La Scrittura Invincibile

I was reading from my High School Italian Literature book (of course, I got it  from an Italian High School student, not from my High School), and it is titled based on a Bertold Brecht poem. I found the poem (great website, huh!). It is set in an Italian prison, so it is fitting as an Italian lit. title. It is also about the power of writing, and delightfully so. So, in honor of National Poetry Month, I give you the above link and my edited Google translation from the Italian:

The Invincible Inscription--Bertold Brecht, 1934

At the time of the World War
in a cell in the Italian prison of San Carlo
filled with arrested soldiers, drunks and thieves,
a socialist soldier engraved on the wall with indelible pencil:

VIVA LENIN!

High, near the top, in the semi-darkened cell, barely visible, but
written in enormous capital letters.
When the guards saw him, they sent a painter with a bucket of lime
and he, with a long brush, whitewashed the threatening writing.
But since, with the lime, he had just followed the characters
Now it said in the cell, in white:
VIVA LENIN!
 
Only a second painter covered the whole with wider brush
so that for some hours nothing could be seen. But in the morning,
when the lime was dry, the inscription reappeared:
VIVA LENIN!

Then the guards sent against writing a mason with a knife.
And he scraped one letter after another, for a good hour.
And when he had finished, there was in the cell, now without color
but deeply engraved in the wall, the invincible words:
VIVA LENIN!

Now lift up your wall! Said the soldier.

I hope you found as much enjoyment in this as I did. I don't have a poem to complement this one, so I'll have to post one of mine another day.

Disambiguating "pure in heart" as a divine trait

Scriptural/Transhumanist Speculations on the Universe Part 7

LeGrand Baker has made his and Steven Ricks's book, Who Shall Ascend, available electronically, so if you are interested in reading my primary secondary source text in evaluating the Beatitudes, it is now available. I continue with the paraphrasing from the section on the Psalms in the Book of Mormon found in the pp 900s in the printed text, and mid 600s in the pdf version. I will omit specific page numbers at this point because I am switching between the two depending on when and where I write these posts.

Of the state of the gods are all the pure in heart for they shall see God.

This idea of being pure in heart has troubled me, at times. I have wanted to understand the purity as freedom from sin, believe that sinful mortals could achieve it, and doubt my own ability to be pure in heart at any given moment. The ambiguities have largely seemed overwhelming in coming to any practical understanding. Who Shall Ascend spends a number of pages on this topic and in discussing how it can be achieved. I wish to only summarize a couple of more measurable traits I could glean from the associated scriptures and discussion. I don't think I've resolved and ambiguities, despite my post title, but I think I see some points to build on.

• Psalm 24:4 reads: "He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart;
  who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully." The second line may not be a restatement of the first, bit it feels like one to me. If it is, then vanity is not part of God's character, and he does not swear deceitfully. (This second is in keeping with God being unchanging.)
• Purity of heart indicates a unity of thought and emotion within an individual, a keeping of promises made to God, and ultimately a unity of community in creating Zion.

What does this say about the characteristics of evolved gods? They will keep their promises, and they will belong to communities united by promises they make to each other and keep (the definition of faith I subscribe to), and by love, patience, temperance, and kindness.

My Father's Response to "My Testimony vs. Science"

My father sent me a response to a recent blog post I wrote about reflecting on our testimonies in light of the psychology of religion. I shared some opinions about things we might consider in deciding what we believe and in sharing it. My father responded with some balanced, and sincerely written elaborations and criticisms of my post. I asked if I could share what he wrote, and he said yes. I think it is valuable. He might be embarrassed for me to make these links, but you can read more about him and his beliefs at Mormon Scholars Testify, in Expressions of Faith, and on Wikipedia (although only specialists, of which I am not one, will understand everything on the Wikipedia article. He tells me whoever wrote it was pretty accurate). Thank you, Dad, for sharing this.

I enjoyed your thoughts, Jonathan. Since you have often asked that I respond to what you write, here are some of my thoughts:

Most of the issues we concern ourselves with miss the more important things in life, namely, love for and gratitude to God, love for neighbor, love for the beauties of the world, service, kindness, purposeful and graceful contribution to the family and community. Such things are the “weightier matters.”

