Intelligent Obedience
By Scot Denhalter on Oct 9, 2006
In priesthood meeting last Sunday, we discussed the seldom mentioned topic of needing to follow the prophet. A fellow read President Woodruff’s call for “intelligent obedience” which was then tied to his caveat that the Lord would never allow a prophet to lead the people astray. The thought struck me that one would not need to pray for a personal witness to the truthfulness of a prophetic statement if the prophet were never wrong in the instructions he gives to the church. Another brother gave voice to this same conclusion though with a different emotional tone than that which I was feeling. Sure he would pray about it, but in the end it was a “no-brainer.”
The stake president was in attendance. He brought up the rescue of the stranded Martin and Willie handcart companies as an example of “intelligent obedience.” Brigham Young called to his people and they responded. Now I realize it is the sesquicentennial of the Martin-Willie tragedy and that the church has dedicated itself to making a religious icon of this sad event, but it seems to me that had intelligent obedience been exercised in the first place these parties would never have needed rescuing. John Taylor had asked that no more converts sail for the U.S. until early the next year, but Franklin D. Richards disregarded the instructions. He also shouted down the more experienced trail hands at Iowa City who warned it was too late in the season to start for Salt Lake. As an apostle of the Lord – a prophet, seer and revelator – he promised the immigrants that all would be well if they just had enough faith. He was wrong, and the inexperienced European converts trusted him. Of course, Elder Richards does not deserve all the blame for the debacle. It was a consecution of bad decision making by several church leaders that led to tragedy; nevertheless, the fact remains that a prophet promised that God would drive the storms away, and the unwary immigrants set out with full faith in that promise.
The scale of this tragedy may not translate easily to our situation today, but one can find some similarity in a bishop who incautiously counsels a ward member in matters beyond concerns of personal worthiness and in the members who take the bishop’s word as a promise from God without studying the situation out for themselves and going to God directly.
A bishop has two jobs. He is the president of the Aaronic priesthood and a Judge in Israel. The former qualifies him to receive revelation concerning ward members as it pertains to the administration and management of the ward’s Aaronic priesthood functions. The latter qualifies him to receive revelation pertaining to the individual temple worthiness of each member of his ward.
Unfortunately, many members expect much more from their bishop than he is qualified to give. They demand he be a marriage and family counselor, a career counselor, a financial advisor, a mediator, even a fashion consultant. The wise bishop will avoid answering the members’ questions when they take him beyond the scope of his calling, steering them instead toward those who might have the requisite experience or knowledge. A brave bishop might offer secular advice to a member in need, but always with the clear disclaimer that his advice comes from his own considered opinion and not from the promptings of the Spirit. A careless bishop will confidently believe himself possessed of the Holy Spirit in counseling the members of his ward regarding all areas of their lives. This kind of careless confidence can case very real harm.
As I sat there quietly in class, I thought of the phrase “obedience is the first law of heaven,” repeated almost mantra-like in the church today. (It comes to us as Orson F. Whitney’s recollection of something George Q. Cannon once said, and it stands in direct contradiction to Jesus’ response to the lawyer who had asked him what the greatest commandment was.) I thought of Woodruff’s promise that God would remove a prophet from among the people before he would lead them astray. (Franklin D. Richards led his people astray. He was not removed. He made it safely to Salt Lake long before the handcart companies bogged down at the Sweetwater, but then he was on horseback.) I thought of my stake president’s admonition that no righteous priesthood holder would ever wear to church any shirt other than a white shirt with his requisite coat and tie. I thought of Levi Savage’s courage in speaking out against the command to head for Salt Lake. Unlike brother Savage, I kept shut.
Not so obedient, perhaps, but I thought it intelligent.
Personally, I don’t think we’ll ever hear the end of the “intelligent obedience” song and dance. It doesn’t resonate with me personally. I think it is a structure that fits two kinds of people: 1) those who want to do as little thinking as possible about the complexities of spiritual life (and I must admit that I empathize with these people, I follow the prophets at Midas slavishly as I don’t want to think about what goes on under the car hood, riding completely on faith) and 2) people for whom following the prophet as someone who will never lead them astray is a kind of spiritual practice like living in the desert or not eating meat. There are good things and bad things that go along with each.
As for me (though certainly not my house) right now my spiritual life is way too important and interesting to hand over to someone else.
But please, please, please don’t tell that to my elder’s quorum president. Not only is he a seminary teacher of impressive rhetorical skills (and I mean that as genuine praise) he is also much stronger than I am and good with a gun as the deer’s head on his mantlepiece would attest if it were 1) alive and 2) capable of English. My EQ president scared me yesterday when he said that if any of us disagreed with the apostle quotes he was handing out, we’d better do it when he wasn’t in the room.
Yikes.
Comment # 1 by Stephen Carter | Oct 9, 2006 | Reply
Then why do you even fool with those people? You know they are at the “blue meme” (level IV, ethnocentric or conformist) level of development, as Ken Wilber would say. Every normal human being goes through these developmental levels. Most get stuck along the way such as at that blue meme and are simply not willing to evolve past it. According to Wilber 70% of the population is at that level or lower. So, let them stay there if they need to, but get used to having fewer friends.
Comment # 2 by Zhenya | Oct 9, 2006 | Reply
Interesting thoughts, Scot & Stephen. To your two types of people, Stephen, I’d add a third– those who see religion as a way to achieve a sense of security, rather than a way to question. Religion can represent a period or a question mark to life’s sentences. The Mormonism of my youth had more question marks; now the institutional message has more periods.
Of course, another possibility is that the institution hasn’t changed at all, and only my perspective has.
Comment # 3 by Mike | Oct 9, 2006 | Reply
I just watched Match Point for the second time (cleanflicks, incidentally). The main character says, “Faith is the path of least resistance.” When he says that I think that he means to undermine faith, and to characterize those who live by it as weaklings. (Level 1 or 2 on Shershemburger’s Uninsightful Scale) —
I tend to ulitmately agree with him, but unlike him, I see it as a positive, defensible choice. I am not arguing for thoughtlessness, but I don’t think that getting too smart for the bretheren is constructive at all.
The coffee-drinker pseudointellectual on my shoulder just said: Ha! Try telling that to the Martin-Willey handcart victims!!!
The 47 year-old mother of 5 second counselor of the relief society on my shoulder responds: Stuff like this happens frequently, even to the best, most righteous people who are trying to follow a prophet. God moves in mysterious ways — either you believe it or you don’t. You can choose to have an comforting explanation for the inexplicable stuff in life, or you can opt to be confused.
Anyway, I think that we are supposed to pray and question in our own hearts so that we can be more personally convinced that what the bretheren are saying is true. (But what if we don’t come to that conclusion?! — Well, those things I just take on faith.)
Comment # 4 by afn | Oct 10, 2006 | Reply
Unfortunately, many members expect much more from their bishop than he is qualified to give. They demand he be a marriage and family counselor, a career counselor, a financial advisor, a mediator, even a fashion consultant.
