This week, I will be teaching Chapter 9 from the George Albert Smith Manual. It is a lesson on prayer.

The lesson begins with a story about Smith’s Mother teaching him to pray. You can hear Smith himself give the original address back in 1946 here.

One thing that was interesting to me was that first prayer that Smith hadn’t forgotten.

It was:

“As I lay me down to sleep, I pray the lord my soul to keep. If I die before I wake, I pray the lord my soul to take.”

In my (almost) 14 years as a saint, I have always been warned of vain repetition. Now am I wondering, was Smith’s rote prayer an anomaly, or is this idea of being completely against any sort of normative prayer something that evolved within our faith over time?

(Love ya, Gary!)

It’s not terribly difficult to guess ahead of time which bloggernacle threads Gary (of NDBF fame) will comment in and roughly what his position will be therein.  This is due to a number of factors:  his overall consistency, the forthright, no-nonsense articulation of his views and (most of all) his staunch adherence to positions which tend to drive intellectuals crazy.  Gary is by no means alone in proudly flaunting these traits as a badge of honor but to me he serves as the perfect poster-boy for all Iron-Rodders if only because he is one of the most patient and likeable of the bunch.

First, I’ll give a little history regarding our interactions in the ‘nacle.  Those who have known me for a while are well aware that I take science fairly seriously and have always had a particular interest in Darwinian evolution.  I’m sure you are also well aware that Gary has always been quite unimpressed by both, to put it mildly.  After many frustrating exchanges between us in which I frequently allowed sarcasm and mockery to take the place of patience and charity I finally thought that I had figured out what Gary’s core argument really was.  (more…)

This is the post that I did not want to write.  Like the man who tells us not to think of elephants, I didn’t think there was any way that I could clearly articulate my position without producing the exact opposite of the intended response.  However, my recent post about the two competing moral theories which logically entail one another has unexpectedly given me a tool by which I might avoid the Scylla of silence without be caught in the Charybdis of contradiction.  We’ll see how this goes…

(more…)

The following thought experiment can be taken in a number of ways.  For some, it will be a fun little logic game.  For others, it will be yet further proof that philosophers are annoying people who ought to be avoided at parties.  And for others still, it illustrates a broad class of scenarios in which we might actually find ourselves.  So, without further delay…

Suppose we live in a world in which the following things are clearly true:

1.  There are exactly two viable moral theories: duty-based ethics and consequence-based ethics. (It’s not at all important what these theories say, only that they are clearly incompatible with each other.)
2. Whichever moral theory we believe in also dictates what we ought to believe.
3. Duty-based ethics clearly dictates that we ought to believe in consequence-based ethics.
4. Consequence-based ethics clearly dictates that we ought to believe in duty-based ethics.

In such a world, what ought we to believe and how do we go about justifying our beliefs to others?

I will get back to my “Paradigms Lost” series soon enough, but in the mean time I thought I’d share some thoughts from Ken Binmore in his two volume work: Game Theory and the Social Contract:

Nothing … in the ludicrous constitution of Plato’s Republic constrains the philosopher-king and his guardians [from abusing their power].  We are asked instead to believe that their Rationality will suffice to ensure that they follow the Good.  Nowadays … we are equally afflicted with would-be philosopher-kings, who are just as sure of their own virture as Plato was of his…

Corrupt officials are often utterly unconscious of their crimes against the social contract, but they undermine the social contract nevertheless.  We are only too ready to deceive ourselves with stories about why the insider groups to which we belong are entitled to regulate their affairs according to more relaxed versions of the rules than we think should bind outsiders…

But even saintly leaders are human.  Given long enough in power, they finally learn to tell themselves stories which allow them to respond to their incentives, while still remaining convinced of their dedication to the public interest.  (Vol. 2: 273,236)

Binmore meant these thoughts to be applied within the realm of politics and the rules of law.  I, however, hoped that we could make it a little more personal by applying it to epistemology and the rules of belief.  In particular, there are certain rules of belief which none of us dare break outright and openly.  We don’t want to flagrantly contradict well-established evidence or be caught believing “A” and “not-A” at the same time.  We also tend to not make a habit of kicking against the pricks of common knowledge or well-motivated faith.