As to conformity, much of what we do is, and should be, based on convention. Convention frees us to pay attention to things that need more attention. As Thomas Kuhn’s work on the nature of scientific revolutions suggests, we make radical changes only when the evidence makes it clear that something seriously needs modification. Even then, the evidence is often ambiguous and unclear. There is no value in speaking against convention or conformity per se. The best we can hope for is to remain as clear sighted as possible.

“Proclaim your most examined beliefs.” We are admonished by Peter (1 Peter 3:15-16)…”be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.” I love many things about this scripture. First, I love Peter’s acknowledgment that we need good conscience and both meekness in our convictions but also a dose of fear. I also like the acknowledgment that, despite our best intentions, it is likely that others may accuse us of evil – or foolishness--, that it is better to be maligned for doing good than to be maligned for doing evil.

As to the traditions of the fathers, each of us has to act (or not) on the basis of incomplete knowledge and evidence. We are all dependent upon the experiences of others. We all have to decide what and whom we trust. Since my “fathers” (and mothers) are among the kindest, most open, honest, and conscientious people I have ever known, I give their traditions high weight, and give little weight to the nay-sayers.

I like your comment that “Everything is known through eyewitness testimony.” In science, seeing is often very indirect and mediated by many deductions. Juries of necessity have to weigh the credibility of an eyewitness account. Of course we often judge unjustly, but we still have to make judgments based on what we see or experience or are told. We make our judgments with “meekness and fear”.

We are aware enough of the methods of manipulation that we can factor that into our judgments. The experiences of Nazi Germany show how almost impossible it is to go against the opinions of state, community, family, and church when they are unified in their voices. Manipulations go in many directions. As social opinions change in our country, it is very hard to think independently. Since we live in more than one culture, the things that are “obvious” to one culture are likely to be “clearly wrong” to another culture.  I  think the only way around that problem is to try to formulate and test correct principles and their consequences and examine things in the light of those principles, with the continuing thought that we are often wrong despite our best intentions and methods. Even in a subject as simple as mathematics, we often make mistakes. What we do then is not only check our reasoning but also check the consequences against all of the other things that we know. There is likely to be apparently contradictory evidence that we have to live with in anything, such as life, that is more complicated than mathematics.

Testing certain religious beliefs is certainly beyond us at this point. We do not know how to create worlds. We do not know how to resurrect people. We are not all visited by the Father and the Son. We know that mental illness can cause people to hear voices. Nevertheless, we do test our religious beliefs essentially every day as we pray for guidance, listen for the promptings of the Holy Ghost, try to serve others, read the scriptures. Though I have never heard voices, I believe that my mother did when her mother died. Though I have never seen a vision, I believe there are people who do see visions, real visions. I trust Joseph Smith’s experiences. I trust Sister Litchfield’s accounts. I have experienced things that I consider miraculous. I trust Theodore Burton, a close friend of my father who served as assistant to the quorum of twelve, who told my father that he had never, in the higher councils of the church, seen even a hint of deception, but had seen rather a complete integrity, even in the acknowledgment of the presence of angels and other miraculous things. I choose to trust these things.

When I read the Book of Mormon, the very text itself shouts out to me its own integrity. I have personally written and published thousands of pages [Editor's note: mostly of mathematics. See the Wikipedia link]. I have read many hundreds of books [I would have guessed thousands, but maybe he didn't want to overestimate]. There is simply not an author among those of my reading acquaintance who could write such a book. (See Doctrine and Covenants 67.) It is, as Parley Pratt used to say, “the book of books”. When I add to that the observations about societies and languages that Nibley brings to the book, I feel strong confidence in the authenticity and worth of the Book of Mormon. The complaints I hear about the book seem weak to me. Though I cannot give definitive answers to those complaints, I can see many ways in which they might be explained. Whatever is true with regards to those complaints is true. I have enough confidence to postpone knowing.

Mormon (in Moroni 7) says that revelation comes to “them of strong faith and a firm mind in every form of godliness.” And the purpose seems not to tell people the future but rather to bring us to faith in Christ, to teach us the purposes and plan of life, the covenants of the Father, to teach us what it is that we are to learn, do, and be, and to give us enough confidence in Christ and the atonement that we can proceed in faithfulness to do what we are sent to earth to learn, do, and be.

