The Present

I was reading this post about being a mom and there were some ideas that struck me in these two paragraphs:

          There has been no weirder gauge of my own life’s progress than Julian and that’s only becoming more obvious as he gets older. Julian basically acts to highlight everything about myself that needs or needed shaking up. As a byproduct of my punctilious life-planning, I used to think things like “It’ll be better when ______” or “I’ll relax when _________”. I guess I still think this sometimes, like, I struggle to function happily if the house isn’t at least superficially tidy (it’s a strange curse), but on the whole, I’ve learned how to live in the moment. Babies change and grow so much and so quickly and that serves as a very physical reminder that time stands still for no man. Perhaps I’m just slow, but it’s taken this very obvious lesson for me to learn how to really appreciate a moment with no thought for the future. Julian’s ever-changing life has peppered mine with moments in which I’ve taken mental pause and tried hard to revel in that moment deeply enough that I’d never forget it. It’s just simple stuff. Like how Julian’s breath felt on my cheek when he was just days old. Or how he looked this morning when he presented me with a ball of tin-foil he’d been scrunching. I think that’s been the biggest transformation for me. Julian proves how fleeting life is, and I’ve become more determined to stop rushing it. Being forced to acknowledge that time waits for no man has also compelled me to realise that I actually have very little control.
          Human beings are weird; most of Western society is built on maintaining the illusion of having control, but in reality, we don’t have much. From the locks on our front doors to the time increments we set meetings at (from Fraction of the Whole), they’re all just symbols of safety and control. Watching Julian change so quickly as made me realise that I have very little control over what he does. I can’t do anything about him growing up other than try to equip him for the process. He’ll eventually make his own life choices and be his own person and as much as I want to protect him from absolutely everything I consider a potential danger, I can’t and shouldn’t. 

I think the ability to live in the present and to let go of the need for control is at the crux of real happiness.

In The Screwtape Letters C.S. Lewis works through the idea of living in the present in a more developed way. It is explained that while we "live in time" God "destines" us for eternity -- so while we must think of eternity we must also think of "the Present."

For the Present is the point at which time touches eternity. Of the present moment, and of it only, humans have an experience analogous to the experience which [God] has of reality as a whole; in it alone freedom and actuality are offered them. He would therefore have them continually concerned either with eternity (which means being concerned with Him) or with the Present—either meditating on their eternal union with, or separation from, Himself, or else obeying the present voice of conscience, bearing the present cross, receiving the present grace, giving thanks for the present pleasure.

We are tempted to live in the past and it the future, and in fact, "thought about the Future inflames hope and fear" because it is "unknown"...and so we think of it in vague imaginations or a myriad of distorted "unrealities." I do this all the time -- imagining all the different things that could happen to me;  things that I don't want (and I set myself up to worry) or things that I do (and I set myself up for disappointment).

Yes, even in dreaming of good things, even in positive "planning the morrow's work" we can slip into giving "the Future [our] hearts" and placing our treasure in it. Expecting too much of happiness/blessings/etc. from what is down the road puts too much pressure on the future. We become "perpetually in pursuit of the rainbow's end, never honest, nor kind, nor happy now, but always using as mere fuel wherewith to heap the altar of the future every real gift which is offered 

[us] in the Present." 

It is true that "the phrase "living in the present" is ambiguous" because it does not mean just present tranquility or complacency. What it really should get at is an awareness that the future may bring many trials and difficulties, so we ought to be actively "praying for the virtues, wherewith to meet them, and meanwhile concerning [ourselves] with the Present because there, and there alone, all duty, all grace, all knowledge, and all pleasure dwell."

[God's] ideal is a man who, having worked all day for the good of posterity (if that is his vocation), washes his mind of the whole subject, commits the issue to Heaven, and returns at once to the patience or gratitude demanded by the moment that is passing over him. 

This is where letting go of that need for control comes in -- of learning to turn thoughts/concerns/hopes of and for the future over to God. Faith in His control, combined with "the patience or gratitude" of the moment is real peace and leaves us with a genuine capacity for happiness.