This is an aside, but I don’t think these unrealistic expectations are exactly thrust upon bishops by unreasonable members. I’ve heard counsel time and time again to talk to my bishop about any and every problem I might face, be it marital, emotional, or financial. The expectation that bishops will receive spiritual guidance to help us with nearly any type of problem is kind of bred into the members.
I think this problem is part of the larger one addressed by this post. We are taught repeatedly that the Lord’s servants, be they apostles or bishops, are led by revelation and that we must therefore trust their counsel. We talk about “intelligent obedience,” but it seems kind of false and patronizing, because it’s expected that we’re going to ultimately arrive at the pre-determined answer that the authority’s counsel is correct. Let’s say that we receive a bit of counsel in General Conference, I put it to the “intelligent obedience” test, and through this process I conclude that it is not wise for me to follow that counsel. If I admit this to my leaders, they will most likely try to persuade me that I have been deceived. Contradiction of priesthood leaders is a huge taboo, as we all know. Under these circumstances, can it really be said that we are abiding by a principle of “intelligent obedience”? I’m not so sure about that.
Comment # 5 by Steve M. | Oct 10, 2006 | Reply
Zhenya wrote:
Then why do you even fool with those people?
I write:
This is a question I ask myself a lot. i asked it more when I lived in a larger area, when I had more choices. But now I don’t. I live in a little Mormon town where a Baptist congregation is hanging on by its fingernails. And frankly, Baptists don’t interest me that much. I went to that conference they held in Salt Lake six or seven years ago. It was just like going to GC except that the hymns were a little jazzier (they even had a guy who looked just like Jeffery Holland!).
One of the reasons I keep fooling with these people is because I don’t think I have the answers. In fact, all I really have are questions (none of which I can actually talk about in church, but cest la vie). So it seems kind of silly to back out of this group just because they don’t have the answers either (though they think they do). Also, outside of church meetings, they’re really nice people, and I like them alot. So, to lubricate the social wheels, I go to church so they don’t have to worry about me.
Comment # 6 by Stephen Carter | Oct 10, 2006 | Reply
Mike,
Good point. Many members of my extended family are constantly talking about how the church keeps them safe. They value that very much. I’m glad it works for them. For me, the world doesn’t seem as diabolical. Perhaps my perceptions will change when I find myself in charge of teenagers.
By the way, what happened to that survey on perceptions of polygamy you were conducting? Have you compiled and interpreted the findings yet?
Comment # 7 by Stephen Carter | Oct 10, 2006 | Reply
The Intelligence vs. Obedience problem is a classic “Gordian Knot.” [Wikipedia: The Gordian Knot is a legend associated with Alexander the Great. It is often used as a metaphor for an intractable problem, solved by a bold stroke ("cutting the Gordian knot")]. “Intelligence,” in this sense, is knowledge or belief acquired via study, experience, personal revelation, etc. that may or may not agree with institutional beliefs as promulgated by scripture or modern day prophets and apostles. Unless your “intelligence”, as accumulated via life experience, (and, I would argue, your hardwiring or DNA), perfectly aligns with institutional beliefs, you will be faced with a problem that has 02 possible solutions:
1. Follow (or “believe” or “rely on” or “put your faith in”) yourself.
2. Follow the prophet.
I don’t see another option. “Indecision” is not a solution, but a deferral of the solution until a later date.
Each of the above two solutions have innumerable permutations. For example, “following the prophet” need not mean sure knowledge or conviction. The Sister who cannot understand Polygamy, who may even be revolted by the idea, but chooses to have faith and hope for answers later in this life, or the next, is still following the prophet.
The Church doesn’t want us to blindly follow the prophet — it wants us to come to the same conclusions as the prophets; it wants solutions #1 and #2 to be in complete harmony. But when the two solutions are not in harmony, one or the other must be the ultimate arbiter of truth. They cannot both be true. The Church’s answer to this conundrum is clear: the Church is ultimately right. All the individual can do is go back to the drawing board — pray, have faith, fast, repeatedly bear testimony, ponder, etc.— until you hopefully come to the same conclusion.
Judging by the comments so far in this thread, it is interesting to guess who the ultimate arbiter of truth is for each of the respondents: Scot, Stephen, Zhenya, Mike, and Steve M appear to ultimately rely on their own experience when solutions #1 and #2 disagree; AFN appears to defer to the prophet/Church. This isn’t to suggest that those in Camp #1 are non-believers; on the contrary, they could be bishops, stake presidents, and even prophets and apostles (church history is replete with examples). (Nor am I suggesting that those in Camp #2 are mindless sheep!) Where one stands in relation to, say, “overall belief” in the Church depends on:
1. How often one disagrees with the Church; and/or
2. How big or important those disagreements are
The countless permutations of the above two factors gives rise to every kind of Mormon under the sun, from TBMs, to Mollys, to Peters, to Jacks, to New Orders, to Buffets, to Exs, to Posts. For some it is easier to cut right through the Gordian Knot than to try to untangle or live with it. John Remy beautifully expresses his own decision to cut right through the Gordian Knot here: http://www.mindonfire.com/?p=374 Others, like the “Why We Stay” Sunstone people (see various Symposium Sessions at Sunstone Online) beautifully express their reasons for living with the Gordian Knot. Zhenya (#2) wonders why “do you even fool with those people?” The answers are as varied as there are people in the Church.
Comment # 8 by Matt Thurston | Oct 10, 2006 | Reply
Zenya,
I associate with these people because they can and often do bless my life. I find it unwise and ultimately unhelpful to apply some rigid developmental model to real life. I may occasionally disagree with what I hear in church, but I do not lose sight of the fact that everyone there is struggling to make some sense of their lives just like I am.
Steve M.,
I don’t get the sense that this tradition of going to the bishop for every personal concern is promoted by the institution of the church. It seems, instead, to be an aspect of our culture. Of course, as bishops are raised within this culture, it follows that they may feel no reflexive sense of caution when asked for counsel in matters beyond the scope of their calling. I have a bishop who has amplified my trust in him by being circumspect in his counsel. He has on occasion offered advice that he clearly acknowledges as simply coming from the way he sees things and not from any impression of the Holy Spirit. I consider myself lucky to have such a bishop.
Comment # 9 by Scot Denhalter | Oct 11, 2006 | Reply
Scot,
I taught that lesson and I found that Wilford Woodruff’s definition of “intelligent obedience” was one of the few usable items actually IN the lesson manual. The quote says “It is necessary that all the members of the church should exercise their powers of reason and reflection” and that’s an approach I wholehearedly support and encourage. In calling for intelligent obedience, WW was not advocating that members check their brains at the chapel doors. In fact, just the opposite.
There wasn’t much else in that chapter that I could, in good conscience, espouse or teach, so I focused more on the role of a prophet and asked the converts present to talk about joining a church headed by a prophet. As a lifelong member, I’d always had a prophet handy; what did this mean to them/their conversion?
In comparing notes with my husband afterward, he pointed out that some of the often-quoted passages in the lesson were missing something important: the context. WW announced the reunciation of polygamy–apparently while a lot of church leaders were out of town–and people were furious and questioning this decision. Hence the forceful statements from him on obedience and asserting prophetic infallibility.