And so, right or wrong, this is what I am committed to. I am overwhelmed that the great being in the universe invites us to partake in his great work: to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. There could be no greater aspiration.

Trust in God's Prophets

I grew up believing in prophets--men who speak with God. Men who guide the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the way that Christ would have it go. They told me lots of good things.

They told me. . .

They told me to be a Boy Scout, and I earned my Eagle Scout award. I did the merit badges and learned first aid, swimming, safety, knot tying, and other skills I use frequently but might not if I hadn't been pushed to learn them as a youth. I went to town hall meetings and got a better sense of how local government works. I did lots of hours of service projects and grew to love that part of Mormonism. Helping someone move, or cleaning up their yard, or working in one of the welfare facilities, or giving someone who doesn't get around too well a ride, or taking a meal to someone who is sick are still among my favorite things to do (and if anyone wants a chance to experience what I have, I've got a list of things that need fixing at my house. You're welcome to visit).

They told me to study hard, and I've got a good job. Teaching Chemistry is very likely to change, but very unlikely to disappear.

They told me to be chaste and to get married, and I have a beautiful family.

They told me to study the scriptures, and I have found much inspiration there.

They told me they loved me and wanted me to be happy.

They told me about the Zion we are to build. I can imagine no more beautiful future.

They told me to serve a mission, and my life has never been the same since. Just speaking and reading Italian has opened me to new joys. What would life be like without Guareschi's Don Camillo? How could I have survived studying Dante if his meanness hadn't been overshadowed by his mastery of language that didn't carry over into English? Who would I be if I hadn't met Mario Ricca, Alfredo Tancredi, Milva DellaCalce, Fratello e Sorella Alberganti, and dozens of other Italians and missionaries? Who would I be if my mission president hadn't taught us that the Spirit makes hundreds of occasional exceptions to the rules if you are obeying the rules and listening. That the best leadership is two way--standing up for those below you to those above AND representing the word from above to those under you. If you only do one, you're only half a leader. That if you have the chance to listen to one of God's servants, you would do well to take it. That if that servant tells you to do something wrong you had better ignore it and do what's right. That the next time you get a chance to listen to that servant, you show up again and listen just as seriously as the first time. That it is really hard to recognize and understand the Spirit, and really easy to misinterpret it. That there are natural consequences for not listening to revelation when you get it. In short, that revelation is really beautiful and really messy. That I should study not just the scriptures, but the doctrine and history of the LDS church. This included Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (free annotated version here) and Discourses of Brigham Young (multiple formats here), two books that continue to shape my views of these men and of what Mormonism means to me. My mission president taught that I shouldn't just study the LDS church, but lots of good books. He gave me permission to read anything I felt was worthwhile during my language study time. This ended up including Neruda's Il Postino, whose content I couldn't handle at the time, so it went in the suitcase for a future day. It included a biography of Saint Francis, borrowed from a bookstore owner, that I judged rather harshly because it didn't fit with my conception of a servant of God at that time. It included some Guareschi that I put down because I didn't want to stop reading it. It included two short books introducing me to Islam given me by some young men I met in Bergamo (I think). My family really deserves the credit for my love of reading and of searching, but the permission my mission president gave me, in the very strict, limited context of a mission, freed me to explore and question in ways that before I might have worried were unrighteous. Because I could explore and question as a missionary, it never occurred to me that such questioning could be considered unfaithful.

Unfortunately, my prophets had also made me feel that many who did not belong to our faith were less than us, or even lost. They made me feel bad for being a sexual being, for finding girls attractive, and for even thinking about it. They made me feel like black and white morality and truth were the realities of this existence (although having a young brain certainly favors this approach). They made me feel that I was either nearly perfect or damned. Unfortunately, these things still influence how I think and feel.

What do I believe now?

I believe God speaks to many people in many places according to their own language and understanding (culture, education, assumptions about what is real, concept of the divine, etc.). God calls people to belong to churches other than the LDS church. God even calls some people to leave the LDS church. The goodness of a person's life is to be judged by his or her fruits, not his or her affiliation.

I believe teaching about sexuality the way we do in LDS (and American) culture hurt me and hurts lots of people. It blesses many in some ways, but we could do a whole lot better.

