Left-wing, Right-wing -- it's all Babylonian to me

Blogging has opened my eyes to the contentious world of Mormon political right-wingers vs. Mormon political left-wingers. I can understand when non-LDS people get obsessively involved in the left vs. right struggle in American and world politics. I’m sure it seems vitally important to them. But I have trouble understanding why Latter Day Saints would get so passionately involved in the fray.

Here is my problem with the whole thing: The parties representing the Left and the Right are both essentially motivated by the same three things – Greed, Praise, and Appetites. Sure, the left claims that they are more concerned about greed than the right, and the right is more concerned about curbing immoral appetites than the left, but in reality they are pretty well mirror images of each other. Each paints the other as utter evil and themselves as defenders of truth and righteousness.

As a Latter Day Saint, I see the choice I am given about as appealing as choosing between beer and wine, or between cigarettes and chewing tobacco. I don’t like either of them. I am under covenant to establish Zion and both the parties representing the left and the right in our political arena are Babylonian institutions. (Note: I’m using scriptural code words here, so if you wonder what I mean when I say Babylon and Zion see the scriptures, here, here, here, and here.) Both the left and right are determined to build up and establish Babylon.

Yes, I know most Mormons are devout right-wingers, but that doesn’t change the fact that the right is just as Babylonian as the left. The right supports some hot button issues that most Mormons feel trump the stinkier parts of the right wing agenda. Those objectionable (and vintage Babylonian) hot buttons include moral (Appetite) questions like abortion, same-sex marriage, pornography, etc. Yet the stinky parts of the right wing agenda that the left rightfully complains about are Greed related issues like sheltering the rich from taxes, pillaging the earth for gain, and grinding the face of the poor (like, say, Mexicans who illegally arrive to work here) in order to live more luxuriously.

So what is a Zionist to do when I am forced to choose between two Babylonian parties? Well, I mostly plug my nose and try to vote for the least objectionable option. (I generally end up leaning to the right, if you were wondering.)

Are you one of those who passionately defend the Babylonian Left or the Babylonian Right? What do you think of me calling both sides Babylonian? Am I dead wrong or is there something to this point of view?

Indeterminacy Principle and the Mainstream

I was thrilled yesterday when Clark's only real remaining critique of my post on God's non-foreknowledge was "if you can reconcile that to your understanding of the gospel that's fine. I suspect many people can not." WhooHoo! I'm not mainstream! I can call on Heisenberg again to explain why that is such a good thing.

If you'll remember, in my last post I applied the indeterminacy principle to mankind as a whole. That is, you can predict the behavior of the group with incredible accuracy but you can never predict the behavior of the one with much accuracy. In the course of the earth the most rebellious against the group have always been the prophets of God and their followers. While the mainstream of Jerusalem was barreling toward destruction, the one, Lehi, pulled up stakes and left. Nibley call it the Rekhabite (sp?) principle – named after contemporary of Lehi that researchers discovered records of in recent decades.

Many are called, few are chosen... Broad is the way that leads to destruction... The natural man is an enemy to God...

The scriptures are full of admonitions for us not to be mainstream.

But you say: Not so fast, my friend! There are definite limits to this principle. Being a faithful Latter Day Saint already takes us out of the mainstream. Following the counsel of a modern day prophet takes us out of that destructive mainstream.

And of course you are right. But in cases like my theories below when the prophets have said nothing, I am not too worried. My proposal might very well be right. And since it mostly flies in the face of NeoPlatonic assumptions I think it has a pretty good chance of being more correct than the mainstream take on the subject.

Of course there is danger in obsessing over being “alternative”. Mainstream or not mainstream, all I really want to believe... Is truth.

How God could figure out the future without foreknowledge

It turns out I missed the point in my last post... While the idea the God might be bound by our time is objectionable to many, the idea that God does not have an exact foreknowledge is the real hot button. So here is how I think God does it!

As I mentioned before, most Mormons buy into something that sounds a lot like the Nicene version of God’s foreknowledge – though I don’t think most have given the idea a lot of thought. Nevertheless, suggesting that God doesn’t really see the future is apparently viewed as heretical to a lot of people.

