With greater scientific advances, it seems that we are increasingly able to explain the world without reference to an outside force--a God, the supernatural, or magic.
With enough creativity, of course, it is possible to come up for a way that science and God can co-exist. I might argue, in fact, that if this seems impossible to you, you have simply not been creative enough.
Regardless of our scientific knowledge, however, explaining how God came to be has always been problematic. If He is more advanced than any of His creations, then how could He have come to be before them? If He always existed, then why didn't everything else also always exist (or did it?)?
There are many hints in Mormon theology. The prophet Lorenzo Snow, for example, was known for the couplet: "As man is, God once was; As God is, man may become." Joseph Smith taught that we were once something called "intelligences," which may have existed for as long as God has: "God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them" (TPJS, p. 354). In the D&C we read: "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be" (D&C 93:29). In addition, we have the following from Spencer W. Kimball: "Our spirit matter was eternal and co-existent with God, but it was organized into spirit bodies by our Heavenly Father" (The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 5, Salt Lake City, 1969).
These various statements (and others like them) suggest that there was man of some form, and God of some form, that existed from "the beginning" (whatever that means) and that God, being greater, became invested in helping man progress.
We do not know what that means scientifically, or how it relates to evolution, but with enough creativity we can certainly come up with some speculations. It is possible, of course, though we certainly have no evidence of this, that God is the end-product of evolution in the same way that man currently is. It is possible that God, having evolved to a point of superior knowledge and integrity, then reached across time or space or dimensions to intervene in our evolutionary process, or at least to comfort, counsel, and uplift us--and occasionally to interfere with human events based on His superior knowledge. It is also possible that evolution only looks like evolution but that the artifacts we find are the result of some slightly different process--such as the improved attempts of a Creator--in the same way that computers have "evolved" through the progress of mankind as creators. All this is speculation, of course, and there are endless other ways that we might imagine religion and science being simultaneously "true."
These thoughts, however, are a distraction from what matters. What is important is not whether we can solve the problem of God's existence. We probably can't. What matters is solving the problem of why His existence should matter to "us." The critical issue of our lives is learning to use His existence to make ourselves better than we might have been otherwise. The religious don't always succeed at that, but those who do find a joy that makes life more meaningful.
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
Sunday, May 1, 2016
Mormons and Sex
Much is often made of the way Mormons view sex. It is often treated as one of the worst of sins. I think this can be puzzling to non-Mormons, and many Mormons, who see sex as an expression of love, regardless of marriage. It is commonplace to view an impulsive (or planned) acting out of desires with a boyfriend or girlfriend, or even a stranger, as natural, or at least, not that big of a deal.
This is something I've been thinking a lot about over the past few years as I've thought about my own mistakes, harm that has been done to me by others, and my relationship with God. As part of this process, I have re-conceptualized "sin" for myself as "actions that lead to emotional pain in oneself." Of course, there are things people do that lead to pain in others as well, but I believe that these "sins" also hurt the people who commit them.
From this point of view, yelling at my husband is sin because it harms my soul (as well as his). Forgetting to pray is also sin because it pulls me away from God and that harms my soul.
The Atonement is the great act that has made the Lord capable of healing these wounds we have caused in ourselves (or have been caused in us by others). Repentance is needed because its steps are the precise steps that lead to emotional healing.
When I hear: "The Lord cannot look on sin with the least degree of allowance," I might have formerly imagined God as a strict judge, sitting in court, bringing down His gavel and condemning me to Hell. From that perspective, I might have wondered at the unfairness of rejecting me when I had so many good acts in my life but simply made one mistake one late night with a man one night when I was hurting from loneliness.
But now, I re-interpret that harsh-sounding phrase to mean: "The Lord cannot stand for any of us to feel even the smallest amount of emotional pain." Instead of imaging God as judging me, I see Him as longing to heal me. I see Him as hoping I will stop the action that is causing me so much damage, because it hurts Him to see me hurting.