I believe, to quote my friend, Tony, in between black and white is not shades of gray, but a rainbow.

I believe I am damned if I'm not growing. It is stopping, not sinning, that will keep me from my potential.

I still believe in sin and that it is to be avoided. I still believe in good and evil and that not all choices are of equal value, and that sometimes there are clear right and wrong choices. I still believe that sexuality has great potential for harm when unbridled, and that sexual standards are valuable. I still believe God has called prophets to lead the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I reject a handful of things they teach, but still feel like I sustain them. They themselves planted many of the seeds for my willingness to disagree with them. How does that work?

My Trust Issues (or lack thereof)

Trust involves being vulnerable. When I was young, I didn't get to choose who I was vulnerable to. I was vulnerable to my church leaders. Fortunately, they taught me well, protected, and loved me. They also hurt me a little. As adults, we are often able to choose whether we make ourselves vulnerable. I choose to be vulnerable to my prophets. I choose to listen to their words, even when they unjustly accuse me of error. I also choose to trust them beyond just listening, again and again, to their calls to repentance and action. I choose to trust them with the pain I feel. I chose to privately tell them that their teachings on pornography and addiction were harmful. Others did the same. We were told we were loved and were being heard. The tone of talks and Ensign articles on addictions changed, if not their frequency, and the twelve step programs were introduced. I don't think we're close to where we could be, but we've improved a lot. I think the groundwork is there for much greater improvements in the next generation.

Now I choose to trust and be vulnerable in a different way. I'm not the one being hurt. A private letter isn't enough because it isn't an issue between me and my prophets. I know the prophets love me, but not everybody feels loved. I want to love everyone, but not everyone can tell. It is for me that I take this stand--I don't feel I could do otherwise--but it is not for my pain. Here is what I say to my friends who want to hear it. Hopefully I can help make the church I love safer for them:

My Stand

I'm for marriage equality. I believe it is beautiful, and that it will bless lives. I hope we will also make room for it in our church someday. I hope it will be God's will and that our prophets will keep learning more about what families are like in the eternities. Eternal family composition seems a lot less straightforward than I've thought most of my life.

I'm for breastfeeding in the pews. It's healthy for children, it's healthy for families, and it's healthy for people who are bothered by it to give up their unhealthy sexualization of women's breasts. If mothers want to go to the mothers lounge, let them. It should be well lit, well ventilated, comfortable, and available. It's great if they want privacy or quiet. It's great if they want to sit in class or in sacrament meeting or talk in the halls while they nurse, too.

I'm for equality for women. I don't particularly care about priesthood ordination for women, although I suspect it will have to happen for them to truly be treated equally. When I say I want equality, I mean I want them to have significant, ultimate decision making voices in church policy and use of church funds--hard power in the earthly organization of the church. I believe we men don't need all the positions of power to get us to step up and do our part in the church. If that was true in the past, we can repent and do our part without thought of honor or reward. When women fill a significant percentage of management positions (~half) in scientific research, scientific research improves. When women fill a significant percentage of government offices (>= 1/3), countries are more peaceful. These are just two signs that giving women hard power improves all of our lives. I believe it will be the same in the church. I believe we will become better in ways I can't imagine.

I'm for embracing our colorful history, strange doctrine, and the injunction to search and question. I'm for acknowledging that we do things--as an institution and not just as individuals--that hurt people. These things are uncomfortable for organizations to deal with, but I believe it is both honest and loving to acknowledge them. It's natural for organizations to enforce a degree of homogeneity, and I believe necessary. It is necessary for organizations to choose their focus in this finite, mortal world and to do their best to bless the most people they can. I don't expect any catering to the demands of a minority at the expense of others. However, I believe it is our duty as members to both support and resist these organizational tendencies in loving ways. My reasons for believing this are not easily given in generalizations, but one is to keep families together and keep people we love close to us. Those who question and those who have been hurt need not be driven out of the church, either actively or passively. All the members of the body are needed, and I hope we can show that we believe this.

I'm for loudly proclaiming that we seek to make all humanity gods. This is not hubris. This is love. It is not setting ourselves above or belittling God. It is lifting up all of humanity to the greatest joys that can be known. It is embracing all truth, wherever it is found. It is seeing the best in one another and bringing out even better. It is building Zion where there are no rich or poor and all are of one heart and one mind. It is God's will for us.

