The faith of God, part fourteen: God is a miracle worker, not a scientist


Continued from part thirteen.

for behold [2 Ne. 27:23]

i am god

and i am a god of miracles

for behold [Mosiah 3:5]

the time cometh

and is not far distant

that with power the lord omnipotent

who reigneth

who was and is from all eternity to all eternity

shall come down from heaven among the children of men

and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay

and shall go forth amongst men

working mighty miracles

Omnipotent defined by Webster

Here is the definition of omnipotent from Webster’s 1828 dictionary:

OMNIPOTENT, a. [supra.]

1. Almighty; possessing unlimited power; all powerful.

The being that can create worlds must be omnipotent.

2. Having unlimited power of a particular kind; as omnipotent love.

The more scholarly 1913 edition defines it in the following manner:

omnipotent, a. [F., fr. L. omnipotens, -entis; omnis all + potens powerful, potent. See POTENT.]

1. Able in every respect and for every work; unlimited, or indefinitely great, in power, ability, or authority; all-powerful; almighty.

God’s will…and his omnipotent power. Sir T. More.

2. Unequaled; arrant; mighty.

Humorous. Shak.

Webster (apparently) corrected

On Sunday, October 1st, 2000, m_turner wrote the following:

Time and time again, throughout philosophy and everything, people challenge the omnipotence of the Christian God. Being such a public figure, I am certain that He gets this a lot.

The standard argument against the omnipotence of God runs as follows:

1.  If God is omnipotent, then He can do anything.

2.  Therefore, God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it.

3.  But if He cannot lift it, then He is not omnipotent.

4.  Likewise, if He cannot create such a rock, He is not omnipotent.

5.  Therefore, God cannot be omnipotent.

This paradox of omnipotence seems unsolvable. The main problem with this argument is the vagueness of the first premise – the definition of omnipotence.

The second premise of the argument is the main problem. It asks us to pit God’s omnipotence to create rocks against His ability to lift those rocks. For any rock that can be created it can be lifted. The existence of a rock too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift is a logical impossibility.

Some object that the nature of omnipotence allows one to create logical impossibility. If He cannot, then He is not omnipotent. Consider the following argument:

a.  If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle.

b.  God cannot create a square circle (according to theists).

c.  Therefore, God is not omnipotent.

Of course, premise (a) can be any logical paradox from round triangles to impossible rocks. This argument has the form:

  p -> q
  ~q
  ------
  ~p

This is a valid argument known as modus tollens, hence, we must turn to the soundness of the premises to see if the argument fails. Premise (x) is fair, and it is the one that is agreed upon. Premise (a) must therefore to be examined. Premise (a) can be broken into the following:

I.  God is omnipotent (according to theists).

II.  Thus God can create or do anything.

III.  A square circle is a thing.

IV.  Thus God can create a square circle.

Please note that draws a conclusion from the premises of theism. If theists do not accept these premises, then the reduction ad absurdum of theism fails. The only objection to this is that theists have weakened the concept of omnipotence.

First off, theists overwhelming agree with (I). The problems begin with (II). What is omnipotence? The ability to create or do anything? Contrary to Webster, when a theist asserts that God is omnipotent, they claim that

God is a maximally powerful being

This means that God is the most powerful being that can exist—He can do anything that can be done.

What about premise (III)? Can God create a square circle? A circle is a “plane curve at all points equidistant from a fixed point”, while a square is “a rectangle having four equal sides”. Let us now look at this again.

God can create a square circle.

A maximally powerful being can create a four equal sided curve at all points equidistant from a fixed point.

It is obvious to all that such a thing cannot exist. If such a thing cannot exist, then it cannot be created.

God cannot create that which cannot be created.

This is a contradiction of (IV) above and (1) from the original argument, thus they are unsound and the argument fails. Clearly (III) is false—it is not a thing, nor is it even a valid abstraction.

Returning to the nature of a maximally powerful being, this means that God can do anything that can be done. God can create things that exist now such as people, rocks, trees, stars, planets. God can create things which do not exist now, such as Martians—as long as their existence does not involve a contradiction.

Once again, returning to a previous topic, the maximally powerful nature might be seen as a weakened version of omnipotence. The question is on what grounds? Is being maximally powerful and having the ability to create logical impossibilities more powerful than just maximally powerful? This objection just returns back to the being that reasserts square circles which has been shown as unsound. No being can create logical impossibilities simply because they cannot be created.

Does this limit omnipotence? If a being cannot create that which cannot exist, is He limited? This question is suspect, it does not assert anything that is not evident by logical analysis, nor does it assert anything about the nature of the being. It is trivially true. While it does not assert anything about the nature of God, it fails to show a contradiction from the theistic premises and is itself reducible to absurdity. Simply, a Being cannot be faulted for creating that which cannot exist, because that which cannot exist cannot be created. God does not lack any ability to create things that cannot exist, because there is no such ability.

To sum it up:

God is a maximally powerful being.

That which cannot exist, cannot be created.

There is no contradiction from these two assertions, neither has the omnipotence of God been demonstrated to be a paradox, rather the arguments against omnipotence have been shown to rest on absurdity.

Omnipotent…

The traditional, dictionary defined view says,

God is omnipotent, meaning that He can create or do anything at all, no matter how impossible.

This means that God can create and do all things that are possible to create or do within the laws of nature, as well as all things that are impossible to create or do within those same laws, without limitations. In other words, His power is not constrained by natural law, whatsoever. This view corresponds to the Webster’s definition but runs into paradoxes.

…or a maximally powerful being?

To skirt around these problems, a new view of God’s power has emerged, which says,

God is omnipotent, meaning that He is a maximally powerful being.  This means that there are things that are impossible for even God to create or do, or that His power has limits.

Thus, God is as powerful as it is possible to be within the laws of nature and can create and do all things that it is possible to create and do within the laws of nature, but cannot create or do things which are impossible to create and do within the laws of nature. In other words, God’s power operates solely within, and is constrained by, the laws of nature. This view discards the dictionary definition of omnipotent and wherever the word appears in scripture it re-assigns to it the meaning, “maximally powerful (within the laws of nature).”

The scientist and the miracle worker

The scientist

The modern perspective corresponds to, and is represented by, man, who works within an already established body of natural laws, who we will call the scientist. For the scientist some things are possible and some things are impossible, according to the laws of nature he is working within. The power of the scientist is limited only by his knowledge of the natural laws and the limits those laws inherently possess.

The miracle worker

The former perspective is that of (the traditional) God, which we will designate as that of the miracle worker. For the miracle worker, natural law imposes no limitations, whatsoever, therefore there is no such thing as an impossibility from His perspective, all things being possible. The miracle worker, then, can work both within the bounds of natural law, in contradiction of them, as well as in areas where law is completely non-existent.  He is limited only by His faith, by which He works His miracles.

God as an advanced scientist

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

At least since 1869, the LDS have been taught that God’s omnipotence only means that He is maximally powerful; that He operates only within natural law (including natural laws which preceded Him and constrain Him); that because He knows all the higher laws which are unknown to us, His miracles are just advanced science, but to us they appear to be magic because we are ignorant of these higher, natural laws He operates under. Therefore, in reality, there is no such thing as a miracle.

And so God has become a scientist to the modern Mormon.

The midi-chlorian menace

Remember the wonderful, mystical force of Star Wars, which had every kid from 9 to 90 giddy with excitement, imagining that they could wield light sabers and use the force? Remember the scene in Star Wars when Obi-Wan Kenobi feels, through the force, the death of a billion souls who were just killed by the Death Star? Even the atheists were enchanted by the mystical, spiritual force of Star Wars that permeated all things.

Now fast-forward to The Phantom Menace, when Qui-Gon Jinn reveals that the ability to use the force was based on the midi-chlorian count that people had in their bodies (i.e., on science) and not on something mystical. Well, that scene in The Phantom Menace caused the billion or so people who ended up seeing it to feel the death of their childhood romance with the Star Wars saga. The mystical, magical force had been converted into mere science and George Lucus caused a billion imaginations to die, killed in one fell swoop by The Phantom (Midi-chlorian) Menace.

The same collective death of the marvels of God can be said to have occurred fairly early in the Restoration due to speculative Mormonism, whose gung-ho leadership downgraded God’s wondrous, impossible omnipotence due to His faith into mere maximum, possible power due to His knowledge. I suppose their speculations were understandable, since they were trying to present a knowable God to people, so they tried to bring God down and package Him as something a bit more understandable to the common man. Thus, we got the following, “scientific” teachings:

Mormon speculations running rampant

Beginning, apparently, with Brigham Young in 1869, latter-day saints began speculating that God was a scientist operating under higher laws of nature, which were as yet unknown to mankind.

Brigham Young taught that “there is no such thing” as a miracle, and that “God is a scientific character, … he lives by science or strict law.”  (Testimony of David H. Bailey)

According to Brigham Young, “there is no such thing” as a miracle and only “the ignorant” see the works of God as miracles. In 1869 he taught the following:

Yet I will say with regard to miracles, there is no such thing save to the ignorant — that is, there never was a result wrought out by God or by any of His creatures without there being a cause for it. There may be results, the causes of which we do not see or understand, and what we call miracles are no more than this — they are the results or effects of causes hidden from our understandings.

A year later, in 1870, Brigham taught that “God is a scientific character, that he lives by science or strict law,” that He exists by this science or strict law and that “by law (science) he was made what He is,” which would mean that God was made a God by a science which preceded (existed prior to) His existence, and thus God is a scientific creation.

It is hard to get the people to believe that God is a scientific character, that He lives by science or strict law, that by this He is, and by law he was made what He is; and will remain to all eternity because of His faithful adherence to law. It is a most difficult thing to make the people believe that every art and science and all wisdom comes from Him, and that He is their Author.

(See Modern science and the LDS doctrine of natural law)

James E. Talmage, in his book The Articles of Faith, wrote that “Miracles are commonly regarded as occurrences in opposition to the laws of nature. Such a conception is plainly erroneous, for the laws of nature are inviolable.” (Testimony of David H. Bailey)

Talmage made the above statement in 1899. More leaders followed suit on these speculations.

Several LDS leaders have expressed that miracles are part of higher natural laws. In a 1928 conference, for instance, Elder Orson Whitney said, “Miracles are not contrary to law; they are simply extraordinary results flowing from superior means and methods of doing things.” (Conference Reports, Oct. 1928, pp. 64-65.) Likewise, James Talmage once said:

Miracles are commonly regarded as occurrences in opposition to the laws of nature. Such a conception is plainly erroneous, for the laws of nature are inviolable. However, as human understanding of these laws is at best but imperfect, events strictly in accordance with natural law may appear contrary thereto. The entire constitution of nature is founded on system and order; the laws of nature, however, are graded as are the laws of man. The operation of a higher law in any particular case does not destroy the actuality of an inferior one. (Talmage, 200.)

In a similar vein, LDS researchers, Smith & Sjodhal, have written:

It is assumed that the so-called laws of nature are immutable, and that nothing can take place that appears to be contrary to such laws. To this objection the answer is, that we do not know all the laws of nature. We can, therefore, not maintain that the miracles performed by the servants of the Lord are not in perfect accord with some law of which we are ignorant. All we can say is that they do not belong to any of the classes of ordinary events with which men are familiar. But that is far from saying that they are impossible. As a matter of fact, violations of the best established laws of nature appear to be occurring constantly. We raise a weight from the ground. That seems to be contrary to the law of gravitation. …God directs and controls His universe and all that pertains thereto, not contrary to, but in conformity with, laws and forces known to Him, even though unknown to us. (Smith and Sjodahl, 516.)

Lastly, to quote Parley P. Pratt:

     Among the popular errors of modern times, an opinion prevails that miracles are events which transpire contrary to the laws of nature, that they are effects without a cause.

     If such is the fact, then, there never has been a miracle, and there never will be one. The laws of nature are the laws of truth. Truth is unchangeable, and independent in its own sphere.

     That which, at first sight, appears to be contrary to the known laws of nature, will always be found, on investigation, to be in perfect accordance with those laws. For instance, had a sailor of the last century been running before the wind, and met with a vessel running at a good rate of speed, directly in opposition to the wind and current, this sight would have presented, to his understanding, a miracle in the highest possible sense of the term, that is, an event entirely contrary to the laws of nature as known to him. Or if a train of cars, loaded with hundreds of passengers or scores of tons of freight had been seen passing over the surface of the earth, at the rate of sixty miles per hour, and propelled seemingly, by its own inherent powers of locomotion, our fathers would have beheld a miracle—an event which would have appeared, to them to break those very laws of nature with which they were the most familiar.

     If the last generation had witnessed the conveyance of news from London to Paris, in an instant, while they knew nothing of the late invention of the electric telegraph, they would have testified, in all candor, and with the utmost assurance, that a miracle had been performed, in open violation of the well known laws of nature, and contrary to all human knowledge of cause and effect.