P.S. As a side note, I liked how that post I mentioned at the beginning ended:

Finding a love you want to keep and having a family have got to be some of humankinds most refining experiences and I consider myself blessed to have such a jumpstart and opportunity at both. Everyday I feel grateful and kind of undeserving of not only having one, but two major life blessings. I know many people who have neither and I try my utmost to be appreciative.

the paradox of marriage

This is how Michael Novak, speaking specifically of the covenant of marriage, describes that paradox of freedom found through binding oneself in meaningful promises:

     Marriage is an assault upon the lonely, atomic ego. Marriage is a threat to the solitary individual. Marriage does impose grueling, humbling, baffling, and frustrating responsibilities. Yet if one supposes that precisely such things are the preconditions for all true liberation, marriage is not the enemy of moral
development in adults. Quite the opposite....
     Being married and having children has impressed on my mind certain lessons, for whose learning I cannot help being grateful. Most are lessons of difficulty and duress. Most of what I am forced to learn about myself is not pleasant....
     Seeing myself through the unblinking eyes of an intimate, intelligent other, an honest spouse, is
humiliating beyond anticipation. Maintaining a familial steadiness whatever the state of my own emotions is a standard by which I stand daily condemned. A rational man, acting as I act?...
     My dignity as a human being depends perhaps more on what sort of husband and parent I am, than on any professional work I am called upon to do. My bonds to them hold me back (and my wife even more) from many sorts of opportunities. And yet these do not feel like bonds. They are, I know, my liberation. They force me to be a different sort of human being, in a way in which I want and need to be forced. (Originally from "The Family Out of Favor" by Michael Novak - but first found in an article by Eugene England)

the paradox of individual vs group

Just wanted to let you know about another article worth reading...

I especially appreciate this explanation of covenants:


The general resolution of the paradox of individual versus group, of integrity to conscience as opposed to obedience to law or commandment, is, I believe, found in covenants, of which literal eternal marriage is one form. A covenant is not, contrary to popular cliche, merely a contract between individuals--or God and the individual--with mutual benefits. It is, in the words of the fine Bible scholar, George Mendenhall, "[a] free, voluntary acceptance of ethical obligation on the basis of and as response to the past experience."

A covenant is a free, conscientious binding of the individual will to God, to an eternal partner, to a community and its land and history and sacred texts. It is not made blindly but out of gratitude and hope based in real experience. It turns neither the individual will nor the community into an idol that holds ultimate authority but rather reserve that ultimate authority to God, who is known and served both through the self and the community. One remains perfectly free to break the covenant but is bound in conscience to the reality of his experience with the divine, both as an individual and through the experiences made possible to him only in the community. And paradoxically this binding brings greater freedom than does individual autonomy.

choosing to believe

I wrote part of this almost 2 years ago, and I thought I had lost it... thank heaven for automatic archives. Anyhow, I was reading some stuff by Eugene England that made me remember a conversation I had, and it all got me thinking...

Then I read more that England wrote (see my previous post), which got me thinking even harder, and i though it might be of interest -- tho I still haven't gotten it all figured out. This is just my working through some England's writings/ideas.

D&C 132:26
Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.

God apparently uses such a unique and uniquely troubling test because it is the only way to teach us something paradoxical but true and very important about the universe—that trust in our personal experi- ences with divinity must sometimes outweigh our rational morality. Obedience to the divine commands that come directly to us must some- times supersede our understanding of earlier commands if we are ever to transcend the human limitations of even our best inherited culture and religion. We must learn, sometimes very painfully, to be open to continuous revelation. We must learn such a lesson partly because truth and history are too complex to be reduced to simple, irrevocable command- ments—even from past prophets—like "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt always have only one spouse." Truth is ultimately "rational," but it is not always or immediately clear to our present reason. (England).