There are lots of good arguments why God does live in time and not out of it (Blake does a nice job of illuminating those in his book). There are likewise good arguments why knowledge of a fixed future is basically a useless parlor trick. Clark Goble is the only one I have so far found who has stepped up to the plate with an explanation how there could be a fixed future combined with agency by both God and man. His explanation, though, is counter-intuitive to say the least. But Clark is pretty good at punching holes in explanations of how God acts if he can’t see the future. Here are a couple of models that have been submitted:

1. Predictive power purely based on past patterns (a little alliteration…)

This means God knows us so well he can tell what we’re going to do next as a result of our previous action. Clark shot this down pretty well recently by saying: Such predictions are only possible because the entities in question aren't free in the Libertarian sense. So you can certainly say that this is how God knows, but then you've simply adopted causal determinism and are a Compatibilist. I think Ostler, among others, argues well for why that kind of Compatibilism is hard to reconcile to the gospel.

Good point.

2. Influence and not Compulsion

Another approach is to say God uses influence rather than compulsion to cause his predictions and desires for the future to come to pass. Clark complains that it is hard to imagine truly free will occurring if we are constantly being herded around by God here on earth. If this is the only method God uses it does seem that our agency is largely hampered.

So for my big proposal of the day I ask: How about a third attempt with a synthesis of the previous two models?

Here are the parts I will assume in this proposal:
a. There have been innumerable inhabited worlds before this world from God can draw as a predictive database
b. Since the course of the Lord is one eternal round, I am going to assume the basic plot of the human play is the same for all previous worlds (and no, I can’t prove that so don’t ask…)
c. God’s superior intelligence works as an unfathomable super computer which allows Him to crunch all previous data and thus make amazingly accurate predictions of free-willed people
d. Heisenberg was right in his indeterminacy principle and that this principle can be applied to mankind as a group. What I mean is, you can predict with astonishing accuracy to path of the group but you can never predict the path of the individual with such accuracy (because the individual is free, presumably).
e. God is willing to invite people to do good but never compel. However, He mostly stays out of our choices.

So from here I see a model that is not causal determinism for man, but is sympathetic to that idea. There is a course a “natural man” will take unless he actively chooses to leave that course. The vast majority of mankind goes with the flow and remains the natural man, so it might be reminiscent of determinism. But God does choose which spirits go to which body, and he knows the especially valiant spirits will not go with the flow of natural men and will become spiritual leaders here on earth. The deliberate placement of those spirits in those bodies at those times makes the predictive process more believable. Lastly, God is willing to invite individuals to choose the right via the Holy Spirit but the individual remains free to heed or ignore such promptings. I tried this model to explain the unusual case of Peter’s thrice denial to Clark:

If Christ and the Father had sufficient knowledge of Peter, they would know under which of the pressures and circumstances that would surely follow he would deny Christ three times. They could easily prompt their apostle to be in the right place, knowing that he would obey. Promptings do not coerce – they just invite. So no agency is violated there. By the same token God could invite any number of the mob via promptings to point out Peter as a follower of Christ. Perhaps in that mob hundreds had to be prompted before three chose to heed the promptings… in any case there is no violation of agency. It is like when I teach a Sunday school class and ask for a volunteer to give the prayer. There is no coercion, just an invitation and an acceptance. Everyone is free to choose throughout.

The vast majority of other prophesies are explainable through the predictive models I used above. I think this combination of factors could explain (at an elementary level) some of the ways God could predict and influence (even, in a sense “know”) the future while still allowing for full and unencumbered agency of humankind.

What do you think?

Don't hate me because I'm time-bound

Spurred by discussion threads like this these here, here, and here, I have spent plenty of time contemplating the subjects of God’s foreknowledge and his relationship to time. The big question I have now is what is so awful about a God who resides in our time?

The idea is best fleshed out in Blake Ostler’s book on the Attributes of God. He makes some pretty compelling arguments on how much of this timeless and incomprehensible stuff we attribute to God today really had origins with Middle and NeoPlatonism instead of from God through prophets. I’m starting to think he is on to something.

But the question of this post is why such a negative reaction to a claim that God is bound by our time? We Mormons are often criticized for closing the gap between man and God. Critics claim we are making God too small. I counter that God is not smaller than we thought, but that humankind is much, much grander than we thought. Is conceiving of a God that is unlike the one agreed upon at the Nicene Council unusual to Mormons? Not at all. But it seems that suggesting a time-bound God generates passionate rebukes from some.