      …The terms miracle and mystery must become obsolete, and finally disappear from the vocabulary of intelligences, as they advance in the higher spheres of intellectual consistency. Even now they should be used only in a relative or limited sense, as applicable to those things which are not yet within reach of our powers or means of comprehension. (Pratt, 103 – 104.)

(Miracles by Michael R. Ash)

Btw, Pratt wrote the above in 1891.

According to this view, God is just a really smart scientist who does everything according to some higher natural laws, which are as yet unknown to man, and He performs these feats through His knowledge of all things. Therefore, there is no such thing as a miracle and anyone that calls the things that God does a miracle is simply ignorant themselves of the knowledge it took to do such things. God, then, is a God of miracles only insofar as the audience witnessing the miracle is ignorant. Also, nothing He does contradicts natural law and therefore, is not impossible. This, of course, precludes creatio ex nihilo, since that would clearly contradict natural law, thus making creatio ex materia the only Mormon standard.

Moroni asked,

who shall say [Morm. 9:17]

that it was not a miracle

that by his word the heaven and the earth should be

and by the power of his word man was created of the dust of the earth

and by the power of his word have miracles been wrought

and who shall say [Marm. 9:18]

that jesus christ did not do many mighty miracles

The answer to Moroni’s questions is: Brigham Young, James E. Talmage, Orson Whitney, Smith & Sjodhal, Parley P. Pratt and many other Mormons who believe what these men have taught on this issue.

The Bible Dictionary on miracles

Such speculations have systemically affected the entire membership. As evidence of this, consider the Bible Dictionary entry on Miracles:

“Miracles should not be regarded as deviations from the ordinary course of nature so much as manifestations of divine or spiritual power. Some lower law was in each case superseded by the action of a higher.”

The scientific trap: creation by knowledge

Thus, Mormons have fallen into what might be termed, the scientific trap, which glorifies the acquisition of knowledge over all other principles. We have wrested the scriptures and converted the pure doctrine of creation and miracles by faith

for it is by faith that miracles are wrought [Moro. 7:37]

into a false gospel of creation and miracles by knowledge.

The scientific age has brought out fantastic discoveries, fanciful theories and marvelous new inventions, and this age, coupled with the wonderful new revelations God has given during the Restoration, has inspired the Mormon man to wonder about God’s vast knowledge, whether perhaps His knowledge of all things could be the cause of these miracles. This wondering has led to speculation, which has led to indoctrination, and now all Mormons are taught the satanic gospel of knowledge, leaving aside the divine gospel of faith.

First things first: some definitions

The adjective potential means “existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality” and also “expressing possibility,” while the noun potential means “something that can develop or become actual.”

The adjective impossible means “incapable of being or of occurring.” An impossibility, then, is “the quality or state of being impossible” and also “something impossible”.

With all of this in mind, let’s go back in time, to before the creation of all things.

Creatio ex nihilo

In the beginning, prior to the creation of all things, there was a compound-in-one Nothing, from which we came into existence. In the compound-in-one, non-existent state, the Nothing was without purpose and perfectly useless. So, to make it (the Nothing) have a purpose, God caused an opposition in all things by dividing the compound-in-one into two parts.

This division was impossible to do, but God did it anyway.
Now, the impossibility of the division cannot be stressed enough. Non-existence has no potential, whatsoever. The Nothing wasn’t merely something with untapped potential, like a gaseous plasma which is inert in its natural state but when a voltage is applied, it suddenly lights up. A gaseous plasma is something, and may react to external stimuli, but the Nothing was, quite literally, the lack of any sort of something. External stimuli does not elicit a response from absolutely nothing.

Nevertheless, God shone in the darkness and the Nothing began to split. This was not based upon knowledge of any laws, for laws did not apply to the Nothing. In other words, laws were non-existent at this point but also, even if they could exist at this point, they could not apply to the Nothing, for laws do not work on non-existence, only on things that exist.  This division, then, was an impossibility, yet it occurred anyway. Under what principle did it occur? Under the principle of faith, for God had faith that the Nothing would begin to divide if He shone a light; He shone a light and the Nothing began to split. It was a bona fide miracle, beyond the scope of any natural law, and like all miracles, was accomplished by faith, not knowledge.

Inner sphere of light=unnatural state of existence;
outer darkness=natural state of non-existence

The non-existent, uncreated, compound-in-one, Nothing state we were in prior to the creation of all things is our natural state. God, through the creation of all things took us out of our natural, non-existing state and placed us in a sphere of light, even the created Universe.

all truth is independent in that sphere [D&C 93:30]

in which god has placed it

to act for itself

as all intelligence also

otherwise there is no existence

However, the created Universe is not a natural state for us. It is an unnatural state. As we all are still living within the confines of the created Universe, what we today call the natural state is in reality an unnatural state.

Everything in the Universe is kept within this unnaturally existing, created, divided or split or opposition-in-all-things state by the power of God.

as also he is in the sun [D&C 88:7]

and the light of the sun

and the power thereof

by which it was made

as also he is in the moon [D&C 88:8]

and is the light of the moon

and the power thereof

by which it was made

as also the light of the stars [D&C 88:9]

and the power thereof

by which they were made

and the earth also [D&C 88:10]

and the power thereof

even the earth upon which you stand

and the light which shineth [D&C 88:11]

which giveth you light

is through him

who enlighteneth your eyes

which is the same light

that quickeneth your understandings

which light proceedeth forth from the presence of god [D&C 88:12]

to fill the immensity of space

the light which is in all things [D&C 88:13]

which giveth life to all things

which is the law

by which all things are governed

even the power of god

who sitteth upon his throne

who is in the bosom of eternity

who is in the midst of all things

Should God ever withdraw His power, or cease to exist, all things in the Universe would revert back to their natural state and vanish away back into the Nothing.

and if there is no god [2 Ne. 2:13]

we are not

neither the earth

for there could have been no creation of things

neither to act

nor to be acted upon

wherefore

all things must have vanished away

God’s omnipotence

This short prayer, given by the Savior in the Garden of Gethsemane, embodies the omnipotence and nature of God:

and he said [Mark 14:36]

abba

father

all things are possible unto thee

take away this cup from me

nevertheless

not what i will

but what thou wilt

It stands to reason that if all things are possible to God, then nothing is impossible to Him. But I will go further than that and say that:

God is omnipotent, according to His will and pleasure

By this I mean both that God is omnipotent because it is His will and pleasure to be omnipotent and that God’s omnipotence is dispersed according to His will and pleasure, which dispersal reveals the very will and pleasure of God, or His nature. (I will elaborate on this later.)

Suffice it to say that this prayer shows that God had power to take the bitter cup away from Christ, which is why Jesus asked Him to do so.  In other words, God had power to work out the atonement through Christ, thus preparing the way for our salvation, or to work out the atonement in some other way without Christ having to suffer.  His power is omnipotent, or unlimited, therefore, Christ’s sacrifice was chosen not because it was the only way, but because it was the appointed way, according to God’s will and pleasure.

Nothing is impossible with God

God’s miraculous power does not come from His knowledge, but from His faith. He is omnipotent because He has a fullness (infinite amount) of perfect, unshaken faith. His knowledge is finite, but His faith is infinite. I will quote the scripture again in case you missed this fact.

all truth is independent in that sphere [D&C 93:30]

in which god has placed it

to act for itself

as all intelligence also

otherwise there is no existence

God has placed all truth—which is all knowledge, for

truth is knowledge of things [D&C 93:24]

as they are

and as they were

and as they are to come

—into a finite sphere. But His infinite faith extends beyond the boundaries of the sphere of light, into the infinite, eternal regions of outer darkness, where the non-existing, compound-in-one Nothing is found. Because of this, there are no limitations to His power, nor can there be. The only impossible thing to God, then, is a limitation to His power.

The greatest feat God can do

If you are purporting to be omnipotent and want to demonstrate your matchless strength, how do you do this? Is it by lifting more weight than any man can lift? No. Is it by lifting more weight than any group of men working together and pooling all their resources and technology could lift? No. Is it by lifting all the weight there is or was or will be? No. If you have unlimited strength, then all of these feats are well within your strength (non-)limits. No, the only way to truly demonstrate your omnipotence is to go beyond your limitations. That’s impossible, right? And that’s the point.

In order for God to demonstrate His omnipotence, He must do the impossible.

Because the scriptures call God the Lord God Omnipotent—which, according to Webster’s 1828 and 1913 dictionary editions does not mean “maximally powered” but literally possessing unlimited power—the only way for God to demonstrate His omnipotent power is by performing a feat which is impossible for Him to perform. Nevertheless, even such a feat would be easy for an omnipotent God.

ah lord god [Jer. 32:17]

behold

thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm

and there is nothing too hard for thee

Regardless of its ease, though, going beyond His own limitations would most definitely demonstrate the full extent of His matchless power. Now, we must ask, what is impossible to a God that has unlimited power? The answer: a limitation on His power.

To glorify God

The purpose of the creation of all things was to glorify God. God, in the midst of the Nothing, took His unlimited power and created a limitation to His power, in the shape of a sphere of light. His power extends beyond the sphere (for it is faith-based power, which extends into the Nothing), but by creating the Universal sphere, He “gathered up” a portion of His unlimited power and created divisions and limitations on what He could and could not do within the sphere.

Prior to the creation, from God’s perspective, there were only possible things, for His power was unlimited. After the creation, His power was divided between the infinite Nothing, in which His power was still unlimited, and the sphere of light, in which He created limitations. In regards to the sphere, God created an unnatural state in which now there were unnatural laws (what we call the laws of nature) and according to these unnaturally made laws, there were now things that were possible and things that were impossible, both for God and man and beast and all other things.

These limitations on His power were His way of demonstrating that His power was so great that He could even bind Himself, an absolutely impossible feat. Binding God, or creating limitations on His own unlimited power was the greatest feat that God could do, hence the creation of the Universal sphere. It was meant to cause all that was in the Universe to wonder at His greatness, and to give glory to Him.

Giving impossible purpose to the impossible Nothing

wherefore [2 Ne. 2:12]

it must needs have been created for a thing of naught

wherefore

there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation

wherefore

this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of god and his eternal purposes

and also the power and the mercy and the justice of god

The genius of God is that He does the impossible. The Nothing is “a thing of naught” with no apparent purpose, therefore, God could not have created it, for He creates all things with a designated purpose in mind, which shows His great wisdom, power, mercy and justice. If God had created the Nothing, a thing with no purpose, whatsoever, its very creation (by God) would have destroyed God. As God still exists, we know that He did not create the Nothing, therefore the Nothing must be in its natural state of purposeless, impossible to use, non-existence. Nevertheless, even though God did not create the Nothing, and even though in its current state of non-existence, it is impossibly useless stuff, He still thought up a use for it, anyway.

wherefore [D&C 76:44]

he saves all except them

they shall go away into everlasting punishment

which is endless punishment

which is eternal punishment

to reign with the devil and his angels in eternity

where their worm dieth not

and the fire is not quenched

which is their torment

and the end thereof [D&C 76:45]

neither the place thereof

nor their torment

no man knows

neither was it revealed [D&C 76:46]

neither is

neither will be revealed unto man

except to them who are made partakers thereof

nevertheless [D&C 76:47]

i the lord show it by vision unto many

but straightway shut it up again

wherefore [D&C 76:48]

the end

the width

the height

the depth

and the misery thereof

they understand not

neither any man

except those who are ordained unto this condemnation

wherefore [D&C 29:28]

i will say unto them

depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire

prepared for the devil and his angels

and now [D&C 29:29]

behold

i say unto you

never at any time have I declared from mine own mouth

that they should return

for where i am they cannot come

for they have no power

but remember [D&C 29:30]

that all my judgments are not given unto men

These scriptures show that God uses the Nothing as a holding place for the devil, his angels and the sons of perdition. This is, of course, impossible, for where is the Nothing? It is nowhere and everywhere at the same time. The most we can say is that it is outside of the sphere of light, but it contains no “end, width, height or depth” that man can understand, for outer darkness is a true eternal or infinite expanse. God can comprehend it, but we cannot.

Three impossible things, so far, and He’s just getting started

We see from this that God has accomplished, so far, three impossible feats. He created something from Nothing. He limited His own unlimited power by dividing it between within and without the sphere, and He has made use of the useless Nothing which He did not create.

None of these impossible miracles were accomplished by His knowledge, which remains in the sphere, but by His faith, which not only permeates the sphere but also penetrates into the darkness beyond.

But God doesn’t stop there, for He offers His children who now reside within the sphere the promise of eternal life, of receiving all He has. That includes His unlimited power. Now, this is entirely impossible, for how can we, who started out as the Nothing, go from the singular, undifferentiated, infinite Nothing to plural, differentiated, finite somethings to possessing unlimited power? We are finite beings in our current (unnatural) state, therefore it is impossible for us to comprehend the infinite.

and no man putteth new wine into old bottles [Mark 2:22]

else the new wine doth burst the bottles

and the wine is spilled

and the bottles will be marred

but new wine must be put into new bottles

neither do men put new wine into old bottles [Matt. 9:17]

else the bottles break

and the wine runneth out

and the bottles perish

but they put new wine into new bottles

and both are preserved

Thus, finite man must be made infinite again before the unlimited power of God can be put into him. Yet, such a conversion is also impossible, nevertheless, this is exactly what God intends to do, regardless.