So this is a really scary test because it teaches through paradox (a 'seeming' contradiction or two 'opposite' commandments) that trust in our "personal experience with divinity" (our own personal revelation) must at times take precedence to what seems to 'be right.' Abraham had to be obedient to a divine command that came directly to him that was in contradiction to earlier commands. I'll be honest, this is a TERRIFYING thing to contemplate ever happening to ME...  (England said it is "the most wrenching human adversity—when opposites are posed by God himself") I appreciate the careful structure that commandments give my choices... but, I can see that this getting beyond the "human limitations" of even the BEST of our "inherited culture and religion" seems to be a very necessary part of how we learn  to have real faith -- keeping us open to continuous PERSONAL revelation. And I have to agree that "truth and history are too complex to be reduced to simple, irrevocable commandments." Truth is of course ultimately 'rational' but that rationality isn't going to always be obvious us - to our abilities to perceive.

Our personal relationship with God, our divine communication, is all-important.

...revelation is, in fact, merely the best understanding the Lord can give us of those things. And, as God himself has clearly insisted, that understanding is far from perfect. He reminds us in the first section of the Doctrine and Covenants, "Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my sevants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known." (D&C 1:24-25.) This is a remarkably complete and sobering inventory of the problems involved in putting God’s knowledge of the universe into human language and then having it understood. It should make us careful about claiming too much for "the gospel," which is not the perfect principles or natural laws themselves--or God’s perfect knowledge of those things--but is merely the closest approximation that inspired but limited mortals can receive. Even after a revelation is received and expressed by a prophet, it has to be understood, taught, translated into other languages, expressed in programs and manuals, sermons and essays--in a word, interpreted. And that means that at least one more set of limitations of language and world-view enters in. I always find it perplexing when someone asks a teacher or speaker if what he is saying is the pure gospel or merely his own interpretation. Everything anyone says is essentially an interpretation. Even simply reading the scriptures to others involves interpretation, in choosing both what to read in a particular circumstance and how to read it (tone and emphasis). Beyond that point, anything we do becomes less and less "authoritative" as we move into explication and application of the scriptures-- that is, as we teach "the gospel." Yes, I know that the Holy Ghost can give strokes of pure intelligence to the speaker and bear witness of truth to the hearer. I have experienced both of these lovely, reassuring gifts. But those gifts, which guarantee the overall guidance of the Church in the way the Lord intends and provide occasional remarkably clear guidance to individuals, still do not override individuality and agency. They are not exempt from those limitations of human language and moral perception which the Lord describes in the passage quoted above, and thus they cannot impose universal acceptance and understanding (England).

Our limited understanding -- the limitations that come of our mortality as well as culture and history, all lead to the need for questioning. I think this is part of the problem of faith, people see faith as questionless but real faith exists precisely because of questions -- but that is sort of a dangerous position.

...this is a troubling, perhaps dangerous position: If we start questioning some statements of church leaders, why not all? If they were wrong about some of their rationales for polygyny and priesthood denial, why are they not wrong about God's involvement in first instituting those practices—or anything else in the Restoration? Though I sympathize with—even share—this anxiety, the assertion that revelation is either totally true or totally untrue is still a false dichotomy: We simply do not believe, as Mormons, that we must accept all scripture and prophetic teaching as equally inspired, and we have no doctrine of prophetic infallibility. The scriptures and our modern church leaders themselves have made this point again and again and have given us some guidelines for distinguishing binding truth and direction from good advice and both of these from "the mistakes of men (England).

To say leaders will NEVER speak falsely is not true, and the scriptures and modern leaders themselves have made this point again and again. The point is, we have guidelines for distinguishing truth from good advice or from "the mistakes of men" and it's our responsibility to thoughtfully and prayerfully make our judgement with guidance from other fundamental scriptures and doctrines without falling into complete skepticism. Faith is choosing to believe -- and choosing means asking questions and making decisions. As long as we do so, relying on our own personal divine relationship with God, we can understand what we need to understand and come to a sort of trust and peace with that which we don't understand.

Finally, I believe that the cognitive dissonance that comes from studying religion—or from studying the contradictions and trials of life—can be positive, in fact fruitful, in producing deeper faith (or a higher stage of faith as James Fowler would put it) provided the faith community understands how faith develops: that it’s a developmental process rather than a state of being (from an article by Boyd Peterson).

