Progress Report and Introspection

This is my one-month report. I am amazed at how well my recovery from Bell's palsy has gone. My right eyebrow and forehead work almost the same as they always have. (Downside is, I've lost the Botox effect, and my forehead wrinkles are back.) My eye closes and doesn't dry out at night. The blink reflex is back, but I can't squeeze my eye shut tightly, and the undereye muscles are still weak. My smile looks

Click here to read the rest!

Mormonism and Personal Construct Theory

German philosopher Hans Vaihinger developed a system of thought which has had a profound effect upon me lately. He explained that our thoughts and constructions about God and the universe are best viewed as useful hypotheses rather than representations of objective reality.

Click here to read the rest!

Unconditional

While the romantic in me longs to be loved unconditionally by those in my life, both family and friends, I realize that it is almost impossible for humans to reach this ideal. They may aspire to love this way, but when their loved one lies to them, or hurts them, or when there are physical changes, or any one of a myriad of other circumstances occurs, love can weaken or vanish.

Click here to read the rest!

Playing the Devil's Advocate with Kevin Barney's Article on Heavenly Mother

By now, those in the know have clicked on the link at the Dialogue journal website to read the free preview of Kevin Barney's article, "How to Worship our Heavenly Mother (Without Getting Excommunicated)." For quite a while I have been hearing about and greatly anticipating the appearance of this scholarly comparison of the Mormon Mother in Heaven with the female deity Asherah. And my readers will know of the great admiration I have for Kevin Barney's research, writing, and opinions. So it is with some regret that I feel compelled to point out some dangers and flaws in this piece.

Click here to read the rest!

Why Does God Help You Find Your Keys?

Admit it! You've prayed for God to help you find your keys, or something equally as trivial. You opened your eyes and there they were. Then you've wondered why a loving God would answer your prayer and not those of the millions of starving people in Africa. Perhaps you begin to feel like the following blogger:

"If God is an interventionist, He's doing a piss poor job. He helps middle-class americans find their keys while thousands suffer and die in other parts of the world. If God is an interventionist, I don't think He's worthy of worship. If God isn't an interventionist, and we are on our own, what practical difference does it make if we believe in Him or not? Either way, I just don't see the point in worrying about God anymore. Either what He is like, what He wants, or even if He exists."

If so, you need to review your Mormon Doctrine. God allows suffering in this life to help us develop all the things that we need in order to become purified and return to live with him someday. No one can live in the presence of Deity unless they have become sanctified. Trials are part of the sanctification process. This does not mean an interventionist God personally hands you every bit of suffering you experience here. (Didn't you read my Good, Bad, and Ugly Adversity post?) But God will allow the suffering that is a mortal condition of this world so that we can develop our agency and become holy.

So why does he sometimes help us find our keys? He won't interfere in the vicissitudes of life which help us to grow and attain glory. But perhaps our lost items aren't enough of a trial to teach us anything. Maybe we've already developed the small amount of patience necessary to deal with lost keys. If so, God can help us out a bit without interfering with the learning process.








...or maybe they were just there the whole time.

Dialogue Review: The Grandest Principle of the Gospel

It's time for the fall issue of Dialogue magazine, and doesn't this article sound scrumptious? “The Grandest Principle of the Gospel”: Christian Nihilism, Sanctified Activism, and Eternal Progression" by Jacob T. Baker. In this article, Baker explores why many of the early Mormon Apostles and writers, and even evangelical scholars, believed that the doctrine of eternal progression was Joseph Smith's most innovative idea, rich in possibility and potential. He focuses on the period directly following the Manifesto of 1890 and the reordering of Mormon theology which took place. Baker states:

Mormon thinkers of this period understood the purpose of all activity—premortal, mortal, and postmortal—to be the achievement of human deification and also understood that the joy of eternal progress applies to all intelligences, including God.

I am well aware of the difference in emphasis among many of the sects who believe that heaven is a place of peace and rest, and the Mormon view that purposeful work and acquisition of new knowledge continues in the eternal realms. I, for one, hope that there are liberal quantities of both. Mormon mothers can certainly use a considerable period of cloud-sitting! Baker makes a good point that Mormon writers have sometimes exaggerated Christian ideas to contrast and extol the virtues of our own. We mischaracterize these groups when we imagine them to be all about harp-playing and never about growth. However, the doctrine as presented by Joseph Smith and expanded by Brigham Young and later leaders has a majesty and power unsurpassed by other parties of religionists.

