings etc.  It is the surface and the sediments floating on it, that we are normally conscious of – hardly ever the undercurrents. Unless we learn to delve into this hitherto unseen realm, will we forever remain captive to that which we do not see.

Since its been raised...the issue of reincarnation

My last post was really prompted by a recent post by Denver Snuffer on a totally unrelated topic.  However, in my previous post I just went with what came and interestingly enough it ended on something unrelated but which I have been pondering lately.  Here I wish to return to that particular post by Snuffer.

In a recent post Snuffer responds to a question by using the example of ‘multiple mortalities’ also referred to within the LDS movement as ‘multiple mortal probations’, or what I’d prefer to simply call ‘reincarnation’.  This should not be confused with the idea of the ‘transmigration of souls’ (see TPJS pg 104).  I was not expecting to delve into this topic this early, because I wanted to build a foundation from which to launch into other non-doctrinal topics.  Reincarnation too is an issue that is both challenging to peoples worldview (hence my previous unplanned post) and is rather complex (isn’t all life complex!).

Stated (very) simply reincarnation means that after you die you spend a period of time in the spiritual world and then re-incarnate and live another temporal existence, and the cycle continues until something is reached in your spiritual growth.  Traditional Christianity and the LDS Church reject reincarnation, while in the Eastern world it is (generally) accepted as part of their worldview.

As a mental exercise, let as assume reincarnation is true.  That being the case, let us attempt to answer the question “if reincarnation is true, how come it is not part of the Western-Christian worldview”?  Below I will use Denver Snuffer’s comments as prompts to address what is a rather most important issue (all Snuffers comments below are in italics).

What possible good can it do you to know about your pre-earth record.

What possible good is it to know about Creation? Does the Books of Genesis or Moses contain superfluous information that we would best ignore? I don’t think it is a superfluous question to have an interest into our spiritual nature.  The real question is what is the most appropriate way to get such an understanding.  Perhaps another way to put the above comment is this: unless you are sufficiently prepared to understand your pre-earth lives and reincarnation, speculating about them or engaging in inappropriate spiritual practises will do you no good. Start with who you are today, and when your self-knowledge and morality is sufficiently developed, you will naturally come to answers of previous earth lives.

The challenge in front of us all has “sufficient evil unto the day thereof” without, like the Indigo Girls, to “try and get it right” for some other life. The challenge is underway. Fight now. Win in this present estate and focus on what it takes to get out of here with honor. Nothing else matters. Isn’t this life challenge enough for you?

This is the position taken (generally) by the scriptures, and for good reason (I will address my ‘general’ comment shortly) which I’ll address below.  However, the issue is not whether life is a challenge enough (who is to say someone isn’t ready to know about reincarnation?), but whether our interest in pre-earth lives is healthy or not.  I have read much speculation on such matters and it honestly does people ‘no good’.  However, I have also read much that enables us to understand about how reincarnation ‘works’ and why one temporal life is insufficient for us to learn the lessons we need, and to develop our spiritual-nature.  I guess the point is the source of the knowledge.  I agree, there is no point in speculating.  But I disagree that there is 'no good' in knowing, if the time is right (who decides the time?).

If the topic were important enough that it should influence you today, don’t you think the scriptures would make the question plain enough so the doctrine is out in the open?

Oh don’t you just love it when someone says “but it ain’t in the scriptures, therefore it ain’t true!” Firstly, there are many things pertaining to our spiritual life that are not in the scriptures!  I do not accept this statement at all. It doesn’t mention oxygen either (!!) have we all been duped by science?!? Ok, moving on...

The numerous scriptures we (mere fallen mortals) have collected (out of many others) in the Bible were given to specific peoples at specific times and in specific contexts (as I have gone into previously). To those folks who received such revelations it would seem that reincarnation was not mentioned for good reason. In regard to the revelations collected in the Old Testament, I propose one such reason here: it was necessary for the Israelites to focus on their spiritual mission, which included the development of the physical-material body that would – at the right time of this development – become the vessel for the Messiah, the Christ (hence the rigid codes that the Israelites had to follow, and if they didn’t, they were ejected from the community).  This code of conduct changed when Christ appeared at the meridian of time).  It was not necessary to address the topic of reincarnation at that time, with that particular people.  Oh, but Isaiah speaks to us today you say! But again the revelations were given to the Israelites, and was primarily for them. They were in their language, and addressed their particular stage of soul-spiritual development.