Faith as a process - Faith as a choice.

Terryl Givens defined faith in a radical new way: as a  choice, one made when legitimate evidence supports each side of possibility. While some people, Givens believes, are simply born with faith or a gift for faith, more often faith is an acquired trait. And “among those who vigorously pursue the life of the mind in particular, who are committed to the scholarly pursuit of knowledge and rational inquiry, faith is as often a casualty as it is a product.”

In this setting, life becomes, as Givens maintains, a test of our own willful decision to choose faith over doubt. As Givens continues: I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief, in order to render the choice more truly a choice, and therefore the more deliberate, and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. The option to believe must appear on one’s personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. One is, it would seem, always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites and our ego. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is in the final analysis an action that is positively laden with moral significance (from an article by Boyd Peterson).


Let me repeat those last lines: "What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is in the final analysis an action that is positively laden with moral significance."


Like i said, just something to think about.

my current "delay en route"

I think that everything I've ever read that Neal A. Maxwell wrote has changed my life. This article is no different.

It came right when I needed it too. A tender mercy in the form of gentle chastisement and correction. I know I've been spending a lot of time lately wondering 'when things are going to change for me' and dwelling of the feeling that  my 'real life' has been delayed. Of course, my situation is quite different from the "delay en route" that Elder Maxwell talks about in his discourse, but the principle is a lot the same. I've been unhappily resisting my own "delay," a delay of blessings/changes that I want, struggling to submit to what I too often see as just plain old waiting, because no "immediate divine explanation" has come, explaining clearly the purpose of where I am headed...

Instead, I ought to "press forward whatever the length of the near horizon" and accept that this "delay" has a purpose. I mean, in hind sight I can already see so many positive things emerging from the past couple years of what, I thought then, was just limbo. I am trying to accept that whatever happens in the next couple years will be equally positive and fulfilling. But...

...It's hard to know I have good things ahead, that the blessings I've been promised are awaiting me 'somewhere in the future' and that I have to keep on walking a road that is so long I can't really see them from here (though I trust that they are there). It distracts me from living NOW to be so caught up in waiting for the future... Ah, but I don't want to fall too much into abstraction here. What I am getting at, is that Elder Maxwell explained that a "delay en route" is a great opportunity that can enlarge our capacity for joy and that "meek suffering often does the excavating necessary for that enlarging." I have seen that this has been true! It's TRUE!

Ahh, but it's also hard to accept that more suffering might be necessary...

It's hard not to ask why. And it was certainly a prick to my conscience to read that "certain mortal 'whys' are not really questions at all but are expressions of resentment" Ahh, yes I can see that in myself... resentment of that "delay en route" and it's a reminder that my whys must be turned to "'what' questions, such as 'what is required of me now?' or, to paraphrase Moroni'swords, "If I am sufficiently humble, which personal weakness could now become a strength?" (Ether 12:27)." So again, I need to remind myself that there is purpose to this delay and I would do well to start searching for what I am supposed to learn and how I can grow from WHATEVER is on my path!

Thankfully, even though I tend to fail my pass/fail experiences with "delays,"  I "can plead with the Father, just as Jesus did, that [I] 'might not...shrink'" -- Thankfully, I can still continue on in the process of my "developmental repentance," and find "resilience" to try again to pass in "the lifting tide flowing from forgiveness" -- Thankfully there is "certainty" in my "Father's rescuing love and mercy," and He will enable me to to overcome my discouragement and  continue in my own "soul-stretching journey" ...however long the "delay en route" may last.

It's a good reminder that the journey, along with all it's delays, is purposeful and meaningful.

the symbol of the atonement

Alma 5:33 - Behold, he sendeth an invitation unto all men, for the arms of mercy are extended towards them, and he saith: Repent, and I will receive you.
3 Ne. 9:14 - Yea, verily I say unto you, if ye will come unto me ye shall have eternal life. Behold, mine arm of mercy is extended towards you, and whosoever will come, him will I receive; and blessed are those who come unto me.
Isaiah 40:11 - He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.