That may have been an understandable or appropriate response at the time. IMO, quoting those statements now minus their context in order to reinforce a kind of mindless obedience (as the mantra is so often employed to do) is misleading if not damaging.
Comment # 10 by Mary Ellen | Oct 11, 2006 | Reply
Scott #9,
I’ve been meaning to come back to your comment “I find it unwise and ultimately unhelpful to apply some rigid developmental model to real life.” Word bites, like sound bites, have the disadvantage of not being able to carry much depth.
I was referring to Don Beck’s “Spiral Dynamics” which you might find interesting and useful. It comes out of Beck’s emperical experience with aparteid in South Africa and Detroit. It is hardly “rigid”. Perhaps you might also check out a dialogue posted on Ken Wilber’s Integral Naked site between Wilber and Robert Kegan of Harvard. They discuss “How healing the Hierarchy Within can heal the Hierarchy Without.”
Comment # 11 by Zhenya/Eugene/Five | Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
One last comment regarding my earlier comment “Then why do you even fool with those people?”
I much appreciated the responses to this challenge. I “fool with those people” because they are simply my people–my spiritual kin. There is something to the notion of learning to grow where one is planted.
My thanks to those of you who listen and respond.
Comment # 12 by Zhenya/Eugene/Five | Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
Is obedience really “the FIRST law of heaven?”
Consider Jesus’s words: IIf you LOVE me, you will keep my commandments.”
Doesn’t this actually make LOVE the first law of heaven?
Comment # 13 by Rob | Oct 14, 2006 | Reply
Yeah, Rob, THAT is IT!! The first: “Thou shalt love thy God….” ; “And the second…love thy neighbor…” Jesus couldn’t make it more simple and direct. Is there anybody that would even try?!
And then there is all kinds of rationalizations out there mauling that word into other shapes. I was a product of that mauling for much of my life. But then, about 15 years ago, I learned another word that convicted me. The word is BELOVING, defined as “Spending time with someone in such a way that the someone experiences his/her own beauty, thereby experiencing your own.” The opposite of “beloving’ could be called “power-tripping”. Boy! Did that convict me! No wonder I had problems with wives, children and friends. I had been a self-righteous bully for a lot of my life in the name of “love”, but which was in fact a power trip. I have complained about ecclesiastical bullies, because it takes one to know one. The effort to transform that understanding has been harder than I would have guessed!
At last year’s Salt Lake Sunstone Symposium, I presented a workshop on Dream Analysis. My working hypothesis is that “dreams are pictures of feelings that parallel waking life.” One can more readily see how one behaves from within by looking at the dynamics (not interpretation) of his/her dreams. The last question that can be applied to any dream is: “Are you beloving of all beings and entities in this dream?” Of the 17 workshop participants, 16 brought a dream work with. Of those 16, not one was able to answer that question with “yes”! That was a surprise to everyone, including me.
Can it be that our culture and society, while paying lip service to LOVE, has been seduced into seeking POWER instead?
Comment # 14 by ZhE5 | Oct 14, 2006 | Reply
ZhE5,
You point about “power-tripping” is a great–and relates to this whole LDS concept of obedience. The concept of obedinece to commands being a virtue is rooted in ancient tribal cultures who viewed their Gods ONLY in terms of power and might–and the ancient Isrealites were such a culture. Thus titles such as “Lord” and “King” are given to the God of Israel. God was envisioned as being a heavenly Tribal Warlord; His word was law’ one must obey and submit to the Lord’s will–or else!
Christ began changing this conception of God by emphasizing that God was a Father–who DESIRED our love. Still there is in the New Testament elements of the ancient Tribal War Lord God; God’s absolute might and power are central theme in the Christian Testament.
Joseph Smith certainly trumpeted those same themes of God’s absolute power in “The Book of Mormon” and his early revelations and writings.
But in the last few years of his life, Joseph began presenting a radical new paradigm against which to understand God. It was summed up by Lorenzo Snow this way: “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become.”
When Joseph declared that “God never had the power to create the mind of man” (in the King Follett Discourse) he presented to the modern world the doctrine of a FINITE God.
The LDS Church never was comfortable with this theological innovation, and since the late 1970’s have retreated back to the more tradtional Christian theology of “The Book of Mormon.”
But the doctrine that God is finite, means that the relationship of the human to the Divine is based on something other than power and obedience.
Indeed, Joseph taught “You’ve got to learn to be gods yourselves, the same as all gods before you have…..KNOWLEDGE is what saves a man.”
Notice that he didn’t preach that obedience to authority (even to God)saves a man, but KNOWLEDGE–the knowledge being learning how to become a God yourself.
This is the same as learning to become a functioning, happy adult. You don’t mature and grow-up by OBEYING your parents, or by reading some instruction manual, or following steps A,B and C as someone else lays them out for you..
You grow up by learning how to become an adult yourself; by using your Agency; by making choices and taking full responsibility for the consequences of those choice; by gaining knowledge through your own experiences. You may look toy our parents for comfort, for advice or for inspiration—but no healthy adult looks to his/her parents for commandments–onedience to which would bring maturity and growth. Such commandments do no exist; such a paradigm–with regards to progression and growth–is , in fact,impossible.
Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo-era theology set up a brand new theological paradigm in which the power of God–and thus obedience to it–had no real part. Did Jospeh know this? Probably not, and he was murdered before the world had a chance to see if he would continue down this same theological road.
But as a Reform Mormon, I take the new paradigm of Nauvoo-era Mormonism, as my theological foundation. With this foundation the only ideas of power, commands and obedience are simply relics of a more barbaric and unenlightened age.
Comment # 15 by Rob | Oct 14, 2006 | Reply
Rob,
One of the things I like most about Joseph Smith, whether or not he was inspired, is that he was unafraid to speak his mind and express his feelings. In so doing he allowed his prodigious imagination to flourish, allowing himself and others to bellieve them without much question by labling them divine revelation. He was at the very least, creative and inventive, if not outrageously opportunistic.
As for “beloving” versus “power-tripping” as the means of redemption, he clearly favored power. See D&C 103:15. “…the redemption of Zion must needs come by power.” So far as I can determine, Joseph never questioned the source of his revelations and our LDS society is very much bound by his faith in them. However, I’m afraid I cannot join you in your Nauvoo-era Mormonism, since I see Joseph at that point at the peak of his imagination and grandiosity. His charisma both captured and repulsed–it polarized multitudes.
Comment # 16 by ZhE5 | Oct 14, 2006 | Reply
ZhE5,
I like that you appreciate Joseph Smith imagnation and inventiveness. I think it was because of these traits (what Harold Bloom calls his “religious making imagination”) that he was an autentic prophet–not in the authoritarian sense of the LDS Church, but in the same way that an artist, philosopher or writers(such as the authors of various texts in the Hebrew Bible) were authentically prophetic.
In my completely naturalistic reading of Mormon and American history, Joseph the prophet was clearly a product of his place and time. I think that during the Nauvoo-era, he was actually tired of his power as “prophet” of the Church–which is why he wanted to step down as Prophet and give the office to his brother Hyrum. (This littlle known–but, I think, tremenously important episode in Mormon history is the subject of the resent “Sunstone” article on Joseph’s unfinished Reformation of Mormonism.)