Interestingly enough, it wasn’t until the coming of John the Baptist that the topic of reincarnation is raised – in other words, it wasn’t until the completion of the role of the Israelites that this topic was first hinted at. (How could people confuse John the Baptist with Elijah the prophet, knowing full well that Elijah centuries earlier?  John could have denied the connection for a number of reasons – he may not have been aware himself, or he knew it wasn’t appropriate even at that latter time to delve into that topic).

If it is veiled, even if it were true, then it is left obscure for a reason

My point exactly, and it is an interesting study to understand why that is the case (which I won’t go into here).  However, suffice to say that what is veiled for one group of people need not be kept hidden from another if it is the right time for ‘the unveiling’.

Drawing this to a close,  let me say this regarding this unveiling: reincarnation is a truth that has been hidden from Christendom until the early 20^th century, when a Christian understanding of reincarnation and karma (the laws that govern the re-incarnations) was unveiled to those who listened.  Only the naive would think that new revelations from the divine would be given solely to the LDS Church.  Who, in this Church, has the right to tell God who to talk to or who not to talk to?

As I have mentioned previously, we are developing beings, and we have not yet arrived at what God has in mind for us (so to speak).  We each need to face circumstances that give us the opportunity to grow and develop.  It is Christ who authors these circumstances.  It is the Lord who sees that we each have what we need at this particular point in time.  So from this point of view, I agree with Snuffer that we ought to focus on the here and now.  And yes, some things happen ‘unplanned’, such is the outcome of being free beings.  If God were to intervene then our freedom would be violated.  You cannot have it both ways – we are either free, or not free.  That God does not intervene when such atrocious acts of violence are perpetuated by some people upon others is evidence to me of the most holy nature of our freedom that He will not violate.  Justice will be handed out to those who require it.  And divine justice is far greater than what we mere mortals can impose. 

True love can only ever be a free deed.  It is our destiny to be Spirits of Freedom and Love.

OM

Challenging our own Worldview

There are a number of people I read or admire for many reasons. I don’t always agree with what they say and that is a good thing. I like to read things to compare different points of view, to try and get a complete picture of things. In the light of a new experience, I may have to change my worldview – that mental platform that forms the scaffolding of my temporal personality. Moreover, not agreeing with someone doesn’t mean they are wrong. I always make up my own mind – there is a difference in believing that 2+2=4 than knowing that 2+2=4 and sometimes (!!) there are things that I just don’t know (actually, there are many things in that category!) but tentatively accept even if they appear to fit into my worldview.

I never hold my worldview that strongly – I am always open to being corrected, to changing what needs to be changed, and thereby grow as an individual, and – importantly – hopefully avoid being chained to something that pertains solely to my temporal nature.

It is also important to understand the purpose of a ‘worldview’, and that is why I referred to it above as “scaffolding of my temporal personality”. It allows us to orient our own-Self in this world. But what may be useful in this world, may be a hindrance in the next. A worldview is something we create throughout our life, it is not something that is part of our true-I nature (our Spiritual core), but it is something necessary for our temporal orientation. The point I want to make here is that often someone, or something, comes along and challenges our worldview in some way, not necessarily in an aggressive way, but in a way that makes us react. This reaction may be defensive (“I know the truth, and you are wrong”) or it may be sympathetic (“perhaps you have a point, and I’ll think about that”). I’ve noticed that most people react defensively to challenges, not really being willing to engage in conversation, and not really being open to what the world may be saying. This is unfortunate, because the Spirit is not limited by parochialism and goes where it wills.

When peoples firmly held worldviews are challenged, they often react in such a way that the message within the challenge (which is not necessarily vocalized) does not reach them. Their antipathy is like a closed door. We all exhibit this type of behavior, for it is a natural part of our temporal condition. The trick is to learn to overcome these (largely unconscious) reactions so that they do not control us, but help us to understand things better, thereby building our own character and perhaps learning a thing or two from the message as well.

Irrational stance against alternative views on marriage

The LDS continues its irrational stance against alternative views on marriage in a recent press release.

Why does the LDS Church think it has a monopoly on the meaning of marriage? Is it so naive to believe that other cultures do not have a marriage ceremony? Why has it conveniently forgotten its own history on the matter?

Let us not forget, that the Church had an official position on marriage as being between ‘one man and one women’ in its scriptures. This was removed by President Young – whom we are told was a prophet, and we are of course prophets can apparently never led us astray. This very same prophet then continued the practice of plural marriage, which was considered – by a prophet who can never lead people astray – as essential for your salvation/exaltation.

