There are many accounts in the scriptures that decry the seeking of signs.
Consider the example from the life of Jesus Christ:
"The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring, O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it..." (Matthew 16:1-4)
The Book of Mormon condemns the seeking of signs in two profound examples:
1. The sign that was given to Sherem was being struck with a debilitating sickness that killed him. (Jacob 7)
2. The sign that was given to Korihor was being struck dumb. (Alma 30)
Contemporarily, teachers in the Mormon faith affirm that seeking signs is negative. I have sat through many classes where instructors have professed that signs are never a good source of testimony. Examples that affirm this position include the following:
1. Pharaoh was determined to pursue after the children of Israel even after blood, frogs, lice, flies, the death of their cattle, boils, hail and fire, locusts, darkness, and the destroying angel. (Exodus 7-14)
2. The children of Israel worshiped a golden calf even after being fed manna from heaven and being miraculously delivered through a split in the Red Sea. (Exodus 14,16,32)
3. Israel tolerated Baal worship even after Elijah called down fire from heaven. (1 Kings 18-21)
4. After the miraculous delivery of Jerusalem from Sennacherib, Hezekiah's son Manasseh turned to wickedness. (2 Kings 19, 21:1-6)
5. Laman and Lemuel doubted the ability of God to help them obtain the brass plates immediately after having an angelic visitation of rebuke. (1 Nephi 3:31)
6. Oliver Cowdrey left the Mormon Church for several years after being ordained to the Priesthood by John the Baptist, as well as a large number of other miraculous witnesses of the divinity of the work.
Certainly, the case that signs are largely futile seems sound. It is not surprising that teachers throughout the church affirm that sign-seeking is negative.
The inconsistency that seems to appear occurs when teachers and missionaries invite people to pray and ask God so that they might personally know whether the Church is led by Jesus Christ, or whether the Book of Mormon is the word of God. If sign seeking is so bad, they why tell people to seek signs?
Another equally important question is that if seeking signs is so bad, why has God ever given them? Why tempt people to seek signs if they should not be doing it?
A concept that seems to be implied by several teachers is the superiority of spiritual evidence over tangible evidence. Some point to the example of Alma, who stated that he knew the truths of the gospel of Christ by the spirit rather than the angelic visitation and vision he encountered in his youth. (Mosiah 27, Alma 38:6) There are also statements by prophets to the same effect. Consider the following from Joseph F. Smith:
“The Spirit of God speaking to the spirit of man has power to impart truth with greater effect and understanding than the truth can be imparted by personal contact even with heavenly beings. Through the Holy Ghost the truth is woven into the very fibre and sinews of the body so that it cannot be forgotten.” (“The Sin against the Holy Ghost,” Instructor, Oct. 1935, p. 431)
Of course, interpreting statements such as these can come across with the implication that a person that has received a spiritual witness will never fall away. This is, of course, incorrect. People that have received spiritual witnesses, even those that have performed missionary service to persuade others to seek spiritual witnesses have in some cases unfortunately fallen from activity and lost faith in Christianity. Recognizing spiritual evidence is not a stamp in the passport that grants passage through the pearly gates.
As unfortunate as these cases are, they highlight the reason that Mormons ask people to pray for spiritual evidence of the Book of Mormon or the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith or the divinity of Jesus Christ. It is one thing to stubbornly refuse to do anything until God proves himself, and it is quite another to diligently and humbly pray for help believing something.
Consider the man who begged Christ for help with his child:
"And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit; And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not. He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me. And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming. And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child. And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us. Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him. And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him..." (Mark 9:17-26, emphasis added)
This story is an excellent example of being humble and diligent. The man had already gone to the disciples, and they were unsuccessful. He appealed to the Son of God himself, and asked not only for help with his son, but help to believe. The miraculous outcome was not a method of proving that Jesus was the Messiah, but a method of providing mercy and compassion to a child of God that persisted in seeking his power.
The invitation that is made by Moroni and repeated by missionaries across the world is not to do nothing until God proves himself with a sign. It is to actively seek him:
"Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. 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 know the truth of all things." (Moroni 10:3-5, emphasis added)
Understanding of the truth is unlikely to come with a casual curiosity or when demanding proof before action. Christ did not say "wonder, and ye shall receive, demand and ye shall find, wait for a knock before you open." He did say:
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." (Matthew 7:7-8)
The form of sign seeking is different from the type that is condemned. A better term to describe this type of sign-seeking is faith. "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11:6) It is the difference between Alma and Korihor, and the variance between Nephi and his brothers Laman and Lemuel. In the end, it is faith that keeps people doing the right thing, and that brings understanding, wisdom, and knowledge. Ultimately, it is unbelief that causes people to neglect what is right, and that leads them to fall away.
One witness is not better than another witness. There is nothing wrong with a person believing that God is real after seeing a miracle. There is nothing superior about spiritual feelings that can accompany the learning of true principles.
That having been said, diligently and consistently believing in God is superior to demanding justification for every commandment. The invitation to come to Christ is superior to the idea of waiting until he comes to you. Asking to prove oneself to God is superior to asking God to prove himself... and in all cases, faith is superior to doubt.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Contention may be of the Devil, but Jesus was really good at it!
Having one's views attacked can be aggravating and frustrating whether the views are political, religious, or based on the type of music/movies/shows that a person enjoys. Of course, closing in on the presidential race in the United States of America, arguments have become heated in many forums. People that normally remember to say "please" and "thank you" have in many cases been seen slinging that which is vulgar and profane. Arguments in many cases have the power to bring out the worst in humanity.
On another occasion, enemies tried to trap him by asking Jesus the source of his authority. If he were to say God, they would accuse him of blasphemy (even though it was true). If he were to say some other source, they could accuse him of being a false prophet. He took the advice that he had given in his sermon on the mount when he said:
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." (Matthew 7:6)
Instead of answering the question they posed, he posed a similar question to them:
"And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things." (Matthew 21:24-27)
Certainly it is no coincidence that Jesus taught in the Book of Mormon the following:
"For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away." (3 Nephi 11:29-30)
The passage in the Book of Mormon is quite plain and direct, and certainly in harmony with the messages that he shared famously in his sermon on the mount:
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven..." (Matthew 5:38-45)
Jesus seemed clear that people probably should not participate in arguments or contentions. That having been said, he was himself a target of many of the Pharisees and Sadducees that dominated religious thought in Galilee and Judea during his mortal life. The gospels are filled with accounts of the various attempts that were made to argue against Jesus. The truth is, as much as he talked about the vices of pride and wrath that are so easily stimulated by arguments, Jesus was really really good at arguing.
One example was the group of Pharisees that thought they could trap Jesus by asking whether it was lawful to pay tribute to Caesar. If Jesus were to say it was lawful, they could attack his popularity because Roman occupation was despised by the Jews. If he were to say it was not lawful, they could report him to the Romans for sedition. His response was perfect:
"Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Cæsar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s." (Matthew 22:19-21)
Jesus gave the perfect answer. By asking about the image on the coin, those that had thought they could trap him were forced to portray themselves as having overlooked something obvious. Additionally, he could not be accused of sedition, nor could his piety be questioned by suggesting that people give to Caesar what is his and to God what is his.
Sadducees attempted to attack Christ's affirmation of the resurrection with a hypothetical situation:
"Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 22:24-32)
In this case, he showed his amazing ability by ignoring the hypothetical situation which was a distraction from the real point of whether or not there would be a resurrection of the dead. Though they had come to attack his views for something they felt was inconsistent, he was able to counter by identifying their own inconsistency.
On another occasion, enemies tried to trap him by asking Jesus the source of his authority. If he were to say God, they would accuse him of blasphemy (even though it was true). If he were to say some other source, they could accuse him of being a false prophet. He took the advice that he had given in his sermon on the mount when he said:
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." (Matthew 7:6)
Instead of answering the question they posed, he posed a similar question to them:
"And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things." (Matthew 21:24-27)
His enemies were never able to win an argument with him, so in the end, they paid Judas Iscariot to betray him so they could secretly arrange for his death. Ironically, they were not able to surprise him or beat him even with their murderous conspiracy, as Jesus raised himself from the dead.
Back to the subject of arguments, there are some that may wonder why Jesus even participated in verbal contests when he seemed so against them. The effort to understand why he debated those that tried to trap him is fundamental to understanding the responsibilities of all Christians to defend the truth, and balancing that with the need to show respect and kindness to all of God's children.
Modern prophets and apostles have encouraged participation in discussions about the church:
"There are conversations going on about the Church constantly. Those conversations will continue whether or not we choose to participate in them. But we cannot stand on the sidelines while others, including our critics, attempt to define what the Church teaches. While some conversations have audiences in the thousands or even millions, most are much, much smaller. But all conversations have an impact on those who participate in them. Perceptions of the Church are established one conversation at a time." (M. Russel Ballard http://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/07/sharing-the-gospel-using-the-internet?lang=eng)
In spite of the possibility that disagreements or contentions may arise, or the fact that the internet is crawling with trolls that, like the Pharisees of old, feel satisfaction in discrediting, angering, and bullying others, Christians have a responsibility to help others both by charitably imparting of their tangible substance, and by sharing the good news that Christ is alive and has power to save us all. That having been said, there are lessons to learn from the methods used by Christ himself for dealing with trolls.
Many people that attack Christians do so based on the idea of logical arguments. A logical argument is like a house where the roof represents a conclusion or premise that is supported by walls representing supporting evidence or reasons. The basic idea behind attacking a logical argument is that if all or many of the supporting reasons are eliminated, the conclusion falls just as if the walls of a house are knocked down or weakened, the roof falls.
This concept is important for many discussions, such as jury deliberations where the conclusion of the defendant's guilt is dismissed when reasonable doubt knocks down or weakens the evidence that supports the conclusion. As important as critical thinking techniques are in making some decisions, matters of philosophy, ethics, and faith are not always best served by such techniques.