To solve these impossibilities in our doctrine, those who have fallen into the scientific trap have opted to imagine that God’s power is finite, that He is merely maximally powered according to His knowledge, thus allowing for the possibility of man becoming like Him. According to this thinking, it will take a really long time and a lot of learning, but eventually we will be able to learn all that God knows, too, and become maximally powerful beings like Him.

The limitations created by God

Prior to the creation, all things were to God a set of infinite possibilities, a completely blank slate from which to do anything He desired. During the creation, God made a new set of possibles and also a set of impossibles, both for Himself and all created things.

Insofar as He Himself is concerned, the new set of impossibles consists of things in which He doesn’t exercise faith. Insofar as everything else is concerned, the impossibles set also follows the same principle and thus accord to the faith of God, meaning:

that the limitations of all things are the limitations that He has set by His faith upon all things;

that all things that we say God is able to do are still impossibilities made possible by His faith, meaning that it is all still a miracle;

that all things we say God is unable to do (or powerless to do) is another manifestation of his matchless power in creating impossible limitations in which there originally were no limitations; in other words, that the limitations of the Universal sphere and the laws given by God—along with all their bounds and conditions—are, themselves, miracles;

and that all talk of God being literally limited in what He can do comes from a limited understanding of how He wields His power, for He has all the power that exists in the Universe and uses all those powers according to the purposes He has given them, vicariously through agents, etc.

Now, having a power serves no purpose unless it is used. Therefore, God uses all of His powers, but not all of them Himself, for some of them He has delegated to agents who desire to use them, to further His many purposes. For example, God has the power to deceive and to destroy agency, but He has delegated this power to Satan and other agents. Because He has delegated these powers, we say and also read in the scriptures that God “cannot lie.”  Or that God cannot make slaves of people by destroying their agency, like Satan does.  These are true statements, but it merely attests to the delegated nature of these powers, they having been given to Satan and others inspired by the devil. This does not mean that God never had them, nor that He will never get them back, nor that He does not have power at this very moment to retrieve or take back these powers from Satan. He most certainly did, will and does. But it is the nature of God to use many agents to serve His many purposes.

Elder Chantdown recently wrote:

This is the strange act of the same Father who stood not in conflict but in conversation with Lucifer. Notice even in the super-sacred-secret, copyrighted, intellectual property of the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Corporation Sole) video production of the Temple Drama, how cool and collect Elohim is in his correspondence with Lucifer. Lucifer ap-PARENT-ly sees his own PARENT as an enemy. But, God The Father appears to not be distressed in the slightest. Lucifer says “If you do that then I’ll do this!” God responds with a “Works for me” tone. Everything and everyone, including, yes, The Devil, works for Elohim.

Emphasis mine.

and worlds without number have i created [Moses 1:33]

for behold [Moses 1:35]

many worlds have passed away by my power

Therefore the Creator possesses all power, both to create and destroy, both to enliven and to kill, both to set limits and remove limits, both to bind and unbind. And He utilizes all His powers according to His divine purposes. What we see as a “limitation on His power” is a created limitation, meaning one of His creations. So, whenever people say God can’t do this or God can’t do that, claiming that He is not omnipotent because of these limitations, they are revealing their ignorance of His very nature, for it is in His very nature to set limitations and bounds to all things. Those bounds cannot be passed because no one or no group is more powerful than He is, meaning that nobody has more faith than He does.

So, when we find scriptures that state that God can’t lie or else He will cease to be God, this doesn’t mean that some greater power than God has bound Him, but that He has bound Himself, or set a limitation even to Himself, according to His nature. This is why He is both all-powerful, but not a dictator or tyrant. All things love and obey Him voluntarily because of His magnanimity in binding Himself to all things in these ways.

Reality altering faith

God’s unlimited power (agency) comes of His infinite, perfect, unshaken faith. If God exercises His faith in any way, He has power (agency) to do whatsoever that thing is. Because of this, He cannot be backed into a corner in which He has no out. He always has an out, for if He exercises His faith, reality is altered.

The nature of His faith is such that after binding Himself with an oath and covenant that He would not lie, if so He would cease to be God, and afterward changing His mind about the oath and deciding to lie and not cease to be God, He could violate the oath and escape the penalties invoked. How? By exercising faith to that end. Because His faith alters reality, God always has an escape clause. Square circles, rocks too heavy for Him to lift, lying and not ceasing to be God, violating and destroying agency and creating slaves like Satan does, ceasing to be God and then coming back into existence as fully God, etc. None of these things pose difficulty to Him, for He does not ever lose faith and faith is where His power to alter reality comes from.

The ability to alter reality is what created the Universe, for the Nothing is the state of nature, or the original, real reality, whereas the created Universe is an unnatural, or altered reality, made real by God’s faith. Any and every time God uses His faith, the action is always the same: reality is again altered and a new reality is created. This shows that every act of God, every miracle He does, is a new creation.

they [miracles] are created now and not from the beginning [Isa. 48:7]

None of these creative acts are done by natural means, meaning by science or knowledge of natural laws and their manipulation, but are accomplished by the miraculous power of reality-altering faith. This keeps all the acts of God firmly planted in the realm of the impossible (from man’s perspective), in order to keep man and the angels wowed, wondering and marveling at God’s matchless power, that they might give glory to Him. All things that come to know God are in a continual state of astonishment because of this infinite faith of His.

The principle is this: all things that God proposes to do, He does. Whatever He exercises faith in doing, is accomplished. Therefore, God’s power isn’t really limited in any way. All His so-called limitations are self-imposed limitations.

The movie Hancock had a Greek god, played by Will Smith, arrested and incarcerated, due to drunkenness, destruction of property, etc. He stayed in prison voluntarily. At any moment he could leave, but chose not to. In like manner, only God has power to limit His power, by choosing not to exercise His faith.

The nature of God is unnatural

i the lord am bound [D&C 82:10]
when ye do
what i say
but when ye do not
what i say
ye have no promise

Given the awe-inspiring, reality-bending faith God has, it is impossible to bind Him down with a contract or covenant. He can quite easily alter reality and get out of it by exercising His faith. So, how is it that God is bound when we do what He says? It is because of His nature, in which it pleases Him to be bound and so it is His will that He be bound.

Perhaps it may seem strange that God, the quintessential anarchist, possessing untrammeled freedom and unlimited power to do anything, with no restraints upon Him, whatsoever, as His very first acts creates beings so that He can be bound to them. Yet, this should not seem so perplexing, for just as there is a pleasure that comes from unbounded freedom, represented by the eternal expanse of the Nothing, there is also a pleasure that comes from being wrapped (bound) up in a warm blanket, all cozy and warm, represented by the created Universe. God, having all power, wanted all things, for what good is having power to experience all things if you aren’t going to experience them all?

So, the nature of God (in the Nothing) is to experience everything and He has created His will (the sphere) and determined what will please Him within it, in order to utilize His power to the fullest extent, granting Him both direct and vicarious experience (through agents) in all things. In other words, He determined a plan to obtain the fullest possible experience and then created His nature (the sphere) to accomplish it, which plan also manifests that nature, both within and without the sphere.

The created aspect of His nature shows, yet again, that He is not bound by even His nature, for at any moment, should it please Him to change His nature, He can do so, and can create a new nature, merely by exercising His faith in that direction. This is the nature of godhood, to ”do what thou wilt” and to “do as you please.” He chooses, then, what will be His will and what will be His pleasure. In other words, He determines His own nature.

Again, because His nature is a creation, it is unnatural, just as the Universal sphere is unnatural, for the only natural state is the Nothing.  If God’s nature was in a state of nature, it would be non-existent, like the Nothing.  We see from this that God’s power is absolute in the most literal of senses, for He can recreate Himself from scratch.

jesus answered [John 2:19]

and said unto them

destroy this temple

and in three days i will raise it up

So, even if God were to be destroyed, or become non-existent, becoming one again with the Nothing, He has power to come back into existence.

no man taketh it from me [John 10:18]

but i lay it down of myself

i have power to lay it down

and i have power to take it again

this commandment have i received of my father

This is obviously impossible, yet God does it anyway.  How?  By exercising His infinite faith to that end.  There is no science involved, there is no mechanism set up to bring Him back into existence.  He merely becomes non-existent, believing that He will come back into existence at whatever appointed instant He has determined.  His surety that He will awake is absolute, His faith perfect and unshaken, and so at the set moment, He comes back into being.  This exercise of faith has no match, yet God can do this, has done this, and will yet do this, for this is a power that He has, even power over life and death and rebirth.

God, then, and all that pertains to Him, is unnatural, for the natural state is non-existence, or the Nothing.

Impossible any way you look at it

Now, it is just as unnatural (and impossible) to go from existence into non-existence (annihilation), as it is to go from non-existence to existence (creatio ex nihilo)—for the law of conservation of energy states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed; it merely changes form—yet the one scenario (the doctrine of annihilation) we Mormons readily accept,

god would cease to be god [Alma 42:13,22,25 & Morm. 9:19]

and if there is no god [2 Ne. 2:13]

we are not

neither the earth

for there could have been no creation of things

neither to act

nor to be acted upon

wherefore

all things must have vanished away

while the other (creatio ex nihilo) we reject.  We console ourselves by saying that although God would cease to be God under that set of circumstances, which would cause all created things to also cease to be, that set of circumstances will never occur, therefore it is impossible for that to happen.  Nevertheless, we assign its impossibility not to a limitation of God’s power, but to a choice that God has made.  In other words, He has power to lie and cease to be God, but chooses not to, for then He and everything He created would vanish away.  But we do not apply the same principle to creatio ex nihilo.  With that doctrine, we say that creatio ex nihilo is impossible not because God chooses not to do it, but because He has no (and cannot possibly have any) power to do it.

We think, in this reasoning, that there is a fundamental difference between the two impossibilities, but there really isn’t, for if God has a power to cease to be God, which would cause all creation to vanish away, so that there is nothing that acts or is acted upon, you have just described a power as impossible as creating something from nothing, for if something vanishes away, so that it neither acts nor can be acted upon, you are describing the Nothing, or non-existence, which Mormons claim is, itself, impossible.

(Again, I repeat, for the sake of those who are still locked into the creatio ex materia idea: the death of God and subsequent vanishment of all things cannot mean that all things go back into a state of primordial chaotic matter, because Lehi’s words indicate that the resulting state would be one in which it neither acts nor can be acted upon.  Primordial chaos can be acted upon, therefore, Lehi is describing a state of Nothing, or non-existence.)

The truth is that the doctrines of annihilation and of creatio ex nihilo and of creatio ex materia and of creatio ex deo, are all true, but they are played out at the appointed time and in the appointed manner that God has before determined.  Just because they are true doctrines does not make them any less impossible, for all the doctrines of God are as impossible and unnatural as He is.  And just because they are impossible, does not make them any less true.

Ceasing to be God

How do we know that God ceases to be God from time to time? Because there is no power that He does not have and there is no power that He does not use, for to have a power and not use it would serve no purpose, which would destroy all His works. So we know, since He has all power, that He has the power to cease to be God. And we already know how this in accomplished. All He need to do is create something that has no purpose. And what has no purpose? The Nothing. How, then, does God cease to be God? By creating the Nothing, which has no purpose. This destroys Him, or annihilates Him, so that He becomes one with the Nothing again. And the cycle endlessly repeats with rebirth, life, death, rebirth, life, death, etc.

The word of God says that He is infinite and eternal.

which father son and holy ghost are one god [D&C 20:28]

infinite and eternal without end

amen

and behold [Alma 34:14]

this is the whole meaning of the law

every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice

and that great and last sacrifice will be the son of god

yea

infinite and eternal

by these things we know [D&C 20:17]

that there is a god in heaven

who is infinite and eternal

As the Universal sphere is finite, the infinite nature of God must deal with the Nothing, which is infinite. So, God is connected to the Nothing, meaning that the Nothing is the infinite part of God. God, then, is all there is, and also all there isn’t. Of what, then, does God create? Of Himself. Sure this defies logic, but that’s to be expected.

Even trusting God is an impossible miracle

If a man has the entire deck stacked in his favor; if he’s holding all the cards; if he’s the only business and game in town; if there is nobody double-checking or verifying his facts; if all verification comes from him; if there is no regulatory authority over him, nobody supervising him, no external force or entity that can keep him in check, or guarantee that he will keep his word; and if he can enter into a binding contract but change or violate the terms of it whenever he wants without any consequences to him, whatsoever; if at any moment he could force you to do anything that he wanted; if such a man existed and said to you, “Hey, just trust me! I won’t let you down!”; wouldn’t you find it absolutely impossible to put your trust in him?