As I read the quotes Baker includes in his paper describing the doctrine of eternal progression in exultant terms, I couldn't help but marvel. These early Mormon writers present the idea of deification as an impetus to mental activity, an idea which takes hold of the acolyte and lures him/her to greater and greater efforts: "in a way that wearies not." I found these statements quite inspiring. If, in the past, you have been one of those Latter-day Saints who feels uncomfortable with the theosis aspect of eternal progression, I would point you to this article. It is presented in a way which will surely touch your soul, no matter what your doctrinal reservations.

Gods in Embryo

If I had to pick my one favorite presentation at the Sunstone Symposium this year, this presentation by Hugo Olaiz would be it: "Are We Still Gods in Embryo? The Mormon Doctrine of Human Deification."

Hugo impressed me from the start with his presence when he realized that both the moderator and the respondent for his session, the illustrious Michael Quinn were not present. He began his own session and launched right in to his talk, which was brilliant. At the risk of vastly simplifying what he had to say, I'd like to just give you a few of my impressions and then urge you to order the full talk if you are interested in this topic.

Hugo explained that human deification (as expressed by the couplet "As man is now, God once was; as God is now, man may become) contains two distinct concepts, one that God has progressed and perhaps may still be progressing from some human form to a divine state; and the other that man may reach this state also. We often call this "eternal progression," but in this talk Hugo preferred to use the more specific term "deification." His paper discussed the observation that, although early Mormon thinkers had vigorously debated and elaborated upon this doctrine, there is a distinct change in how we approach it today. The first half of the couplet, the one dealing with the progression of God, has become nearly invisible, and while we retain the possibility of deification for man, it is reimaged as "eternal progression," with its bolder implications being tamed.

For those who have been in the Church as long as I have, this shift is remarkably clear. I remember the days when deification was actively taught in our church meetings. To me the shift to a doctrine more compatible with evangelical Christianity is quite clear.

After concluding his talk, Hugo opened the session to questions, then with just fifteen minutes left, Michael Quinn came sailing up the aisle, panting heavily. Although Hugo's talk was cogent and engaging, and would have stood quite well on its own, Michael's addition added emotion and drama to the proceedings. Michael referred to the history of Christianity and showed how early Christianity defended its doctrine of monotheism against outside threats with violence and bloodshed. He said that if we did not understand this history, we would not have a clear view of where the modern Christian world stood regarding polytheism. Now we have our LDS leaders and theologians seeking to ally themselves with the Christian movement and to deemphasize our early teachings. If we do this, Michael dramatically warned, we are trading our birthright for a mess of pottage.

Michael's speech was so stirring, it made me want to leap to my feet and applaud. Later, during the Q&A, he added to the defense of Joseph Smith's early teachings on deification by giving a beautiful word picture of Joseph opening window after window in a large room, bringing light flooding in, and leaving a legacy for later generations to formulate into unified doctrines.

So, what do you stand, readers? Are you comfortable with a milder form of our doctrine which aligns more closely with Christian thought? Or do you identify with Joseph and his bold but perhaps discomfiting proclamations on the nature of God and man?

BiV with Michael Quinn

Mormon Prophets, Christian Theologians, and Eternal Progression

After contrasting two LDS views of eternal progression Aaron Shafovaloff chides, "If only Mormonism had a prophet to clear up this mess!"  He then declares:

The Christian view of eternal progression is easy to describe. We will ever-increasingly grow in the knowledge and power of God for all eternity. And no, that isn't simply just a long amount of time with an ending point. It's for eternity. Christians essentially believe in a true eternal progression more than traditional Mormons do. We will never get to the point where we can say we have fully appropriated and received the entirety of our inheritance in Christ. (emphasis mine)

A little research will show that to the contrary, Christians have widely disagreed over the doctrine of theosis (becoming God).  Beginning with early Christian theologians,  St. Athanasius of Alexandria wrote, “God became human so humans would become gods."  And St. Maximus the Confessor exhorted, "let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods." During the Reformation, Martin Luther understood justification to mean theosis.  John Calvin and Lancelot Andrewes viewed the process of salvation and sanctification to be a divinization of man.  Wesleyan Protestantism developed the notion that ""that man in this present life can acquire so great and such a degree of perfection that he will be rendered inwardly sinless, and that he will not be able to advance farther in grace," and this was declared a heresy by the Roman Catholic Church.  To this day, there are widely divergent views among the many Christian churches.  (see this, for example.)  Aaron's "easy to describe" Christian view is in fact simply one opinion among many. 