And I'm for more cultural variety in church meetings. More music, and more varied music. I'd just like it. It would be fun. Who wouldn't love "A Poor Wayfaring Man Of Grief" played by a brass quintet?

"What do I want?! I want change! When do I want it?!"

I want it sometime. . . if it's right. I'm in no rush to get these things. I can be patient and try to show love and heal hurts caused by institutional policies and personal prejudices. I can even shut up for a while, if it's best. But I want it known that I do this BECAUSE I TRUST AND SUSTAIN GOD'S PROPHETS. I trust them to hear me and the other members of the church. I trust them to be two-way leaders, giving God's word to us and also taking our needs to God. I trust them to love me and treat me with love and respect even when I am wrong. I trust them to be humble in the face of my criticisms--not to back down on what they believe is right, and not even to refrain from rebuking me, but to take what I say to heart and ask themselves if they might have been mistaken. I really trust that they do this all the time. I don't believe that they spend all their time second guessing themselves, but I do believe they are reflective. I don't believe they are superhuman or have any easier of a time getting and understanding revelation than the rest of us. I do believe that they are more practiced at it than I am, and get it a lot more often than I currently do. I trust them not to change the church in the ways I want, if I want what is wrong or if it's the wrong time.

I trust them.

I do.

Unchanging God

My great-great-greatgrandfather, Orson Pratt, was not a big fan of a changing God. If you've read some of my other posts, the kind of God that makes most sense to me has infinitely more to learn than can ever be learned. I don't see this as making God less infinite or eternal, just as acknowledging how unimaginably vast and multidimensional reality might be. While I side with Orson Pratt on the goodness of expressing and arguing for my best beliefs, whoever might disagree with me, I side with Brigham Young on the idea of a God who continues to progress in knowledge and understanding. In contrast, I have encountered most of my life, and again recently, sentiments that much more favor Orson Pratt's view of an unchanging being. I have a hard time understanding how a being could start out as an intelligence, pass through several stages of existence, and then suddenly be done changing, but maybe it is what happened. I decided to examine what the scriptures show about God's unchangingness. We are all aware, I hope, that words have multiple meanings, and that it is very often unclear which meanings are most accurately applied. So here is the exercise:

1. Identify passages in the scriptures that talk about God not changing.
2. See what attributes or teachings of God are specifically described as unchanging.
3. Assume that we are required to believe in the unchangingness of those attributes or teachings (unless there is something explicitly contradictory among them, and then we have to examine the evidence further).
4. Assume that any attribute or teaching not specifically described as unchanging is up for discussion, and we need more light and knowledge before we can draw any dogmatic conclusions.

I chose as a starting place the scriptures listed in the Topical Guide under "God, Eternal Nature of." This is only a preliminary survey. My methodology is weak, and many of my interpretations are superficial. I would welcome further comment. I found that the passages fall into just a few categories (some fall into multiple categories):

• Assertions of unchangingness as a title with no, or ambiguous, indications of specific meaning
•  Deut 33:27, Isa 63:16, 1 Tim 1:17, Heb 13:8, D&C 19:10, D&C 121:32
• God interacts with humans according to their belief
•  Morm 9:9, Moro 10:7,19, D&C 20:11-12,17, 1 Ne 10:19, Alma 37:12, D&C 35:1, Moro 7:22
• God lives and reigns forever
• Ps 90:2, Ps 93:2, Ps 102:27, Ps 146:10, Isa 57:15, Rom 1:20, Moses 1:3
• God keeps his promises, including exercising judgement and giving blessings
•  Mal 3:6, Rev 22:13, 1 Ne 10:19, D&C 3:2, Alma 11:44, D&C 38:1, D&C 76:4, Moses 7:35

Some interesting absences to note are:

• All of the explicit comparisons of time frames are to the existence of this mortal earth on which we live.
• Nothing is claimed about the physical or spiritual body of God or Christ
• Nothing is claimed about God's learning or ceasing to learn. (In fact Christ is explicitly said to have grown in wisdom and stature.)
• All of the explicit comparisons of God's power are with human power on this mortal earth.