This is the very situation we find ourselves in with God and His omnipotent, miraculous power to alter reality. He’s got a monopoly on everything. Heck, even the Nothing belongs to Him! These omnipotent, miraculous abilities do not instill confidence in Him, for He has power to do exactly the opposite of what He says and get away with it, without us even knowing it. Those who bring themselves to trust in God do so as a leap and act of faith. God’s omnipotence, then, serves to develop faith in us by creating an environment of distrust so that He can produce the miracle of trust.

In like manner, all gospel principles are impossible miracles, God turning things upside down from what we would expect as the normative way of doing things, all so that we might praise His greatness.

The works of God defy logic

Faith is not logic-based. Therefore, the logical paradoxes to God’s omnipotence pose no problem whatsoever to Him. That we cannot understand how such-and-such a deed can be possible, given the rules of our reality, does not limit God from working miracles through His faith. Perhaps it can be asked, “Can God work miracles through knowledge alone?” The answer would be, “Yes.” In fact, the principle of God’s omnipotence can be summed up with two questions and their answers.

Question: Does God have power to do [fill in the blank]?

Answer: Yes, He does.

Question: Does He exercise this power?

Answer: Yes, He does, either personally or vicariously.

Paradoxes do not matter because reality is created on a foreseen basis. So, no matter what scenario one comes up with to test the validity of God’s omnipotence, God has already foreseen it and accounted for it in the present reality, if need be. In other words, if the test is to have God do something impossible using only current reality laws, without the exercise of reality-altering faith or any other godlike “cheat,” such as by having Him work miracles through knowledge alone, without altering reality, He could still do it because His foreknowledge of all things would have seen the test beforehand and provided a way in the current reality (by creating the reality with an “impossible law” exception that only applies to Him or to whomever the test subject is to be) to accomplish the task under the assigned rules. There is simply no way to back God into a no-way-to-escape, paradoxical corner.

It is His will and pleasure to be omnipotent

The will of God corresponds to His left-brain-mind, which is the Universal sphere, while His pleasure corresponds to His right-brain-heart, which resides in the Nothing.  The one is infinite and the other finite.  The one boundless and free, the other bounded and limited.  Because of this dual nature to God, His omnipotence must, of necessity, please or appeal to both halves of His being, therefore, it remains unlimited outside of the sphere and limited within the sphere.  The will craves confinement and limitations and conditions and bounds, by giving a law to all things, whereas the pleasure craves just the opposite.  Nevertheless, the will (sphere) expands into pleasure (Nothing) territory and what occurs within the will (sphere) is always according to the pleasure, for all things that happen in the will (sphere) were pre-planned (foreordained) by God’s pleasure as He looked out into the Nothing with faith, bringing His will into existence.

God must, of necessity therefore, be omnipotent, because of His will and pleasure.  His pleasure demands omnipotence because the Nothing, being a true infinity, can only be split and made into all the endless varieties of things that God sees by His eye of infinite faith, which produces unlimited power.  And His will demands omnipotence because it is expanding into the Nothing in an ongoing creation of a never-ending variety of newly existent things.  Also, because the exercise of God’s faith within the sphere alters its reality, which transcends the already established laws found therein, His will requires that He be able to do any impossible thing, even within the confines of the sphere.

Therefore, because it is God’s will and pleasure to be omnipotent, He exercises His faith to that end.

Dispersing His omnipotence reveals His nature

Inside of the sphere, God’s omnipotence is dispersed according to His will and pleasure.  This dispersal, which we can observe or learn about through our mortal existence and also through the word of God and the manifestations of the Holy Spirit, reveals the very will and pleasure of God, or His nature.

The nature of something is determined by observation of what it does. We can view lots of lions and see patterns that they all follow and then, when we see one lone lion do something different, that no other lion does, then we are justified in saying that that lion went against the nature of lions. But in the case of God, what do we have to compare Him with? He is the only God that we know of, therefore, all that He does, even when He does something different than what we’ve seen before, must all be part of His nature. We are not ever justified in saying that what He does goes against His nature.

So what do we see?  We see the powers of God delegated to three groups of people: the devil and his angels, men and women, and God and His angels, with a subset of the godly powers reserved for the Supreme Being to use alone.

All of God’s creations use delegated powers of God to do whatsoever it is that they do, even Satan himself.  The demonic powers, then, are simply a subset of God’s infinite set of powers, which He loans to the devil because of an expressed desire that he had to use them.  While the devil remains within the sphere of light, he and his angels may use these powers to tempt man and destroy agency, captivating and compelling the souls of men.  But once they are evicted and cast into outer darkness, their powers remain in the sphere and return back to their rightful owner: God.

The same scenario plays out with man and the angels.  As long as they remain in the kingdom of light (the sphere), their delegated powers remain with them.  If ever they get evicted, whatever power was lent to them stays in the kingdom.

This shows us the nature of God by which powers He reserves to Himself for personal use and which He delegates.  Some powers he delegates to devils, some to men, some to angels and others He uses Himself.  Even though the delegated powers are not used personally by Himself, He ends up using them vicariously through the agent to whom the power was delegated.  In this way, God uses all His powers, even those that we would say are “off limits” to Him, such as the demonic powers.

So, God lies, steals, murders, breaks covenants, and does every other horrible thing it is possible to do, vicariously, through the power He has delegated to agents who have asked to receive and use such powers.  Although the agents have received authorization, or priesthoods, to use these demonic powers, they have been instructed not to use them, therefore they are not on the Lord’s errand when they use them.

ADAM: What is that apron you have on?

LUCIFER: It is an emblem of my power and priesthoods.

ADAM: Priesthoods?

LUCIFER: Yes, priesthoods.

Thus, the saying that “God cannot lie” does not mean that God has no power to lie.  He has such a power, but has delegated it to others.  Eventually, that power will return to him, but at any moment He can exercise faith and get it back immediately.  Nevertheless, the nature of God is to always delegate that particular power.  So, the saying, “God cannot lie” isn’t saying that God’s power is limited, but is attempting to reveal the nature of God, which is that He never, personally uses this power, or gives anyone else instruction to lie, but He does disperse this power to those who desire it.  The same principle applies to other dispersed powers.

Infinite faith produces unlimited power (omnipotence)

Every dispersed or reserved power that is found within the sphere was produced first by God exercising His infinite faith to obtain it. The principle of the Nephites

having power given them to do all things by faith [2 Ne. 1:10]

equally applies to God, for the principle is patterned after Him. No power ever came into existence without God first exercising His faith to bring it into existence.

ELOHIM: I will place enmity between thee and the seed of the woman. Thou mayest have power to bruise his heal, but he shall have power to crush thy head.

LUCIFER: Then with that enmity I will take the treasures of the earth, and with gold and silver I will buy up armies and navies, popes and priests, and reign with blood and horror on the earth!

Where did the devil get the enmity? From God. Who created the gold and silver? God did.

Taking the extreme example of the demonic powers, we see that the devil received all his powers from God, who first exercised His faith to obtain these powers, and then delegated them to those who desired to use them. Thus, even though the devil has no faith, the powers he uses are of God and came of God’s faith. Should God ever exercise His faith to remove those powers, the devil would be stripped of them. This shows that all things, even the kingdom of the devil, are dependent upon the sustaining will and faith of God. The dispersed powers are lent because it serves the purposes of God, to further His plan. When it no longer serves His purposes, that is the end of the probation and everything returns back to Him, to give an accounting of what they did with what He dispersed to them.

Not restricted in the least

It is inappropriate and a misunderstanding, then, to view the limitations that God has created on how He operates within the sphere as a restriction of His matchless power.  He still is not restricted in the least and He still gets to experience the exercise of every single power that He has.  Also, all the powers that He disperses to others, which are then used to fight Him and His work, have no effect on frustrating Him, but actually end up serving His purposes.

the works and purposes and designs of god cannot be frustrated [D&C 3:1]

How is this possible?  It isn’t.  In fact, it is impossible.  The whole plan of God is stacked against Him, for He works using only agency, allowing all of creation to vote Him out of existence and delegates a large portion of His powers to the devil so that he can fight and attempt to frustrate His work and then He takes a more or less hands off approach (except when men exercise faith in Christ).  Logically, God’s plan ought to be easily frustrated, but it never is nor can be.  Why can’t it be?  Because God’s faith is absolutely infinite and is the means by which He accomplishes His miraculous works and purposes and designs.

God as a miracle worker

Agency is defined in the scriptures as “power to act and not to be acted upon.” So God’s omnipotent power is agency, which, as I explained in a previous post, comes only of faith.  Since God has all power to act and nothing can act upon Him, or force Him to do something against His will, He has a fullness of agency, meaning He’s omnipotent.

Now, since the consent of the governed is needed in the kingdom of God in order for Him to remain just, which is the law of common consent, one must ask, when the vote was taken and one-third rebelled, did God lose 33% of His agency?  In other words, is God’s agency tied to the agencies of the things that make up the Universal sphere?

The answer is: No.

Agency is only tied to faith.  As God’s faith is infinite, anything He exercises His faith towards will come to pass, regardless of what it is.  Our faith is centered externally in Him, or in His Son, but God’s faith is centered internally, in Himself.  This means that His faith is independent of the environment He finds Himself in.

So, if the entire sphere should vote God off the throne, and afterward He were to exercise His faith to get them to vote Him back on, they would do it.  Not because He compels them to have a new election, but because His faith causes miracles to happen.

The faith of God is equally miraculous inside the sphere, among the things which have agency, as well as outside of it, where the non-existent Nothing is (not).  The Nothing does not act, nor can it be acted upon, thus it has no agency, yet when God exercises faith to make it split, it splits.  If non-reacting Nothing miraculously reacts to God’s faith, how much more would somethings, which have the innate ability to react (for they have agency), react to it?

Thus we see that God is only a miracle worker.  He does nothing but miracles.  There is no science involved in anything He does.  Although He knows all the finite things that exist within the Universal sphere, this knowledge does not translate into power, because He operates solely on faith, which produces agency.

Nevertheless, as He possesses unlimited power, He has power to work by knowledge.  Does He use this power?  Yes, vicariously.

The devil as an advanced scientist

Satan has no faith, therefore, he cannot obtain agency through faith.  Where, then, does his agency come from?  From the one-third, who voluntarily gave up their agency to him and also through all those who transgress the laws of God.  He also obtains agency through force, the application of scientific principles and deceit.

The spirit of the devil is likely patterned after the spirit of the Lord, which is in the shape of a sphere or expanded toroid (a doughnut shape).  Like hanging, rotten fruit, the one-third and sons of perdition are attached to it by filaments or branches.  All of the light and truth these spirits once had is taken away by the devil.

and that wicked one cometh [D&C 93:39]

and taketh away light and truth

through disobedience

from the children of men

and because of the tradition of their fathers

Now, light is wisdom, which the devil converts, through his devilish alchemy, into dark cunning.  And truth is knowledge, as explained above.  (Which truth he converts into partial truth, lies and other falsehoods.)  So, like a vacuum cleaner, the devil has sucked up the combined wisdom and knowledge of all the one-third and all the sons of perdition.  In addition, he has collected light and truth of varying degrees of every living mortal sinner.  Finally, every person who has died in their sins and gone to hell have been vacuumed, as well, of every last bit of light and truth they ever had, causing their spiritual deaths.

Given that the hosts of heaven are spoken of as being innumerable to man, just taking the one-third of them alone we arrive at a body of light and truth incomprehensibly great.  If 100% of the number is innumerable, then 1/3 of “innumerable” is probably not countable, either.  Added to that is the combined knowledge of all the sinners who died in their sins from the time of Adam to now, which knowledge concerns the earth and heavens, and you end up with a devil whose cunning and scientific knowledge might as well be considered godlike.

This would give the devil an almost perfect knowledge of the earth, as well as of the heavens.  Although he is trapped here, he is, for all intents and purposes, the god of this world.  Using scientific principles of knowledge, the devil would be able to imitate, to a degree, many of the miraculous works of God done by faith.

For example, whereas God has power to prophesy of the future using His eye of faith, whereby he sees all possible futures and chooses the future He has faith in, the devil has power to predict the future, using his knowledge of all the variables that make up the past and present, and also the prophecies of the Lord concerning the future.  One causes the appointed future to come to pass by His faith and the other predicts the most logical future, given all the facts.  One creates a miracle contrary to the facts or science, while the other predicts the logical outcome based on the facts or science alone.

The way the devil makes it appear that he “performs miracles” is by keeping his knowledge hidden.  This occult knowledge is the great secret that allows the audience to remain ignorant, like a magician’s trick.  The audience is not aware that a natural or technological occurrence has happened and the event is presented as a miracle, thus allowing them to be deceived.

Because of his vast knowledge of the earth sciences, the devil can send forth false prophets to predict many things with uncanny accuracy.  For example, the devil can use his knowledge to predict earthquakes, eruptions, and other disasters, because he has been working with a full data set since the time of Adam and has been tracking all of the patterns and systems of this planet.  Coupled with secret, advanced technology, that his servants in sin have been fervently working to develop, the “miracles” the servants of Satan will perform at the appointed times are sure to deceive the masses and almost even the very elect.