Scripture is not crystal clear regarding whether man can become a god, but there are many intimations.  1 John 3:2 tells us that we shall be like him.  Romans 8:16-17 states that children of God are his heirs, to be glorified as Christ was.  Verse 29 of the same chapter further explains how the saints become conformed to the image of the Son, so that Christ is the firstborn among many justified and glorified brethren.  In Phillippians 2:5-6 we are told that we should have the mind of Christ, who, being in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be equal with God. 

Though the Savior did not quail at the thought of being equal with God, apparently human beings do.  Despite the writings of Biblical theologians and Church fathers, many Christians such as Aaron equivocate by saying that the saints will never receive their promised inheritance (see above).  And what he doesn't realize is that Mormons do the same.  LDS authorities are quick to explain that although we may become exalted and attain to all the power, authority, knowledge, wisdom and might that a god may possess, we are yet eternally subservient to our Heavenly Father.  He created us, and any works we might do bring further glory to Him. (see the comments to my last post, which were awesome!)

Thus I stand by my earlier statement that Mormons and Christians have very similar positions on eternal progression.  We both have scriptural traditions promising us "all that the Father hath."  Both groups have leaders in our respective religious traditions who teach us that we are sons of God and have the divine potential to be gods ourselves.  Yet we also have some differences of opinion among ourselves as to how and to the extent that this will be accomplished. 

It seems that Aaron would hold Mormons to a higher standard, since we claim a prophetic voice, to be consistent in our explanations of whether God himself is still progressing.  I would have to agree with him on this point.  Many Latter-day Saints have experienced ambiguity when faced with the problem that earlier prophets do not always agree doctrinally with those who come later.  This cannot fully be explained by saying that different prophets speak for different times.  In this case, the nature of God should not change between the time of Brigham Young and Thomas S. Monson.  Most of us are inclined to view prophets as mortal men, who search out religious truths line upon line, sometimes making mistakes which are later corrected.  But this does weaken the claim to prophetic leadership. 

Robbery: To Be Equal With God

A few weeks ago there was a discussion at Mormon Coffee, an anti-Mormon evangelical Christian blog, about the LDS doctrine of progression and the human potential to become gods.  I felt the doctrine did not differ excessively from the type of divine potential expressed by Christian author C.S. Lewis (our favorite dry-Mormon!):

“It is a serious thing, to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ‘ordinary’ people. You have never talked to a mere mortal.”

A commenter named "Germit" told me that I was misquoting the best.  He said that in this quote Lewis IS talking about an eternal progression of sorts, but attaining to the status of any part of the Trinity is far from his theology. Aaron Shafovaloff  corrected me in my interpretation of Lewis by saying that Christians don’t believe that we can ever be equal with God in knowledge or power. We will always be inferior “gods”, learning, subservient, dependent under the one Supreme God who is Supreme over all “gods” and worlds and universes and reality.  From what I understand of Mormon doctrine, we believe this, too.  We certainly do not aspire to attain to the status of any part of the Trinity.  Brigham Young declared: "Intelligent beings are organized to become Gods, even the Sons of God, to dwell in the presence of the Gods" (Discourses of Brigham Young, p.245).  In his view, mankind would remain the "Sons of God" and  always be beneath their Heavenly Father in an eternal hierarchy.

Now, I'm all for maintaining our distance from evangelical Christianity.  I believe we do have some very different ideas of the nature of God, and that our doctrines are not really compatible.  But on this particular point I felt unsettled because I feel we are being misrepresented.  An informal poll of a few mainstream Mormons has shown me that none of us think we will ever attain to the same status as God.  As far as I know, even our early authorities did not teach we would ever be equal with God the Father.  Am I wrong? 

