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