I javen’tmy scriptures in front of me, but I think the reference in D&C 103 was given earlier in Joseph’s career, during the time of mob violence/Zion’s Camp in Missouri. I think Joseph’s six months in Liberty Jail had a profound infleunce on him. Until that time I think he had totally “bought into” Sydney Rigdon’s fiery preaching style and “restorationist” theology. But in Nauvoo, Joseph was usually at odds with Rigdon, was ready to boot him out of the church, denounced him often in public, and finally ignored him completely. Rigdon was very popular with the Mormons in general; many thought Rigdon acted much more like a prophet than did Joseph. Joseph went on, behind Rigdon’s back, trying to reform Mormomism from just another Christian Primitivist/Restorationist frontier sect into a completely new religion. (Most Protestant and Catholic historians would agree that he did just that, for none consider Mormonism to be theologically Christian.)
In last years of his life, when Joseph taught his new theology, he did not try to establish the validity of his ideas by claims to divine revelations. (After the mid-1830’s, Joseph actually dicated very few “revelations” of the “Thus saith the Lord” variety.) Instead Joseph justified his new doctrines based on they’re being “philosophical” as opposed to “supersttitous.” In his “King Follett Discourse” Joseph is speaking more like a philosopher or trained theologian than “the prophet” of his earlier years.
Following Joseph’s murder, the Quorum of the Twlve (those who accepted many of Jospeh’s proposed changes to Mormon theology and practice) began to focus anew on the Kirtland-era concept of Priesthood authority and resortation (which has been introduced by Sydney Rigdon). This seemed the best way to convince the greatest number of Mormons that they were “lawfully” Joseph’s true successors. A few year later when Brigham Young was sustained by the Mormons at Winter Quarters as their “prophet, seer and revelator,” Mormonism became more concretely authoritarian, with salvation and exaltation being predicated on “obedience to the Priesrthood.”
But this was big change from what Joseph seems to have been comtemplating with his Nauvoo-era reformation–and it certainly contradicts the principles he taught in his “King Follett Discourse” (though I suspect that even Joseph himself did not understand how profoundly his new theology/philosophy contradicted his earlier teachings.)
Many of the primary doctrines of LDS Mormon (for instance, the doctrine that our spirits are the result of procreation between a Heavenly Father and Mother) were never taught by Joseph. (He taught that the mind of man/intelligence was eternal, without beginning or end, was co-equal with God and has been “a spirit from everlasting to everlasting…there is no creation about it.”)
The LDS Church’s claims regarding Joseph have so concealed the real man from the general public, that many are uanble to wrap their minds around the historical Joseph. Because of the LDS Church’s “Sunday School version” of Joseph, most people actually think that Mormonism’s roots can be traced back to an 1820’s First Vision of the Father and Son to a boy in a grove in upstate New York. The fact is the story has commonly told is complete fiction, and was unknown to most Mormons before 1906 when President Joseph F. Smith began to make it the “foundation” of the LDS Church’s authoritarian claims. (At that time the Church was in shambles, about to collapse from within because Plural Marriage had finally become grounds for excommunication, and because of certain things President Smith had said about his lack of prophetic abilities while under Congressional investigation.)
Well…I am rambling. I’d better sign off.
Comment # 17 by Rob | Oct 14, 2006 | Reply
Wow! Rob, your ramblings are pretty amazing! They impinge on some stuff I am wrestling with “as we speak” and I will be referring to some of the things you discloase as I post “Dialogues with Joseph” on my own blog in the near future.
Comment # 18 by ZhE5 | Oct 14, 2006 | Reply
Rob, [#13]
It’s taken me a while to get back to this thread, so I don’t know if you are still out there and will see this. If you do see this, please understand that I don’t mean to lecture you. (In fact, I suspect I may be preaching to the choir.) But as I have just now re-read what I have written, I am aware that the tone can be easily mistaken as preachy. This is not the spirit behind my response. I am simply passionate about the importance of qualifying the true value of obedience in our culture.
The scripture you cite is a very important one when understood in conjunction with Christ’s response to the lawyer who asked him which of the commandments was the most important. Christ said that the greatest commandment was to love God. But how is one to do this? Keep his commandments. As is, this is a useless tautology, but Christ goes on to clarify that the second greatest commandment was “like unto” the first: Love thy neighbor. This lets us out of the endless loop. How do we love God and keep the greatest commandment? We do so by keeping the second greatest commandment. We love one another. That’s the only way we can love God. Christ added that all the other commandments hinge on these two. That includes all the very public jots and tittles we are so good a observing. They mean nothing if we do not love one another.
So, if I am earnestly examining my behavior – looking for the need to repent of not loving my neighbor, seeking to forgive the neighbor who has not loved me – is it really incumbent upon me to go to God for a confirmation of the stake president’s statement as to the acceptable color shirt for a righteous priesthood holder. My stake president would not only answer in the affirmative, he would expect (if I am righteous enough to receive the appropriate divine guidance) that God would confirm the white shirt as more respectable, respectful and, therefore, more acceptable to Him.
Somehow I can’t believe Wilford Woodruff envisioned “intelligent obedience” to encompass concerns of policy or protocol. He seems to have been addressing how the members should respond to His commandments. Unfortunately, we modern Mormons seem to have difficulty distinguishing between the two.
What color shirt I wear to church is, it seems to me, not one of His commandments. It is the stake president’s preference, and I can respect that while freely choosing to disregard his implication that it is a commandment. I believe this choice of mine to be neither righteous nor unrighteous because it carries no moral weight. I do not wear my blue oxford shirt in order to thumb my nose at convention. I do not wear my white shirt in order to be acceptable before the body of the priesthood. I wear whichever shirt is clean and pressed.
Comment # 19 by Scot Denhalter | Oct 19, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
Thanks for your response to my earlier post. I appreciate your thoughts and insights.
Because I am part of a different tradition winthin Mormonism (Reform Mormon, not LDS Mormon) I have a completely different view on authority and it’s relationship to ethics and moralitty, etc. I reject the Saved/Unsaved paradigm of Christianity and LDS Mormonism. My paradigm is that of Eternal Progression. (”As man now is God, once was; as God now is, man maybecome.”)
Since the human and the Divine share a common nature, the potential for Divnity is inherent in the nature of each individual. Since each individual is eternal, uncreated and “co-equal with God” (Joseph Smith’s words), godhood (Celestial Glory) is not given or granted by God in accordance with obedience to commandments. One “learns how to be a God” on one’s own–through livng one’s life, constant self-examination, making choices, taking full responsibility for the outcome of one’s choices and through the acquisition of knowledge. From this perspective, progression toward Godhood can never come by obedience to any external authority–God, Christ or church authorities, etc. The mind must be actively engaged at all times; one’s actions reflect one’s inner values; values aren’t obtained through actions or obedience to the commands of others (including God or the Gods.)