Readers, what is your interpretation of eternal progression?  In what way will we always be inferior to our Heavenly Creator?  Do you know of any Mormon teachings which would suggest otherwise?

Is the Mormon God a Finite God?

Most of us would feel very uncomfortable with the notion that God was anything but omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. Indeed, at first I couldn't agree with Dennis Potter's description of a Mormon God who was finite, even if it did help to explain the problem of evil and suffering in a created world.

"In some sense," Potter explains, "God cannot eliminate all of the pointless evil that exists."

I don't agree.  I believe that God can eliminate evil, but my current thinking is that he intervenes in worldy affairs very, very infrequently.  Though Potter never won me to his way of thinking, he does present a very cogent argument which got me thinking about Mormon ideas on the nature of God. And I am beginning to entertain the idea that perhaps our God is finite in some ways.

Latter-day Saint doctrine on the creation differs slightly from mainstream Christianity.  We believe that instead of creation ex nihilo, or from nothing, God organized elements which already existed to make the earth.  Apparently, there were some eternal principles already in place which God could not violate.  In the same way, he created humans.  We existed as eternal intelligences which God organized into spirit beings.  Then these spirits participated in developing a plan whereby we would come to earth to receive bodies and an education.   Because we were intelligences who already existed, God's power to create us in certain ways is limited.  This answers the question Christian theologians wonder of why God couldn't have created beings who could learn without having to suffer. 

Does this make God finite?  In a way, I suppose it does.  He does not have the power to work outside of the laws of the universe.  He must work within certain parameters in developing a plan for the salvation of his creations.  The Mormon Gnostic adds that

"if good and evil, light and darkness, are primordial principles, then they are not created by God, and God does not have the power to eliminate them.  The need to explain how an all-perfect God could allow suffering as the manifestation of evil becomes a moot point, because evil is fundamental to the fabric of our cosmos."

What do you think?  Is the Mormon God a finite God?

Love At Home

DH: (out of the blue) Your mother is a pseudo-intellectual.

DS: What's a pseudo-intellectual?

Me: Someone who thinks they are intelligent, but they're really not.

DS: Why is she a pseudo-intellectual?

DH: Because she and her friends like to blog about theodicies (pronounces it wrong) and other strange things.

DS: What are theodicies?

Me: A theodicy is a theory of why God allows pain and suffering in the world.

DS: Why don't they stop blogging about it and just go do something about the pain and suffering in the world?

DH *kills himself laughing*

Women in God's Image

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

What does this scripture reveal about the gender of Deity? Interpretations have been wildly variant. Some feminist exegesis goes as far as to suggest that this scripture shows that God is neither feminine nor masculine and possesses no physical body. For Mormons, it is just the opposite. If we are created in the image of God, Latter-day Saint theology teaches, "God" must have a physical body and manifest as both a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. Paradoxically, scripture focuses exclusively upon the masculine aspect of God, and even the more nurturing qualities mentioned in Holy writ are attributed to God the Father.

The contemporary women's spirituality movement which traces its beginnings to the 1970's has given women the impetus to search for the feminine aspect of the Creative Force. Once again, Mormon women were ahead of their time, with their poems, hymns, and yearnings to understand the Heavenly Mother beginning in the nineteenth century with Eliza R. Snow. But now that modern woman has accepted the possibility that there is a Feminine being in whose image they are created, Latter-day Saints have been curtailed in their approach to the female component of the Godhead. We have been cautioned that it is inappropriate to pray to a Mother in Heaven:

“Logic and reason would certainly suggest that if we have a Father in Heaven, we have a Mother in Heaven. That doctrine rests well with me. However, in light of the instruction we have received from the Lord Himself, I regard it as inappropriate for anyone in the Church to pray to our Mother in Heaven...Search as I have, I find nowhere in the standard works an account where Jesus prayed other than to His Father in Heaven or where He instructed the people to pray other than to His Father in Heaven. I have looked in vain for any instance where any President of the Church, from Joseph Smith to Ezra Taft Benson, has offered a prayer to ‘our Mother in Heaven.’ I suppose those...who use this expression and who try to further its use are well-meaning, but they are misguided. The fact that we do not pray to our Mother in Heaven in no way belittles or denigrates her.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, “Daughters of God,” Ensign, Nov 1991, 97.)