As I think over my life and what has caused me the most pain, I have to admit that it relates to sex. My longest-lasting and most painful wounds surround memories of others harming me, or me making mistakes, with regard to sexual actions of some kind or other. In my case, sexual acts have caused me more emotional pain than any other trauma or mistake in my life. These wounds are where I need the most healing, and therefore, the greatest application of the Atonement.
I don't mean to suggest that sexually-related trauma or mistakes worry me most because I think they will send me to Hell. They harm me most because they harm me most. Hell is the pain I'm feeling due to their harm. God's counsel about sexual boundaries is given to prevent us from feeling this pain. Guidelines about intimacy aren't random rules put in place just because He says so.
For some reason, sex is an area that can cause us more pain than most other acts, if engaged in inappropriately. I don't claim to know why that is the case. I believe that it may have to do with things that happen on an emotional level with that level of intimacy.
If sex were a "sin" simply because God puts in place rules for His own benefit (or for random reasons) instead of for our own benefit, if the only consequence of inappropriate sex were that we might someday stand before the judgment seat of God and find ourselves condemned, then there would really be no reason not to act however we choose and then repent later, maybe even on our deathbeds. There would be no reason not to have casual sex with a variety of people until marriage, and then repent and get on the right road once we have the luxury of a convenient, sanctioned, partner. If casual sex were like parking in an illegal space and risking getting a parking ticket, then why not just do it and pay the price later? It isn't hurting anyone.
If instead, having inappropriate sex is more like consuming a little bit of poison every day, if it is something that harms us, even if to such a small degree each time that we hardly notice it (or begin to consider the unpleasant sensations we feel as normal), then delaying changing our ways and beginning the process of healing is destructive. It may be a crime with an ongoing victim--ourselves.
This is something I've been thinking a lot about over the past few years as I've thought about my own mistakes, harm that has been done to me by others, and my relationship with God. As part of this process, I have re-conceptualized "sin" for myself as "actions that lead to emotional pain in oneself." Of course, there are things people do that lead to pain in others as well, but I believe that these "sins" also hurt the people who commit them.
From this point of view, yelling at my husband is sin because it harms my soul (as well as his). Forgetting to pray is also sin because it pulls me away from God and that harms my soul.
The Atonement is the great act that has made the Lord capable of healing these wounds we have caused in ourselves (or have been caused in us by others). Repentance is needed because its steps are the precise steps that lead to emotional healing.
When I hear: "The Lord cannot look on sin with the least degree of allowance," I might have formerly imagined God as a strict judge, sitting in court, bringing down His gavel and condemning me to Hell. From that perspective, I might have wondered at the unfairness of rejecting me when I had so many good acts in my life but simply made one mistake one late night with a man one night when I was hurting from loneliness.
But now, I re-interpret that harsh-sounding phrase to mean: "The Lord cannot stand for any of us to feel even the smallest amount of emotional pain." Instead of imaging God as judging me, I see Him as longing to heal me. I see Him as hoping I will stop the action that is causing me so much damage, because it hurts Him to see me hurting.
As I think over my life and what has caused me the most pain, I have to admit that it relates to sex. My longest-lasting and most painful wounds surround memories of others harming me, or me making mistakes, with regard to sexual actions of some kind or other. In my case, sexual acts have caused me more emotional pain than any other trauma or mistake in my life. These wounds are where I need the most healing, and therefore, the greatest application of the Atonement.
I don't mean to suggest that sexually-related trauma or mistakes worry me most because I think they will send me to Hell. They harm me most because they harm me most. Hell is the pain I'm feeling due to their harm. God's counsel about sexual boundaries is given to prevent us from feeling this pain. Guidelines about intimacy aren't random rules put in place just because He says so.
For some reason, sex is an area that can cause us more pain than most other acts, if engaged in inappropriately. I don't claim to know why that is the case. I believe that it may have to do with things that happen on an emotional level with that level of intimacy.
If sex were a "sin" simply because God puts in place rules for His own benefit (or for random reasons) instead of for our own benefit, if the only consequence of inappropriate sex were that we might someday stand before the judgment seat of God and find ourselves condemned, then there would really be no reason not to act however we choose and then repent later, maybe even on our deathbeds. There would be no reason not to have casual sex with a variety of people until marriage, and then repent and get on the right road once we have the luxury of a convenient, sanctioned, partner. If casual sex were like parking in an illegal space and risking getting a parking ticket, then why not just do it and pay the price later? It isn't hurting anyone.