It kinda bothers me to think of how many times I read verses like the ones above without fully comprehending the image presented, of open arms extended to take us in.

As I have been learning more about the Savior and His Atonement by reading The Infinite Atonement, as well as through attending an institute class and through my own personal study, I have begun to realize that the enabling power of His grace is love... and that, as Tad Callister states in The Infinite Atonement, the "reconciliation between God and man is figuratively and literally symbolized by an embrace."

It makes sense... The very explanation of what the Atonement does for men is: "mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption" (Alma 34:16). The Lord has also said "Be faithful and diligent in keeping the commandments of God, and I will encircle thee in the arms of my love" (D&C 6:20).

All very powerful imagery for the same idea.

In an article on the Atonement, Hugh Nibley explains that the Semitic origins of the word atonement, one in specific being the aramaic word "kafata" which actually means "a close embrace." In his book Approaching Zion Hugh Nibley again spoke of this embrace saying:

"It should be clear what kind of oneness is meant by the Atonement -- it is being recieved in a close embrace of the prodigal son, expressing not only forgiveness but oneness of heart and mind that mounts to identity..." 

That At-ONE-ment, to become one with God, is to be embraced in His arms. Through that embrace we are transformed - our identity is changed. When we are truly "spiritually been born of God" we receive "his image" and we experience a "mighty change" of our heart (Alma 5:14). The embrace become part of who we are, we live day to day in the arms of his love and can say as Lehi did, that "the Lord hath redeemed my soul from hell; I have beheld his glory, and I am encircled about eternally in the arms of his love (2 Ne. 1:15). This is love. This is grace. This is the Atonement.

Neal A. Maxwell illustrated the poignant embrace of the Lord in another way in an address he gave:

"If there is any imagery upon which I would focus as I close, it is two scriptures from the Book of Mormon. The one in which we are reminded that Jesus himself is the gatekeeper and that “he employeth no servant there.” (2 Nephi 9:41.) Once I assumed, with partial correctness, that that scripture was a clear indication that Jesus would be there to certify, because he knows perfectly well who could enter and who could not. And I am sure that is one of the reasons he stands at that gate and “employeth no servant there.” But I will tell you . . . out of the conviction of my soul . . . what I think the major reason is, as contained in another Book of Mormon scripture which says he waits for you “with open arms.” (Mormon 6:17.) That’s why he’s there! He waits for you “with open arms.” That imagery is too powerful to brush aside.... It is imagery that should work itself into the very center core of one’s mind—a rendezvous impending, a moment in time and space, the likes of which there is none other. And that rendezvous is a reality. I certify that to you. He does wait for us with open arms, because his love of us is perfect. And when he entreats us to become like him, it is that we might have his joy, the fulness of which we presently can only guess at."

Symbols have power in the image itself as well as the understanding we can obtain from the inherent metaphor in their representation. The symbol of the Atonement is a beautiful and intimate image and one we can each, individually, find meaning in and faith through if we take the time to explore and accept it. 

***This all seems especially heartbreaking in the context of 3 Nephi 10:5 And again, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, who have fallen; yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, ye that dwell at Jerusalem, as ye that have fallen; yea, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not. To refuse to turn from sin, to refuse turn to repentance and the gospel is in fact turning away from the loving arms of the Savior, to brush them aside/ignore them, withdrawing from His embrace.

walt whitman

very timely...I like this

"Is humanity forming en-masse? for lo, tyrants tremble, crowns grow dim,
The earth, restive, confronts a new era, perhaps a general divine war,
No one knows what will happen next, such portents fill the days and
nights;

Years prophetical! the space ahead as I walk, as I vainly try to
pierce it, is full of phantoms,

Unborn deeds, things soon to be, project their shapes around me,
This incredible rush and heat, this strange ecstatic fever of dreams
O years!"

-- Years of the Modern- Walt Whitman