The final “authority” (used metaphorically here) to which one looks is existence/nature itself–which, according to Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo-era theology, holds primacy over even God (or the Gods.) It is against existence itself and the laws governing it that actions, motives, truths, etc, must be judged. The “laws” of nature/existence are not the result of anyone’’s will–not even God’s (or the Gods’) because existence was not created by God or anyone else. These “laws” are related to the nature of those things which exist.
Progression for intelligent beings comes from their growing comprehension of the nature of things. This ever expanding comrephension allows the individual to constantly re-examine his./her values and, subsequently, his/her actions, relationships with other, etc. Against this paradigm of Eternal Progression, the concept of obedience to any other intelligent being or beings (who are also subject to the laws governing existence/nature) is simply not an issue of concern.
I realize, of course, that this paradigm contrasts the paradigm found in Christianity and in LDS Mormonism. I offer the above only as an explanation of the Paradigm of Eterna’ Progression compared to the traditional Paradigm of Salavtion.
Comment # 20 by Rob | Oct 19, 2006 | Reply
Rob,
Since your last couple of posts, I took a look at the reformmormonism.org website. Impressive. However, I’m not able to find people on it. Is there no community of you folks? Have I missed something? Sunstone is not necessarily committed to the LDS Mormon view, I don’t think, since RLDS and even FLDS folks are invited to participate and present–even ex’d Mormons. I still consider myself Mormon, although I’ve been ex’d twice from the LDS ecclesiatical organization. I see that your movement is recent–only since 2002. Can you give us a short history of how you came to be and something about your community? As the late M. Scott Peck once passionately said something like: “It is only through community that world will be saved.”
Eugene
Comment # 21 by Eugene | Oct 19, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
When my Swedish born Evangelical wife read some of the recent posts in this thread, she quietly and simply said, “Why so much mental gymnastics? Jesus also said ‘A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another as I have loved you.’”
II had no meaningful response to her question and went outside to get some tools for maintenance work beneath my house. I was still musing on her question about the “mental gymnastics” that I had so eagerly wanted her to read, having expected her to be impressed. As I was under my house to continue my crawl space clean-out project, while still musing on her question, another Biblical passage came to mind: “Greater love hath no man that he lay down his life for his friends.” As I then reflected on those words, I envisioned Jesus proceeding to demonstrate what he meant in terms that his followers could understand. He gave himself up to the authorities of the time to do their worst.
Comment # 22 by Zhenya | Oct 20, 2006 | Reply
Rob, I’m a bit red-faced. Please disregard my comment #21. I didn’t look carefully enough on your website. The information I asked for is there.
ENK
Comment # 23 by Eugene | Oct 20, 2006 | Reply
It seems to me that loving one another is where the problem begins. As Mr. Peck said, “love is verb.” Loving someone is quite a complex endeavor.
Comment # 24 by Stephen Carter | Oct 20, 2006 | Reply
Rob,
It seems to me that you are assuming we are separated in our view of obedience by an adherence to mutually exlcusive paradigms. I don’t understand the opposition you seem to believe is inherent in this Eternal Progression versus Salvation dichotomy because I am not really sure what salvation is. If you press the issue with the average Mormon, I suspect you will find none who really know what it is. “Salvation from what?” and “Why is it necessary?” are two questions not fully answered in Mormon theology. This is not to imply that Mormonism is inherently flawed. To my mind none of the important questions of life are fully answerable in mortality. Perhaps eternal progression and salvation are the same thing, or perhaps one is attained by means of the other. It is not necessary to see them as opposing camps of thought.
That said, I want to focus on the notion of obedience since that is the topic of this thread. You have spoken of “obedience to authority.” You disagree with the Mormon identification of “authority” with God and by indirect implication with his appointed servants. You identify nature or existence as the ultimate authority. (I hope I have represented your beliefs correctly.) I don’t see this notion to be so divergent from normative Mormonism as you or the mainstream Mormon might think. You are simply equating obedience to God’s commandments with an adherence to eternal principles. God having trod the path before us beckons us on with instructive advice. Though it may not necessarily be God’s intent, Corporate minded churchmen often codify this advice into a rigid system of laws because it is easier to administer. God is, nevertheless, willing to let us sleep in the bed of our own making for in that too there is opportunity for gaining eternal understanding.
I see now that your citation of John (John 14:15) was not intended as a disagreement with what I was saying but rather as an ironic comment. As I have argued, loving God means loving each other. Perhaps this is why Jesus repeatedly spoke of god being within each of us. (This goes to your point about the inherently divine nature of mankind.) Eugene has also cited John (15:13), but I think that laying down one’s life for his friends does not mean dying as Jesus did, but rather it means to put another’s life before yours as Jesus did. This is why Jesus prayed that we be one even as he and the Father are one. To save one’s life by losing it in making the needs of loved ones more important than your own is adhering to the “greatest commandment” (read: eternal principle through which our divinity is advanced). All the other commandments: the law of tithing or consecration, the law of chastity, the Decalogue, etc. have no meaning except in the manner in which they promote this “greatest commandment.”
You speak of gaining eternal progression through living life and learning life’s lessons. This is a communal activity not a solitary one.
Comment # 25 by Scot Denhalter | Oct 20, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
With regard to the idea of “salvation” and “beig or getting saved,” you hit the nail on the head, with your citing the question” “Saved from what?” When original sin in thrown out of the mix (as it is in Mormon tradition) then there is simply nothing to be saved from. Since each individual is a Free Agent and since “blessings” come as the result of acting on the eternal, uncreated principles upon which they are prediacted, then one can’t be “saved from” (spared) the consequences of one’s actions and choices; one must simply deal with those co nsequences, learn from them and move on (progress.) So against the Mormon Paradigm of Eternal Progression, I personally see no room for or need for “salvation” of any type.
I think for the most part we are in agreement in our views. There is one major difference however. You wrote”
“You speak of gaining eternal progression through living life and learning life’s lessons. This is a communal activity not a solitary one. ”
With this I must respectfully and wholeheartedly (dare I write passionately) disagree. The mind of man–being eternal, uncreated and co-equal with god–is an attribute of the individual alone. There is no such thing as a literal “group mind”–though the term is often used metaphorically for the concept of group concensus. Tthe individual mind, being eternally a free agent by nature, progresses by its own efforts alone. True, we live in a world where we can gain knowledge through our interaction with others, and certain companionships of all type add to the joyous (and sorrow) of one’s life. But progress is an indiovidual accomplishment, for it is the inidvidual alone that must learn (or not learn) from his/her communal interactions. I don’t think that progression is ever the result of sacrficing to a community, of adopting communal values at the expense of discarding personal values.
I think Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo-era theology is the only existing theology that truly addresses the metaphysical fact of individuality.
I think that this concept of the lone individual is reflected in Joseph’s now-famous statemenrt, made at the end of his King Follet Discourse:
“No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never undertake it. I don’t blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I could not have believed it myself…. When I am called by the trump of the archangel and weighed in the balance, you will all know me then.”