If instead, having inappropriate sex is more like consuming a little bit of poison every day, if it is something that harms us, even if to such a small degree each time that we hardly notice it (or begin to consider the unpleasant sensations we feel as normal), then delaying changing our ways and beginning the process of healing is destructive. It may be a crime with an ongoing victim--ourselves.
Sunday, April 24, 2016
Science and God
I am often perplexed by the so-called wars between religion and science. From my perspective, there is only Truth. There are ways of coming to realize that Truth that are more or less credible, that are more or less prone to error. However, in the end God is the ultimate scientist. He knows more than any of us, and because he knows more, he influences or controls more. Much, more more, in fact.
When we consider whether our religious beliefs and our empirically-derived beliefs can co-exist, we can easily end up confused. Often there appears to be a conflict.
Of course, there are many ways to resolve those apparent (or real) conflicts. In some cases, we might decide either a scientific or religiously-based belief was incorrect, over-simplified, or misapplied. Other times, we might go to great and creative lengths to build a framework in which both sets of beliefs hold. I have done this myself many times. Maybe I will share some of those conjectures sometime in this blog.
Essentially, science and religion may appear to conflict because one or the other may be in error. But it also may simply be that both sets of theories are simplifications of a greater Truth that is beyond our current understanding. It may be, for example, that the theory of evolution and the theory of creationism are to the history of the Earth as Newtonian mechanics is to physics--simplified models that are each useful within certain bounds.
Beyond whether or not religion and science can peacefully co-exist, we might wonder whether or not they should. Atheists often claim that science explains reality in such a way as to make religion unnecessary. In fact, they might argue that religion does more harm than good to mankind.
Similarly, the most religiously devoted might suggest that science is, at times, a faulty endeavor because it draws us away from God and causes us to place more confidence in reason than in faith. They might believe that too much focus on learning through reason alone has led to increased evil in the world.
As a Christian, I believe that a measuring stick of the rightness of something, is whether it leads to good fruit (Matt. 7:15-20). Though the simplified theories of science and religion are not yet complete, both may be helpful to us in improving this world and the lives of the creatures who share it. And, either might be used to do harm.
These are the kinds of issues I intend to explore in this blog, as an individual who is devoted to both reason and faith as valid processes. I welcome you as a reader.
When we consider whether our religious beliefs and our empirically-derived beliefs can co-exist, we can easily end up confused. Often there appears to be a conflict.
Of course, there are many ways to resolve those apparent (or real) conflicts. In some cases, we might decide either a scientific or religiously-based belief was incorrect, over-simplified, or misapplied. Other times, we might go to great and creative lengths to build a framework in which both sets of beliefs hold. I have done this myself many times. Maybe I will share some of those conjectures sometime in this blog.
Essentially, science and religion may appear to conflict because one or the other may be in error. But it also may simply be that both sets of theories are simplifications of a greater Truth that is beyond our current understanding. It may be, for example, that the theory of evolution and the theory of creationism are to the history of the Earth as Newtonian mechanics is to physics--simplified models that are each useful within certain bounds.
Beyond whether or not religion and science can peacefully co-exist, we might wonder whether or not they should. Atheists often claim that science explains reality in such a way as to make religion unnecessary. In fact, they might argue that religion does more harm than good to mankind.
Similarly, the most religiously devoted might suggest that science is, at times, a faulty endeavor because it draws us away from God and causes us to place more confidence in reason than in faith. They might believe that too much focus on learning through reason alone has led to increased evil in the world.
As a Christian, I believe that a measuring stick of the rightness of something, is whether it leads to good fruit (Matt. 7:15-20). Though the simplified theories of science and religion are not yet complete, both may be helpful to us in improving this world and the lives of the creatures who share it. And, either might be used to do harm.
These are the kinds of issues I intend to explore in this blog, as an individual who is devoted to both reason and faith as valid processes. I welcome you as a reader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)