An example of this can be seen in the following hypothetical situation:
There is a Christian that believes in God, and that the Bible represents the word of God. He has friends that are historians that have informed him about evidence that supports his belief in that ancient Biblical cities are mentioned in archaeological artifacts. A skeptical friend finds that the mention of these cities can be explained by the fact that the Bible was written centuries later and used the names of old cities to appear to be of ancient origin. Because there is no other tangible evidence of the Bible's authenticity that the Christian is able to enumerate, the skeptic explains that there is no reason for him to believe in the Bible.
Obviously, belief in God and the Bible does not need to be based on tangible evidence. It is based on faith. Consequently, when the supporting evidences of religious conclusions are attacked, their is an invisible pillar in the center that prevents the conclusion from falling. Since a person of faith does not need tangible evidence to support their conclusion, exposing reasons or evidence of belief to those that might attack it is like casting pearls before swine. Conclusions of faith such as those that God lives, that the Bible is accurate, and that prophets dispense the truths of heaven to mankind are not conclusions that require logical defense, so do not provide them.
Secular conclusions on the other hand do require logical and tangible justification. It is typically easy to discern a person who is genuinely interested in faith from one who is genuinely interested in destroying faith by asking them to defend their philosophical and ethical positions. Since such positions put them in a position of vulnerability, they will try and evade, stall, or shift the burden of proof to you. Individuals that are genuinely interested in conversation will not maneuver you into positions where you may look bad. Ending a conversation is not the same as conceding an opponent was correct. If an attacker refuses to expose their reasoning, it might be wise to do as Christ did when he was pressed on the source of his authority and follow suit.
Avoiding contention does not necessarily mean avoiding pointing out flaws in reasoning. Jesus was not afraid to tell people that they were acting hypocritical, or to condemn incorrect principles. Going back to the example where Christ countered the Sadducees regarding their misunderstanding of the resurrection, it is good to use critical thinking to examine the integrity of secular conclusions. Particularly in matters of ethics, few secularists have examined their views. In recent conversations I have had for example, secularists claimed that their ethical behavior was guided by the principles of "empathy and compassion." It does not take much critical thinking to show that these principles fall apart when administering justice. If a person does not want to be held against their will, empathy and compassion tell them that imprisoning others even if they are guilty of heinous crimes is unethical. Relativists that believe something is good only because an individual or group has labeled it good strip themselves of moral judgement entirely. If something is bad because a person does not like it, then that puts bad acts such as child molestation on equal moral ground as having to eat vegetables. The need for God in ethics is something I have previously touched on in this post.
Christianity assumes that humanity consists of more than animals with a large number of adaptations making survival easier... The assertion is that people are the children of Almighty God. From the perspective of the Mormon church, we assert that each human being lived before they came to earth with our Heavenly Father, and that after we die, we will return to face him, and be held accountable for our choices. The understanding that God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and benevolent is fundamental to our faith. With that understanding, context is added to the story of the creation of the earth. A being with tremendous power went to a lot of trouble to send us to a place where we would not remember him and where we could not typically see, hear, or tangibly perceive him. He did not completely abandon humanity though, and provided spiritual sources for learning truths. The environment created was brilliant in its design since it truly imparts free will to men. The choices and desires of every human are not compelled by the Heavens.
Another assertion made by most Christians is that all human beings are given something to help them identify and recognize good and truth. The conscience is sometimes referred to as the light of Christ in accordance with the description of the Apostle John:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:1-9)
People have a general understanding of how to perceive good. They have an instinct that draws them toward God in some fashion. While no one follows their conscience perfectly, and while there are some that rarely use it, it is capable of being as recognizable as the image and superscription on a coin. Just as Jesus was not afraid to point out to his attackers what they should have already noticed, so should those that defend faith in Christ be willing to point out that people are already capable of recognizing truth without dependence on tangible evidence. Like recognizing a scent, people know instinctively when something is right. With regular, diligent use, anyone is capable of recognizing the truths of God and his Christ. Odds are, any individual that attacks faith knows in their heart that they are wrong. Even if they do not know it, they are still the person that will be most persuasive in convincing themselves that they should have faith.
The responsibility of Christians to invite all to come to Christ is not a policy to hunt down antagonists and attempt to humiliate them. It is a policy of spreading the good news of Jesus. Christ proclaimed the truth to all; his religion was his identity. The same should be the case for those that aspire to be called Christians.
When a discussion moves to become antagonistic, affirm the truth and end the discussion. Endless bashing between individuals is at best a waste of time, and at worst, could tragically turn a friend into an enemy. In persuading others to accept Christ, Christians must not abandon his teachings. In the end, what made Christ so good when he contended with those that sought to malign him was his ability to know when not to contend, and when to step away.
Winning a petty argument is meaningless since everyone will eventually agree. In the end, Jesus will come in triumph and glory. He will be the hero that appears in the moment of peril and despair to save his people. Every knee will bow before His Majesty. The good news is that he wants everyone on his side.
This concept is important for many discussions, such as jury deliberations where the conclusion of the defendant's guilt is dismissed when reasonable doubt knocks down or weakens the evidence that supports the conclusion. As important as critical thinking techniques are in making some decisions, matters of philosophy, ethics, and faith are not always best served by such techniques.
An example of this can be seen in the following hypothetical situation:
There is a Christian that believes in God, and that the Bible represents the word of God. He has friends that are historians that have informed him about evidence that supports his belief in that ancient Biblical cities are mentioned in archaeological artifacts. A skeptical friend finds that the mention of these cities can be explained by the fact that the Bible was written centuries later and used the names of old cities to appear to be of ancient origin. Because there is no other tangible evidence of the Bible's authenticity that the Christian is able to enumerate, the skeptic explains that there is no reason for him to believe in the Bible.
Obviously, belief in God and the Bible does not need to be based on tangible evidence. It is based on faith. Consequently, when the supporting evidences of religious conclusions are attacked, their is an invisible pillar in the center that prevents the conclusion from falling. Since a person of faith does not need tangible evidence to support their conclusion, exposing reasons or evidence of belief to those that might attack it is like casting pearls before swine. Conclusions of faith such as those that God lives, that the Bible is accurate, and that prophets dispense the truths of heaven to mankind are not conclusions that require logical defense, so do not provide them.
Secular conclusions on the other hand do require logical and tangible justification. It is typically easy to discern a person who is genuinely interested in faith from one who is genuinely interested in destroying faith by asking them to defend their philosophical and ethical positions. Since such positions put them in a position of vulnerability, they will try and evade, stall, or shift the burden of proof to you. Individuals that are genuinely interested in conversation will not maneuver you into positions where you may look bad. Ending a conversation is not the same as conceding an opponent was correct. If an attacker refuses to expose their reasoning, it might be wise to do as Christ did when he was pressed on the source of his authority and follow suit.
Avoiding contention does not necessarily mean avoiding pointing out flaws in reasoning. Jesus was not afraid to tell people that they were acting hypocritical, or to condemn incorrect principles. Going back to the example where Christ countered the Sadducees regarding their misunderstanding of the resurrection, it is good to use critical thinking to examine the integrity of secular conclusions. Particularly in matters of ethics, few secularists have examined their views. In recent conversations I have had for example, secularists claimed that their ethical behavior was guided by the principles of "empathy and compassion." It does not take much critical thinking to show that these principles fall apart when administering justice. If a person does not want to be held against their will, empathy and compassion tell them that imprisoning others even if they are guilty of heinous crimes is unethical. Relativists that believe something is good only because an individual or group has labeled it good strip themselves of moral judgement entirely. If something is bad because a person does not like it, then that puts bad acts such as child molestation on equal moral ground as having to eat vegetables. The need for God in ethics is something I have previously touched on in this post.
Christianity assumes that humanity consists of more than animals with a large number of adaptations making survival easier... The assertion is that people are the children of Almighty God. From the perspective of the Mormon church, we assert that each human being lived before they came to earth with our Heavenly Father, and that after we die, we will return to face him, and be held accountable for our choices. The understanding that God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and benevolent is fundamental to our faith. With that understanding, context is added to the story of the creation of the earth. A being with tremendous power went to a lot of trouble to send us to a place where we would not remember him and where we could not typically see, hear, or tangibly perceive him. He did not completely abandon humanity though, and provided spiritual sources for learning truths. The environment created was brilliant in its design since it truly imparts free will to men. The choices and desires of every human are not compelled by the Heavens.
Another assertion made by most Christians is that all human beings are given something to help them identify and recognize good and truth. The conscience is sometimes referred to as the light of Christ in accordance with the description of the Apostle John:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:1-9)
People have a general understanding of how to perceive good. They have an instinct that draws them toward God in some fashion. While no one follows their conscience perfectly, and while there are some that rarely use it, it is capable of being as recognizable as the image and superscription on a coin. Just as Jesus was not afraid to point out to his attackers what they should have already noticed, so should those that defend faith in Christ be willing to point out that people are already capable of recognizing truth without dependence on tangible evidence. Like recognizing a scent, people know instinctively when something is right. With regular, diligent use, anyone is capable of recognizing the truths of God and his Christ. Odds are, any individual that attacks faith knows in their heart that they are wrong. Even if they do not know it, they are still the person that will be most persuasive in convincing themselves that they should have faith.
The responsibility of Christians to invite all to come to Christ is not a policy to hunt down antagonists and attempt to humiliate them. It is a policy of spreading the good news of Jesus. Christ proclaimed the truth to all; his religion was his identity. The same should be the case for those that aspire to be called Christians.
When a discussion moves to become antagonistic, affirm the truth and end the discussion. Endless bashing between individuals is at best a waste of time, and at worst, could tragically turn a friend into an enemy. In persuading others to accept Christ, Christians must not abandon his teachings. In the end, what made Christ so good when he contended with those that sought to malign him was his ability to know when not to contend, and when to step away.