What about his being time bound make Him less worthy of our worship and adulation? We are promised lots of surprises when the veil is lifted – would the surprise that God exists within time as we know it make us highly disappointed? Someone help me out here...

The Quiet, Creepy Whisper?

My Friend and neighbor, Bruce, is a tremendous gospel teacher and student. I seek his counsel on all sorts of gospel topics and he generally has just the answers I am looking for. But on some things we just don’t see eye to eye. One of those things is on what Satan can or can’t do in this world.

Bruce quotes gobs of scriptures that say basically “sin is conceived in the heart of man” and how the “flesh” and our fallen nature are the source of all sin. Satan is not really actively involved at all in Bruce’s teachings. It is the sin and temptations of the flesh that cause all sinful choices in this world. More specifically, Bruce insists that Satan has no power to place thoughts or ideas in our minds. In other words, he believes Satan cannot convey any external intelligence to us.

I conceded to Bruce that many sins are conceived in men’s hearts without promptings from the devil – just as many good deeds are from “our own free will and choice”. However I do believe Satan has his own version of the Spirit’s “still, small voice”. I think Satan uses his little wicked whispers to give us ideas that are in exact opposition to those that God would want us to choose.

I taught the Gospel Doctrine lesson that covers D&C 10 this week at church and feel like I found my strongest argument for this idea. The Lord makes it abundantly clear that the idea to steal and utilize the 116 lost manuscript pages was Satan’s plan that he somehow put into the minds and hearts of those wicked men. That sounds like a pretty good case for external specific intelligence being conveyed to me. Bruce has yet to counter it (though it has only been one day so far.)

The idea I have is that as part of the opposition in all things that God allows on the earth, He allows Satan to use counterfeit versions of his own communication methods. It is as if there are two spiritual radio stations out there and we choose which to tune into by our righteous or wicked decisions.

What do you think? Is Bruce right or am I on to something?

How's Your GPA? (Satan Wants to Know...)

The devil is extremely interested in your GPA... No not your grade point average, your quotient of the Babylonian or Devil's GPA –

G: Greed and Getting Gain (plus the power wealth brings)
P: Popularity, Prominence, Praise of Men, Pride, Power (at least the influence part)
A: Appetites and Addictions

I based this segmentation of sin categories on the New Testament (Matthew) account of the temptations of Christ just prior to His ministry. In it the Devil’s game plan is laid for all to see.

A = Temptation #1

This is the least difficult to overcome. For Christ it was the temptation to eat after a 40-day fast. For Mormons it is the litany of appetites we are required to suppress in order to keep our covenants. Our Babylonian world constantly beckons us to partake in appealing but destructive and addictive behaviors – from drugs (of all kind), to gambling, to pornography and other sexual transgressions.

P = Temptation #2

This one is more tempting. For Christ it was the temptation to abuse His power. He was tempted to show off – to prove who He was and get the resulting respect and praise. For Mormons the requirements to get the respect and praise of men are ever at odds with the requirements to get the respect and praise of God.

G = Temptation #3

This is the most tempting of them all. For Christ it was the offer of all the treasures and kingdoms of the world in exchange for worshipping the Devil. For Mormons the basics of the offer remain the same: If we devote all of our time, talents and energy to obtaining wealth and its associated power and trappings we might get it – but we’ll lose our soul in the process.


To illustrate that most every temptation we face falls into the Devils GPA, here are a few scriptures about the problems we’ll face in our day:

1 Nep. 8:8-9

8 And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold(G), and the silver(G),and the silks(G), and the scarlets(G), and the fine-twined linen(G), and the precious clothing(G), and the harlots(A), are the desires of this great and abominable church.

9 And also for the praise of the world(P) do they destroy the saints of God, and bring them down into captivity.

Alma 4:6,8,12

6 And it came to pass in the eighth year of the reign of the judges, that the people of the church began to wax proud(P), because of their exceeding riches(G), and their fine silks(G), and their fine-twined linen(G), and because of their many flocks and herds(G), and their gold and their silver(G)(P), and all manner of precious things(G), which they had obtained by their industry; and in all these things were they lifted up in the pride of their eyes, for they began to wear very costly apparel(G)(P).