These deceptions come of science, not faith working miracles, for the god of this world is not a god of miracles.  He’s a phony baloney, a pretender.  Nevertheless, the cunning mind of the devil is so smart that he could best all the men who ever lived on this planet, and all the computing power on it, combined, in a test of logic, strategy or knowledge, for he draws on the combined brain power of an innumerable host of captured spirits, making his IQ beyond measure.

Demonic and divine technologies

Whenever God gives a “technological” device or “technological” instructions to mankind, He does so after a patterned manner.  First, the commandments to build (by the hand of man), when accompanied by detailed, revealed instructions, always produce something remarkable, curious (skillful) and “not after the manner of men.”  Second, whatever the build is, it only ever works according to the faith of the children of men using it.  So, ships designed by God (Noah’s ark, Jaredite barges, Nephi’s ship) work by faith.  Have faith and they float.  Lose faith and they sink.  Temples designed by God also work by faith.  Have faith, and the presence of the Lord and angels and other manifestations of His glory attends and the ordinances are accepted.  Lose faith, and the miracles cease, the ordinances are rejected and the temple is eventually destroyed.  (Not every commanded edifice comes with such detailed building instructions, so I’m only talking of those things which God, Himself, designs from start to finish.)  Then, there are the devices that God, Himself, prepares by His own hand.  For example, the Liahona, which operated according to the faith and heed and diligence Lehi’s party gave to it.  When they were slothful, it ceased working.

All these divine “technologies” were faith-based, created by the hand of man through miraculously-given revelations, which contained the divine building instructions, or by the hand of the Lord, through His faith, creating the miracle object,

the miraculous directors [D&C 17:1]

which were given to lehi while in the wilderness

and also the ball or compass [2 Ne. 5:12]

which was prepared for my father by the hand of the lord

according to that which is written

which, in turn, produced a structure or an object that operated contrary to the laws of nature.  The temples produced sealings that reached beyond death, the ships floated miraculously, the Liahona guided in a way that wasn’t possible, the Urim and Thummim allowed the seers to read languages that they didn’t know, etc.  Faith was required in their making and in their use.  The object, then, in all these divine “technologies” was and is always the development of faith.

The devices and edifices of man have no such faith-to-work-miracles requirement to build or design, nor require such faith to work, nor necessarily produce or develop faith in God when used.  So the bulk of all technology can only be ascribed as either human ingenuity or satanic inspiration.

Keeping in mind that the devil is this world’s resident scientific expert on all subjects, we can presume that at least some of today’s technologies have been inspired directly of the devil, either entirely or partially.  It plays into the devil’s hands if every device or technology spiritually or physically harms us in some way, even if the harm is minimal.  Devices that poison by degrees, through radiation, or that hypnotize, or that distract, or that create pride in man’s genius, all such technologies are useful to the devil’s plans and so we must expect him to take an active part in guiding man’s ingenuity in directions he would like it to go.

Among the LDS, there is an idea that the upswing in technological inventions and scientific knowledge corresponds with the restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith, as if this was abundant evidence that the Spirit of the Lord was being poured out upon the people.  Another possibility, though, is that this apparent increase in technology may have been the devil’s response to the restoration.  The restoration restored the possibility of faith and miracles to the earth.  How does a devil respond to that?  Through imitations, by giving them “technological miracles” and thus keeping them firmly grounded and relying upon the arm of the flesh.

The scientific age in which we currently live may be a time when the spirit of the devil is poured out upon the people, giving them non faith-based technologies and precepts, in order to keep the masses turned away from faith.  Although we tend to idolize science as noble and pure, if this age has had as its main inspirational source that quintessential scientist, the devil, that assessment might be misguided.  Suffice it to say that God does not appear to be overly concerned about science or knowledge, only about faith and miracles.  It might not be entirely correct to ascribe God, the miracle worker, as the author of all this scientific knowledge and all these technological marvels.

But enough talk about the devil.  Let’s return to the topic of God’s faith.

Faith exercises faith

God corresponds to each man according to what He perceives. When He sees a man seeking faith in Christ, He corresponds by giving him a portion of His own faith. The faith obtained is a gift of God, had through His mercy, kindness and generosity, and not through the man’s own efforts. This takes away all cause a man might have to boast and allows him to fully acknowledge the greatness and hand of God in all things, which is one of the purposes of our creation, even that we might glorify His name. And when He sees a man seeking to exercise that given portion, He corresponds by exercising a portion of His own faith in their behalf so that they obtain the witness that they seek. The result is that God ends up doing everything, both supplying the needed faith and exercising it, too. All we are required to do is to show our own willingness. This principle is demonstrated by the following scriptures:

draw near unto me [D&C 88:63]

and i will draw near unto you

seek me diligently

and ye shall find me

ask

and ye shall receive

knock

and it shall be opened unto you

for intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence [D&C 88:40]

wisdom receiveth wisdom

truth embraceth truth

virtue loveth virtue

light cleaveth unto light

mercy hath compassion on mercy

and claimeth her own

justice continueth its course

and claimeth its own

judgment goeth before the face of him

who sitteth upon the throne

and governeth

and executeth all things

o god the eternal father [Moro. 4:3]

we ask thee in the name of thy son jesus christ

to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those

who partake of it

that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy son

and witness unto thee o god the eternal father

that they are willing

to take upon them the name of thy son

and always remember him

and keep his commandments

which he hath given them

that they may always have his spirit to be with them

amen

Conclusion

Knowledge (or law) requires existence, which requires a sphere, which did not exist before the creation, therefore God must not have created the Universe using knowledge, but by faith.  This shows that God is a miracle worker, capable of working outside of established law, and not a scientist, and also that God has faith.

Previous Faith of God article: The faith of God, part thirteen: How charity fits in

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM


banksy-elephant-in-the-room.27102235_std

Just last Sunday, January 13, 2013, at 6:00 p.m. MST, Dieter F. Uchtdorf addressed an audience of mostly young adults in a CES Satellite Automatic Tracking ANtenna broad(is the way)cast. You can watch it here:

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/ces-devotionals?lang=eng

After praising the youth of the Church and telling them that the Prophet loves them. Uchtdorf promptly gets to his main message. His talk was entitled “What is Truth?” And he started it off with a partial recitation of the poetic retelling of an old Indian parable by fellow Vermonter and contemporary to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, American poet, John Godfrey Saxe.

THE BLIND MEN AND THE ELEPHANT.

A HINDOO FABLE.

i.

IT was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

ii.

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me!—but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”

 iii.

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried:”Ho!—what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”

iv.

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:

“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”

v.

The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”

vi.

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”

vii.

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”

viii.

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

moral.

So, oft in theologic wars
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

Uchtdorf did not read the poem in its entirety. After quoting the introductory lines of part one, he summarized four of the six character’s experiences. Then, saying: “The poem concludes…” he recited part eight of the poem. This is not how the poem concludes at all. The story of the men may end there, Dieter may conclude his quoting there, but the moral, the whole reason the author shared the story in the first place should not be left out. Without taking into account the whole work of the creator, we may commit what Uchtdorf, moments later described as, “the folly of jumping to conclusions based on limited information.” The moral to this story points out the folly of theologians and religious teachers who speak ignorantly about a God whom they know not. Oh, they will admit, on occasion, even publically, that they do not know everything. But they ask that, in general, you accept them as authorities. Such a moral ending may match the teachings of Jesus who severely chastised the teachers of religion, but it did not serve the purposes of Elder Uchtdorf, who’s aim it was to subtly scold not church leaders but a different group – you and I.

With people like the readers and contributors of this blog and others throughout the blogosphere (and more particularly that smaller bubble within a bubble known as the bloggernacle) in mind, Pres. Uchtdorf set forth a rhetorical question, employing an extra rhetorical use of the word “we”. “Can’t we recognize ourselves in these six blind men? Have we ever been guilty of the same pattern of thought? Here, the ever selfless President Uchtdorf is more concerned with others than for his self. While I am sure we all appreciate his concern, let us examine dear Dieter’s address within context.

Elder Uchtdorf the Blind Man and the Elephant

Elder Uchtdorf wants us to think about three questions while we listen to the words he speaks at us in unassuming yet firm tones that match his grey suit and hairs.

  1. What is truth?

  2. Is it really possible to know the truth?

  3. How should we react to things that contradict truth which we have learned previously?

He then proceeds to talk about Pontius Pilate. Dieter Uchtdorf says that he does not know what kind of man Pilate was, nor what he was thinking during his encounter with Jesus. But Dieter surmises that Pilate must have been a man who was “well educated” and had seen much of the “known world.” This is not merely an educated guess but a subconscious self-reference, since Deiter F. Uchtdorf is viewed by many, and certainly by himself, as a man who is “well educated” and has seen much of the “known world.” Shortly before stepping to the rameumpulpit he was introduced with an impressive bio that listed graduation from a prestigious university. And of course, from his constant use of aviation analogies, we all know that Uchtdorf is a Pilate – I mean pilot – so naturally he has seen much of the “known world”. But how much is “known” about the “unseen world” of spirit by this high flying fighter with wings earned simultaneously in the joint German and U.S. air-forces? Coincidentally, Uchtdorf reveals Pilate as the inspiration for the title of this sermon. He says that he does not think Pontius Pilate was “encouraging a dialogue” when he said those words, “what is truth?” to the accused Jesus. Having lifted the title for his own Sunday evening speech directly from Pilate’s lips, does Uchtdorf mean to “encourage dialogue” himself? That is a question for the reader to answer. So is every question. But since Frater Dieter has asked some really good questions, let’s humor him.

Uchtdorf - The Most Self-Interested Man in the World

OH SAY WHAT IS TRUTH

A latter-day saint missionary named John Jaques penned the lyrics to one of my favorite Hymns – Oh Say, What is Truth? As if in beautiful and bold response to Pilate’s half-assked question, the lyrics paint a glorious picture of the infinite nature of Truth. Full of references to the fall of proud monarch’s and despots, Bro. Jaques song hold truth up as a treasure far exceeding the value of worldly riches and as a powerful weapon, affronts the tyrant’s hopes.

Uchtdorf did not ask “Where” truth is. Mr. Uchtdorf is assuming that you are assuming that it is safe to assume that the Church is the one-stop dispenser of any and all truths available to man (or at least truths as good as any others out there). A whole lot of assuming is going on here. He is also assuming that you do not fully understand the truth in the Book of Mormon which plainly testifies of “the truth of all things”. No one really looks for something they think they have already found. Searching for The Truth is not seen as necessary when one can sit and wait for truths to be presented to him in the same way consumers await new goodies and gadgets from the inventors and purveyors of trick-nology and con-venience. Second Councilor Uchtdorf tries to communicate the will of the rulers of the “Saltican City” and instill a bit of the uneasiness they feel into his listeners. “Now, never in the history of the world have we had easier access to more information — some of it true, some of it false,” he says. As long as the technology is tightly controlled by them, the “brethren” are happy to utilize it. Aficionados of these fictions presented as the Truth – but in reality, never more than fractions of truth – will become not only addicted to the truthological advancements but also disillusioned by them, when they discover that each new wave renders their old truth tools obsolete.

Sometimes our so called advancements in truth are just plain frivolous. But this does not mean that truth should or can me static. One of humanity’s most ancient forms of technology is the book. Some books, like the Golden Plates, were built to last. They don’t make ’em like they used to. But even solid forms of true and lasting technology like books never did contain Truth. Rather, they serve as transmitters for Truth. The Truth is not on paper. Words are imperfect and it is apparently meant to be this way. When Moroni’s mind is preoccupied with worries over the reception of the sacred record he is compiling by the latter-day gentiles due to imperfections in the text, he is comforted and told – “Fools mock but they shall mourn.” But if modern Church leaders are allowed to, first discretely then openly, alter the words of prophets of the past, in all their perfectly ordained imperfection, or simply sweep them to the side with the trump card afforded them by dubious doctrine delivered in General CONference…might we ask upon what credentials their truthfulness rest. And even if such bold bullying of the general membership and indefensible defense of the general authorities were to be kept in check by the First Presidencey as it once was…still, are all the words of the prophets of old to be accepted as 100% accurate, just because of their ancientness?

Even those people who unflinchingly declare that they have seen God and/or Jesus – is there no possibility that they have misinterpreted the significance of seeing gods. And instead of urging all people everywhere to seek a personal audience with them, so that they might bask in their literal presence and hold meaningful conversation with their Father and Savior – is it not possible that those prophets were sometimes led to assume an erroneous position of middle-men between man and his maker?  Caught up in their personal experience of the divine or even overcome by their lack of divine dialogue, do men sometimes assert unrighteous dominion over their brother, misleading many? Could it be that Christ does not define the specialness of a witness by the spatial relation between the visitor and visited, and in fact holds internal manifestation as equal if not more blessed than face to face encounters?