As we know, the LDS Church dropped plural marriage for purely political purposes. Don’t get me wrong, I disagree with it being ‘essential’. Yet the Church still perpetuates the myth (via Official Declaration 1 in its scriptures) that the doctrine was dropped in 1890), when it well knows – as does anyone who is capable of reading about its history – that the practice continued by the highest leadership in the Church (who, don't forget, can never lead us astray). George Albert Smith was the first President of the Church not to practice plural marriage (that wasn’t in last year’s lesson though, because (a) we don’t talk about plural marriage anymore, (b) we don’t want to point out that OD1 is not entirely factual, and (c) a true understanding of our history is apparently not ‘faith promoting’. Know the truth and the truth will set you free make you confused).

What the LDS Church should be stating is this: the State should keep its nose out of all cultural-spiritual matters, and that includes the institution of marriage. The Church should uphold all peoples religious right to marry, and not just pay lip service to endorsing religious rights while actively campaigning to take others away because it disagrees with them.

The State has no business at all defining what marriage is. Marriage is a spiritual matter, not a political one. It only becomes political when the State intrudes into matters it ought to keep out of. Hence, the existing 'political' problem of the unequal political treatment of different spiritual points of view on what marriage is. What should the state regulate next, the meaning of Christmas?

The Church ought to also explain to people why this sacred institution can only have meaning when it is between male and female, rather than just state ‘because God said so’. Because God said so doesn’t explain why it is so. People have a need to know, to understand, and with all the bureaucracy, revelatory gifts, and seership of the Q12+FP you’d think they would be able to meet this desire.

In a subsequent post, I will give my own personal reflections on why, from one point of view, marriage can only have spiritual efficacy if it is between a man and women.

I Tweet, therefore I AM

I have a new twitter address @OutlierMormon in order to promote this blog and the alternative viewpoints that I wish to bring to members.

https://twitter.com/OutlierMormon

OM

An Update (of sorts)

I have slightly revised a few earlier posts for readability.  I intended that my comments on Personal Revelation would be in at least two posts.  After much consideration of my approach, I decided to change tact, and the result was the post called Spiritual Self-Reliance.  I will continue to cover this topic again from various points of view at a latter date.

Incidentally, it should be obvious that I post when I feel the need to.  Often, I have an idea on what I want to write but it takes time for the idea to mature into something that has value for you the reader.  Hence, posts will be sporadic, as and when the spirit decides to blow my way.

The Importance of the Law of Consecration

The Law of Consecration points to our future economic life, and a spiritual task of America. That the Law’s realization within 19th Century USA was a failure, should not mean that the law itself is not important. This community (the LDS Church) was the seed-bed, the planting box, for the seed to grow into a mature, healthy, impulse for the economic life. Its fruit would spread beyond its incubator, into the wider community, region, nation, and into the global economy. At least, that was the ideal, the potential. As we know, the LDS Church failed as an incubator, and it no longer considers the deeper spiritual meaning and potential of the Law to be relevant. Living the Law of Consecration today merely means gifting your ‘time, talents, money’ etc to the Church, in other words, it has become what we would otherwise call ‘charity’.

Regardless of what it has become, what it is in reality is a living, breathing, spiritual impulse. And it continues to seek out fertile soil to grow. The spiritual impulse of the Law of Consecration will not be cut off by the reigning forces of this world, regardless of how much the LDS Church have themselves succumbed to them. It is America’s destiny to work with economic forces in a spiritual way. Modern capitalism, which the Church has embraced, is a caricature of a truly sacramental approach to economics.

Modern capitalism is an entirely logical outcome of our historical spiritual development. It was/is our destiny to develop a strong I-consciousness, which gives rise to our ego-centric view. That capitalism is based upon the ‘virtue of egotism’ can thus be understood, when we place it in developmental context. Capitalism is all about ‘me’ and making profit often purely for for the sake of making profit (greed, i.e. feeding the ego). Profit is necessary, but when it becomes a goal in itself we succumb to it, we become captured by it. That ‘it’ is a real spiritual being, the bible calls Mammon. Mammon thrives in our modern economic life; he has captured many.

However, America’s spiritual heritage is rich with guidance on these matters. As one example, it was John F Kennedy who said “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”. In other words, what does my community really need? What is the real economic need that I can meet? How can I, in concert with others who also recognize this need, work together to address this? The other persons real need thus becomes the motive. I know that my own economic needs can only be met by others, so I too must meet there economic needs. Marketing of course distorts this, creates false markets, creates false needs. But we can rise above that, develop insight to the real economy, the living economic life.