Winning a petty argument is meaningless since everyone will eventually agree. In the end, Jesus will come in triumph and glory. He will be the hero that appears in the moment of peril and despair to save his people. Every knee will bow before His Majesty. The good news is that he wants everyone on his side.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Is God a Tyrannical Dictator?
For anyone that has followed this blog for any degree of time, it should be evident that I love to emphasize the power of God over the love of God.
I have often felt that throughout Christianity, and even in my own church, God is portrayed like a feel-good pill rather than a King. Of course this is not always the case, and Christians from many sects will from time to time express their confidence in God's abilities instead of only his compassion, but discussion of God seems unbalanced in favor of kindness.
When Christians study and invest only in the one attribute, it is easy for them to be surprised, shocked, or even shaken when their beliefs are challenged; especially so when attacks are derived from sources they accept and treasure such as the Bible. Being confronted with a version of God that kills every man woman child and beast except for those in the protection of Noah's ark seems to portray God as a cruel murderer that made a mistake.
God spoke through the prophet Samuel to King Saul giving him a cruel directive: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (1 Samuel 15:3) When Saul spared Agag, the King of the Amalekites, and also took animals alive, the Lord said to Samuel: "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments." (1 Samuel 15:11) After being reproved by the prophet of God, Saul sought forgiveness of the Lord. Samuel did not respond with the compassion one might expect from one speaking on behalf of a merciful God: "thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord hath rejected thee from being king over Israel." (1 Samuel 15:26) Additionally, the prophet made the situation right in the eyes of God when he personally killed Agag. (1 Samuel 15:33) How can God be so loving if he ordered his people to enact genocide on a people?
There are those in the world of Christianity that dismiss these things as "old testament" even to the point of imagining that there was a "God of the old testament" in ancient times that was different from Christ in the new testament. Of course, those that embrace these excuses may be challenged as well. Ananias and Sapphira were members of the Church of Jesus Christ in the stewardship of the early Apostles. At that time, Christians gave all of their possessions to the Apostles, and were given back according to their needs. This husband and wife claimed to the Apostles that they were giving all of the money they had received from a portion of land, but in truth, they conspired to lie about the amount and keep some of the money themselves. As a reward, they were stuck dead by God. (Acts 5:1-11)
There exist Christians that are shocked and surprised when they learn these things exist in the Bible. If they know only the mercy and compassion of God that is so emphasized in contemporary Christianity, then they may even question their faith.
Indeed, it is easy to portray our Heavenly Father as a Heavenly tyrant. He sits on his throne in the high heavens and commands people to do as he says or be condemned to the torment of hell. To those who would worship him and have no other God before him, he promises rich rewards of mansions in his kingdom. He imposes his definition of good and evil on all individuals, regardless of their culture, understanding, or upbringing.
How do Christians deal with the cruel and jealous version of God portrayed in the holy scriptures?
The worst technique is to ignore it. Pretending that the flood in the ancient world, the plagues of Egypt, or the violent invasion and conquests in Israel were symbolic of something is foolish. Doubting them, or claiming that these things are "fulfilled" because Christ gave a new law provides grounds for dismissing large sections of valid scripture, and perhaps leading to selective Christianity or new-age Christianity where Jesus is not the authoritative son of God, but simply a good philosopher.
Another incorrect technique is to swing the pendulum too far the other way. I do, as all Christians should, maintain that God is never wrong. When he sent the flood or slew the Amalekites or sent famines and diseases and curses, he was right to do so. He made the correct decision. This does not mean that we may derive authority to make a posse and slay the wicked in the name of God, as may have been practiced in the dark ages.
The approach to finding the answer is important. When confronted by uncomfortable facts about God, a bad strategy is to pray to God demanding that he explain himself. If he is truly the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, then he does not owe anyone an an explanation. In fact, he has gone to a lot of effort to put humanity in a situation where the eternal consequences to decisions do not occur immediately. He has invested in the creation of an environment to prove the faith of individuals. That means that not answering such demands is in his interest. The frequent emphasis on faith throughout the scriptures is not just a good idea, it is fundamental to accomplishing God's plan for humanity.
Those who insist that God "prove himself" can use the following two step process to uncover the proof they seek:
1. Wait
2. If God has not revealed himself, repeat step 1.
In the end, God will appear, and every knee will bow before him. It is just a lot better to accept him before this happens. Those that persist in demanding proof 'right now' will either not receive it, or they will receive it and it will be unpleasant so as to remind others that patience is in fact a virtue. (Jacob 7, Alma 30)
That having been said, there is a faith-based approach for recognizing the benevolence of God. In fact, I submit that this is a fundamental reason that there exists a Godhead. Almost all Christianity believes in some form of the trinity, and regardless of the interpretation, the following statements should ring true:
1. We know that God the Father is good because of the goodness of his son Jesus Christ. (John 14:6-7)
2. We know that the accounts of Christ's goodness and power in the Bible are accurate because of the witness of the Holy Ghost. (John 14:26)
While this may not seem to specifically address the examples that seemed to portray God as cruel and unforgiving, this approach does something more important. The witness of the Holy Ghost establishes something beyond the reading comprehension that is generally available by opening the scriptures; this is a mechanism for personal interaction with God. Knowing who God is personally allows an individual to make their own judgement about his character, and according to Christ, it is the definition of eternal life. (John 17:3)
It is one thing for me to point to the compassion of Christ as he fed 5000 people in Galilee and say he is kind. (John 6:1-13) It is another when I describe the peace he has given me when I plead for help with my doubts, questions, and mistakes. Frequently using prayer, scripture study, and worship in a diligent effort to find God is a slow path. It is strait and narrow. As Lehi saw in vision, those that walk it can be confused by clouds of darkness, or the attacks of those in spacious buildings. (1 Nephi 8) Ultimately, those that press forward with faith that God will answer them will find the truth. They will find the love of God.
While this may not be an enumerated list of explanations regarding all the dealings God has had with men from the days of Adam, it will provide confidence in the truth that God is never wrong. Not only is he real, but he is omniscient, omnipotent, and his influence is omnipresent. Those that press forward in faithful effort to know God do more than escape the damnation of hell, or earn the rewards of heaven... they become new.
This is the fundamental purpose of Christianity: the power to make bad men good, and good men better. Sometimes helping a person become better requires letting bad things happen to them. Sometimes it requires that they get sick, or that they lose a loved one. Sometimes it requires wars and conquests, and other times it requires peace and quiet. Sometimes it requires famines and starvation, and other times it requires feasting and plenty.
Though God uses various means at various times with various people, and though sometimes it may not make sense, or even seem incorrect, those that know God have confidence that he is not a tyrannical dictator. He is a benevolent father... and he has a plan to save us all.
I have often felt that throughout Christianity, and even in my own church, God is portrayed like a feel-good pill rather than a King. Of course this is not always the case, and Christians from many sects will from time to time express their confidence in God's abilities instead of only his compassion, but discussion of God seems unbalanced in favor of kindness.
When Christians study and invest only in the one attribute, it is easy for them to be surprised, shocked, or even shaken when their beliefs are challenged; especially so when attacks are derived from sources they accept and treasure such as the Bible. Being confronted with a version of God that kills every man woman child and beast except for those in the protection of Noah's ark seems to portray God as a cruel murderer that made a mistake.
God spoke through the prophet Samuel to King Saul giving him a cruel directive: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (1 Samuel 15:3) When Saul spared Agag, the King of the Amalekites, and also took animals alive, the Lord said to Samuel: "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments." (1 Samuel 15:11) After being reproved by the prophet of God, Saul sought forgiveness of the Lord. Samuel did not respond with the compassion one might expect from one speaking on behalf of a merciful God: "thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord hath rejected thee from being king over Israel." (1 Samuel 15:26) Additionally, the prophet made the situation right in the eyes of God when he personally killed Agag. (1 Samuel 15:33) How can God be so loving if he ordered his people to enact genocide on a people?
There are those in the world of Christianity that dismiss these things as "old testament" even to the point of imagining that there was a "God of the old testament" in ancient times that was different from Christ in the new testament. Of course, those that embrace these excuses may be challenged as well. Ananias and Sapphira were members of the Church of Jesus Christ in the stewardship of the early Apostles. At that time, Christians gave all of their possessions to the Apostles, and were given back according to their needs. This husband and wife claimed to the Apostles that they were giving all of the money they had received from a portion of land, but in truth, they conspired to lie about the amount and keep some of the money themselves. As a reward, they were stuck dead by God. (Acts 5:1-11)
There exist Christians that are shocked and surprised when they learn these things exist in the Bible. If they know only the mercy and compassion of God that is so emphasized in contemporary Christianity, then they may even question their faith.
Indeed, it is easy to portray our Heavenly Father as a Heavenly tyrant. He sits on his throne in the high heavens and commands people to do as he says or be condemned to the torment of hell. To those who would worship him and have no other God before him, he promises rich rewards of mansions in his kingdom. He imposes his definition of good and evil on all individuals, regardless of their culture, understanding, or upbringing.
How do Christians deal with the cruel and jealous version of God portrayed in the holy scriptures?
The worst technique is to ignore it. Pretending that the flood in the ancient world, the plagues of Egypt, or the violent invasion and conquests in Israel were symbolic of something is foolish. Doubting them, or claiming that these things are "fulfilled" because Christ gave a new law provides grounds for dismissing large sections of valid scripture, and perhaps leading to selective Christianity or new-age Christianity where Jesus is not the authoritative son of God, but simply a good philosopher.
Another incorrect technique is to swing the pendulum too far the other way. I do, as all Christians should, maintain that God is never wrong. When he sent the flood or slew the Amalekites or sent famines and diseases and curses, he was right to do so. He made the correct decision. This does not mean that we may derive authority to make a posse and slay the wicked in the name of God, as may have been practiced in the dark ages.
