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

Why The Church Is As True As The Gospel

Every member of of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ought to read this article at some point in their life...

The Church is as true as--perhaps truer than-- the gospel because it is where all can find fruitful opposition, where its revealed nature and inspired direction maintains an opposition between liberal and conservative values, between faith and doubt, secure authority and frightening freedom, individual integrity and public responsibility-- and thus where there will be misery as well as holiness, bad as well as good. And if we cannot stand the misery and the struggle, if we would prefer that the Church be smooth and perfect and unchallenging rather than as it is, full of nagging human diversity and constant insistence that we perform ordinances and obey instructions and take seriously teachings that embody logically irresolvable paradoxes, if we refuse to lose ourselves whole-heartedly in such a school, then we will never know the redeeming truth of the Church. It is precisely in the struggle to be obedient while maintaining integrity, to have faith while being true to reason and evidence, to serve and love in the face of imperfections and even offenses, that we can gain the humility we need to allow divine power to enter our lives in transforming ways. Perhaps the most amazing paradox about the Church is that it literally brings together the divine and the human-- through priesthood service, the ordinances, the gifts of the spirit--in concrete ways that no abstract systems of ideas ever could.


I felt quite keenly the truth of it's message as I was reading it today... And it seemed especially pointed as these were the very struggles and 'exasperations' I was experiencing and pondering during a RS lesson on charity this afternoon.

I have to admit, it is at times very hard for me to 'be charitable' in the face of what I see as hypocrisy or stupidity...but it is that exact struggle "to serve and love in the face of imperfections and even offenses" that allows "divine power" to come into my life "in transforming ways" -- the struggle to be charitable is what helps be to be changed. I definitely can see the opportunity that the "paradoxes" of being part of the church are to grow in meaningful ways.

Anyhow, READ the article! It explains all of this much better than I have. You won't regret it!

conference

since i still haven't posted anything here about conference (i'm getting to it, promise!) i figured i'd try and stem the tide (is that the right way to use that?) and offer up something about conference that i read on another blog and liked:


One of the things I value most about the LDS church is how much emphasis they put on the importance of gaining personal confirmation of a doctrine or teaching. Contrary to the culture LDS doctrine ironically (and sadly) produces in some cases, LDS doctrine strongly discourages blind reliance on other people’s spirituality, instead, it spurs us on to faithfully question the doctrines presented in order to have personal understanding and conviction regarding them. I liked what Nate H. said about this on his blog. He mentioned the bizarre fallacy, unfortunately sustained by many, that a prophet’s method of discerning truth is somehow exclusive to them, when in fact the process of identifying with truth is identical for all, be you prophet or not. Nate specifically quoted some scriptures that serve as excellent reminders of this:

• John 7:17 (If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself)
• Moroni 10:4-5 (And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may aknow the btruth of all things)
• God’s response to Oliver Cowdrey in D&C 9:7-8 (“Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right)

Conference provides me with increased motivation try harder to combine my God-given rationality, knowledge, and spirituality in the good ol’ perpetual quest for eternal verity. So did Nate’s blog post, apparently. Cool.