What do I conclude from all of this? I was probably more pleased at this result than such a superficial survey merits, but I'd been committing myself in writing to a changing God for a few months, now. So far, my naturalistic, evolving Gods are completely in keeping with God being Eternal, Unchangeable, Infinite, and any of the other superlatives applied. Confirming that my views of God only disagree with interpretations of scripture imposed from outside, and not with interpretations supported by illustrations within scripture, was a bit of a relief. There is still lots of room for me to be wrong (if I were a betting man, I probably wouldn't bet against myself only because it would be like stealing from anyone who took me up on it), but the lack of contradiction on these points gives me hope I might be a tiny step closer to an intellectual understanding of God. We'll see if anyone uncovers my confirmation bias on this issue.

My Testimony vs. Science

I listened to a series of podcasts that gave an overview of the psychology and natural history of religion. The gentleman being interviewed did a great job of withholding his atheist bias during the majority of the presentation, and just presented convincing research about how our brains and societies work. I found it very interesting, and thought, how well does my testimony hold up in the face of these psychological facts? It didn't turn out to be as interesting an exercise as I had hoped. Science doesn't say much about the truth of things it can't test. It can give insight into how we form our testimonies and what aspects of our testimonies we might want to reexamine. I give you some of my thoughts on how I and other Latter-day Saints might refine and modify, and I would say strengthen, our testimonies. As a fair warning, doing these things might destroy dearly held beliefs and have social consequences for you. I'd say it's worth it, and you can still be my friend.

1- Beware Conformity:

If a group of people that you belong to proclaim a particular belief, it is highly likely that you will believe it even if it isn't true. Approximately 75% of people can be influenced to believe something that is clearly false at least some of the time.

If the correct answer is unclear and the stakes are high for getting the right answer, conformity is even more likely.

1+ Embrace Loyal Dissent:

A single dissenting voice frees the many people to make their own choices. Squashing dissent increases the likelihood that you will believe falsehoods propagated by conformity. Embracing dissent from loyal group members increases the likelihood that you will learn new truths as new light and knowledge are revealed.

2- Beware telling yourself something is true:

Telling yourself something is true, and even better, telling others it is true, leads you to believe the truth of your statement even if it is demonstrably false. If you think there are important reasons, or if you receive a reward of any kind (monetary, social, hormonal, etc.) for making a particular truth claim, you are even more likely to believe it, even if there is hard evidence against it.

2+ Proclaim your most examined beliefs:

Each of us has personal knowledge and personal experience that have been tried and tested. There is no shame in not knowing everything. If what you mean is "I believe," go ahead and say it. Tell your stories. Stories are wonderful and rich in meaning. Avoid sweeping generalizations that at best carry little meaning and at worst are demonstrably false. What do you mean when you say "I know the church is true"? If you are an honest Latter-day Saint, you know it doesn't mean everything we teach is true and perfect. It doesn't even mean every way I think the church is true is true. Figure out what you mean by the claim "the church is true," and say that, instead. Why do we even need to say "I know God answers prayers"? Instead, tell how God answered your prayer. It may be easier to assert that we should follow the prophets, but it's worth doing the work to figure out specific ways that following the prophets has made your life better or made you a better person. A critic may question the source or interpretation of your personal experiences, but he can't change that you had an experience.

3- Beware seeing what you want to see:

Confirmation bias is an extremely common occurrence among humans. We actively practice it when we selectively recount faith promoting stories and silence those that appear to contradict our faith. We also practice it when we cease looking for new light and knowledge on a subject, or decide that scientific data can't be part of revealing light and knowledge. "A Manual, a Manual, we already have a Manual and need no more Manual." Insert your favorite source of doctrine, and the danger is the same.

3+ There are endless beauties waiting for us:

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all
        Ye know on earth, and all yeneed to know.
No one would force Keats to mean that every other fact, theory, technology, or work of art on the earth is irrelevant. Knowing that beauty is truth and truth beauty is a beginning that leads us on to seek out ever more beauty and ever more truth. If you aren't aware that this call to seek new truth and change our doctrine is an integral part of LDS belief, you are missing out. If you forget that God is revealing things to men and women all over the world, all the time, as our own prophets have taught on multiple occasions, you are missing out on a lot of beauty.