On the other hand, given enough motivation and time, I suspect that even the most hard-nosed of rationalists/scientists/philosophers will eventually find a way to think themselves to the beliefs that they so badly long to have.  And this, in turn, fills me with hope.

In going through N.T. Wright’s Simply Jesus, I was quite interested in his discussion of the two currently competing myths of Jesus. Wright defines myth as a story which we hold to be true or historical which defines our beliefs, values, decisions and character. The stories he noted which were currently in competition were the one from the atheist view that Jesus was not the son of God, and therefore the stories about him are not true, but fiction, and possibly no person named Jesus ever existed, and the one from the theist perspective, where Jesus existed and was the son of God, and so on. Both stories, of course, can be broken up into multiple different versions of the story themselves, with Wright noting the two versions in contention today, that of the “liberal atheist” and the “conservative fundamentalist” have one striking thing in common, which is that they have little to do with the man represented by the current scriptural/historical record. (more…)

Blair Hodges recommended recently the writings of N.T. Wright, and so I recently picked up his latest book, Simply Jesus, from audible.com. While I have a whole list of topics I could discuss from it, today while on my commute home, I listened to a bit about John the Baptist that got me thinking.

In Matthew 11:4, John the Baptist sends his people to ask Jesus. “Are you he who comes, or should we be looking for another?” Wright suggests some interesting context to this. The cultural expectation, as we all knew, was for the Messiah to be the King of the Jews, sent from heaven to free the oppressed and to save the Jewish people. John had been thrown in jail basically for calling out that Herod did not have the right to claim he was the king of the Jews. He was unfit for the role. Now John was being oppressed and called to Jesus to step up and fill the cultural expectation of liberating savior. In response, Jesus calls for these messengers to tell John what he’s been about, blessing, healing, and raising the dead. He states this as evidence that he is the Messiah, and then asks the John not be offended by who he is in actuality. He was not the Messiah that was culturally expected. He was and is the true Messiah.

While I could talk here about what it means to be the true Messiah, and how awesome that is, that isn’t my point. My point is that John the Baptist was a Prophet of God, and he didn’t understand what the true Messiah was. He was bound by his cultural understanding.

So here are a few thoughts:

1. Evangelicals claim Mormons are not saved because we worship a different Jesus. John the Baptist worshipped a different Jesus, it could be argued. Is John the Baptist not saved?

2. Many Mormons become disaffected when the see that someone like Brigham Young could believe something as odd as Adam being God. Why would we have higher expectations for Brigham knowing who God was than we do for John the Baptist knowing who Jesus was?

3. Many Faithful Mormons cling to statements by prophets and church leaders which now sound racist or sexist or homophobic. Can we call these things out as cultural understandings of the time? How do we gain clarity on what was cultural understanding and what was truth that is just now currently out of popularity?

Truly, we see through a glass darkly.

(This is part 3/9 of the series “Paradigms Lost”)

“They have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law…”

S: Eve, come have some of the fruit of this tree.  It will give you knowledge concerning this world and your purpose in it.

E: I already know enough about your views to understand that although they do seem somewhat plausible, your theories concerning the ultimate meaning of life (or lack thereof) seem rather disappointing to say the least.  No doubt, the prospect of reproducing so as to replicate my particular pattern or kind is something which I do in fact desire, but to suggest that this is the ultimate purpose of all designed things seems a bit of a stretch.

S: Of course it seems that way.  I could hardly expect such a pattern of belief, speech and behavior which is of so little practical use to seem intuitive or obvious.  It is true that for any complex pattern to resist the tendency toward disorder it must in some way, however indirectly, replicate itself.  However, beyond this fact, the concept of replication actually says very little about how such patterns actually manage to accomplish this end. As such, the fact that replication is the end purpose of all replicating patterns is really of very little practical use.  Indeed, replication is such an abstract and context independent goal, that the very idea of a replicator which does not have any other concrete function(s) is essentially a contradiction in terms. (more…)

(This is part 2/9 of the series, “Paradigms Lost”)

“And now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field … and he sought also to beguile [Adam and] Eve, for he knew not the mind of God.”