As part of Jesus’ personal appearance to the Lamanites and Nephites gathered at the temple in Bountiful He spoke these words:

“Therefore blessed are ye if ye shall believe in me and be baptized, after that ye have seen me and know that I am. And again, more blessed are they who shall believe in your words because that ye shall testify that ye have seen me, and that ye know that I am.”

To Thomas He said:
“Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet believe.”

Joseph Smith said:
“Indeed, such is the darkness and ignorance of this generation, that they look upon it as incredible that a man should have any [dealings] with his Maker.”

The Lord asks: “What is wanted?”

Peter says: “Adam, having been true and faithful in all things, desires further light and knowledge by conversing with the Lord through the veil.”

The Lord says: “Present him at the veil, and his request shall be granted.”

I ask: “Could it all be so simple?”

Dieter F. Uchtdorf and Pontius Pilate ask: “What is Truth?”

It’s a good question.

THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH

When we are called to testify in a court of law we swear before God and other witnesses  to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. God is amused by our highfaluting hypocrisy in such instances. If we were to seriously attempt to tell the WHOLE truth the proceedings would go on longer than the O.J. Simpson trial. Even the King of Heaven and Earth acknowledges the fact that in the course of time, it is impossible to tell the WHOLE truth with words. He says of his own breathless testament, “My works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease.” (Moses 1:4) The guy never stops talking, so it is more than a little fishy when church leaders cease to prophesy in the name of the Lord. That we may say true things, it is true, but we can not speak THE TRUTH. Real holy men know well that God’s name is ineffable. So they speak in fables. The Church leadership on the other hand, must think that God’s word is effable. Why else would they ‘eff’ with it so much. In response to Uchtdorf’s second question – “Is it really possible to know the truth?” – we can say yes. But to have a monopoly on it is impossible because no one man can fully express the truth.

Poor Confused Uchtdorf

THE HIEROPHANT  vs. THE ELEPHANT

The answer that Uchtdorf hinted at in regards to his third question – “How should we react to things that contradict truths we have learned previously?” is crafty and subtle. And for those with ears to hear, his talk made a rather weird but barely detectable turn at this point. He strangely steers the people away from skepticism, warning that it might easily spread to all parts of our lives – “From sports to family relationships and from religion to politics.” Oh heaven forbid that we expect truth and transparency in each of these arenas of our lives, in ascending order of sacredness with Church & State at the top of the pyramid! Uchtdorf even starts citing some of the most bizarre conspiracy theories one could find circulating on the web, in order to get a laugh and generate a feeling of disbelief that he can then attach to those Church members who are “wast[ing] and wear[ing] out [their] lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness” as per Doctrine and Covenants 123:13.

He does not want people questioning what they think they know. So he carefully tries to invoke a mental association between those who trust God more than men and those doctors who did not agree, and did not follow the advice of Ignaz Semmelweis. Uchtdorf relates the story of the Hungarian physician who practiced medicine in the mid-19th century, and early in his career figured out why many of the patients — specifically women — were getting sick with childbed fever and even dying. He figured out that many of the doctors were going from studying contaminated corpses to delivering babies, therefore infecting the women with deadly fevers. Semmelweis tried to tell the doctors to wash their hands. But many doctors did not listen believing themselves to be experts in their field and above reproach.

President Uchtdorf spoke of these cocky medical doctors whose hands were thought to be pure enough and therefore not expected to wash them before operating on people’s bodies. This was a nice little attention-grabbing slight of hand which worked like a charm to distract the vast majority from the “Brethren” and leadership who are trusted to operate on the hearts and minds of people, but are never required to wash their hands. They are in fact expressly and expertly advised against even mentioning any “past trangression” in their special manuals and Church Handbooks of Instruction. A Magician will never call direct attention to what the one hand is really doing. Drawing away the attention of his audience with the other hand instead.

Thus, while it has been helpful to look at exactly what Dieter F. Uchtdorf said to his audience of primarily college age youth, it may be even more helpful and revealing to take note of what he did not say. He did not speak to the leadership. He did not warn that, in as much as his life has been blessed with an opportunity to love and serve people, he will personally use the collectively acknowledged rules and commandments of the Church to actively crack down on any and all leaders, at whatever level they might be found, who hinder or discourage youth and the rest of the general membership from seeking a personal relationship with Christ. He did not say that. He could have. He did not. There are many reasons he did not speak with anything even approximating that language. If we are honest with God and ourselves, we can know many of the reasons behind it.

Because Uchtdorf is more masterful a magician than Oaks or Packer, he did not say…”Just follow the brethren blindly and do not question. Know that if you hold up the truth learned personally with God to the truth that the leaders approve and the two do not match up, you are deceived.” He did not say any of this because he did not have to. It has already been said. By not correcting it, he extends it. There were some who he did not lead to further dependence on the arm of flesh (you can’t get ’em all) hopefully you were one of them. But do not think for one second it was for a lack of trying. If you are earnestly seeking to rely less upon the arm of flesh and more upon God, know that the “brethren” are not going to help you in that. Even the very fact that you may have concluded that Uchtdorf was inspired and that his words were calculated to direct people towards Christ, is perfect evidence of this. Think about it. If you walked away with that impression, many more will take that same impression to the conclusion that they can always simplify their personal quest for truth by turning to the “brethren”.

I have used the phrase “the brethren” several times here. The phrase was also used by Uchtdorf, very purposefully, when describing “The Devil” as a, quote, “accuser of the brethren”. With that he sought to insinuate that the Devil is behind those critical of the “brethren.” And he would be right. The Devil is behind those critical of the brethren! He is behind us as he is behind Jesus because that is where Jesus told him to get to when he said,”Get BEHIND me Satan!” From that day forward the Son of God commenced to speak so boldly and without regard for the (past)”feelings” of the Pharissite “brethren” in His day. So must we do as His disciples.

How appropriate that Dieter would use an elephant analogy to draw attention away from the “Elephant in the Room”. He walked in there talking about the blind men holding different parts of an elephant and left the audience holding a big pile of elephant crap. The very elect are being deceived and others are waking up en masse. We need to answer the call of the Good Shepherd and transcend all belief traps. One very important truth that Uchtdorf, bless his heart, dropped during the devotional was this:

“The thing about truth is that it exists beyond belief.”

May we take truth wherever we find it and set it to work for THE TRUTH. And as we do this with ever increasing faith and bravery, we will have the power of God unlocked in our hearts and minds and upon the earth today. In the name of Jesus Christ…Amen!

D&C 1:19 The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, THAT MAN SHOULD NOT COUNSEL HIS FELLOW MAN, neither trust in the arm of flesh.

Our Devotion to the Church.


In reading some of the comments on this blog I see this type of emotion.

I became a member of the Church, because I prayed and told the Lord that I wanted to find His true Church. I searched for the truth for many years. I’m a member of the Church now for many years. I love the church and the local leaders and my brothers and sister there. I love the prophet and the other general authorities. I have listened to them closely and served them faithfully. I have sacrificed much for my faith. I have done all in my power to fulfill all my covenants even to consecrate all that I am to the church. I have found out that the Church is even more true then I expected.

Reality is that as humans we are strongly effected by the contradicting ideas of the false doctrine which is now in the LDS church. I have seen people who are literally insane.

One of them I loved very much. She was my first wife.
I married her at age 23. We had a fairy tale romance. It was so wonderful. God blessed us so much. She saw a vision of light around the man who sealed us in the Salt Lake Temple. I adored her and for many years felt she was perfect. I was willing to do anything for her. But unknown to me or her she had a mental illness. By the time the mental illness got real bad about 20 years into our marriage she had me convinced that everything she said was true.
She told me over and over again how she was in tune with the spirit of God. She explained that she had lived a clean life and God was working through her. About 25 years into the marriage she convinced me that one of our 4 daughters had a real evil problem and we needed to force her out of the house. I went a long with it. This daughter was not even permitted to associated with her other adult siblings.
Then she convinced me that I had a serious problem and did not in fact love her, that I didn’t even know what love was. I resisted but eventually out of love for her I believed her and tried to figure out what was wrong with me. I remember during those last 3 years I would lay in bed after hearing 5 plus hours of castigation from her and pour out my heart to God. “Please Father Please something is not right. Either I am wrong or she is. I don’t care which I don’t care if I am right or not I just want to know the truth.”
She began telling me over and over again every few days that I had to repent. Then it became every day. Then it was multiple times a day. With long and unrelenting confrontational sessions she would keep me up till all hours of the night.
She began hitting me and slapping me. But I never got mad or yelled at her. I turned the other cheek on several occasions. I tried to never ever find fault with her. I loved her so much. We had been sealed in the temple. It was my dream to be with her forever. And as she had told me she had lived a virtuous life so I believed what she told me.
She told the ward members behind my back that I was an abusive husband and had been for years. She said this to the bishop and then to her lawyers. She said I needed to sign a post nuptial agreement to save our marriage. In it I agreed that if there was a divorce she would get 100% of my money from the high paying job and 100% of the retirement if I retired (which I was eligible for). And she would get the house (which was all paid for) and everything in it. In fact we had zero debts. And a years supply of food.
She said I had to fast which I did for days at a time. She said I had to get a second job. I was working 40 hours a week making over $100,000 a year but to show I loved her I got a second job making $13.75 an hour about 20 hours a week. All the new money I made went to fix up the house.
Why did I do all this because I was convinced she was “true”. The one and only true spouse for me.

You may be wondering where the money was all going if there were no debts and I was making such good money. Why did I have to spend all the money from my part time job to fix up the house. Just a second I will tell you why.
Well 12 days after I signed the post nuptial she convinced me that to save my soul I had to divorce her.
I was so sad. I felt I had lost my chance for eternal happiness. I moved out of the house into a tiny apartment (all I could afford on my part time job since she was keeping all the money I was making from the 100K plus job). But in just 6 weeks of being away from her lies and mental abuse I was able to open my eyes and see that it was her that had been abusing me. That she was not in any way inspired by God. She was so heinous in her viciousness I think the devil may be taking notes. And she is 5th generation LDS.
Oh the money. She had been writing checks every two weeks from our joint account to her Utah Community Credit Union which she had removed my name from just weeks before the post nuptial agreement. She stuffed away about $20,000 before the judge overturned the insane divorce decree.
So why am I telling you all this? It is a cautionary tale. It is true; every word of it. The point is when you love her so much you refuse to see how corrupt she is. You are sealed to her. It is in your belief that life eternal is to obey her and do all in your power to please her. She has told you that she is virtuous, everything she says is true, that she loves you but if you doubt her then you don’t love her.

But you do love her. You want everything she says to be true. You adore her so much. She was God’s greatest gift to you. You have been through so much together. She bore you children. She was your bride. She was always the most beautiful woman in the world to you. How could you ever comprehend leaving someone that you have sacrificed so much for? The more we sacrifice for anyone or anything the more convinced we are that it is a good thing.
I have no doubt that there are and have been through the ages men and women who have given their all to what they believed was the truth. And the more they sacrificed the more they were sure it was the right thing to do. Even to the point of doing some very irrational things.
I saw plainly that God had delivered me from a prison I did not know I was in. I am completely sure given the amount of control she had over me that if I had stayed with her she would have eventually convinced me that I needed to kill myself. And I would have done it unless God intervened.
So what has this got to do with you?
Babylon has a religion. Just as there is not a whole nebulous group of governments which constitute the present day Babylonian empire, so there is not a nebulous cloud of churches. Satan has picked the one church to infiltrate. And he has done it. After the death of the true witnesses of Christ (the original 11 and then Matthias and Paul and a couple others) Satan chose the remnant of the Christian faith to join to his then Babylonian Kingdom, the Roman empire.
Will he do it again? I don’t know to what degree. But he has already infiltrated the LDS church so deeply that the members are programmed to say and act upon this saying, “I don’t care what the brethren say, I will follow them because it is God’s true church.”
Should every member of Christ true church be saying, “I don’t care what the Brethren say, I will take the Holy Spirit as my guide and not be deceived.” Or maybe, “I will prove all things that any man or group of men say by the Spirit of God.”
Oh but you can’t do that I remember one of the Brethren said I am supposed to trust what they say more than what I get from God directly. He said that I “cannot communicate reliably through the direct, personal line if [I am]… out of harmony with the priesthood line.” (April Conference 2010 Dallin H. Oaks). So that means I can tell if I am listening to a false spirit by whether or not what I receive from it is in 100% agreement with what I hear from the Brethren. So if I think the Brethren might be wrong that is proof positive that I am in sin and cut off from the spirit of God and I am the one who is wrong.

Wow just exactly like my first wife. How clever.

Now my brothers and sister you know this is what you are being taught. Why then does anyone need to pray? Oh to get personal guidance right. But we can’t get personal revelation which would ever tell us if the church were in apostasy, can we?
Well don’t worry we have been told that the first presidency and the 12 apostles will never lead the members of the church astray.

