One of Neal A. Maxwell’s most memorable themes was that we have nothing but our wills to give God that was not already his. As he put it, “The many other things we ‘give’ are actually the things He has already given or loaned to us” (Neal A. Maxwell, If Thou Endure It Well, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996, pg. 55.). He expounded on this theme frequently and his reasoning seemed to hinge on the idea that whatever thing we think is ours is really God’s because he enabled us to obtain it in one way or other. We could not have it without air to breath, or earth to live on, etc. etc. (more…)

In recent posts I have pointed to the existence of different and in some ways incompatible conceptions of truth.  As a brief reminder, I suggested that, roughly speaking, (S)cience sees truth as an accurate picture of the world as it objectively is while (R)eligion sees truth as a path which leads to some destination, i.e. God.  In this post I wish to further carve out this distinction and the implications that it has on our conception of divine foreknowledge. (more…)

Editor Note: This guest post was submitted by one of our oldest friends here at New Cool Thang, Jeff G.

For the past few months, I have been struggling with some issues which are very close and dear to my heart. Put bluntly, my faith has been called into question. I find myself overwhelmed with suspicion and doubt, unable to trust so many of the values and beliefs which have become almost second nature to me. I also bear a peculiar mix of pity and resentment for those who have led me astray. While I have concluded that many of the pursuits which I have dedicated myself to most passionately have largely been a waste of time, my feelings are not entirely negative. I do recognize that I will forever treasure the experiences and relationships I have cultivated within the fold from which I now wish to distance myself. More than anything, however, I now face the unknown future with an optimism unlike anything I’ve experienced before, an optimism born of knowing that I am making the right choice.

For those few bloggers who have been interacting with me for the better part of a decade now, this song should sound somewhat familiar to you. You see, this is not the first time that I have abandoned my faith. Roughly 6 years ago, I stunned my friends, family and (at the time) wife by announcing that I no longer believed in God and would no longer continue as a believing Mormon. Various considerations which I will lump together under the banner of “Liberal Science” had persuaded me that the religion of my upbringing was not true and, therefore, must be rejected.

(more…)

“We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.”

-2nd Article of Faith

“All mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual”

-Helaman 14:16

It is a common claim (see for example Bhodge’s latest excellent post at BCC) the LDS church rejects “original sin”, and rightly so, due to our second article of faith, the belief that Adam and Eve took the fall as a progressive step, and due to our belief that small children are considered not accountable, and thus innocent.

However, one claim I am uncomfortable with, from Blair’s latest post (and I should add the claim is not his, but that of Peter J. Thuesen, is that this somehow allows our faith to escape the situation of an “inherently damnable humanity”, as Hodges quotes. It is, after all, our inherent damnability which is central to the Gospel.

The Atonement of Jesus Christ occurs to reconcile our sinful nature. We sin because we have free will and are weak creatures. The very plan of salvation (come to earth via birth, get a body, be apart from God, have faith, learn to repent, progress towards being heavenly creatures) is set up so that we can progress, and we would not be able to progress without God, we were selected by him to be his children, and he made it his “work and glory” to bring us up to a higher level of existence.

So if Mormonism does not teach the fall causing inherent damnability, it is only because we have removed it as our starting point, and thus moved our personal damnation back to our eternal selves. Our “original sin” truly becomes original to us, with the sin being our inability to achieve the loving nature required of us to live with God.

This does create for us a unique solution, in that our damnation is defined as our inability to attain a certain nature through our own ability, and God’s salvation is his giving us characteristics which we can use to attain to that nature. (A body, the light of Christ, the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, covenants, the atoning help of Christ).

It also raises questions. If we are eternal, and unable to change, how does it become possible for God to make this change? I don’t really know, but I do believe.

Inspired by aquinas’ excellent post over at FPR, I thought it may be worthwhile to attempt to put in one place some of our many many many many many discussions on the preexistence and spirits.

There are currently, so far as I can tell, five distinctive models in LDS thought for our pre-existent state.

1.- Eternal Spirits in an eternal relationship with God and eternally of the same essence as God. – Sometimes attributed to Joseph Smith and championed by Blake Ostler, this notion is that we have always existed and have always been in the relationship we are now in with the Godhead. This concept faces the challenge of eternity and progression, ie- why did it take us so long to get to this life on earth? It also is commonly challenged by the spiritual creation narrative from the Book of Moses, though this is often dismissed by claims of doctrinal supersession. Some, like Geoff J, have used concepts like Multiple Mortal Probations to alleviate this challenge. In terms of Spirit Birth, there is no beginning, so no birth.

2. Eternal Spirits in a Non-eternal relationship with God but eternally of the same essence as God.- Also attributed to Joseph Smith, this concept was once speculated by Truman Madsen (When he wasn’t championing BH Roberts). It speculates that the Godhead was formed at a specific point in time via covenant for the purpose of bringing about God’s plan. By extension, just as the relationships of the Godhead had a beginning, so also do our relationships with God. While this sidesteps the challenge of eternity and progression, it does not completely eliminate it, and it also brings up the question of Joseph’s Ring Analogy (If there was a beginning, there must be an end). Another major challenge is that it has never been popularized by a prominent LDS leader or teacher. In terms of Spirit Birth, Spirit Birth is limited to merely being the adoptive change of state we go through via accepting our relationship with God the Father.