Comment # 26 by rob | Oct 20, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
i grew up as one of those Mormons that was always puzzled by “salvation”, and I would ask the question you posed: “Saved from what?” Then, almost two years ago I heard a comment from the pulpit of a local Christian Church (a descendant of Sindney Rigdon’s Cambellite people) that rang true to me. “Salvation is being saved from a life without God.” I found that very satisfying, never mind our different notions about God or a “God-like life” that Lowell Bennion was fond of discussing.
As far as laying down one’s life for one’s friends, what I thought was clearly inferred was the act of giving one’s self to the local authorities to do their worst in behalf of friends. These days the worst that the authorities can do is excommunicate. We have many examples of loving brothers and sisters who have willinging gone to the ecclesiastic gallows rather than betray their consciences or their friends. Those are the people that I most admire.
Rob,
I wholeheartedly agree with you on Joseph’s teaching that eternal progress is an individual matter. But I am puzzled by an omission in your quoting his famous “No man knows my history….” I don’t have ready access to that quote, but he didn’t say something like “You never knew my heart”? That comment to me has always been a key one–he referred to his heart, not his mind or thoughts.
I agree that his mind and imagination were flowering in those last days in Nauvoo and that he was becoming more and more out of sync with what a lot of people considered appropriate. But I suspect we know very little about what he was really experiencing personally in those days. What kinds of encounters was he having with beings from other dimensions, for example, that were captivating his fertile mind and explanding his vision of the eternities? I believe his abrupt, violent demise must have bewildlered him when he found himself in the territory of spirit. He had been on a roll and still had work to do. What do you suppose he did then? There are lots of NDEs that return with compelling reports. What do you suppose Joseph’s report would have been? Who or what do you think he encountered?
Comment # 27 by Eugene | Oct 20, 2006 | Reply
Hi, Eugene.
I copied teh “no man knows my history” quote from the text at one of the many websites that feature it. I didn’t relaize until you pointed it out that the “you never knew my heart” was missing. As with you, for me this phrase has always been key to my feelings and thoughts regarding Joseph’s character.
However, I don’t know how completely Joseph bought into the old Platonic-like dichotomy (a false dichotomy I think) regarding the heart versus the mind. My reading of Joseph’s writings tend to be that he was advancing toward a more rational and integrated view of human nature. I think this is indicated in his teaching (in the D&C) that “the body and the spirit is the soul of man…spriit and element inseprably connected brings a fullness of joy.”
As a Reform Mormon, I think that existence/natrure is supreme, so I reject the supernatural all together. (What I admire about Joseph’s Nauvoo-era teachings is that God and Gods are subject to the laws of nature; Diety is ubderstood in completely naturalistic terms.)
With this view, I don’t believe that Joseph actually conversed with beings from other dimensions. The Reform Mormon view of a prophet is not someone who has a special link with other dimensions or with the supernatural–but as a person (usually woth a fertile mind and imagination) who has no insights into the human condition, into the nature of things, and thus is “forward-looking” in a way that most people are not. A prophet is visionary in the same way that a genius or a great artist or inventor may be visionary. And a prophet has the ability to communicate his or her vision and inspire others.
Like Harold Bloom, I view Joseph Smith as America’s greatest religious thinking. He has (as Bloom describes it) a great “religion making imagination.” The evdience is that Joseph was as well eduacted as the average American of his day, and that with his fertile mind was perfectly capable of writing “The Book of Mormon” in the two year period between supposedly retreiving the plates from the Hill Cumorah and submitting the “Book of Mormon” manuscript to the printer.
Why can’t genius (the type possessed by Joseph) be in itself PROOF of “prophethood.”
As for what Joseph encountered after death, I have to admit that I have no idea.; nor am I inclined to speculate since whatever there is to experience upon dying, I will one day experience myself. I’ve much more interest in figuring out the reality of life on earth; as I am on earth as an intelligent, rational being, I can only assume that this undertaking constitutes the Divine Will for me at this point in my Eternal Progression.
Comment # 28 by rob | Oct 20, 2006 | Reply
Rob,
Nauvoo era Mormonism does not throw out the Mormon doctrines that preceded it. Universal salvation from the first death and meretricious salvation from the second death are doctrines never negated by doctrinal innovations of the Nauvoo era. I asked the question “Saved from what?” not to deny the doctrine of salvation in Mormon theology, but rather to underscore our limited understanding of the doctrine.
I think that obedience is connected in an important way to salvation. I also think the obedience (adherence to an eternal principle) is important to eternal progress. But, as the topic of this thread illustrates, the issue for me is “What are eternal principles and what are cultural preferences being pushed as eternal principles?”
As to the solitary aspects of the personal eternal journey, I believe we actually agree to some extent. But I do not see the process as an either-or dichotomy: eternal progress is either communal or solitary. It seems more likely that it is a both-neither paradox. My progress is both aided and impeded by my relational interactions with others. In the very Nauvoo era Mormonism you espouse, the bi-partite nature of divinity was a prominent doctrine. Godhood requires a god and a goddess, a king and a queen. “Neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man.” God-the-father is not a god without God-the-Mother and visa-versa. Though, as you accurately point out, I alone am accountable for my personal progress, I cannot become fully divine without others.
Comment # 29 by Scot Denhalter | Oct 20, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
You make some great points. For myself, I think that Nauvoo-era Mormon tjheology actually does contradict earleir Mormon theology (and currernt LDS theology) in many significant ways. But each individual Mormon and each denomination/sect within Mormonism can, will and should deal with those contradictions in whatever way they choose.
Back to the main piont: “What are eternal principles and what are cultural preferences being pushed as eternal principles?”
I think most LDS standard is purely social. Some are positive; many are–I think–negative in their effet on the individual. My own life has beocme much happier and fruitful and fulfilling–and my sense of ethics and personal accountability much stronger– since coming to understand that Reform Mormon idea: God does not require obedience.
Comment # 30 by Rob Lauer | Oct 20, 2006 | Reply
Rob & Scott,
For me this is a very stimulating and interesting exchange between you two. Since our women still are not participating in this thread, I am morphing into my “Zhenya” self-aspect which derives from having once dreamed of myself as a beautiful, frightened and hiding woman. [The dream ocurred on Joseph Smith's birth date in 1964.]
I need to clarify a few things before getting to a couple of specific observations and questions.
Scott, I presume you are an active, believing member of the LDS Church, right?
Rob, it is clear that you are an active, believing and committed member of the Reform Mormon Church, right? [Have I got that designation correct? Or is it "Reformed Mormon Church"? Or is it not a "church"? The LDS folks are very legalistic and concerned about these sorts of designations.]
In any case, both of you have an allegience to a different organizational aspect of Mormonism and thus what you mean by “intelligent obedience” may appear to be at odds or different. But Scott’s “adherence to an eternal principle” seems to include both your allegiences and that is satisfying to me. My own allegience is still different, yet would like to find a way where we can all meet in true [read: inclusive] community. I have presumed this to be Sunstone.
That brings me to the “eternal principle” involved. You both seem to agree that Joseph Smith’s revelations on what an eternal principle is, is an essential, foundational issue. Yes? [Where did Joseph say "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves"?] Is my understanding correct so far?