8 For they saw and beheld with great sorrow that the people of the church began to be lifted up in the pride of their eyes(P), and to set their hearts upon riches and upon the vain things of the world(G), that they began to be scornful, one towards another(P), and they began to persecute those that did not believe according to their own will and pleasure(P).

12 Yea, he saw great inequality among the people, some lifting themselves up with their pride(P), despising others(P), turning their backs upon the needy and the naked and those who were hungry(G), and those who were athirst, and those who were sick and afflicted(G).

Mormon 8:35-39

35 Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.

36 And I know that ye do walk in the pride of your hearts(P); and there are none save a few only who do not lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts(P), unto the wearing of very fine apparel(G)(P), unto envying(G)(P), and strifes(G)(P), and malice(P), and persecutions, and all manner of iniquities(G)(P)(A); and your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts(P).

37 For behold, ye do love money(G), and your substance(G), and your fine apparel(G)(P), and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted(G).

38 O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God? (G)(P)(A) Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ?(G)(P)(A) Why do ye not think that greater is the value of an endless happiness than that misery which never dies—because of the praise of the world?(G)(P)(A)

39 Why do ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life(G), and yet suffer the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick and the afflicted to pass by you, and notice them not?(G)

40 Yea, why do ye build up your secret abominations(G)(P) to get gain(G), and cause that widows should mourn before the Lord, and also orphans to mourn before the Lord, and also the blood of their fathers and their husbands to cry unto the Lord from the ground, for vengeance upon your heads?

Go ahead, try it. Read the scriptures and see which sins can’t be lumped under those primary categories… It’s tough to find any.

Coming soon… How the Devil tricks us into ignoring the more serious sins (G and P) by focusing all of our attention on the less the easiest of the three (A)…

God doesn't much care whether we (physically) live or die (part II) -- Jacob agrees

After hearing my assertion that God isn't much concerned with mortal life and death, a blogger called danithew brought Jacob’s discourse in 2 Nep. 9 to my attention. The discourse by Jacob is very relevant to an examination of the proper view of human life and death. Here is what danithew wrote:

I was thinking about what you are saying and it is quite interesting. One thought I have is that due to the atonement of Jesus Christ, God has the capability to dismiss death to a certain degree … mainly because the gift of the resurrection is in place. Those whose bodies and spirits are separated in death will inevitably have their spirits and bodies reunited in the resurrection.

Then I remembered a Book of Mormon verse that uses the word monster. I did a scripture search on this word, that hardly ever shows up in the scriptures, and found that three of the times it does appear are in 2 Nephi. The term that is repeated three times is actually “awful monster” and it is used to refer to “death and sin.” It’s interesting to me that the singular “monster” is repeatedly used to refer to the devil, death and sin … maybe these three are somehow wrapped up in one – I would have expected that the term used would be the plural “monsters.” Here are the verses:

2 Nephi 9:10
O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit.

That verse is interesting because of the way the word “monster” is repeated. It could have been written only once but apparently that wasn’t enough. The next cited verse describes the “awful monster” as “the devil, and death, and hell” … so again the singular “monster” is being used to combine a number of terrible things.

2 Nephi 9:19
O the greatness of the mercy of our God, the Holy One of Israel! For he delivereth his saints from that awful monster the devil, and death, and hell, and that lake of
fire and brimstone, which is endless torment.

And then the next verse also as the same list of “death and hell, and the devil” and describes them as “that awful monster.”

2 Nephi 9:26
For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful monster, death and hell, and the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel.

My feeling about this is that yes, death is a monster but that it is a monster that has been contained. Perhaps then God is saddened when this monster is unleashed all at once on so many people … but at the same time God has the complete assurance that any devastation that has occurred is temporary (from an eternal perspective).

He makes some good points here. One important one is that Jacob talks of a single three-headed (two-headed in v.10) monster rather than multiple monsters. Jacob also makes it perfectly clear that because of the fulfillment of the "great plan of our God"(v. 13) by Christ that the temporal death head of the monster has no bite -- it is no longer God's concern and shouldn't be ours. (Jacob recognized death as not an evil, but a simple fact when he said [v4] “For I know that ye have searched much, many of you, to know of things to come; wherefore I know that ye know that our flesh must waste away and die”. He can be calm about this reality because he concludes the verse with “nevertheless, in our bodies we shall see God”). But even with one head incapacitated, the monster is still a very dangerous one. Look how Jacob treats the subject:

Verse 10: Jacob glories in the fact that God has prepared a "way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster" – we can win.
Verse 19: He explains that God "delivereth his saints from that awful monster" – so we want to qualify to be called saints
Verse 26: Jacob explains that in addition to saints, another group is spared from the monster’s remaining head(s). "For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful monster". – Too late for anyone reading this to get this exemption, but very comforting regarding the children and others lost in the Tsunami.