The Law of Consecration (to be honest, an outdated term today) points to the spiritual destiny of America. As the Global Financial Crisis shows, these issues are pertinent. Do we have ears to hear?

Spiritual Self-Reliance

Those of us who are only able to rely upon the witness or teachings of people who have spiritual experiences face the problem of spiritual discernment. In his October 2010 conference talk, Elder Oaks states that while we ourselves can receive revelation, if we do receive revelation and it contradicts what the Brethren themselves have received, then we are told that we are wrong; that our revelation is of the devil!  Respectfully, I disagree with his position.  Firstly, the individuals who comprise the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency are not infallible. Ergo, they – like the rest of us – are not perfect, and can quite possibly be wrong!   And on this occasion Elder Oaks is in error, and a dangerous one at that too [1].

Elder Christofferson in his April 2010 conference talk stated that the scriptures ought to be used as the standard for distinguishing truth from error.  In my last post I mentioned some of the considerations we ought to keep in mind in relying upon any revelation (in fact, even our own revelations will be colored in some way).  Therefore, we ought not use the scriptures as a ‘standard’ per se.  If  we have our own spiritual experiences, or gain an audience with Christ, then we no longer need the scriptures to validate what we experience as truth, we have received direct validation ourselves.

This leaves us then with one thing: our own self.  We can only ever rely upon our own self, or I.  Everything else either facilitates or hinders our relationship with the divine.  We have to remind ourselves: what is the purpose for taking part in a religious community? What am I aiming for? Some of us are trying to follow Christ, to enter into His presence, and through Him, to our Heavenly Father.  Therefore, anything that comes between you and the Lord is a hindrance or an obstacle to be overcome.

The Lord has asked us to take steps toward Him.  Entering His presence is an arduous task, and the spirits of hindrance do their best to divert us from this.

We need to discern these spirits, as they influence us via our own soul, and via others (no one is immune, but they thrive on not being noticed).  Despite my comments above, Elder Christofferson does have a good point: if we study the scriptures, we are given insight into how things unfold in our time.  If we take heed to the lessons, we are armed with knowledge about the tactics of the spirits of hindrance.

[1] Elder Oaks states that while we ourselves can receive revelation, if we do receive revelation and it contradicts what the Brethren themselves have received, then we are told that we are wrong; that our revelation is of the devil.  What this means is that the standard by which we assess the truthfulness of revelation is no longer the Holy Spirit, or the fact of Christ’s appearance to us and His words. No, it is the Brethren. It is a small group of men – fallen, fallible human beings who on the one hand deny their infallibility (via anonymous press release), while expecting us to take everything they say as the truth. What is wrong with this picture?

The challenge of the written word

There are several ways we can learn about matters of the spiritual life, such as the being of man, the Mystery of the Atonement, the creation of the world, or even mundane things such as the spiritual properties of plants.  We can develop the spiritual capacities to enter into spiritual realms and thereby uncover certain truths for oneself; secondly, we can receive revelations from spiritual beings as an act of Grace; thirdly, we can accept the witness or teachings of people belonging to either category above.  

We have to accept the possibility that the revelation, either in the way it was received or in the way it was understood by the receiver and then communicated, has come to us coloured by the disposition of the person who received it.  It may be coloured by that persons vocabulary, their temperament, their worldview, their thought system, their psychology.  There are many factors that influence how we view and understand the world that we live in, and the spiritual is no different. 

We therefore ought to view scripture for what it is: communications through revelators or seers, that are coloured by the person who received them.  Moreover, people of different times do not have the same soul-spiritual faculties.  Our relationship with the divine changes over time.  Just think how different we were as children, compared to adults. Similarly, humanity’s relationship with the divine changes through time. Revelations written down a thousand years ago were written by someone with a different relationship to the divine than what we have today.  In regard to the Old and New Testaments, we must also factor in the translators – for their translations too are coloured in one way or another by their own selves.  Even those in authoritative positions making interpretations that we are expected to take with some weight, are coloured by their own personality, schooling, environment etc.

This is not to down play the importance of scripture.  Far from it, scripture contains a wealth of wisdom that humanity has yet to uncover.  But we ought not confuse the spiritual experience, the spiritual process of being enlightened, the revelatory process with the fixed written words that we have. The written word is the result of the experience, but is not the experience itself.  The revelatory process is a living spiritual event; the written word is a fixed residue.  We should not idolise a book, but seek a living spiritual relationship as real as the ones we have in this world.