My question to you both is: What if, when he got to the other side of his human mortality–at his violent death, Joseph discovered that he’d got a lot of it wrong! That is, that his imagined theology was significantly out of alignment with eternal realities now confrontimg him! I believe this is what has happened. Thus, the spiritual entity that calls itself “Joseph Smith” became earth bound [EB]. “Joseph” and did not go into the Light at his death. Instead, he [as an EB] stayed around to try to correct things before daring to go into the Light and thus attached himself to Brigham who was probably Joseph’s most devoted follower. This would account for that remarkable legend when many of the Saints saw the “mantle of Joseph” come upon Brigham. “EB Joseph” stayed with Brigham all of Brigham’s life. Indeed, Brigham’s last words as he lay dying were: “Joseph!, Joseph!, Joseph!” Their spirits were essentially merged.
But, where did “EB Joseph” go after Brigham’s death? Who did he attach to then? If this is a relevant question, could he have attached himself to more than one other person? Perhaps it was to John Taylor? Who knows? It is a mystery of our strange culture.
Rob, your Reform Mormonism seems not to have cast its net wide enough to include the emotional-intuitive nature of humanness. Your theology seems to have excluded what Ken Wilber refers to as the Left Hand Side of the Kosmic map–the interior aspects of human experience. It is a place where women, generally, feel much more comfortable. This would include dreams and visions, both individual and collective. It is the origin of all art, which your Reform Mormonism refers to when discussing Joseph Smith’s revelations. That is, they are “art”–what Wilber would call “artifacts”. I like that view.
Rob and Scott: Please correct me if I have not understood either of you acurately.
Comment # 31 by Eugene | Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
Thanks for the post, Eugene.
I think you’re correct about the things that Scott and I have in common.
Regarding the following:
“Rob, your Reform Mormonism seems not to have cast its net wide enough to include the emotional-intuitive nature of humanness. Your theology seems to have excluded what Ken Wilber refers to as the Left Hand Side of the Kosmic map–the interior aspects of human experience. It is a place where women, generally, feel much more comfortable. This would include dreams and visions, both individual and collective.”
I would have to disagree with this statement.
SInce Reform Mormonism (it is a religion; not a church) believes that all scriptures and ordinances are art, and that art can be inspired by the Divine while being a completely human and flawed endeavour, I would say that Reform Mormonism casts an EXTREMELY wide net. In fact, this wide net is exactly why I converted to this tradition as opposed to the other Mormon traditions–all of which with either their apologetics regarding the Mormon past, or the institutionakl legalism to which you referred–seem (at least to me) to cast a very narrow net (if indeed they cast any net at all.) I was a very cative LDS Church member for 20 years, and finally ralized that I could not contract reality to fit into the narrow frame demanded by the Church.
To the question, what if Joseph Smith was wrong?
I don’t accept the principles Joseph taught (and thus Mormonism) because it was Joseph teaching them–but because they seem comptabible with reason and with nature. While there is much about nature that I do not understand (Duh! Pretty obvious.) and while I will never become “all-knowing” (because no inteliigent being that exists—as the word existence is understood–CAN be “all-knowing”), stilll I have inherent, as part of my indentity as a human being, the senses and rational mind (capable of grasping broading abstraction, imagining what the future might hold, etc. etc.) capable of eternally progressing in my understanding of things.
Thus my mind is my only oracle (to paraphrase an Elightenment Era quote). When the principles Joseph taught do not correspond with nature as I know it through my senses, my faculty for reason, etc. etc., I reject them.
And many of the things Joseph taught I do indeed reject as either superstitous, as insincere on his part or as simply mistaken.
All of which goes back to the central topic of this thread: obedience.
I reject the concept of obedience in relation to other people, to other intelligent beings or to the traditions or organizations that others have created.
I believe that Nature/Existence sets the limits, and that being Free Agents, exercising our agency means using all of our faculties in an effort to understand the world in which we live. Our only obedience is to our own Conscience–our own individual sense of right and wrong–and the basis for juding the morality of our actions is the concept of the Natural RIghts of others.
Comment # 32 by Rob Lauer | Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
Rob :
We clearly agree on the primacy of individual conscience–the main theme for this thread originated by Scot (forgive me Scot for not earlier noticing how you spell your name.) However, I’m not sure we are understanding each other precisely, so I’m not sure where we disagree.
You keep referring to reason and nature. Yes, reason is one faculty we have for making decisions or making judgments, as Jung would say regarding the four psychological functions he identifies. (The other three functions being Feeling, Intuition and Sensation). It seems to me you are still considering only reason and sensation (the five natural senses) in your theology or religion. Help me out here if I am still not getting your drift. I know a little about reason (the thinking function) and sensation (the five natural physiological senses), having made it through a rigorous technical training as both engineer and scientist. But I soon learned to my great surprise that there was a profound reality that I was simply ignoring. That reality had to get my attention by almost killing me, before I began to pay attention. It took a post doctoral depression to begin the awakening to other realities.
You do not say anything specific about intuition and feeling. Those are functions generally favored by the right brain. Please give me some assurance that you know what I’m talking about and that it makes sense to you.
[BTW are you that Rob in Colorado?]:
ENK
Comment # 33 by Eugene | Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
Eugene:
My views on Epistemology (how we come to know what we know) are philosophically Objectivist–meaning, I accept the Primacy of Exsietnce over consciousness.
(I have written about this at length in my Mormon theological essay “In The Beginning…or Let the Insanity Begin” which can be found in the Reading Materials section at http://www.reformmormonism.org.)
Our physical senses are our tools of congnition–the only tools, the existence of which are objectively proveable. Our feelings and our intuition descend from our rational faculties; they are not tools of cognition in and of themselves. Our feelings and intuition tell us nothing about existence outside of our selves, BUT they tell us MUCH about how we percieve that existence: our sense of life, the ideas that we have consciously and subconsciously accepted as true and false, good and bad. Our feeling and emotions are the automatic responces we have to thing outside of ourselves, based on the ideas we have accepted; thus emotions and feelings are the fruits of our rational faculties.
Feelings–however pwoerful they may be–are not, however, tools of cognition.
For example: a faithful Latter-day Saint has an intense and positiive emotional reaction to hearing someone bear their testimony in Testimony Meeting. The Latter-day Saint interprets these emotions as if they were tools of cognition regarding the truthfulness of the LDS Church’s claims: the emotions themsleves are interpreted as being proof that “the Church is true.”
A Southern Baptist, a Catholic and an Atheist attend the same Testimony Meeting; they listen to the same testimony; they ponder what they hear; they are open and receptive to the person beairng testimony. But their reactions emotionally vary. The emotions of the Atheist convince him that the person bearing testimony is sincere, ethical, good, but completely deluded with regard to the LDS Church’s claims. The emotions of the Southern Baptist lead her to clonclude that the person bearing testimony is a brainwashed memeber of an anti-Christian cult. The emotions of the Catholic is that the person bearing testimony is mistaken in their beliefs, but with a little “talking to” is ripe for conversion to Catholicism.