The approach to finding the answer is important. When confronted by uncomfortable facts about God, a bad strategy is to pray to God demanding that he explain himself. If he is truly the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, then he does not owe anyone an an explanation. In fact, he has gone to a lot of effort to put humanity in a situation where the eternal consequences to decisions do not occur immediately. He has invested in the creation of an environment to prove the faith of individuals. That means that not answering such demands is in his interest. The frequent emphasis on faith throughout the scriptures is not just a good idea, it is fundamental to accomplishing God's plan for humanity.
Those who insist that God "prove himself" can use the following two step process to uncover the proof they seek:
1. Wait
2. If God has not revealed himself, repeat step 1.
In the end, God will appear, and every knee will bow before him. It is just a lot better to accept him before this happens. Those that persist in demanding proof 'right now' will either not receive it, or they will receive it and it will be unpleasant so as to remind others that patience is in fact a virtue. (Jacob 7, Alma 30)
That having been said, there is a faith-based approach for recognizing the benevolence of God. In fact, I submit that this is a fundamental reason that there exists a Godhead. Almost all Christianity believes in some form of the trinity, and regardless of the interpretation, the following statements should ring true:
1. We know that God the Father is good because of the goodness of his son Jesus Christ. (John 14:6-7)
2. We know that the accounts of Christ's goodness and power in the Bible are accurate because of the witness of the Holy Ghost. (John 14:26)
While this may not seem to specifically address the examples that seemed to portray God as cruel and unforgiving, this approach does something more important. The witness of the Holy Ghost establishes something beyond the reading comprehension that is generally available by opening the scriptures; this is a mechanism for personal interaction with God. Knowing who God is personally allows an individual to make their own judgement about his character, and according to Christ, it is the definition of eternal life. (John 17:3)
It is one thing for me to point to the compassion of Christ as he fed 5000 people in Galilee and say he is kind. (John 6:1-13) It is another when I describe the peace he has given me when I plead for help with my doubts, questions, and mistakes. Frequently using prayer, scripture study, and worship in a diligent effort to find God is a slow path. It is strait and narrow. As Lehi saw in vision, those that walk it can be confused by clouds of darkness, or the attacks of those in spacious buildings. (1 Nephi 8) Ultimately, those that press forward with faith that God will answer them will find the truth. They will find the love of God.
While this may not be an enumerated list of explanations regarding all the dealings God has had with men from the days of Adam, it will provide confidence in the truth that God is never wrong. Not only is he real, but he is omniscient, omnipotent, and his influence is omnipresent. Those that press forward in faithful effort to know God do more than escape the damnation of hell, or earn the rewards of heaven... they become new.
This is the fundamental purpose of Christianity: the power to make bad men good, and good men better. Sometimes helping a person become better requires letting bad things happen to them. Sometimes it requires that they get sick, or that they lose a loved one. Sometimes it requires wars and conquests, and other times it requires peace and quiet. Sometimes it requires famines and starvation, and other times it requires feasting and plenty.
Though God uses various means at various times with various people, and though sometimes it may not make sense, or even seem incorrect, those that know God have confidence that he is not a tyrannical dictator. He is a benevolent father... and he has a plan to save us all.
Monday, October 8, 2012
The Ethical Dilemmas of Godlessness
I recently saw an argument presented by a group of self-proclaimed atheists indicating persuading citizens to decry the practices of some political representatives to argue about the laws of God, and that they should instead embrace "reason."
The effort to separate God from good is not a new effort. Evaluating ethics by asking whether something is good because God commands it, or was it already good with its goodness providing the reason for God's command is a frequent technique used to promote the idea that it is possible to be good without believing in God.
Atheist or agnostic persons can do good. Some individuals in these categories would even argue that atheistic moral philosophy is superior to religious philosophy because it can be questioned and examined more openly, whereas, a religious individual cannot or should not question God.
It is also easy to look at violent historic conflicts between subscribers of differing religious philosophies and conclude that these systems of ethics proved to be unethical entirely. In modern times, though witchcraft is not exactly mainstream, the Salem witch trials famously demonstrated how even well-meaning religious individuals may be mislead by faith-based moral judgement. Refuge from violence between Catholics and Protestants or Protestants and other Protestants represented the cause of many individuals that colonized the American continent.
Unfortunately, taking God out of ethical questions does not resolve them. Removing religion does not expose a universal law for making moral choices. Those that argue for reason proceed to argue about the conclusions derived from their use of reason.
There have been many attempts to create universal and general systems for making moral choices. A common rule that is found in many religions is the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This rule, or derivations of it, exist in a large number of religions. Christ himself taught "therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." (Matthew 7:12)
The problem with trusting only in the law has been highlighted by several philosophers. One weakness is the inconsistency of desires between individuals. If one individual enjoys a particular act, and another person finds the act unpleasant, then an unpleasant act can be forced on one is moral by the Golden Rule. Inversely, the pleasant act withheld from the other is moral by the same rule. This is similar to the generalization philosophy. This philosophy takes an act and then hypothetically asks if all individuals were able to do the act to all persons, including the person considering the act, and then assesses if the result would be desirable. The problem is that there is never a unanimous agreement on what is desirable.
Another weakness in the Golden Rule can be found in administering justice. For example, imagine a criminal duly convicted of crime is sentenced to imprisonment. The criminal then appeals to the judge using the Golden Rule asking if he would want someone else to imprison him. If there are exceptions to the Golden Rule, such as the punishment of criminals who have violated it, by what rule are punishments determined to be moral or immoral?
Other individuals base their actions on happiness. They try and do things that generate happiness. Another way of stating this philosophy is that there is no reason for life except the purpose we give it.
The flaw with this philosophy is the same flaw that atheists find in religion. "Happiness" is not a measurable or representative of empirical evidence. Consider the happiness that a middle-class individual might feel from obtaining one hundred dollars. Consider the unhappiness of a wealthy individual that has millions of dollars when they lose one hundred dollars. In theory, the happiness of the individual that obtains the money would be greater than the unhappiness of the wealthy individual, therefore, stealing is a moral decision in this scenario.
More complicated ethical situations arise when society is forced to "measure" happiness from individuals that make choices that are commonly viewed as immoral. What if the amount of happiness that a serial killer gets from murdering someone exceeds the unhappiness of the victim and their family... does the choice become moral? Has any attempt been made to measure the happiness of serial killers or child molesters or other violent criminals? If we examine the levels of dopamine released during particular acts, does that decide what is right and wrong?
In the end, there is only one philosophy that provides moral guidance without God: cultural relativism. The idea that society decides what is right and wrong to suit its needs and provide for the general welfare of its members cannot be attacked by individual examples, because a society could always redefine right and wrong. The flaw in this philosophy is the lack of consistency. For example, in the 1700s and early 1800s, slavery was an acceptable practice in society. Because the culture embraced it, according to cultural relativism, it was moral behavior. Only after slavery was abolished did the practice become immoral for honest subscribers of this philosophy.
Ultimately, while saying that God follows a law that determines what is good or moral may appear to allow those that reject God to be moral, it does not reveal the law. People still argue about a variety of practices as to whether they are good or evil.
The advantage of having an all-knowing God that identifies what is right and what is wrong should be clear. "God says so" suddenly becomes a valid reason. With a law that no philosopher has ever been able to define guiding right and wrong, pursuing the will of a perfect being that is able to define it makes sense. Even if the will of God is bound by law, understanding the law requires access to God.
The emphasis of many atheists with whom I have spoken is rarely on moral philosophy however. In my experience, preference is given to scientific evidence that highlights evolution and an expanding universe. Ideas presented in the Bible that point to a seven-day creation, or a planet-wide flood that destroyed all land-based animal life that was not preserved in a single ark with Noah seem particularly vulnerable to those that only embrace secular guidance.
Viewing mankind as no more than an advanced form of animal life makes sense in a biology class, but has serious and frequently under-examined ethical repercussions. Survival of the fittest is the only real guide in the natural world. Anything that increases fitness or even decreases the fitness of competitors is desirable without ethical consideration. In this train of thought, right and wrong are not as relevant as getting caught. A person that murders another, but is not detected or not convicted has not acted immorally in the survival of the fittest mindset. If there is no life after this where justice will be administered to the sinful, there is no real reason to avoid practices that are considered sinful, particularly if some form of personal fitness or satisfaction is obtained from these practices.
Embracing God means embracing a universal right and wrong. It is an expression of confidence that choices in this life have consequences in the next life. It gives purpose to concepts that everyone deep in their hearts know to be truly valuable such as benevolence, virtue, honesty, loyalty, and mercy. It gives reason to avoid vices such as pride, envy, wrath, lust, sloth, greed, or gluttony, as these sins may have permanent negative consequences.
More than just defining it, God represents the ability to become good. In the end, there is no person, entity, force, or philosophy that has the power to make bad men good and good men better like God.
While there are those that have done awful things in the name of religion or serving God, I believe that the quest to find the truth about God will in the end lead men to the same place. Ultimately, everyone will have an opportunity to find that strait and narrow path that leads to God, and they will see that choices made in this life have consequences that extend into the next. Good and evil are not abstract concepts, they are universal and general. Separating God from goodness is not necessary since in the end good will triumph over evil because of God.
The effort to separate God from good is not a new effort. Evaluating ethics by asking whether something is good because God commands it, or was it already good with its goodness providing the reason for God's command is a frequent technique used to promote the idea that it is possible to be good without believing in God.
Atheist or agnostic persons can do good. Some individuals in these categories would even argue that atheistic moral philosophy is superior to religious philosophy because it can be questioned and examined more openly, whereas, a religious individual cannot or should not question God.