The written word challenges the reader to revitalise the fixed, dead word, and to lift their thinking up back into the spiritual realm – to behold the truth for themselves.  A seer is one who sees into the realm of the divine. We ought to seek to develop such capacities for ourselves, then we too can uncover the truths that the written revelations point too.  When we rely unduly upon the written word, we run the risk of distancing ourselves from the divine world, which is always living, fresh, vibrant.  The scriptures are a medium, and not the end.  We have to uncover the spiritual truths, we have to take the steps into the divine spiritual worlds.  We do this through developing our thinking; studying the results of spiritual research is the first step on this path.

Spiritual Food

The other day I chanced upon the following quote which is related to what I expressed at the end of my last post:

"Religious organizations instinctively develop teachings, practices, and cultures that tend to keep its members at early stages of spiritual development dependent on the organization. These stages are characterized by obedience, conformity, loyalty, a narrow view of morality, and external religious conduct. Though helpful at first, a focus on these qualities can become limiting and restrictive once an individual’s full spiritual potential begins to unfold. In theory, the purpose of a church organization is to guide one into an actual knowledge of God, which leads to spiritual rebirth and entrance into the Kingdom; however, in practice, churches ultimately hinder this transformative awakening and knowledge so that the organization can maintain its primacy. The human consequence of this organizational tendency is boredom and frustration since children of God with infinite, divine potential—who are ready to mature into the wonderfully mysterious and exciting stages of divine relationship and knowledge—are continually retained at the first grade of gospel teaching, while their souls ache for graduate instruction in the mind and heart of Christ."

Philip McLemore, "Hindering the Saints: Taking away the key of Knowledge", Sunstone Magazine, September 2012.

Let me juxtapose the above with a quote or two from Denver Snuffer.  In the Overview to his text The Second Comforter, Snuffer states (pg 6): "The Church of Jesus Christ has weighed the varying interests and has properly determined to address in classes and conferences the primacy of the interests of newly converted.  It is to these Saints the Church must give its first concerns."

 

I agree that the Church must give its first concerns to the newly converted.  They were the lost sheep who have just been found, and one must ensure their entry into the Church is nurtured.

 

"As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the Word, that ye may grow thereby" 1 Peter 2:2.  In 1 Corinthians 3:2 St Paul says: "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."

 

What Paul points to is the developmental needs of the individual.  One cannot feed people meat until they are able to digest it.  Digestion is important, for spiritual nourishment becomes a part of our being.  If we are given something we are not mature enough for, we will get spiritually ill or be led astray.

 

McLemore says above "Though helpful at first, a focus on these qualities can become limiting and restrictive once an individual’s full spiritual potential begins to unfold."  Yet, how can 'the Church', determine whether someone is ready for meat? Only the individual can determine this.  The real issue, is how such individuals are fed.  

 

As I noted in my previous post, the Church embodies the sacramental path.  An alternative (for some) and related path, is the spiritual path of development.  St Paul's works are rife with statements directed to those 'with ears to hear', but the path to the unveiling of those mysteries is a solitary path.  The path of the Church is a communal path, in that it takes place within a community - the ecclesia, the Church.

 

As for those wishing to walk the path to the mysteries in search of 'meat' Snuffer continues "As to those who seek for more, they are properly left in large measure to there own study....". 

The spiritual path that can be trodden independently to, or in conjunction with, the sacramental path.  In many ways, the spiritual path is more appropriate for the modern human being (hence the reason why traditional churches are bleeding members as they leave to seek alternative paths, or loose their faith altogether and embrace atheism).

It is unfortunate then, and this is the point McLemore makes, when people in authoritative positions attempt to place limits on other peoples personal approach to the Divine.  Guiding is one thing, passing judgment on another's relationship to our Heavenly Father is another.  This will be the subject of my forthcoming post on Personal Revelation (Part Two).

OM

Religion, Spirituality, and Science

Is there a distinction between religion and spirituality? When I think of religion, the thought that immediately comes to mind is 'institutional religion', that is, religious practice that is controlled or overseen by an institution that has an authority deriving from the divine. But this does not explain what religion is.

Religion is the belief in and worship of a higher divine power, especially a personal God or gods. Thus, there are two aspects to religion: belief or knowledge, and worship or what we can call religious practice.

The word 'religion' derives from Latin religio(n-) meaning 'obligation, bond, reverence'. It is through our desire to follow Christ, that we take upon ourselves the obligations required to follow Him. In the LDS Church practicing the faith is primarily through prayer, service, and the sacraments (ordinances) of the Gospel. In this sense, we can call it a sacramental path - that is, on this path our relationship to the divine is primarily via the sacraments or ordinances.