4- Beware the traditions of the fathers:

Beliefs persist. Once we have come to believe something, we are likely to continue to do so, even if we are faced with contradictory evidence. How long did it take Latter-day Saints to accept that skin color had nothing to do with premortal righteousness after the priesthood ban was lifted? It has taken a full generation, and there are still those alive who believe it. How successful was Joseph Smith in establishing a Zion society where all were of one heart and one mind, and there were no poor among them? How many Americans still circumcise their boys as a hold over from when people thought circumcision would keep their boys from falling into the sin of masturbation?

4+ Traditions are beautiful and true:

Our traditions give us stability, community, joy, and a sense of belonging. Correct traditions enrich our lives and lead us on to greater beauties. Traditions teach us where we came from and what we can aspire to. Traditions of prayer and charitable offerings have made me happy. Traditions of education and hard work have made me productive. Traditions of family have brought me endlessly surprising children and a marriage that is willing to thrive in the face of inevitable problems. Traditions need to be examined, but one thing we can learn from biology--if the tradition has survived, it at least isn't maladaptive, and it might even be true.

5- Beware eyewitness testimony:

Eyewitness testimony is fallible and malleable. It must be examined with care. Unfortunately, much of our religious experience is only available through eyewitness testimony, and is not verifiable in any other way. Anything that can only be established through individual, eyewitness (or earwitness, or mindwitness) testimony needs to be approached with skepticism. It's that simple.

5+ Everything is known through eyewitness testimony:

In making this observation, I am not claiming equal value in all testimony. When I can explain how my testimony was gained, and independent people, unaffiliated with me, all over the world, who have examined their personal sources of bias, and can physically show the results to other observers, all gain the same testimony, it ought to carry a lot more weight than when a mentally ill person claims to have seen a pig fly. But social science doesn't have the luxury of being scientific like physics or math. It often must rely inherently on subjective evidence. And history has it even worse. All we have for most of is fallible, eyewitness testimony. Any claims of truth or falsehood of eyewitness testimony are inseparable from our personal biases. While eyewitness testimony must be evaluated with care, great care must be taken before it is discarded, as well.

6- Beware institutional uses of manipulative methods

It is likely that many of my beliefs were formed or strengthened in part through the use of manipulative techniques like those employed by advertizers and salespeople. This is evidenced by continued use of these techniques in many church settings.

6+ We must manipulate and be manipulated

Any time we limit someone's agency, even to do good, we are treading on dangerous ground. But we can't avoid influencing one another's choices. Another way of manipulating is called choice architecture. Choosing to avoid influencing others is choosing to let other factors do all the influencing. Instead of abnegating our chances to influence others, we should examine our methods and aims. We can choose how we manipulate. We can put candy in the checkout line, or we can put it on an out of the way aisle. Any manipulation we do should be to allow people a greater ability to choose the things they value. We can influence others while still allowing them love, respect, and trust that they will choose good things for themselves--if we give them the chance.

7- Beware the voices in your head

All types of spiritual experiences can be (and arguably have been) replicated through entirely physical, biological processes. Really. Be careful what you claim and do based on internal spiritual experiences (and even some group experiences).

7+ God is in all things

There can be a knee-jerk reaction to claims that our powerful, spiritual experiences are simply chemical reactions in our brains. Give that up for a minute, and ask yourself, how does God communicate with my physical body? Do you think there will be no physical consequences of communication? Do you think those consequences will be proof against imitation? If you have sufficient reason to believe in God, knowing that He speaks to us through our beautiful bodies should be a joy to you. Yes, we have to be careful that we aren't accepting false messages as from God, but learning how God made our minds is heavenly science.

8- Religious beliefs are untestable

When beliefs cannot be verified or falsified through the scientific method, it is easy to maintain belief in falsehoods. In fact, untestable religious beliefs are a perfect example of this. There are at least thousands of different, contradictory beliefs about the nature of God around the world. Most of the world must be wrong (I think it most likely that all of us are wrong in some specifics and most of us are right in others--what we have right and wrong depends largely on our religion). Religious people and organizations frequently do unintended harm to individuals and groups when they push too hard belief in, or adherence to, untestable beliefs.