It is also easy to look at violent historic conflicts between subscribers of differing religious philosophies and conclude that these systems of ethics proved to be unethical entirely. In modern times, though witchcraft is not exactly mainstream, the Salem witch trials famously demonstrated how even well-meaning religious individuals may be mislead by faith-based moral judgement. Refuge from violence between Catholics and Protestants or Protestants and other Protestants represented the cause of many individuals that colonized the American continent.
Unfortunately, taking God out of ethical questions does not resolve them. Removing religion does not expose a universal law for making moral choices. Those that argue for reason proceed to argue about the conclusions derived from their use of reason.
There have been many attempts to create universal and general systems for making moral choices. A common rule that is found in many religions is the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This rule, or derivations of it, exist in a large number of religions. Christ himself taught "therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." (Matthew 7:12)
The problem with trusting only in the law has been highlighted by several philosophers. One weakness is the inconsistency of desires between individuals. If one individual enjoys a particular act, and another person finds the act unpleasant, then an unpleasant act can be forced on one is moral by the Golden Rule. Inversely, the pleasant act withheld from the other is moral by the same rule. This is similar to the generalization philosophy. This philosophy takes an act and then hypothetically asks if all individuals were able to do the act to all persons, including the person considering the act, and then assesses if the result would be desirable. The problem is that there is never a unanimous agreement on what is desirable.
Another weakness in the Golden Rule can be found in administering justice. For example, imagine a criminal duly convicted of crime is sentenced to imprisonment. The criminal then appeals to the judge using the Golden Rule asking if he would want someone else to imprison him. If there are exceptions to the Golden Rule, such as the punishment of criminals who have violated it, by what rule are punishments determined to be moral or immoral?
Other individuals base their actions on happiness. They try and do things that generate happiness. Another way of stating this philosophy is that there is no reason for life except the purpose we give it.
The flaw with this philosophy is the same flaw that atheists find in religion. "Happiness" is not a measurable or representative of empirical evidence. Consider the happiness that a middle-class individual might feel from obtaining one hundred dollars. Consider the unhappiness of a wealthy individual that has millions of dollars when they lose one hundred dollars. In theory, the happiness of the individual that obtains the money would be greater than the unhappiness of the wealthy individual, therefore, stealing is a moral decision in this scenario.
More complicated ethical situations arise when society is forced to "measure" happiness from individuals that make choices that are commonly viewed as immoral. What if the amount of happiness that a serial killer gets from murdering someone exceeds the unhappiness of the victim and their family... does the choice become moral? Has any attempt been made to measure the happiness of serial killers or child molesters or other violent criminals? If we examine the levels of dopamine released during particular acts, does that decide what is right and wrong?
In the end, there is only one philosophy that provides moral guidance without God: cultural relativism. The idea that society decides what is right and wrong to suit its needs and provide for the general welfare of its members cannot be attacked by individual examples, because a society could always redefine right and wrong. The flaw in this philosophy is the lack of consistency. For example, in the 1700s and early 1800s, slavery was an acceptable practice in society. Because the culture embraced it, according to cultural relativism, it was moral behavior. Only after slavery was abolished did the practice become immoral for honest subscribers of this philosophy.
Ultimately, while saying that God follows a law that determines what is good or moral may appear to allow those that reject God to be moral, it does not reveal the law. People still argue about a variety of practices as to whether they are good or evil.
The advantage of having an all-knowing God that identifies what is right and what is wrong should be clear. "God says so" suddenly becomes a valid reason. With a law that no philosopher has ever been able to define guiding right and wrong, pursuing the will of a perfect being that is able to define it makes sense. Even if the will of God is bound by law, understanding the law requires access to God.
The emphasis of many atheists with whom I have spoken is rarely on moral philosophy however. In my experience, preference is given to scientific evidence that highlights evolution and an expanding universe. Ideas presented in the Bible that point to a seven-day creation, or a planet-wide flood that destroyed all land-based animal life that was not preserved in a single ark with Noah seem particularly vulnerable to those that only embrace secular guidance.
Viewing mankind as no more than an advanced form of animal life makes sense in a biology class, but has serious and frequently under-examined ethical repercussions. Survival of the fittest is the only real guide in the natural world. Anything that increases fitness or even decreases the fitness of competitors is desirable without ethical consideration. In this train of thought, right and wrong are not as relevant as getting caught. A person that murders another, but is not detected or not convicted has not acted immorally in the survival of the fittest mindset. If there is no life after this where justice will be administered to the sinful, there is no real reason to avoid practices that are considered sinful, particularly if some form of personal fitness or satisfaction is obtained from these practices.
Embracing God means embracing a universal right and wrong. It is an expression of confidence that choices in this life have consequences in the next life. It gives purpose to concepts that everyone deep in their hearts know to be truly valuable such as benevolence, virtue, honesty, loyalty, and mercy. It gives reason to avoid vices such as pride, envy, wrath, lust, sloth, greed, or gluttony, as these sins may have permanent negative consequences.
More than just defining it, God represents the ability to become good. In the end, there is no person, entity, force, or philosophy that has the power to make bad men good and good men better like God.
While there are those that have done awful things in the name of religion or serving God, I believe that the quest to find the truth about God will in the end lead men to the same place. Ultimately, everyone will have an opportunity to find that strait and narrow path that leads to God, and they will see that choices made in this life have consequences that extend into the next. Good and evil are not abstract concepts, they are universal and general. Separating God from goodness is not necessary since in the end good will triumph over evil because of God.
Monday, October 1, 2012
The Armor of God
I recall participating in an annual religious activity that was intended for high school students during spring break. The activity always spanned several days and would include a variety of activities, dances, and speakers. Called Youth Conference, this type of activity is not church-wide, but it or something like it was available to high school aged youth in many different places in the United States.
To keep the attention of youth, people employed a variety of techniques to try and communicate the spiritual importance of the theme for a particular year. One year, the theme was "Put on the whole armor of God," based on the passage in Ephesians 6 in the New Testament:
"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Ephesians 6:11-17)
Unfortunately, that particular year, everyone had almost the same idea, which was to create homemade armor and put it piece by piece on a volunteer describing how to better implement a certain idea such as the breastplate of righteousness or shield of faith. There was also a video made by the church for seminary students that depicted the same basic concept, in which the conclusion portrayed a young man leaving for missionary service in an airport clad in armor. We wondered how he had made it though airport security even then, which was before the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the additional screening measures we see today.
While there were efforts made to get people to think about spiritual defense in different ways, ultimately, the ecclesiastical messages shared mostly focused on the metaphorical concept that correct choices protect individuals from the negative consequences that follow sinful behavior.
That message was probably the most appropriate message for the majority of teenagers that attended Youth Conference, since many of the teenagers were primarily there to flirt with one another; any spiritual information that was even accidentally absorbed represented an accomplishment of the instructors and counselors. While I too had social ambitions in participating, I found the repetitive "spiritual dress-up" to be tedious and shallow.
Since then, I have thought about how much emphasis is put on the metaphorical armor or metaphorical shield, or metaphorical fiery darts of the wicked. In fact, there seems to be an abundance of metaphorical content with respect to spiritual matters. Of course, much if it is correctly portrayed as symbolic such as the allegory of the olive trees in the Book of Mormon (Jacob 5) or the comparison of faith in the word of God to the nourishment of a seed (Alma 32). Christ himself taught many things metaphorically, explaining that he had "living water" (John 4) and that he was the"bread of life". (John 6)
The problem comes in when the literal aspects of spirituality are lost. I have heard people claim that Jesus was resurrected only "spiritually." I have heard people explain away powerful miracles such as the dividing of the Red Sea as a symbolic delivery from Egypt, or Noah's ark and the flood as a symbolic escape from wickedness. There are those who so love metaphors that they see them in things that are meant to be taken literally.
The Armor of God certainly has metaphorical elements. Righteousness can act as a breastplate, sparing the heart from the pain that accompanies wickedness. Faith can act as a shield, helping those that exercise it to overcome trials that they might not otherwise be able to overcome. It seems obvious that the Apostle Paul spoke symbolically when he taught the Armor of God concept.
While symbolism can be rich and powerful, I believe the greatest strength in spirituality is not based on metaphysical concepts or psychological strength, but in literal power. While the metaphorical Armor of God can provide protection, there is in my opinion to little emphasis placed on the literal Armor of God.
The fact that there is a literal Armor of God may conjure up images of other relics of divine importance, such as the Ark of the Covenant, the brazen serpent, or even the Holy Grail. The literal Armor of God is not composed of a helmet, a breastplate, a shield, a sword, leggings and boots. There is a powerful example showing its power that comes from the story of the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ.
A fourteen year old boy named Joseph Smith was conflicted in determining what church truly represented God's kingdom, as each of them in his area claimed to be exclusively correct, and condemned the others. Wanting to ensure he was following God, he retired to a secluded grove of trees near his home and prayed to God. His account of the end result of this prayer is well known to members of the Mormon church, but there is an element that is frequently dismissed. In his own words, Joseph Smith said:
"After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction. But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being" (Joseph Smith History 1:15-16)
Many people, even in the Mormon faith, tend to describe Satan as a concept rather than a person. The devil is taught as a metaphor to describe "the natural man" or "human nature" or perhaps wickedness in general. The apostle Paul did not describe him that way in the original passage in Ephesians, but described the "wiles" of the devil, and his attacks as fiery darts. Joseph Smith was quite clear that the force that attacked him was not a concept, it was "the power of some actual being from the unseen world..."
Convinced that death was about to come, at that moment, he was suddenly saved:
"...just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" (Joseph Smith History 1:16-17)
To keep the attention of youth, people employed a variety of techniques to try and communicate the spiritual importance of the theme for a particular year. One year, the theme was "Put on the whole armor of God," based on the passage in Ephesians 6 in the New Testament:
"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Ephesians 6:11-17)
Unfortunately, that particular year, everyone had almost the same idea, which was to create homemade armor and put it piece by piece on a volunteer describing how to better implement a certain idea such as the breastplate of righteousness or shield of faith. There was also a video made by the church for seminary students that depicted the same basic concept, in which the conclusion portrayed a young man leaving for missionary service in an airport clad in armor. We wondered how he had made it though airport security even then, which was before the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the additional screening measures we see today.
