Sunday, February 08, 2015

I like how Andrew S and Brigham Young actually reach a parallelism on deconstruction (so that they do not reach the same place but they both realize that the current paradigms in the Church are social constructs).

Without taking too much time on deconstruction as it is in philosophy ("any given concept is constituted and comprehended linguistically and in terms of its oppositions, e.g. perception/ reason, speech/writing, mind/body, interior/exterior, marginal/central, sensible/intelligible, intuition/signification, nature/culture") the essence of deconstruction is that a concept is defined from its context,  a concept is constituted, comprehended and identified in terms of what it is not and self-sufficient meaning is never arrived at because context can never provide that.

LDS versions of the same concept conclude that there is a reality, but no description can properly define it because all descriptions are in our language and limited by what we have for language.
When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities…. Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings
and
When the Lord reveals anything to men, he reveals it in a language that corresponds with their own. If you were to converse with an angel, and you used strictly grammatical language he would do the same. But if you used two negatives in a sentence the heavenly messenger would use language to correspond with your understanding


In discussing that point, I agreed to revisit the topic for a post at Wheat and Tares.

Brigham Young and Joseph Smith both taught that we see the world through a lens of our own experience, language and knowledge and that it creates filters not only for what we see and know, but for what God is able to communicate to us and what and how revelation works in our lives. (e.g. http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/As_the_most_correct_book#cite_note-2).

It is important to realize that in that framework, our viewpoint is not superior to the framework of Abraham or Moses or Peter or Moroni, it is just different.  Each framework has its own selection of weaknesses and follies.  The best way to understand it (rather than the morass of philosophy and outside of just reading Joseph Smith and Brigham Young on the topic) is the linguistic relativity hypothesis.   


Large differences in language lead to large differences in experience and thought. They hold that each language embodies a worldview, with quite different languages embodying quite different views, so that speakers of different languages think about the world in quite different ways. This view is sometimes called the Whorf-hypothesis or the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, after the linguists who made it famous. But the label linguistic relativity, which is more common today, has the advantage that makes it easier to separate the hypothesis from the details of ...
This is easily seen in the three ball experiment.  In dealing with people whose language does not have a word for the color orange, if they have three balls (orange, red and yellow), are allowed to handle them for a while, then told to remember the orange one, when they are asked to choose the ball that was identified, they tend to pick the red or the yellow one.  If their language has a word for orange, they pick the orange one.  They literally remember the ball as the color they have a word for, rather than the color it is.

In religion, it is not only if five people without inspiration read a scripture that they will have five different interpretations.  If if five people with inspiration read the same scripture they also will have five different inspirations. This applies even if the five "different" people are the same person, just at different stages of their life experience, different vocabularies and different connotations with the vocabularies.

Notably Brigham Young was very clear that if Joseph Smith had translated the Book of Mormon at 30 it would have been a much different book than it was than what we have now.  "And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation."

This begs a number of questions and should serve as a warning that anyone who writes down a spiritual communication is not writing down what the Spirit communicated but their construct of it in the language they have at the  time.  Anyone reading it or hearing it has to escape both the frame of the sender and their own frame to come closer to the truth.  I touched on this on the older essay on God being a Quantum God (viz. http://www.wheatandtares.org/7938/our-god-is-an-awesome-quantum-god/ ) -- the idea that the views of God that we have are like the blind men and the elephant -- except if you are someone who can see you would see that there is no "elephant" just the differing views of the blind men.

The difference between Brigham Young's deconstruction and many modern deconstructionists (who could use a lot more real science in their backgrounds) is that Brigham Young believed in not only a physical reality, but that there was a pure spiritual reality that we could someday grasp and that should inform the way we faced life.  He believed in an ultimate meaning that we all approached, and that had many different valuable approaches (thus his famous sermon about how other religions had truths that we lacked and how we need to go out and bring back those truths for ourselves).  He realized that his vision of that spiritual reality had holes in it that were inevitable.  cf Joseph Smith's discussions of a perfect language and similar matters on language.  (e.g. http://chaunceyriddle.com/courses/philosophy-110-byu/joseph-smith-and-the-ways-of-knowing/)

 Which, surprisingly, Joseph Smith combined a theme, a note, where "no note is more frequent in his private and public statements than that each can come to know for himself."