All four these emotional reactions tell us everything about the mind-set and reasoning of the four people who heard the testimony. Those emiotions tell is nothing whatsoever about the truthfulness or falseness of the LDS Church’s claims; these emotions tell us nothing about the testimony being heard, of whether the person bearing testimony is right or wrong in their claims.
Only a rational exploration of Mormon history, only learning the facts, etc. could determine whether the LDS Church’s claims are true or false. Of course, this runs contrary to the mindset of religious fundamentalists or mystics.
You asked if I am “THAT Rob in Colorado?” I don’t know who that Rob might be. I worked in Colorado from April 2000 until Spetember 2001, but before and since then I have lived in New York City. At the moment, I am guest teacher/guest artist at a college in Wyoming.
Do you think we know one another?
I was puiblished in SUNSTONE back in the late 80’s. My plays DIGGER and THE BEEHIIVE STATE were both published in SUNSTONE in 1988 and 1989. (They can be found in the archieves at Sunstone’s website.)
Comment # 34 by Rob Lauer | Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
Rob, finally I get your point!
“Our physical senses are our tools of cognition–the only tools, the existence of which are objectively provable. Our feelings and our intuition descend from our rational faculties; they are not tools of cognition in and of themselves.”
Here’s where we disagree. But thanks for clarifying your point. Are you not familiar with Ken Wilber? He says it far better than I. So does Jung.
Regarding that “EXTREMELY wide net” you mentioned, I see no place in your religion for me and my experience except as a second class citizen. It seems to me that thinking will always be dominant, yes? It does not seem possible for your religion to accept feeling as an equal partner to thinking in making decisions (in Jung’s terms). I cannot see that you can value intuition as a primary perception—above sensation, that is.
So, I’m not sure where we go from here. If you want to continue our dialogue, perhaps instead of taking space here you would agree to send me your email address to mine at enk33@losalamos.com. I’d like to send you a poem or two and a paper. Perhaps you will send me something more of yours.
ENK
Comment # 35 by Zhenya/Eugene | Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
Eugene,
I’d love to read yours poems and paper. Here’s my email: rlauernyc@aol.com.
I do value what is called intuition–especially since I am an artist by profression. (Side note: Have you read the book BLINK? It’s all about the roles intuition, “snap judgements” and first impression play in our lives. Very interesting stuff.) But I don’t think intuiton is inborn or the result of a supernatural or spiritual power; it thinks it’s the by-product of the rational mind. (I’m NOT infereing that you think intituition is supernatural.)
As for you being a “second class citizen” in Reform Mormonism–you’re mistaken. Since Reform Mormonism is built solely on the paradigm of PERSONAL Eternal Progression, there can be NO “second class” citizens–because there is no value in obedience to any outside power or authroity; there is no “church” or “community” or “organization” which Reform Mormons join. (A chief principle of Reform Mormonism is that God–being a fibnite being–does not demand obedience or worship.) One becomes a Reform Mormon by covenanting to follow a path of personal Eternal Progression, in which one seeks to emulate God–our Heavenly Father,Mother, Parent(s)…developing godliness, becoming in one’s character more like God.
This brings us back to the subject of this thread–which is obedience.
By even thinking of religion or spirituality in terms of obedience to any outside force or eprsonal entity (entities)–either singlar or collective–the concept of “citizenship” and “second class” citizen is sure to follow. THIS is why I reject “obedience” as a virtue: it usually leads to condeming or labeling others for NOT being odedient enough.
Eternal Progression is a personal, singular endeavor; thus the central importance of Free Agency and personal autonomy–even in relationship to God.
Comment # 36 by Rob Lauer | Oct 26, 2006 | Reply
Two beings true to their own truths! How wonderful to have followed your discussion thus far. May I make it yet three? My current truth: When feeling and reason conflict, go with the feeling…it is pure communication to one’s soul (being distinguished from emotion which is, I agree, a reactionary by-product of reasoning). Further, reason itself informs me that it comes from our imperfect senses–affected by an imperfect world existing within this sphere of illusion. The idea that cognitive thought is “proveable” does not ring true with me. I’ll stay with that “feeling” until it has outlived its usefulness as my truth.
Comment # 37 by Saijin | Oct 31, 2006 | Reply
Rob: Your response to my “second class citizen” fear was most welcome! I stand corrected. I’ll reconsider my participation in your religion. However, we have different Gods. My God is NOT finite, regardless what Brother Joseph “revealed” in Nauvoo. My God is without image, form, material substance–even spiritual “substance”, Joseph’s views nothwithstanding. My God precedes all of this. The God I believe in–the Ultimate Source–is before any kind of manifestation. Joseph Smith’s notion about premordial (sp?) “Intelligences” is closer to how it seems/feels/rings to me. In any case, we agree on the nature of “eternal progression”. Yes!
In that vein, thanks for your email. I will send you some stuff. Knowing you are a fellow artist gives me confidence that we’ll find places of resonance.
Saijin: How nice of you to join in. Welcome! I am totally in agreement with your view and “feeling”! To stay with something until it has outlived its usefullness seems to me a wise belief. However, it’s how we behave or what we do when what we believe comes to the end of its usefullness, that can become a problem. I suppose that’s when we must continue on in walking by “faith”, eh? Faith. Is the ground we walk on solid? Or is it thin ice?!
ENK
Comment # 38 by Eugene | Oct 31, 2006 | Reply
Rob: re your comment #36, I’ve tried that email address three times. All three messages have bounced. Any other way to reach you? Perhaps you can try my address at enk33@losalamos.com.
Appologies to everyone for using this space this way.
ENK.
Comment # 39 by Eugene | Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
After reading a few of the comments, I feel the main point the canonical Mormon scriptures infer regarding the connection between obedience and intelligence has not been clearly expressed, but lost in a tumult of opinions and colorations. The scriptures clearly teach that “my [God's or Christ's] word is Spirit” and the “Spirit is truth” and “the glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth” and “put your trust in that Spirit which leadeth to do good, to judge righteously, walk humbly, etc…” Like any great scientist wishing to harness the correct principles manifested in nature albeit chemistry, physics, or whatever, the connection between intelligence and obedience in the spiritual realms is also the plain and simple TRUTH. Another way of saying “intelligent obedience” is “Obedience to TRUTH.” If we were to have obeyed Satan in Heaven instead of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ during that Heavenly Confrontation, we would have been obeying a lie which would have impeded our progress, even though many people like to quote ” Obedience is the first law of Heaven.” As the canonical scriptures also state, “The light shineth forth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not.” “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself.” Every time a scientist discovers and uses or harnesses the truth in Nature, there is progress. Every time man’s spirit (See D&C 93) obeys the spiritual truth, there is spiritual growth and progress, or a change wrought in the spirit of Man. If the President of the Church is Jesus’ and Heavenly Father’s representative on this earth, and The Godhead has promised the Prophet would be removed if he was to sway us from the pathways of truth, and if man’s spirit (not body) is capable of discerning truth, then, really, the only way we can acquire intelligence is by obedience to TRUTH, which truly is “intelligent obedience,” as any dieclad scientist would point out.
Comment # 40 by Ron | May 30, 2007 | Reply