By whom were we told that? By the voice of God? Is it in the scriptures? Is that what the Book of Mormon teaches?
Oh by one of the men who we are taught to trust above our own personal revelation?

Imagine you are told that there is an organization dedicated to the pursuit of truth and light. And then you are told that the leaders of this organization are all taught that if they disagree with the head of the organization then they are not capable of seeing the truth. Can you at least see the total lack of credibility such an organization has in reality? Or at least how anyone who follows the teachings of such an organization is prone to being mislead?

Yes don’t worry my 5th generation LDS wife told me she would never be lead astray also.

A parting shot. As long as I subjected myself to the constant indoctrination of my first wife God could never get the truth in to my head. There were countless times I had real strong questions and doubts. But each time I went to talk to her about them I was beaten down and threatened with my salvation if I disagreed with her. She would get angry and I feared her anger. I was used to doing what she said so I did not get chastised. I could see the obvious actions which would prove to any rational person that she was either evil or insane. But I did not act upon rational ideas. I acted on faith and love and a desire to always be with her. I acted on fear of punishment and desire for approval.

Epilogue

I have stopped going to the LDS church now for over a year. I have received my own tribal ordinances now. I did not know it before I did it but it freed me from the obligation to be under the thumb of the LDS leaders. I know God still guides me. I know he is pleased with me.

I can read what the LDS leaders are saying with a new perspective. Brother and sister it is pathetic what those men have substituted for the truth of God. God does have things He wants us to know and learn. But they will not come to you from the drunkards of Ephraim. You are being programmed to do what the Babylonian Empire Satan’s earthly government wants you to do. That is the main purpose of the church now. And they use access to the ordinances of salvation as the carrot and stick to keep you in line.  Sorry to tell you. Your wife is insane.

…and I’m a Mormon


Maggie asked me:

“I believe in a similar fashion and lately I have been unable to call myself a Mormon because of it.  Is one a “true” Mormon if they do not take everything in the rigid literal?  I started to feel I couldn’t be much like I can’t call myself a vegetarian if I eat meat.  But now I’m not so sure.  Isn’t this what Mormonism is at its core, its base?”

I’ve also read similar sentiments – e.g.

“I [have x-y-z different opinion on this-or-that facet of Mormonism, yet still identify in some degree as “Mormon”].  As a result, when I speak to others [and] I say, “I am a Mormon.”  Am I being deceptive if I don’t reveal what that phrase means to me upfront?

This represents my ~4500 word response to that.

The religious experience of the gospel of Jesus Christ — at its core, its base — is the subjective and transcendent experience of God:

I was once told in conversation that:

“Mormons just don’t drink alcohol – that is the least that is expected of them.”

And I thought – really, that’s the least that’s being LDS means – abstaining from alcoholic drinks?  I’m sure if we are talking about LDS youth, then that person would probably say that the “least” is something related to body modesty or not having sex.  But again – that’s our least?

For a religion proclaiming Jesus Christ – the “least” ought to be pretty straightforward.  Jesus called people to consider themselves the servants of all – and act accordingly.  Having the same mind in you that was in Him:  who did empty himself and take the form of a servant [Philippians 2:5-8].  That’s it.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is fluid.  It’s meant to be lived by every human who’s ever lived on the whole earth.  As such, it is flexible, adaptable to the variety of conditions that exist among people.  What makes nature so beautiful and awe-inspiring is its diversity.  Even though nature follows certain patterns, it is ever-new and always creating – never boring or monotonous.  [see, Going from Concrete to Flowers]

However, a “hardened” religious tradition cannot tolerate subjectivity and diversity.  So, when one’s mind is informed by such a belief system, God ceases to be the experience of the Supreme Being – and becomes instead This-Thing who sits Up-There in the sky ruling over nature and who must be related to according to in That-Way [see, Making an Image out of God].

The fundamental aspect of the gospel is people having a transcendent experience of God – one that experiences God as a continuous happening that we are all a part of.  It’s that experience of Joy that all our myths, stories, and rituals are telling about and pointing to – so that we may come to that same place where we too relate to God with an I-Thou relationship framed in terms of family and covenant [see, Taking our Myths Literally].

That relative experience is expressed outwardly in a material sense in various ways:

Now – the gospel does manifest itself outwardly as a physical space-and-time institution according to the doctrine of expediency.  Suiting itself to the conditions found among the people at that time and place [see, There are no “higher” or “lower” laws; there are only expedient laws and D&C 46:15].

But the base-layer, the common experience is always about coming to relate to the Power of the created universe in terms that break-down the left-brain sense of separateness and open-up the right-brain sense of complete continuousness and connectivity.

There may be behavioral or moral implications of a covenant with God – but it is not the jurisdiction of the gospel to lay down specific “hither thou shalt come and no further” fence-posts for human behavior that have a universal application across space-and-time.

So, within Mormonism, there is a wide range of possibility for diversity in belief and practice that can be characterized by having different people fill in the following blanks:

  • A Mormon is known for at least always ___________.
  • A Mormon is known for at least never ____________.

We should not be ashamed to display a bit of a bell-curve variability with respect to what a Mormon looks like, especially considering the subjective morality and the generally ambiguous nature of the standard works [see, Methods of Scriptural Interpretation].

But institutions patterned after the doctrines and commandments of men [such as corporations] generally dislike such variation — seeking instead to streamline and control naturally variable situations.  So, in Mormonism we see things like correlation, the CHI, etc.  But that’s a different matter entirely.

Specific manifestations of a common subjective experience express natural diversity:

The point is – [to go back to Maggie’s vegetarian who eats meat example] is there nuance within vegetarianism?  Certainly.

Is it animal meat only?  What about organs, or fish, or mollusks, or crustaceans, or dairy, or eggs – or is it all animal products altogether?  Is it only about the eating, or is it also about using them too?  Or is it really about a protest against the industrialized rearing conditions of the modern food system?  Or is it about choosing to only eat plants?  I’ve known vegetarians who could go a whole day and not eat a single vegetable – what with soy burgers, breaded tofu nuggets, and pizza.

There’s variation among a community that is informed by a common impulse – i.e. something is wrong with our current way of relating to the Life that we eat.

Fundamentally, all that matters is if you experience the miraculous works of the Father or not:

Being of this-or-that religion, practicing this-or-that model of worship, conforming to this-or-that belief system – none of that gives any indication about whether a person has experienced Jesus or not.  And therefore doesn’t matter.  The only standard for determining that a person is a true believer in Christ is the presence of the miraculous works of the Father, or signs that follow them that believe [D&C 84:64-72], in their life.  Anything else is not a righteous judgment [John 7:24] – but is a judgment based on the outward appearance or the works of men.

Telling me you read the scriptures, participate in the rituals, are active in the church, etc. – tells me nothing about the experiences you’ve had with Jesus.  Those things are just the retelling or reenactment of someone else’s story.  It is all pointless and vain unless it is pursuant to you having the same experience — seeing eye-to-eye with the seers who have laid down those stories before you.  Their stories will not save you.  Reenacting events from their stories as a ritual will not generate Joy in you.  Such things are meant to motivate you to get on the same pathway, to receive a similar connection with God, and to see eye-to-eye with them [see, The role of angels in Nephite preaching and How to receive what you ask for].

I don’t want to hear anything about what system of stories a person believes in their brain to be “true”.  Whether those stories “happened” or not is completely irrelevant to me – because what matters is what “happens”, right now – in you.  I don’t care if you believe in the stories about Adam or Abraham or Moses or Lehi or Joseph Smith having real experiences with the Father – I care if you’ve had them.

The only thing that discerns a good thing from a bad thing is its relationship to the thing that Alma termed the ever-good seed [Alma 32:28]:

the Son of God
that he will come to redeem his people
and that he shall suffer
and die to atone for their sins
and that he shall rise again from the dead
which shall bring to pass the resurrection
that all men shall stand before him
to be judged at the last and judgment day
according to their works.

Anything that persuades you to believe in and plant this ever-good seed into your right-brain-heart is itself a good seed.  While anything that persuades you not to believe and plant this ever-good seed is not a good seed.

Nothing in the gospel is based on the merits and works of men.  Righteous judgment has nothing to do with having mainstream LDS beliefs.  All things are judged to be good or evil with respect to how they measure up to the ever-good seed and whether they point people towards, or away from, it [Moroni 7:13-19].

Everything in the gospel is based on the merits of Christ and whether we harden or soften our hearts in response to the experience of His love.

The presence of miraculous works should be our only concern:

What should characterize LDS and be our over-riding passion is the experience and the celebration of the stories of people who’ve experienced faith as a principle of power, instead of action [see, The seeds of the powers of godliness] – which are the examples of the miraculous works of the Father being manifested.

The scriptures are our collective stories of such events.  But we should be celebrating the experience [nothing more, nothing less] – and with an emphasis on the newest miraculous experiences.  Because a proper celebration of the spiritual works of God invites others to receive the same experiences for themselves – so there would be no need to hold on to the stories of a by-gone generation.  Every country, culture, and local group needs to have their own body of miraculous works of the Father among themselves to celebrate.

It is dangerous to celebrate non-miraculous works [the works of men] and call that “faith.” All it does is encourage drudgery, or the non-miraculous works of men.  There are plenty of people of all religions who sacrifice for their beliefs and religions, but who have no works of the Father in their lives.

I’ve met people who receive multiple visions or prophecies, who’ve spoken in unknown tongues on demand, and who’ve been ministered to by angels.  On the other hand, I’ve also met people who’ve never received a revelation in their entire life.  In either case, every one of those people professed to believe in Jesus and came from different churches and belief systems.  The only substantial difference between the two groups is that the former manifested the works of the Father – while the latter manifested the works of men.

Someone who has denied their Self, experienced the transcendent joy of the Supreme Being, and received Christ will be totally obsessed with Jesus.  And only the truly obsessed have faith – and only those with faith demonstrate the manifestations of the fruits of the Spirit in their life.

Being a “good Mormon” or Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan – or any “faithful” [add-Religion-here] only tells me whether a person adheres to the creeds of their respective belief system.  That says nothing about whether they have faith in Christ or not.

We should only be concerned with having faith in Christ and experiencing the miraculous works of the Father.  Unless one has communed with God, been ministered to by angels, seen visions, received prophecies and revelations, etc. – all incessant talk that professes belief in Christ is just mental masturbation, feeling good but not producing any fruit.

The all-important, saving faith in Jesus Christ that we should be obsessed with is centered in Jesus only

With sufficient faith, a believer can come to know the truth of all things [Moroni 10:5].  But faith in this-or-that true doctrine does not blossom into experiencing the miraculous works of the Father.  If faith is ever transferred from Christ to true things about Christ – then even though what’s spoken may be true, there is no faith there.

Mormons have much truth – but they have essentially transferred all faith to the truths, and thus none of it is on Jesus.

The vast majority of our conversations at church are centered on prophets and apostles, obedience to leaders and commandments, blessings of paying tithing, attending church and the temple, and every other conceivable topic that has nothing, whatsoever, to do with Jesus Christ’s suffering, death, resurrection and judgment upon all mankind.

In fact – a good test is to ask how much of our religious conversations are devoted to the relative, periphery matters and how much is devoted to the experience of God’s love.  How comfortable are we in talking about this-or-that issue of the day in light of Mormonism – and how comfortable are we talking about our spiritual contacts with Jesus Christ.  With the latter, I’ve found we stumble, are vague, express doubt, and likely just say nothing at all because most people have nothing to say.

Any church not based on the miraculous work of the Father may potentially be a true church, but will be a dead and blind church:

We may have true stories and properly authorized rituals – but they are not enlivened with the Spirit of God because none of them are experienced eye-to-eye as shared experiences.  Our standard for judgment is informed by outward appearances instead of by the light of righteous judgments informed by the fruits of the Spirit. [see, What does the phrase “only true and living church” mean?]

This has made the LDS successful in being exactly like the rest of Christianity.  There may be true doctrines, disciplines, and rituals – but such things have been made into absolutes and pedestalized as ends unto themselves – instead of being the means to an end – which is obtaining the experience of the miraculous works of the Father.

To convert a bona-fide revelatory experience with God into a prescribed system of creeds and approved practices dodges the real issue.  It’s easier to tell ourselves that the important thing is keeping certain rules and believing certain doctrines – instead of turning ourselves over to the transcendent idea that the fundamental nature of Reality [God] reaches into human history to covenant with humans and gather them into a family.

The basic purpose of what we call “the church” is to take unrelated believers in Christ and knit them together by covenant into a single body or family:

When people see a problem with their group worship dynamic – the temptation is always to get together with some like-minded and “do church” more scripturally.  However, this often will just create a slightly smaller, less-controlled replication of the same dynamic they were trying to get away from.