While there were efforts made to get people to think about spiritual defense in different ways, ultimately, the ecclesiastical messages shared mostly focused on the metaphorical concept that correct choices protect individuals from the negative consequences that follow sinful behavior.
That message was probably the most appropriate message for the majority of teenagers that attended Youth Conference, since many of the teenagers were primarily there to flirt with one another; any spiritual information that was even accidentally absorbed represented an accomplishment of the instructors and counselors. While I too had social ambitions in participating, I found the repetitive "spiritual dress-up" to be tedious and shallow.
Since then, I have thought about how much emphasis is put on the metaphorical armor or metaphorical shield, or metaphorical fiery darts of the wicked. In fact, there seems to be an abundance of metaphorical content with respect to spiritual matters. Of course, much if it is correctly portrayed as symbolic such as the allegory of the olive trees in the Book of Mormon (Jacob 5) or the comparison of faith in the word of God to the nourishment of a seed (Alma 32). Christ himself taught many things metaphorically, explaining that he had "living water" (John 4) and that he was the"bread of life". (John 6)
The problem comes in when the literal aspects of spirituality are lost. I have heard people claim that Jesus was resurrected only "spiritually." I have heard people explain away powerful miracles such as the dividing of the Red Sea as a symbolic delivery from Egypt, or Noah's ark and the flood as a symbolic escape from wickedness. There are those who so love metaphors that they see them in things that are meant to be taken literally.
The Armor of God certainly has metaphorical elements. Righteousness can act as a breastplate, sparing the heart from the pain that accompanies wickedness. Faith can act as a shield, helping those that exercise it to overcome trials that they might not otherwise be able to overcome. It seems obvious that the Apostle Paul spoke symbolically when he taught the Armor of God concept.
While symbolism can be rich and powerful, I believe the greatest strength in spirituality is not based on metaphysical concepts or psychological strength, but in literal power. While the metaphorical Armor of God can provide protection, there is in my opinion to little emphasis placed on the literal Armor of God.
The fact that there is a literal Armor of God may conjure up images of other relics of divine importance, such as the Ark of the Covenant, the brazen serpent, or even the Holy Grail. The literal Armor of God is not composed of a helmet, a breastplate, a shield, a sword, leggings and boots. There is a powerful example showing its power that comes from the story of the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ.
A fourteen year old boy named Joseph Smith was conflicted in determining what church truly represented God's kingdom, as each of them in his area claimed to be exclusively correct, and condemned the others. Wanting to ensure he was following God, he retired to a secluded grove of trees near his home and prayed to God. His account of the end result of this prayer is well known to members of the Mormon church, but there is an element that is frequently dismissed. In his own words, Joseph Smith said:
"After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction. But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being" (Joseph Smith History 1:15-16)
Many people, even in the Mormon faith, tend to describe Satan as a concept rather than a person. The devil is taught as a metaphor to describe "the natural man" or "human nature" or perhaps wickedness in general. The apostle Paul did not describe him that way in the original passage in Ephesians, but described the "wiles" of the devil, and his attacks as fiery darts. Joseph Smith was quite clear that the force that attacked him was not a concept, it was "the power of some actual being from the unseen world..."
Convinced that death was about to come, at that moment, he was suddenly saved:
"...just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" (Joseph Smith History 1:16-17)
The pillar of light that descended upon Joseph freed him from a genuine attack that had nearly killed him. Miraculous protection from genuine harm is not limited to Joseph Smith's first vision. Consider the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. Determined not to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar's golden image on the plain of Dura, these three faithful men refused to obey the king. Provoking his anger, they found themselves thrown into a burning fiery furnace. To the surprise of all those who saw, they were not harmed. At Nebuchadnezzar's request, they walked out of the furnace completely unharmed. (Daniel 3)
The Apostle Paul who wrote concerning the Armor of God found himself shipwrecked on an island he called Melita on his journey to Rome. A poisonous viper emerged from the fire by which he warmed himself, and latched its fangs into Paul's hand. To the astonishment of those who watched him, the venom did not affect him at all. (Acts 28:3-6)
There is no shortage of examples in which God provided literal protection from harm of all sorts. Though God does not always protect every individual from every harm that might fall upon them, there is a literal Armor of God that can prevent any ill effect, spiritual, physical, or otherwise.
There are actual malevolent forces that actively and constantly seek the corruption and destruction of humanity, and that there are more powerful benevolent forces that seek to exalt mankind. This is not a metaphor or a symbol. Joseph Smith may have encountered a "spiritual" attack, but it had real power to bind him and cause him to think he would be destroyed. While Mormons describe his experience with the pillar of light and two personages as a "vision," he was literally delivered from evil.... evil from which he could not deliver himself.
Ultimately, the protection described by Paul with helmets of salvation, shields of faith, and breastplates of righteousness represents more than moral courage. The literal Armor of God is not made of pieces to be strapped to our bodies.
The truth is simple, yet profound. The Armor is God. He is the one that protected Joseph Smith. He is the one that delivered Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. He is the one that guarded the Apostle Paul. In the end, his power to protect is not limited at all. Though there may be times when harm, injury, illness, and even death come, his power makes these conditions temporary.
Those that cling to him, and follow his council will be shielded from the will of actual enemies that would see them destroyed. Those that accept God accept literal protection. It is not with reluctance that God acts as armor for his children; he eagerly asks us... even begs us to find shelter in his power... He wants to save us all...
The words of his prophets represent the pleading of a protective father when they ask us to put on the Armor of God.
Monday, September 24, 2012
The Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy
For those unfamiliar with the concept of a ward, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the church is divided into large areas. Each area is typically divided into Stakes (the term coming from the prophet Isaiah describing Zion as a tent held down by stakes). (Isaiah 54:2) Each Stake is typically divided into wards, which are congregation-sized units that meet together each Sunday. While there are other types of units where large congregations are not possible, the ward is the basic unit of official church organization.
Most wards consist of families and geographic boundaries. Singles wards are special units of organization that do not typically have only single young adult membership. Since one of the most fundamental teachings of the Mormon church involves eternal marriage and family relationships, in many areas, these special wards provide unique opportunities to meet other singles in addition to the typical ecclesiastical functions found in all wards. In other words, the church promotes, endorses, and attempts to facilitate marriages.
The principles of marriage are emphasized more in some wards than others. The reason for this is the natural sensitivity that many singles have to the subject. Few people are opposed to the idea of romantic involvement, but many singles feel that they will not have the opportunity to be married. When rejections and failures begin to accumulate, encouragement from leaders to date more frequently feels like salt being rubbed into a wound. Well-meaning individuals try to persuade singles to attempt to initiate relationships, but frequently do little more than remind singles that they are lonely.
I was personally in that situation. Being a scrawny nerdy kid in high school, I was not successful in wooing girls for whom I felt affection. Repeated failure made me feel like I had overestimated my value, especially when my friends appeared to be successful in their attempts. I decided to try and bury the nagging feeling of low self-worth by focusing on representing something larger than myself. I served a mission. When I returned home, I felt like I had a much better chance at finding a significant other. I became involved in a singles ward, which was filled with people who were a little older. Many of these people were very nice, and I enjoyed friendships, however, any time I conjured the courage to ask a girl out, it ended in rejection.
Eventually, I moved to wards where the average age was closer to my own, but the pattern of asking a girl out and having her want to be "just friends" and then finding out that "just friends" meant "keep away from me you freak" was taxing. I spent time on my knees begging God to help me in my efforts to not be alone. It seemed like something that God should have helped me with if his church focused so much on eternal families.
The nearly constant reminders of my single status from being surrounded by happy couples at work, at school, at church, and even at home when my roommates brought their girlfriends over was painful. Having some married high councilor come in to priesthood meeting and tell me that girls were upset that men were not asking them out on dates was completely inconsistent with my experience. I concluded that they might want some men to ask them out, but not me.
Trying to improve my dating techniques was an effort in which I improved from being dismally bad to just really bad. I was completely unable to "be myself", as so many people had advised me, when I was desperately worried about not coming off as too "needy." The number of failures I had experienced made it all the more difficult to summon courage to ask girls out... and when I finally did, I was a nervous wreck. The encouragement of friends and peers was negated by dates that ended without a hug, a handshake, a high-five, or even a "have a nice night." Attempts to try again were always met with impossibly difficult scheduling issues and other excuses.
It did not take long before I realized what was happening. These girls were filling their social obligation of agreeing to a first date... the "courtesy date." I never really had any chance with them, but they would allow me to think that I did... at least temporarily. The dishonesty required in these social interactions was upsetting, and it caused me to question my worth altogether. Was I really loved for who I was? After all, my parents and family had to love me because I was family. They had not chosen me based on my merits. I wondered if God felt the same way. I did not feel particularly talented or useful to him. I felt worthless.
Struggling with feelings of depression led me to vow that I would stop the practice of dating which had brought me to that condition. It was by no means a unique thing to take a break from dating to allow one's heart to heal, but I was determined that I would be done with it. I imagined what it would be like to be away from all the happy couples and the beautiful girls whose very presence taunted me. I concluded that if I had lived in the middle ages, I would have joined the Benedictine order and found quiet, humble purpose in prayer and simple work in monastic life. The concept of the monk who never had his value reduced by the rejection of women was quite appealing.
Ultimately, these thoughts became the basis for the creation of something I called "The Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy." Over time, I began criticizing the dishonesty involved in the dating process more openly. Some of my friends and relatives that were feeling bad because of rejection (both male and female) would temporarily join the brotherhood. Somewhere in the snacks, the laughter, and the video games, I discovered something that had eluded me... happiness. Suddenly, it no longer mattered that I was alone, because I was voluntarily swearing off dating.