It is interesting that the word 'worship' has its origin in the Old English word weorthscipe which means 'worthiness, acknowledgment of worth'. Worthiness is a key obligation of practice in the LDS faith, and of course, of any Christ-centered path.

Spirituality is a noun of the word spiritual, and means "relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul". It can also relate to religion or religious belief. Thus spirituality permeates religion but also goes beyond it. However, one can be concerned with the spirit without following a religious practice. That is, one can be spiritual without necessarily being 'religious'. But can one be religious without being spiritual? If one is being spiritual, one is engaging in acts that somehow relate to or affect our spiritual nature. Spirituality is the heart of religious practice. But religious practice need not accompany the manifestation of spirituality.

This leads us nicely into a contemplation of science and spirituality.

Most of us are not conscious of the spiritual worlds. This is part of the plan of our spiritual development (aka 'salvation'). Some are gifted with insight into these realms, and are often called clairvoyants, initiates, or in LDS terminology - prophets, seers, or revelators. In ancient times such folk were also called Oracles. When the spiritual world opens itself to such people, they usually term such experiences 'revelations'. As noted in my post on revelation, there are various qualitative dimensions to such revelations. Some are mighty pictures, some are barely perceptible feelings.

However, in the same way we come to know about the physical-material realms, we can also come to know the spiritual realms. By knowledge, I mean something greater, profoundly deeper, than mere perception (observation). Some folks live in this realm just as consciously as they do in the physical. The way we can come to know about such realms is called science.

Science is defined as the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. The results, 'science', can be called a systematically organized body of knowledge. However, I would argue that science can also be applicable to the super-natural world, or the divine spiritual world, its beings, and its phenomena. Science then, can (and ought to) become a spiritual science.

The type of methodology science utilizes is called the 'experiment': a procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact. The methodology of science, like the results of the experiment or investigation, must be reproducible. This enables others to follow the path, and to arrive at the same results (or not) thus verifying them (or not, whatever the case may be).

For spiritual-science, the case is the same. If the results of spiritual-science are to be accepted by others, the methodology must be transparent, and properly explained so it can be followed by others. Only in this way can spiritual-scientific fact be verified.

For spiritual science, the methodology must also be individualized, in order to account for the distinct idiosyncrasies, disposition, and makeup of each individual. People are not the same when it comes to their soul and spiritual life. This is one reason why some people choose to belong to one church, some to another, and some to none at all.

The methodology employed in spiritual-science must be appropriate to the object/subject of the investigation (the spiritual world). Therefore, it will necessarily be different to the physical-material realm that occupies our current institutions of science. The methodology therefore, cannot rely upon mechanical experimentation. Rather, its method of investigation derives from the human being in their individual relationship with the divine. It is a spiritual methodology (this will be further elaborated in a latter post). Suffice to say at this stage that such a path is often called a spiritual path of development (contrasted with the sacramental path noted above). However, in the sense meant here, the spiritual path is focused on knowing the higher worlds, and not just entering them.

Whereas spirituality is concerned with our relationship to the divine in general, spiritual-science is concerned with our understanding of the divine. By following a spiritual-scientific path and deepening our understanding and knowledge of the divine, we will also at the same time, deepen our religious practice.

No doubt some will say it can't be done, or worse, it shouldn't be done. Some people prefer the status quo, to keep all glory to themselves rather than spreading the light of Christ. They assume control over our spiritual lives - we do not have the knowledge, 'keys' or priesthood authority to attain such Light. They will say that it is dangerous, that only the Lord can reveal the spirit.

The Lord Himself says to ask: have a questioning mind, say something in order to obtain an answer; the Lord Himself says to seek: undertake a course of action to find the answer; the Lord Himself says to knock: take steps (spiritual and moral) to pierce the veil, show the Lord you desire to know the Truth. These words of the Lord point to the spiritual path. By coming to conscious understanding and awareness of the spirit via such a spiritual-scientific path, we have progressed in our spiritual development.

By utilizing strict spiritual-scientific methods, we are able to verify (or disprove) the authenticity of revelation received by others. All revelation, including that contained in the bible and Book of Mormon, is open for scrutiny by people able to pierce the veil into the spiritual realms. This by no means undermines the sublime nature of such revelation, but rather is the human soul elevated into the divine realms where it can experience the reality for itself. Only in this way does revelation in this age serve its purpose - to bring people to our Heavenly Father.

OM