Because of this admonition, some Latter-day Saints are hesitant to search for more information about the Divine Feminine. They may feel it is a useless endeavor since we have no revealed knowledge of Her. But this attitude flies in the face of everything we know about God. Since the beginning, when man and woman were cast out of the symbolic Garden of Eden, they have been on a quest to return to the presence of God. Religious teachings in our scriptures and in the Temple urge us to search for Deity and strive for union. Revelation comes through striving and asking. Mankind has developed whatever knowledge we have of God through this search. Whenever prophets or spiritually attuned men and women have gained revelation, they have attempted to share this with their compatriots. Rudger Clawson opined: "It doesn't take from our worship of the Eternal Father, to adore our Eternal mother, any more than it diminishes the love we bear our earthly fathers, to include our earthly mother in our affection." (Rudger Clawson, "Our Mother in Heaven", Latter-day Saints Millenial Star 72 [29 Sept 1910]: 619-20).

Voltaire remarked, "Dieu a cree l'homme a son image, et l'homme le lui a joliement rendu. (God made man in his own image, and man has returned the compliment.)" In many of our human cultures, the search for God has been the province of males. This has returned to us a remarkably well-developed picture of the masculine manifestation of Deity. But what is the effect upon women of the habitual exclusion of the Divine Feminine? Amber Satterwhite has asked:

"Our image of Her dictates the role of women in mortality. If that role is subservient and devoid of respect and power, then that is the attitude we will have toward mortal women as well. If Heavenly Mother is silent, unapproachable, and beyond mystery in heaven, is it any wonder that Her earthly daughters also feel ignored, silenced, and misunderstood, too?" (Amber Satterwhite, "God the Mother in Mormonism")

I think the deliberate distance patriarchal religion has maintained with the female aspect of God has made many women of previous generations hesitant to fully participate in the discovery and revelation process. A marvelous new generation of women has now come of age in the Mormon world. These women have grown up in a society where females are powerful, valued and contributing members of the family and the community. Men of this younger generation have negotiated relationships with powerful women. They work with these women, they are married to them, they may even be their sons. Members of the Church increasingly find it difficult to imagine a Heavenly Mother who is uninvolved and subservient. They are ready for a more fully developed revelation of the Divine Feminine.


What difference could it make in women's spirituality to be able to image God as the one to whom they are alike? What difference could occur in men's lives to perceive God as a nurturing Mother figure? What types of new understandings would flow from these images of God?

A Singing God

God sang to me on an early autumn day in Texas.

Two years ago, I was at the end of my rope. I had planned a day to Galveston with friends, to get away from it all. We were to leave after the children were in school, drive the hour down from Houston, and spend some peaceful time on a lonely stretch of sand, walking, dipping toes in a cool ocean, and searching for shells. We'd be back before the children were home, and our trip would bother no one.

But plans fell through, as they often do, and the day had to be sacrificed on the altar of being a responsible person. I was devastated. The hope of this day was the only thing getting me through, and I didn't know how I could carry on without it. My sandals still on my feet, I climbed into the car and beat my fists against the steering wheel. I cried a bit (not enough to run my mascara), and blew my nose. I sent a thought up in the air to whoever might be listening that this was not fair, that it was more than I could bear. Then I turned the key to the ignition, and flipped the dial to the radio. It turned to a station I never listened to, and I heard a song I hadn't heard or remembered for years. (I'm not that into country, but who wasn't familiar with this song in the Vietnam era?)

"Galveston, Oh Galveston," Glen Campbell crooned. "I still hear your seawinds blowing." Along with the music came a peace I could not have imagined. It was as if a loving Father was telling me in song that he knew I wanted to go to Galveston that day. He reflected the longing and the sorrow I felt back to me in the words and the music. He was sorry that it couldn't be, but he would send me the refreshment I craved from the unrealized day away.

I've pondered this experience many times since then. Are these coincidences simply serendipities which befall us, devoid of the higher meaning we wish they portended? Or are they synchronicities such as Carol Lynn Pearson teaches, evidences of the hand of God in our lives?

...you may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.