8+ Religious beliefs can be tested

I don't want to believe false things. I think most of us don't, but it is nearly certain that each of us does. Our prophets do not exempt themselves from this human condition. It's almost certain that each of us teaches some false and hurtful things at times. To repent of the falsehoods we believe and the wrongs we do we must judge. We must ask ourselves if our beliefs can be tested, and if they can we must submit them to the jury of evidence and reason. We must ask ourselves if our beliefs bear good fruit or evil fruit, and really be willing to judge the fruits of our beliefs, not just assert their goodness. I find it particularly invigorating when a belief bears both good and evil fruits. It suggests to me that I have a window into greater understanding. Maybe it means I believe something that is partly true and partly false. I have a starting place to explore and ask the right questions to get answers. I have a chance to exercise faith that God will reveal new light to me, and to repent and correct my flawed course.

9- Revelation can't be wrong

In scientific research, the goal is to gain knowledge and understand truth, but along the way being wrong is a virtue. It is a virtue to uncover your own and others' errors. It is a virtue to not have the answers, already. Religious belief idolizes revelation and rejects the notion that prophetic statements may contain error. This hinders learning and even moral and spiritual progress.

9+ Revelation can be wrong

Although we usually dismiss these doctrines in speech and practice, it is an integral, subversive tenet of Mormonism that revelation can be wrong--especially if you take it out of the narrow context in which it was given. And even if no past revelations were wrong, we believe in never-ending revelation of things we have yet to imagine. This can be extremely disquieting, because embracing these doctrines requires you to live in a constant state of uncertainty. After 5 or 6 months as a missionary, switching companions and cities almost every month, I expressed some discomfort at the constant stream of changes. My mission president said, some people would pay to have so many new experiences. (I don't know if it occurred to me at the time that my parents were paying for it, but his point still stands.) Not everything is changing constantly, but accepting that we are wrong sometimes, that our prophets are likely wrong sometimes, and that even our scriptures might be wrong sometimes can invigorate our faith and strengthen our religion if we let it. It can make us more loving, less distressed when we come face to face with the errors of our prophets, and more ready to embrace our neighbors' faults and pains--strengthening our bonds of mercy. This religious humility can help us become Gods who weep.

Coincidentally, my mom pointed me to the first article in a series where it looks like a number of specific applications of these principles for Latter-day Saints will be addressed. She didn't know I was writing this--inspiration at work (or at least a sensitive mom who pays attention to what's important to me).

Bonds of Mercy

Scriptural/Transhumanist Speculations on the Universe Part 6

Of the state of the gods are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy.

An atom is quite a complex thing, as you may have picked up from a little exposure to chemistry or quantum mechanics. Neutrons, protons, and electrons are a level down, with a variety of even smaller entities comprising and organizing these "larger" building blocks. At the same time, an atom doesn't do much by itself. Bond the atom into larger molecules, and more complex behaviors emerge. Even with only one added level of interactions the possibilities increase exponentially. The atom stays an atom, recognizable as itself, but it is also one with a larger molecule. It is so integral to that molecule that we can give the molecule its own name and know that the atom is there without specifically naming it. Molecules can be joined into superstructures and dynamic networks that we give names, like molecular machines, cells, or Jonathan. Bonding is the first step making this possible.

Mercy and Atonement

In reading Who Shall Ascend (pp. 959-962) there is a theme that is rather striking in the scriptural passages tied to this Beatitude and to the concept of mercy. Without giving the commentary explaining why these passages are so closely tied to mercy, I will list the passages so that you can read them: Psalm 98:1-13, Psalm 119:7, Doctrine and Covenants 121:45-46, Doctrine and Covenants 88:40. The theme is that mercy is a key factor in binding things together, or the at-one aspect of atonement. Perhaps these ties might be called bonds of mercy, or as C. Terry Warner called them in the title of his book, Bonds That Make Us Free. Somehow, as a merciful god one will have "an everlasting dominion and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever." In what kind of universe does God benefit reproductively by showing mercy to other beings that have hurt or disobeyed Him in the past? It goes farther than that. God binds Himself through mercy--not some other means--to these independent, self-willed beings to the point of becoming one with them. Bonds of mercy = everlasting, ever-increasing dominion. More food for thought in exploring the cosmos of evolved gods.