S: Well, Adam, you have a new world here.

A: Yes, but I know almost nothing of this world.

S: Oh, I see, your eyes are not yet opened.  You must have some of the fruit of this tree in order to gain such knowledge.

A: And what knowledge is that?

S: Knowledge concerning this world and everything in it, what it is made of, how it came to be and how it continues to exist… For example, in the beginning this world was populated by nothing except unorganized matter in meaningless motion.  And yet, after a great deal of time there arose certain patterns in the matter that tended to reliably replicate themselves when in the stable presence of the appropriate energy and materials. (more…)

(This is part 1/9 of the series, “Paradigms Lost”.)

“And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose… Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.”

E: Adam, it has been some time now that we have been dressing and keeping this garden of ours.  So long, in fact, that I now struggle to recall more and more of the details regarding the lives we had before coming here.

A: I too can sense the veil growing thick, Eve, but I still retain a few bits and pieces, fleeting memories of time served and lessons learned under the careful guidance of our Forefathers and Elders.  Alas, while these precious few fragments remain fairly vibrant in my heart and mind, I too have forgotten how they fit together or otherwise relate to one another.  Hopefully your recollection has not faded to the point that you can remember nothing of those things they taught us?

E: Thankfully, no.  While it is true that I have nearly forgotten everything our Elders taught us about this world, the principles by which we were taught to live remain curiously vivid and pristine within my mind.  And yet, I cannot deny that certain questions irresistibly crowd in, finding refuge in the vacant spaces once held by high and noble doctrines: How did we get here? How did this world with everything in it come to be?  For what purpose are we, along with everything else here?  Do you have any memory of such things?

A: I do recall a handful of points regarding these matters, but any attempt at filling in the spaces between them would be as arbitrary as marking out the constellations in the heavens.  What I do know is this:  This world was not an accident but was deliberately organized as part of a great plan which was conceived and refined in the grand councils before this world was.  I also know that this is not the only world which was created in this manner, for worlds without number, we were told, have also come and gone according to such deliberate planning.  But as for this particular creation, I know that it was not entirely wrought instantaneously, but instead unfolded in a progressive manner over the course of various stages.  I know that in these stages there was a time before life was to be found on this planet at all, after which the more simple forms of life were introduced and allowed to multiply and replenish the earth, followed, in turn, by the more complex forms.  Most of all, I know that however this deliberate and intentional process was accomplished, it was good and according to that great plan.
(more…)

If it’s in italics, George said it. If it’s in bold, it’s from the Manual. If it’s underlined, it’s from Mary Woodger’s JMH article. Otherwise, it’s annotated or my own notes…

In preparing for this lesson, I have thought long and hard about the material within, and today I would like to focus not just on what President Smith said about living what we believe, but also on how he lived what he believed.

[An] observer wrote of George Albert Smith: “His religion is not doctrine in cold storage. It is not theory. It means more to him than a beautiful plan to be admired. It is more than a philosophy of life. To one of his practical turn of mind, religion is the spirit in which a man lives, in which he does things, if it be only to say a kind word or give a cup of cold water. His religion must find expression in deeds. It must carry over into the details of daily life.”

George Albert Smith is well known throughout the church for his religious conviction and for his compassion and careful shepherding of the world after WW1 as an apostle and after WW2 as President of the Church. But did you know he was nearly blind?

When he was 18, he found work with a railway surveying party. While working this job, the glare from the sun on the desert sands damaged his eyes. This left George Albert’s vision permanently impaired, making it difficult for him to read and causing him discomfort throughout his life.

George’s eyesight, for most of his life was so bad that he needed to have others write for him and read to him, because it gave him terrible headaches to try and focus and read. This in a time and place where there was limited technology, and so his responsibilities perpetually required reading and writing. None would have blamed Smith if he had given up. Yet Smith’s own conviction which he preached was that: (more…)