Thus, just because there are many socially created paradigms does not mean that our paradigm is the one true paradigm untainted by human error, instead it means that our paradigm and our filter necessarily has error and mistakes. It means that we believe that God will yet reveal many great and important things and that we, at present, go through mists of darkness in the Church, with only Christ's core principles that he gave us to hold to.

In addition, we believe that the parable of the Iron Rod reflects that those who have entered into the way and who have the truth will experience "mists of darkness" and find themselves unable to know which way to go from logic and intuition alone.

So where does this leave us in our own quest for truth?  What is "really" true?

I begin with the Book of Mormon's two key doctrinal points:

  1. Jesus is the Christ.  The true love of Christ is the heart of what it means to have a testimony that Jesus is the Christ.
  2. Cleave unto Charity (be kind).
 13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.
 and
43 And again, behold I say unto you that he cannot have faith and hope, save he shall be meek, and lowly of heart.










Everything else flows from this, and for everything else there is always more time.


Lesson 3


Preface:

    Discussions in small groups “give a large number of people the opportunity to participate in a lesson. Individuals who are usually hesitant to participate might share ideas in small groups that they would not express in front of the entire group”

_________________________________________________________


    “Agency has been given to all of us to make important decisions that will have bearing on our salvation. Those decisions affect our happiness in eternity.”

    Living and working on a farm, Ezra Taft Benson learned about the consequences of good decisions. He recalled: “I grew up believing that the willingness and ability to work is the basic ingredient of successful farming. Hard, intelligent work is the key. Use it, and your chances for success are good.”1

    At a young age, Ezra learned that he and his family would have more to eat if they chose to take care of their garden. He learned that if he wanted the family to be successful in their dairy business, he had to decide to get out of bed early every day to milk the cows.2 He saw that when he made the choice to work hard, local farmers hired him to thin their beets and pitch their hay.3 He saw that trials come even to the faithful, but he also saw that individuals and families could decide to respond to trials in a way that would help them be happy and successful.

    *    How do some professions reflect the effects of effort and attitude better than others?  Which are based mostly on hard work and effort, which on social connection and personality?

    *    What choices do we have in dealing with trials?  What choices do we not have?

    With this experience as a foundation, President Ezra Taft Benson frequently reminded Latter-day Saints and others of the importance of agency—the freedom “to choose the course they should follow.”6 His teachings about the principle of agency included more than just a reminder to “choose between right and wrong.”7 He spoke of agency as the ability to “make important decisions that will have bearing on our salvation” and that will “affect our happiness in eternity.”8 He encouraged Latter-day Saints and others to use their agency to “act on their own,” without waiting to be commanded in all things.9 The principle of agency, he said, “runs like a golden thread throughout the gospel plan of the Lord for the blessing of his children.”10


    *    How easy is it to think of “free agency” as only choosing between right and wrong? 
    *    What do we miss when we don’t think of other choices we make in the same way?

Ezra Taft Benson’s testimony:

    I testify that we are the spirit offspring of a loving God, our Heavenly Father. He has a great plan of salvation whereby His children might be perfected as He is and might have a fulness of joy as He enjoys.

    I testify that in our premortal state our Elder Brother in the spirit, even Jesus Christ, became our foreordained Savior in the Father’s plan of salvation. He is the captain of our salvation and the only means through whom we can return to our Father in Heaven to gain that fulness of joy.

    I testify that Lucifer was also in the council of heaven. He sought to destroy the agency of man. He rebelled.) There was a war in heaven, and a third of the hosts were cast to the earth and denied a body. Lucifer is the enemy of all righteousness and seeks the misery of all mankind.

    The central issue in that premortal council was: Shall the children of God have untrammeled agency to choose the course they should follow, whether good or evil, or shall they be coerced and forced to be obedient? Christ and all who followed Him stood for the former proposition—freedom of choice; Satan stood for the latter—coercion and force.