3. Eternal Spirits called Intelligences in a Non-eternal relationship with God and not eternally of the same essence as God (lacking a spirit body)- Here we have the concept championed by BH Roberts, and popularized by Truman Madsen. The main difference between this and #2 above is that it attempts to harmonize #2 with concepts and statements put forth by Brigham Young or the Pratts which called for Spirit Birth, as well as ideas like those found in the Book of Moses (spirit creation) with statements from Joseph Smith in the King Follet Discourse and in the Book of Abraham revelation. (spirits without beginning or end). This plan merely divides the pre-mortal state into segments, moving from amorphous intelligence to spirit body. Challenges to this concept include it being initially derided by higher general authorities, it’s having been intellectually thoughr out, rather than arrived upon via official revelation, and its common (though unnecessary) connection with spiritual vivaporous birth. This is one of the primary areas of spirit birth, though there is a range of belief as to how literal this birth is, going from a literal sexual act where spirit seed fertilizes spirit eggs, through less literal views up to something closely resembling #2 above.

4.Non-Eternal Spirits formed from unintelligent matter called intelligence and not eternally of the same essence as God (lacking a spirit body)- Championed by Brigham Young, this notion, it is argued, comes from the early apostles missing out (due to missionary work) on the later sermons of Joseph Smith, which were not verified nor widely available until BH Roberts published History of the Church. (or possibly until JFSII abridged it to TOPJS). Here we have something fundamentally similar to creation ex-nihilo, where God as creator takes the chaos of eternal matter, forming it so that our spirits may emerge naturally or supernaturally from within. Good spirits go on to greatness, while the bad ones face eventual obliteration, decomposing back to the raw material from which they came. Being like ex nihilo, it faces the challenges therein. Whether it escapes the problem of determinism depends on whether you feel life is naturally emergent from formed intelligence or if you believe God supernaturally made it so. However, naturally emergent life comes with its own set of challenges, primarily the lack of need for a creator. Sprit Birth here is typically of the sexual variety, though again, not really out of necessity. It could just as well be a chemistry set.

5. Non-Eternal Spirits formed from intelligent Matter called intelligence and not eternally of the same essence as God (lacking a spirit body)- Here we have Pratt and Pratt’s concept of spiritual atomism, with intelligent subparts coming together and forming, via synergy with God, a being greater than the sum of their parts. I always fail at describing this one correctly, having not been interested enough to dig through the seer and gaining most of what I know about it from the letter in which it is repudiated. So I’ll leave this one to more capable hands

So which Model do you prefer? Why?

If there is a God, why is there no objective evidence of his existence?

Asked from a skeptical perspective, this question becomes one of the strongest arguments against God’s existence, on par with arguments from the problem of evil. Trying to convince an atheist that there really is a God but he simply chooses to remain hidden can feel like trying to convince the child that the emperor really is wearing new clothes. Sometimes I tell my kids that I have super powers and then when they ask me to show them my powers I tell them “I could, but I don’t feel like it.” (more…)

Stephen Finlan, Author of “Options on Atonement in Christian Thought”[1] ends his book with a modest proposal. It is that our understanding of divine revelation is subject to a form of evolution. Finlan Suggests that “God always seeks to deepen and expand the revelation of truth, but we humans (including the biblical authors) only perceive a part of the message. We adapt and domesticate new ideas to old and familiar ways of thinking. We always pour new wine into old wineskins, but the new wine expands and bursts open our containers (Mark 2:22), our old ways of thinking.” [2] Finlan calls this “progressive development in religious conceptualization”. (more…)

Recently, Dr. Terryl Givens has published a two part series via Meridian Magazine dealing with the problem of evil. Being a long time reader of Givens’ frankly excellent books on Mormonism, and being aware of his forthcoming volumes on theology, I was very excited to read these. Part 1 was excellent, with its reference to the Brothers Karamazov, and adeptly setting up an adequate description of what the problem portion of the problem of evil is. Givens doesn’t call it that, focusing instead on “the problem of God’s justice”, perhaps intent on limiting his focus, but he does promise “to reconcile the understanding of a God who weeps over pain but does not prevent the pain–how to reconcile that understanding with the reality of a world drenched in pain and suffering?” So, I’d say this puts forward the promise of a theodicy.
(more…)

This is not intended to be a position piece, but as I have had a couple conversations regarding LDS theology and Human Sexuality in the past 24 hours, I thought it would be best to articulate what I see as some of the theological issues that are repeatedly coming up. I am also trying to link to either good sources I am aware of that relate to these issues, or at least more fully articulate the issues.