This helps illustrate the point I was trying to make originally -- physical death really doesn't matter much to God, but spiritual death means everything. Spiritual death is necessarily a result of our agency (thus those who do not have law are immune).

That is why Jacob goes on to warn us against real and potentially lasting tragedies like despising the poor, persecuting the meek, setting our hearts on (and even worshipping) riches, being deaf or blind to God, lying, murdering, committing whoredoms, or worshipping other idols. (V 30-38). He then says in v. 39

O, my beloved brethren, remember the awfulness in transgressing against that Holy God, and also the awfulness of yielding to the enticings of that cunning one. Remember, to be carnally-minded is death, and to be spiritually-minded is life eternal.

The point of my original post is just this: God is only concerned about the monster’s deadly remaining head(s) – hell and the devil. It is our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and repentance, or lack thereof, that determines the damage the monster can do to us.

There is no evil in death -- no matter how widespread

The recent Tsunami in Asia has been cause for great mourning the world over. Many have turned to blogs to try to determine how they can help. Many have questioned God in blogs as well. It is on God’s role in the disaster I will opine.

I suppose there has never been a disaster that hasn't caused some to cry out: "Where is God? Why did he let this happen?" Some at Times and Seasons questioned why God didn't send President Hinckley to the rescue before the disaster. Many called this disaster a great "evil."

A few years ago I finally read the entire Old Testament from cover to cover and came away with a startling conclusion: In general, God doesn’t much care about human life or death. It was startling because I and everyone I know care about death very much. But this life can, and often does, end in an instant and God rarely seems to intervene. The scriptures seem to say to me over and over that God only really cares about human choices and He mostly lets nature take its course, even when it cut many lives seemingly short. In other words, He only seems to really care whether we are choosing right or wrong, to become more righteous or wicked, to repent or regress, to improve or worsen. I guess it is the ancient doctrine of the Two Ways.

How can I defend this idea about God’s opinion of mortal life and death? Well I think the whole of scripture defends the statement, but logically it is not to hard to defend either. Elder Maxwell was fond of reminding us that “you’ve never seen a star that is older than you”. In other words, we are eternal and coming and going from this world is of little consequence to God. The choices we make in between mean everything. And this is true no matter who we are or where we live(d) in our mortal probation. The prophet Ezekiel said it best in chapter 18. Basically, the person who is repenting (improving, changing for the better or more righteous) is infinitely better off than the person who is not actively repenting. The parable of the talents adds more to this concept.

So is a natural disaster an evil? Many seem to think so.

My Random House dictionary gave the following definitions of evil:
1. morally wrong or bad.
2. harmful or injurious.
3. unfortunate or disastrous.

While horrible natural disasters certainly fit the secondary definitions of the word – are they “morally wrong or bad”? If so, then only God can be charged with this “evil”. I am unwilling to indict God of evil – He knows what He is doing.

It seems that it is popular to call all things awful evil. Philosophers talk about the problem of evil while lumping all the meanings of the word into one sloppy whole. Why use the word “evil” for death if the meaning you are after is not the primary meaning of “evil”?

(Why does any of this matter? Because “evil” is a powerful and evocative word and a vital word we use to teach the gospel – and there is little in life more important than teaching the gospel. If we allow the word to become so diluted that it loses its primary meaning and becomes a catch-all for all things bad, harmful, or injurious we lose a valuable tool.)

So I believe there is no “evil” in death itself – no matter how widespread or tragic – because death in itself is not a moral wrong. There is only evil in choices. This horrible disaster is a chance for evil or good to occur… and both will. Charity will be shown and property will be looted. Some will act and others will ignore. For me it is a question of will I act and change for the better or ignore the pain of others. My plan is to do the one thing I know I can do… Open my checkbook and put off that planned purchase so some poor grieving Sumatran father can have a something to start rebuilding with…