    *    Have you ever considered the concepts above as things you would bear testimony of?
    *    Are there other gospel principles that might fit into areas you might have a testimony of?
    *    How often do people try to govern by coercion and force?

    Abraham was shown the spirit children of our Heavenly Father before they came to earth. He, too, was shown the creation of the earth, and the Lord said to him: “And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them.” (Abraham 3:25.) In that divine statement is embodied also the right of choice.16

    This life is a probation: a probation in which you and I prove our mettle, a probation that has eternal consequences for each of us. And now is our time and season—as every generation has had theirs—to learn our duties and to do them.17

    That the Lord is displeased with wickedness is true. That He desires that it not occur is also true. That He will help those who oppose it is true. But that He allows wickedness to occur at all through His children here in mortality is proof of His having given them their freedom to choose, while reserving for Him a basis for their final judgment.18

    There is no evil that [Jesus Christ] cannot arrest. All things are in His hands. This earth is His rightful dominion. Yet He permits evil so that we can make choices between good and evil.19

    *    How important is choice?
    *    What happens if there is no choice?

SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION:

    *    In what ways have you seen that “the war that began in heaven … is not yet over”? What can we do to continue to stand for the principle of agency?

    *    People often wonder why God allows evil to exist in the world. How do President Benson’s teachings help to answer that question?

    *    Why or why not?

    *    What can we do to help those younger than ourselves understand how the decisions they make (and the decisions we made) have affected our happiness and our lives? What can we do to help children and youth understand the impact of the decisions they make?

    *    How can we teach from our own lives?



[We ran out of time before this point, but]

More reading and large group discussion:

    If we are to make proper, Christ-like decisions, we must first of all live so we can reach out and tap that unseen power without which no man can do his best in decision making.

    The Lord said, “Knock and it shall be opened unto you” (3 Nephi 14:7; Matthew 7:7). In other words, it requires effort on our part.30

    Wise decisions are usually arrived at following work, struggle, and prayerful effort. The Lord’s response to Oliver Cowdery’s ineffective effort makes this clear: “But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.” (D&C 9:8.)

    Let us begin, therefore, by saying that earnestly seeking our Father in heaven, having faith that he will answer our prayers, is a comforting base on which to begin. … The Lord will not take water from a dry well, so we must do our part. Sometimes attempting to find a correct decision takes great amounts of energy, study, and long-suffering.31

    In decisions of crucial importance, fasting combined with prayer can bring great spiritual insight.32

    *    In reviewing what the lesson manual refers to as President Benson’s counsel about making “proper, Christ-like decisions” what have you learned about combining prayer with diligent effort in making decisions?

    *    What else do you consider part of a proper, Christ-like decision?

    *   What does it mean to you to be “anxiously engaged in a good cause”?
    *    How does your life change when you do good things “of [your] own free will” rather than waiting to be commanded?

    *    What would you consider a good cause?

In 1831 the Lord said this to his Church:

    “For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

    “Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

    “For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

    “But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.” (D&C 58:26–29.)

    The Lord wants us to use our agency to be “anxiously engaged in a good cause” (D&C 58:27).

    The purposes of the Lord—the great objectives—continue the same: the salvation and exaltation of his children.
 
    Usually the Lord gives us the overall objectives to be accomplished and some guidelines to follow, but he expects us to work out most of the details and methods. The methods and procedures are usually developed through study and prayer and by living so that we can obtain and follow the promptings of the Spirit. Less spiritually advanced people, such as those in the days of Moses, had to be commanded in many things. Today those spiritually alert look at the objectives, check the guidelines laid down by the Lord and his prophets, and then prayerfully act—without having to be commanded “in all things.” This attitude prepares men for godhood. …

    Sometimes the Lord hopefully waits on his children to act on their own, and when they do not, they lose the greater prize, and the Lord will either drop the entire matter and let them suffer the consequences or else he will have to spell it out in greater detail. Usually, I fear, the more he has to spell it out, the smaller is our reward.33

    We should be “anxiously engaged” in good causes and leave the world a better place for having lived in it.34

What does it mean to you to be “anxiously engaged in a good cause”?


  *   Any final comments?