Of course, even I, the Holy Brother, was not perfectly immune to the influence of beautiful girls, particularly those that I determined might have something in common with me, but my departures from the comfort of the Brotherhood grew less frequent, and each rejection reinforced my view that dating had been invented by a liar or an idiot.
To the dismay of several of my church leaders, I began openly denouncing dating and date-promoting activities. I preached the "blessed doctrine of celibacy" to others, knowing that I was not alone in my frustrations. Many men were frustrated when girls would say things like "I would love to go out with you" when they really meant "I would tolerate you purchasing food and entertainment for me." To my surprise, a number of girls became very angry with me. They would tell me that I was fighting against the doctrine of the church because people had to date to get married, and marriage was ordained of God. Of course such simple arguments were easily refuted by pointing out examples like Isaac and Rebecca, whose marriage was not founded on dating and dishonesty. If scriptural points were insufficient, I could always silence them by asking them out. Of course, none of them wanted me to stop preaching celibacy because they had interest in me.
The disdain and frustration of some became a badge of honor. With pride and vigor I would greet people by labeling them "friends of celibacy." Some of my talented roommates worked with me to create a short film, "The Ascension of the Holy Brother" which humorously portrayed me being rejected and finding happiness in the acceptance of celibacy. People loved it.
It was not in one instant, but over the course of my notorious stent as the Holy Brother of Celibacy, I realized that this was more than just a façade. The Holy Brotherhood represented my efforts to reject rejection itself. In public speaking and bold declarations, I felt strength. It no longer mattered as much that women saw a sniveling, scrawny, nerdy, half-wit in a dating situation, because they were not seeing my strength. The self-esteem that I had so willingly given to girls only to have it trampled upon had been moved so it was mostly out of their reach.
Somewhere as this realization came, I began hanging out with the beautiful woman that would become my wife. There was no dating. There were no mind-games. There was no dishonesty. I did not feel like I had to sell the idea that I was fun, interesting, or desirable. In hanging out, not dating, we fell in love, made plans, and got married.
The Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy is no longer a daily subject of preaching. I do not greet people as friends of celibacy anymore. My wife and I have a wonderful family. As important as my marriage and children are to me, and as much as I believe that God himself has blessed me to be with them, their presence is not the reason I believe that God loves me. The realization of God's love came when I rejected a system that emphasized my weaknesses and discovered my strengths. The assessments of girls I attempted to woo were far less important. The Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy represented a concentrated effort to be happy as a single, and while it did not remove the sting of loneliness completely, it helped me to put it in context.
I still believe that dating is not necessarily the answer to being single. I believe that there are many people that are not able to be themselves, let alone be their best, in a dating environment. My heart is filled with empathy for people in these situations. Although I am no longer single, I still feel a bit of contempt for those that oversimplify or underestimate the problems with being single. I understand the bitter bitter taste of loneliness, and the pain of heart-break and disappointment.
For those in this situation, I encourage membership in the Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy. Of course, there is no official organization, and membership does not require any special ceremony. It means to actively seek out situations where you can play to your strengths. Where possible, cut down on involvement in situations where you are not able to be yourself or act freely and honestly. Stop doubting that God loves you, and search for the gifts he has given you.
It may be difficult to immediately see how not helping you to find a spouse is a manifestation of God's love, but in the end, it will all become clear. "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:12) In the end, we will see his hand has been miraculously helping and guiding us all along, and in the end, he will save those that believe in him, even when it is difficult.
Most wards consist of families and geographic boundaries. Singles wards are special units of organization that do not typically have only single young adult membership. Since one of the most fundamental teachings of the Mormon church involves eternal marriage and family relationships, in many areas, these special wards provide unique opportunities to meet other singles in addition to the typical ecclesiastical functions found in all wards. In other words, the church promotes, endorses, and attempts to facilitate marriages.
The principles of marriage are emphasized more in some wards than others. The reason for this is the natural sensitivity that many singles have to the subject. Few people are opposed to the idea of romantic involvement, but many singles feel that they will not have the opportunity to be married. When rejections and failures begin to accumulate, encouragement from leaders to date more frequently feels like salt being rubbed into a wound. Well-meaning individuals try to persuade singles to attempt to initiate relationships, but frequently do little more than remind singles that they are lonely.
I was personally in that situation. Being a scrawny nerdy kid in high school, I was not successful in wooing girls for whom I felt affection. Repeated failure made me feel like I had overestimated my value, especially when my friends appeared to be successful in their attempts. I decided to try and bury the nagging feeling of low self-worth by focusing on representing something larger than myself. I served a mission. When I returned home, I felt like I had a much better chance at finding a significant other. I became involved in a singles ward, which was filled with people who were a little older. Many of these people were very nice, and I enjoyed friendships, however, any time I conjured the courage to ask a girl out, it ended in rejection.
Eventually, I moved to wards where the average age was closer to my own, but the pattern of asking a girl out and having her want to be "just friends" and then finding out that "just friends" meant "keep away from me you freak" was taxing. I spent time on my knees begging God to help me in my efforts to not be alone. It seemed like something that God should have helped me with if his church focused so much on eternal families.
The nearly constant reminders of my single status from being surrounded by happy couples at work, at school, at church, and even at home when my roommates brought their girlfriends over was painful. Having some married high councilor come in to priesthood meeting and tell me that girls were upset that men were not asking them out on dates was completely inconsistent with my experience. I concluded that they might want some men to ask them out, but not me.
Trying to improve my dating techniques was an effort in which I improved from being dismally bad to just really bad. I was completely unable to "be myself", as so many people had advised me, when I was desperately worried about not coming off as too "needy." The number of failures I had experienced made it all the more difficult to summon courage to ask girls out... and when I finally did, I was a nervous wreck. The encouragement of friends and peers was negated by dates that ended without a hug, a handshake, a high-five, or even a "have a nice night." Attempts to try again were always met with impossibly difficult scheduling issues and other excuses.
It did not take long before I realized what was happening. These girls were filling their social obligation of agreeing to a first date... the "courtesy date." I never really had any chance with them, but they would allow me to think that I did... at least temporarily. The dishonesty required in these social interactions was upsetting, and it caused me to question my worth altogether. Was I really loved for who I was? After all, my parents and family had to love me because I was family. They had not chosen me based on my merits. I wondered if God felt the same way. I did not feel particularly talented or useful to him. I felt worthless.
Struggling with feelings of depression led me to vow that I would stop the practice of dating which had brought me to that condition. It was by no means a unique thing to take a break from dating to allow one's heart to heal, but I was determined that I would be done with it. I imagined what it would be like to be away from all the happy couples and the beautiful girls whose very presence taunted me. I concluded that if I had lived in the middle ages, I would have joined the Benedictine order and found quiet, humble purpose in prayer and simple work in monastic life. The concept of the monk who never had his value reduced by the rejection of women was quite appealing.
Ultimately, these thoughts became the basis for the creation of something I called "The Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy." Over time, I began criticizing the dishonesty involved in the dating process more openly. Some of my friends and relatives that were feeling bad because of rejection (both male and female) would temporarily join the brotherhood. Somewhere in the snacks, the laughter, and the video games, I discovered something that had eluded me... happiness. Suddenly, it no longer mattered that I was alone, because I was voluntarily swearing off dating.
Of course, even I, the Holy Brother, was not perfectly immune to the influence of beautiful girls, particularly those that I determined might have something in common with me, but my departures from the comfort of the Brotherhood grew less frequent, and each rejection reinforced my view that dating had been invented by a liar or an idiot.
To the dismay of several of my church leaders, I began openly denouncing dating and date-promoting activities. I preached the "blessed doctrine of celibacy" to others, knowing that I was not alone in my frustrations. Many men were frustrated when girls would say things like "I would love to go out with you" when they really meant "I would tolerate you purchasing food and entertainment for me." To my surprise, a number of girls became very angry with me. They would tell me that I was fighting against the doctrine of the church because people had to date to get married, and marriage was ordained of God. Of course such simple arguments were easily refuted by pointing out examples like Isaac and Rebecca, whose marriage was not founded on dating and dishonesty. If scriptural points were insufficient, I could always silence them by asking them out. Of course, none of them wanted me to stop preaching celibacy because they had interest in me.
The disdain and frustration of some became a badge of honor. With pride and vigor I would greet people by labeling them "friends of celibacy." Some of my talented roommates worked with me to create a short film, "The Ascension of the Holy Brother" which humorously portrayed me being rejected and finding happiness in the acceptance of celibacy. People loved it.
It was not in one instant, but over the course of my notorious stent as the Holy Brother of Celibacy, I realized that this was more than just a façade. The Holy Brotherhood represented my efforts to reject rejection itself. In public speaking and bold declarations, I felt strength. It no longer mattered as much that women saw a sniveling, scrawny, nerdy, half-wit in a dating situation, because they were not seeing my strength. The self-esteem that I had so willingly given to girls only to have it trampled upon had been moved so it was mostly out of their reach.
Somewhere as this realization came, I began hanging out with the beautiful woman that would become my wife. There was no dating. There were no mind-games. There was no dishonesty. I did not feel like I had to sell the idea that I was fun, interesting, or desirable. In hanging out, not dating, we fell in love, made plans, and got married.
The Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy is no longer a daily subject of preaching. I do not greet people as friends of celibacy anymore. My wife and I have a wonderful family. As important as my marriage and children are to me, and as much as I believe that God himself has blessed me to be with them, their presence is not the reason I believe that God loves me. The realization of God's love came when I rejected a system that emphasized my weaknesses and discovered my strengths. The assessments of girls I attempted to woo were far less important. The Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy represented a concentrated effort to be happy as a single, and while it did not remove the sting of loneliness completely, it helped me to put it in context.