1. The Problem of Determinism- If a human being can be determined in something as fundamental to human behavior as sexual preference, how free are they really? One could argue that if we are not really free, then we are not really accountable. This argument is used in Mormonism and Many Legal communities to deny accountability for infractions do to lack of willful intent. Perhaps the best theological path here is to accept a concept of limited free will, as articulated by Geoff J here.

2. The Problem of Evil- Why would a loving God allow something so fundamental to life to be so fundamentally off as sexual preference. This is the question that was excised from Boyd K. Packer’s talk. This is, of course, the most challenging question in all of Christendom. An excellent articulation by Rosalynde Welch of the issue in this specific context is here and I do my best to give my theodicy of the problem here.

3. The Problem of Sentimentality- How much of romantic love is merely chemistry and biology playing out within us, rather than the profound experience our society has set it up to be. Must sexual preference override all other forms of relational compatibility? This question is tightly related to the problem of determinism above, and I have attempted to articulate it in the past here.

4. The Problem of Scriptural infallibility- The New Testament has numerous scriptures involving homosexuality as a non-allowed sin. Wikipedia has a very complete list. This is above and beyond the more blatant statements in the Old Testament. Of course, the New Testament also calls women the weaker vessel, and says they should not speak in church. Thus appeals to the authority of scripture alone truly do need prophetic clarification.

5. The Problem of Doctrinal Non-clarity- With pseudo-doctrinal teachings of our eternal existence and purpose ranging from eternal sexual procreation to the necessity of a male and female to create a whole deified person, there is much confusion on what our sexuality infers upon our eternal existence. Add to this non-clarified doctrines regarding Heavenly Mother, viviparous spirit birth, and questions around what Joseph meant in terms of our spirits being Eternal, and we are left with a wide range of possible theological world views to pick from. I find myself most in line with Jonathon Stapley on these issues while perhaps taking a more apologetic view in regards to Heavenly Mother.

6. The Problem of Prophetic Fallibility- Perhaps the greatest challenge in the modern LDS worldview that has been high lighted in terms of the church’s doctrine regarding human sexuality is that it has and does change. Up until the 1980s Birth Control was incredibly frowned upon, and then there was a major shift, with one statement from Gordon B. Hinckley. Polygamy ended with a prophetic proclamation, institutionalized racism like wise. These massive doctrinal statements make it more difficult for church members to solidly anchor themselves to any single teaching of the church, leaving them to reason out for themselves with mixed results what is best. The Narrator best articulated this issue for an article for the SMPT journal Element, which can be read here. I am told there will responses to this article in another issue of Element, but I am not aware if they have been published.

So there you have it, these are the issues I could think of which come into play when discussing the theology of the LDS position in regards to homosexuality. I am not aware how deeply these issues impact the reasoning for the LDS position, but they undeniably have all come up as a consequence to it.

Are there other issues that you think are coming up at a theological level? Are there other posts you’d recommend on these theological issues?

As we have discussed in the past, Mormonism embraces at least a quasi-universalism in its teaching that hardly any of the inhabitants of the earth face an eternal hell after this life. And if it turns out that there is progression between kingdoms (an idea that has had both detractors and supporters among Church leaders over the years) then an even more robust form of universalism exists.

But as we have also discussed, it is not clear that it is useful to Mormonism (or to God for that matter) for all Mormons to embrace a more robust universalism even if it turns out to accurately represent reality. That is because universalism tends to kill motivation to repent and to work hard in the church. Why? Well to use the old “carrot and stick” motivation analogy (where the stick = negative consequences for actions and the carrot = positive consequences) universalism completely removes the “stick” when it comes to religious motivations.
(more…)

Some time back, Kevin Barney ventured forth the opinion that the Church’s approach to atonement is a mix of many theories, especially pointing to how the hymns of the Church can be mapped to what Barney refers to as the four key theories of atonement. [1]

I believe Barney is correct in his assertion that the Church adopts a variety of explanations for how the atonement operates, but I’d like to further note that this is really the only option that a church attempting to holistically follow the Bible can make. The Bible itself does not have a central argument for explicitly how the atonement occurs, but rather has several contradictory metaphors.[2]

In order to illustrate this point, I would first like to openly suggest that everything we know from the Bible regarding the atonement is primarily derived from the writings of Paul. Paul is the one who connects the dots between Old Testament forms of ritual and law and Christ. New Testament teachings regarding the atonement outside of Paul are typically seen either as derived from Paul (Hebrews, Letters of John) or as later additions to early texts (as in the last supper references). For those who say these points are arguable, that’s totally fair, but I think focusing on Paul can still get my point across.

Paul uses a variety of metaphors, drawn from his Jewish culture and background to explain the atonement. He uses sacrificial sprinkling [3], the sin-bearing scapegoat[4], a paschal lamb [5], heroic martyrdom [6], royal adoption [7], slave redemption [8] and conquering victor [9] just to name a few examples, and he often mixes and conflates metaphors. [10] As one author put it, he uses these concepts not to create a singular doctrine, but instead to create a “multiplicity of ideas” that “influence one another…but also contradict one another”. [11] (more…)