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.