I still believe that dating is not necessarily the answer to being single. I believe that there are many people that are not able to be themselves, let alone be their best, in a dating environment. My heart is filled with empathy for people in these situations. Although I am no longer single, I still feel a bit of contempt for those that oversimplify or underestimate the problems with being single. I understand the bitter bitter taste of loneliness, and the pain of heart-break and disappointment.
For those in this situation, I encourage membership in the Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy. Of course, there is no official organization, and membership does not require any special ceremony. It means to actively seek out situations where you can play to your strengths. Where possible, cut down on involvement in situations where you are not able to be yourself or act freely and honestly. Stop doubting that God loves you, and search for the gifts he has given you.
It may be difficult to immediately see how not helping you to find a spouse is a manifestation of God's love, but in the end, it will all become clear. "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:12) In the end, we will see his hand has been miraculously helping and guiding us all along, and in the end, he will save those that believe in him, even when it is difficult.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Be an American, not a troll...
The political debate in the United States has heated up as election day has approached. Every record not protected by law has been examined. Popular figures have thrown their support behind one candidate or another, and plead for Americans to do the same. Every idle word has fallen under scrutiny, and even the amount of scrutiny given has fallen under scrutiny.
People that had once posted only Farmville requests and videos of frolicking cats have added to their timelines support and opposition for political philosophies and candidates. Some of these posts are civil. Some less so.
Some conversations that appear in social media legitimately explore issues and logically attack or defend political candidates, but many have observed a decreasing amount of civility in these debates.
Ad hominem attacks label candidates and anyone who might dare to support them stupid, racist, un-American, hateful, or seditious at their best. At their worst, accusations of rape, incest, murder, burglary, treason, or any number of other criminal acts are slung back and forth angrily.
Some claim to legitimately examine both sides of an issue or positions on a candidate when in fact they are guilty of the "straw man" fallacy. They misrepresent the positions or candidates in a manner that makes them weaker, and then attack the vulnerabilities they helped create. To a lesser degree, this is done by representing the best arguments from one position, and pitting them against the weakest arguments from the opposing view.
The vile nature of the political atmosphere leaves many feeling disenchanted with the American government; after all... whoever wins will be hated and loathed by half the country regardless of what they do. Many people avoid politics altogether as a result. Of course the problem with this position is that the government of the United States is based on the participation of citizens. Uninformed citizens and/or citizens that refuse to engage in the political process are negligent in their duty.
There are others that, when confronted with an attack against their political views, feel compelled to counter-attack. This occurs whether or not the initial attack was a legitimate argument, or whether or not the initial attack was directed at them personally. Of course, the mud being slung makes it difficult not to take some attacks personally. A member of the Mormon church might be offended by people referring to Temple garments as "magic underwear" when what the real purpose of the attack was is "don't vote for Mitt Romney." On the other side of the spectrum, a liberal might be offended by portrayals of Democrats as perpetrators in rape tents with the Occupy Wall Street movement when the real purpose of such a portrayal is "don't vote for Barack Obama."
The nature of politics in any republic is also a contributor to such a climate. While serious analysts try to examine the business and/or government experience that candidates have, campaigns in almost all parties frequently delve into popularity games that are not so very different from the ploys used in elementary school class office races. "Longer recess" and "soda machines in the lunch room" won popularity and earned votes, even when the office for which the candidate was running did not have power to keep such promises.
Even promises that are valid and might be kept are sometimes thwarted by unforeseen events such as court rulings. People that honestly want to improve their government and country can become easily frustrated when they see people fighting so vehemently against them. Even pious religious leaders have been seen on both ends of the political spectrum demonizing views that they believe are immoral.
To add additional difficulty to the task of political engagement, the government has become increasingly involved in moral and/or religious issues in the past fifty years than they ever had before. Nearly every ideology is affected by government involvement. Those on the left are frequently telling the government to stay out of their reproductive systems, such as in attempting to ban abortions. Those on the right are upset that private doctors are not permitted to refuse treatments they view as unethical such as abortions. The Atheist feel unrepresented when a public servant says "God bless America." The Christian feels unrepresented when a public servant pulls down a cross that memorializes veterans. Ideologies are far less compatible today than they have been. It feels as though the amount of common ground that exists is shrinking.
The question becomes, in spite of the hostile climate, how does one fulfill their political responsibility without becoming a troll? The following list explores solutions:
The purpose of this post is not to persuade anyone to subscribe to my political views (although the world would undoubtedly be a much better place if everyone did). The main point is that it is ok to be politically involved, and even passionately so, as long as we do not become the vile things of which our opponents accuse us. Be an American, not a troll.
People that had once posted only Farmville requests and videos of frolicking cats have added to their timelines support and opposition for political philosophies and candidates. Some of these posts are civil. Some less so.
Some conversations that appear in social media legitimately explore issues and logically attack or defend political candidates, but many have observed a decreasing amount of civility in these debates.
Ad hominem attacks label candidates and anyone who might dare to support them stupid, racist, un-American, hateful, or seditious at their best. At their worst, accusations of rape, incest, murder, burglary, treason, or any number of other criminal acts are slung back and forth angrily.
Some claim to legitimately examine both sides of an issue or positions on a candidate when in fact they are guilty of the "straw man" fallacy. They misrepresent the positions or candidates in a manner that makes them weaker, and then attack the vulnerabilities they helped create. To a lesser degree, this is done by representing the best arguments from one position, and pitting them against the weakest arguments from the opposing view.
The vile nature of the political atmosphere leaves many feeling disenchanted with the American government; after all... whoever wins will be hated and loathed by half the country regardless of what they do. Many people avoid politics altogether as a result. Of course the problem with this position is that the government of the United States is based on the participation of citizens. Uninformed citizens and/or citizens that refuse to engage in the political process are negligent in their duty.
There are others that, when confronted with an attack against their political views, feel compelled to counter-attack. This occurs whether or not the initial attack was a legitimate argument, or whether or not the initial attack was directed at them personally. Of course, the mud being slung makes it difficult not to take some attacks personally. A member of the Mormon church might be offended by people referring to Temple garments as "magic underwear" when what the real purpose of the attack was is "don't vote for Mitt Romney." On the other side of the spectrum, a liberal might be offended by portrayals of Democrats as perpetrators in rape tents with the Occupy Wall Street movement when the real purpose of such a portrayal is "don't vote for Barack Obama."
The nature of politics in any republic is also a contributor to such a climate. While serious analysts try to examine the business and/or government experience that candidates have, campaigns in almost all parties frequently delve into popularity games that are not so very different from the ploys used in elementary school class office races. "Longer recess" and "soda machines in the lunch room" won popularity and earned votes, even when the office for which the candidate was running did not have power to keep such promises.
Even promises that are valid and might be kept are sometimes thwarted by unforeseen events such as court rulings. People that honestly want to improve their government and country can become easily frustrated when they see people fighting so vehemently against them. Even pious religious leaders have been seen on both ends of the political spectrum demonizing views that they believe are immoral.
To add additional difficulty to the task of political engagement, the government has become increasingly involved in moral and/or religious issues in the past fifty years than they ever had before. Nearly every ideology is affected by government involvement. Those on the left are frequently telling the government to stay out of their reproductive systems, such as in attempting to ban abortions. Those on the right are upset that private doctors are not permitted to refuse treatments they view as unethical such as abortions. The Atheist feel unrepresented when a public servant says "God bless America." The Christian feels unrepresented when a public servant pulls down a cross that memorializes veterans. Ideologies are far less compatible today than they have been. It feels as though the amount of common ground that exists is shrinking.
The question becomes, in spite of the hostile climate, how does one fulfill their political responsibility without becoming a troll? The following list explores solutions:
- Be informed. Nasty political advertisements are not effective against people who have already looked at the issues and come to their own conclusions. They target the uninformed. This leads into the next point which is...
- Choose reliable sources of information. There is no such thing as an unbiased source, since no source presents all of the information. The decisions regarding what to report and what to ignore are always based on the opinions of editors (and others) as to what is important or what will bring the most viewing.
- Don't get offended. This is of course easier said than done. Try to avoid sources of information that use images and language that will bother you. Unsubscribe to the posts of some of your Facebook friends. Stop following celebrities on Twitter. Of course, eventually you will find something that offends you. Resist the urge to immediately post something in rebuttal. Evaluate whether pursuing a dialog is for the purpose of informing or rebuking can prevent pointless debates. This leads into the next point which is...
- Avoid pointless debates. If you have already made up your mind and cannot be persuaded, talking to someone else who has made up their mind and cannot be persuaded probably wastes time. Debates are only helpful for weighing two opposing views. If you talk to someone who is unsure, being persuasive is perfectly fine. Being a little abrasive might even be ok, depending on the people involved and assuming that arguments presented are founded in facts and honest beliefs rather than clever fallacies.
- Prioritize your principles. Do you know what things you would be willing to compromise? Do you have ideals from which you cannot withdraw support? Candidates and platforms include so many issues, and it is possible that opposing parties might have some elements that are appealing. Those that most firmly support what is most important to you should have support. For Christians, the most important principles must be religious. Saving mankind by embracing good and denouncing evil is more important than saving whales. For environmental purists, saving whales is far more important than other economic or governmental concerns. Choices between platforms become easier when you know what is most important to you.
- Be consistent. Another way this point might be phrased is to examine your beliefs to see if there are any problems. This does not mean to go read everything from people that disagree with you and hate you... It also does not mean that if you find an inconsistency, you should throw out your principles immediately. Is there a better argument to support something that you believe in your heart? Are the arguments to believe something else more compelling? Everyone is guilty of some hypocrisy, but the effort to keep it to a minimum is a good thing.
The purpose of this post is not to persuade anyone to subscribe to my political views (although the world would undoubtedly be a much better place if everyone did). The main point is that it is ok to be politically involved, and even passionately so, as long as we do not become the vile things of which our opponents accuse us. Be an American, not a troll.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)