The problem lies in the fundamental way we feel towards God, towards the earth, and towards ourselves.  It is a model based on the underlying concept of separateness [see, Split-Brain Model of the Gospel: The Fall of Man]:

  • God as the male-figure seated on a throne exerting control over nature,
  • relating only to a certain in-group by virtue of their religious behavior towards Him,
  • living as separate islands of skin-encapsulated centers of will that are plopped onto a earth of otherwise disorganized, inherently-flawed stuff.

The very ideas that are informing our relationship with the world and with other people has to change – the pattern or model of a hierarchy of religious rulers and approved ways of thinking is [itself] broken.

Putting different people in power can’t change a problem that exists because there are people in power.  Power must instead be pulled down [Alma 60:36].

You can’t have meetings with an instituted body of the like-minded become “more scriptural” – when the gospel is tribal in nature and meant to be experienced by a group of kin who naturally meets.

One can use religion to serve their Self or to serve God.  If you believe that only your collection of stories is the One, True Way of experiencing God – then you are using it to serve your Self.  This is the hardened or atrophied religare that creates feelings of superiority and maintains a sense of separation and conflict with others.

On the other hand, when in the service of God, a fluid religare is just the stories left behind by men and women who have had miraculous experiences with the governing Power of the universe that direct the community to receiving that experience for their selves, eye-to-eye.

Effectively, what we call the “Great Apostasy” represented a hedge that had been built up around an individual person and the experience of God.  The whole essence of a religious life was reduced to a commodity that needed to be brokered by a male-dominated priestly class.  And the “Restoration” was about taking scattered and disconnected people and gathering them – not by virtue of what they believe in the mind or confess with the mouth – but by covenant into a family.

But instead of having a passion for this tribal notion of a separate people-group bound by covenants, gathered out from their scattered state among the tribes of the earth – leadership patterned after the works of men care more about uniformity of thought than about making actual tribal connections between individuals.

Focusing on these outward appearances [which include prescribing behavioral standards and acceptable doctrines] is a manifestation of the current state of the church being guided by the doctrines and commandments of men.  While the gospel could be said to prescribe a certain approach to human problems and decisions – any ethical component is but a consequence of a person’s genuine relationship with God – not the basis for receiving one.

The mission of the church of God is to be the ministerial support for individual members becoming Kings and Priests, Queens and Priestesses in their own right – to teach them the word of God, explain and offer the covenants of the gospel, and then allow them to organize themselves accordingly as their local circumstances dictate – helping them as they go from an unrelated body of like-minded and knit them together into a bona-fide family.

As long as a part remains in the body – it is the body:

Most LDS speak about and relate to “the church” as this entity that exists outside of them or separate from their selves.  But there is no such thing as a group without the context of the individual people.  You cannot have a body without all the components that make it up all together.  A group is the sum-total of the individual units that make up that group.  The whole is the parts as they are arranged.

Thus, each person is the church.  You are the church – and so long as you remain in the church, your views are representative of what the church believes.  You are Mormonism — as it is lived out or as it is taken literally by you.  The only time that ceases to be true is when you cease to identify as a member of the church.

That’s why I would never advocate someone leaving the church.  The group is [hands-down] always better served if everyone who’s ever left over this-or-that doctrinal/history/etc. issue didn’t leave – but rather stayed and lived out their own story in the community.

By most estimates, there are at least as many, if not more, of them than there are of the toe-the-line, mainstream Mormons.  So, at this point, if they’d all stayed — they could potentially outnumber the rest, and we’d have an entirely different dynamic in the church.

You represent you – and that is representative of what it means to be Mormon – if it happens to be that you are Mormon.

Now, the Church [as it is organized currently as a corporate entity] is something altogether different.  None of us are their representative for what that group is or believes.  For that purpose, the Church has official Church spokesmen.  You can identify them by the corporate logo they wear on their name-tags.  If we all were official representatives of that corporate entity and what it says, then there would be no need to have a group of specially-called official representatives, now would there?

But when people tell me that they no longer find any value in the Mormon experience and want to leave – I get it.  I see in many respects how the church is laden with the doctrines and commandments of men, leader-worship, female repression, etc.  I truly empathize with people who feel disaffected with church because they’ve increasingly found the three-hour Sunday block [and all that comes with active participation] to be more of an obstacle, instead of a vehicle, for them experiencing the Lord.

I get why they don’t speak up to church leaders in an attempt to change things too.  There is no real platform for open and honest discussion among members without getting the:  “Well this is the way that the brethren have approved — so like it or leave it”-rhetoric.  I wouldn’t expect open and honest disclosure from people who feel put-out [even though I admit it would be better if they all did speak-up].

The environment provided by leaders at church leaves them with no voice and no room to have non-mainstream opinions [at least in some open and honest capacity] – so many don’t see how speaking-up matters.  They’ll just be told:

“Look here, if you do not want to subscribe to our form of worship of the Savior, then there are many other Churches to try out until one finds the one that provides that appropriate outlet or none may suffice.”

So they throw-up their hands and leave.  I get that.

Imagine a marriage relationship in which every time the wife brings up a certain issue she has with her husband, he gets defensive, he belittles her and yells, etc. — and nothing ever changes.

Now, the husband is doing that particular behavior one day and the wife has that look that women get when you know something’s wrong — she’s obviously bothered.  So he asks, “Honey, what’s wrong?”  And if you’re married, then you know her answer is, “Nothing.

Now — it’s not nothing, it’s most definitely something.  Why does she say “nothing”?

  • Because she’s a liar who doesn’t care about getting the marital issue resolved.
  • Because of her experience with her husband, she knows that bringing the issue up will only result in a fight and nothing will be resolved.

Are their marital problems her fault because she won’t be forthcoming about what’s wrong when asked?  Or are they his fault because he has failed to provide an environment where his wife feels comfortable talking about her issues in emotional-safety?

The key for me is that the church doesn’t belong to such people.  It belongs to Jesus – and He says you have a place in it:

To make that distinction further – each member was baptized into the church of God, not the Church.  None of us are listed on the corporate charter of that agency, and are therefore not their agent.  The scriptures only describe us as agents “unto ourselves”.  As believers in Christ – we ought to also consider ourselves to be agents “unto Him” – and act accordingly.

But our fundamental allegiance is to Christ and to the word of God – thus there is very little concern for whether this-or-that aspect is considered contrary to “general Church-approved practices”, the “long-standing traditions”, etc.

The assumed state of things in the church is to trust no one until you know them well enough to open-up and share your story with them:

Now, I’ve acknowledged that the leaders do not provide a platform for open and honest discussion among members – and there’s no outlet for the disaffected to express their nuance of opinion or their concerns about certain issues.  As such, church leaders cannot reasonably expect open and honest disclosure from people who are feeling on the outs.

In fact, in my experience, leaders are often witch-hunters [taking the “judge in Israel” thing to the extreme], always looking for someone to judge as unfaithful, apostate, etc.  The only valid reason, in their minds, for “contrary” points-of-view or “unapproved” behavior is worthiness issues.  And so although the scriptural law is innocent until proven guilty – according to my experience, when leaders see dissension, they take a guilty until proven innocent stance.

Which is why I’ve taken Alma’s admonition to “trust no one…” [Mosiah 23:14] to be my marching orders and usually keep my mouth shut.  I’ve seen that those who implicitly trust the leadership [not living Alma’s admonition to “trust no one” unless you know beyond a reasonable doubt that they are men of God], will often say more than is expedient to say and quickly get into trouble.

I’ve been protected by a revelation I received some years ago that the word of the day for me is, “Shhh” — or that it is always best to be silent, to say nothing, to openly answer no questions to church leadership — sticking with “Yea” for yea and “Nay” for nay if I am ever asked.

But whether you choose to remain in the church and identify yourself as “Mormon” has nothing to do with what the approved practices and long-standing policies of the corporation that runs the church:

“Mormon” is a lot like the term “Christian” — it is more about what the person professes to believe.  It is not a term that can be brokered by a particular class of rulers “in charge” of the word.

For example, LDS insist that we are Christian just like everybody else, based on our professed belief in Christ.  Others would claim that our more nuanced understanding of Christ, the Godhead, etc. are beyond the leeway allowed for by orthodoxy.  But since we profess to believe in Christ – we generally call ourselves “Christian”.

Likewise, the Church has a hard time with professed Mormons who practice polygamy – thinking the term “Mormon” belongs to the corporation.  However, polygamist Mormons are Mormons.  The Community of Christ are Mormons.  Everyone has a professed belief in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith.  We may have more nuanced approaches to certain things [polygamy being the key example], but [like “Christian”] the term is general and correctly identifies all of us [in a general sense].

A person that hears me identify as “Mormon” starts viewing my actions and words as representative of the church.  This is why the Church – as a corporate entity – is big on the members considering themselves walking “advertisements” for the Corporation, carefully monitoring the public image that the members “sell”, etc.

But I am not their spokesperson.  I am not a broker for their religious product.  I am Me.

People do not exist as Platonic Ideas — pure representations of terms or concepts.  Being Me means that I represent the unique symphony that is the arrangement of my Life.  I can’t pour the entirety of Me into your brain all at once.  Each human being is a storytale that has to be shared in order to be known.

We come to know people as we interact with each other.  The “whole truth” doesn’t come by “telling” – but by coming to know the real You through experiencing.  It cannot be shown all at once – but people do come to see it.

So I’d say, “I’m Mormon” is generally not a bad start for me.  Granted, my family does understand certain things differently and holds a bit more of a nuanced opinion on things like what church authority means, what the role of the church with respect to our family is, the priesthood keys and common consent, marriage and family relations, etc.  But those views aren’t applicable to every relationship we have with every other church member — just like my entire set of views on things like politics, diet, marijuana, vaccination, homeschooling, etc. don’t need to be put all out on the table every time I meet someone new.

Should the particulars come up, I don’t hide or obscure them — but I don’t hand them out like business cards either.

We should treat our religious identification like we would any other interpersonal interaction – we start basic and progress towards the more specific/personal as [or if] the relationship goes that way.  To attempt to disclose the whole picture of the entirety of the specific nuances and peculiarities all at once at a first meeting or in casual interactions is both impractical and unhelpful.

Next Article by Justin:

Previous Article by Justin:  Taking our Myths Literally

Connecting with Pixels


By way of full disclosure, I volunteered to write this post because I have personal experience with the topic.  I’ve viewed online pornographic movies both before and since I joined the church.  I felt no guilt associated with viewing it before joining the church (which was also before I was married), but when I began to view it after joining (which was also after I had been married), I desired to repent and have since studied the topic to better understand it.

Pornography:

When I use “pornography” in this post, I will be referring to video or photographs of adults engaging in sexual relations.  Currently, there are more than 300 million pages of pornographic material on the internet, an increase of 1800% over the last five years.  More than 70% of American men, ages 18 – 34, visit a pornographic website in a typical month.  Further, in 2006, the pornography industry netted just short of $100 billion – more revenue than that of Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, Apple, and Netflix combined.  The state that contributes the most to those profits – Utah.

The inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

Porneia is rendered “fornication” all 26 times it is used in the New Testament.  It is from the word used to designate the temple prostitutes the Gentiles used for fertility worship.

Dehumanizing:

The popularity of pornography relies on dehumanizing the subject, which is typically a woman.  The characters in pornography are not depicted as children of God with intellects and personalities – but as a collection of anatomical features that can be used to induce a physiological response.  Ask a man who watches pornography if he would want his wife or daughter to be in videos like the ones he watches – and 68.2689492137% will say, “No.”  (Note:  this figure was edited from 100% per comments below)  They want somebody else’s wife or daughter.  They prefer to do unto others’ daughters what they would not want done to their own.

The sexual climax is intended to be the sequel of the unification of two real persons.  The fact that the pleasure associated with the discharge can be produced in solitude demonstrates that the feelings are designed to conclude the sexual act – and are not a part of the unifying aspect of sex.  This is what I find most troubling about pornography use.  The release that ends sexual unification is designed to bind a person to the other person he or she is having relations with.  What are pornography users binding themselves to – a computer screen, pixels?  Humans are meant to make real connections with real people.

Hiding:

Recent discussion indicates that Satan introduced the concept of shame for nudity.  It is the same with sexuality.  Satan either covers up sexuality, teaching that it is too private to discuss openly, or he teaches only the physical biology of it, leaving out the spiritual connection that takes place.  He motivates sinners to hide from God and from others.  On the other hand, God sees all things, and thus He motivates sinners to be open, in full-fellowship and intimacy with Him and with others.

Sites like FightTheNewDrug promote addressing pornography by letting it into the light to be seen for what it really is – much like the “Truth” ads did for changing the discussion on cigarette smoking.  Having progressed, we can now look back on old cigarette ads as a deceptive venture to make an unhealthy practice popular for the sake of making money.  FightTheNewDrug focuses on addressing pornography by reducing demand – not supply.  When something is banned – rather by states, religions, etc. – without addressing the underlying motivations, the behavior is just pushed underground, becoming darker in the process.  When people learn that, for example, the reason for pornography actors shave their pubic hair is to make them look more like large children – people can choose to turn away from such perversions.  Instead of demonizing sexual expression or victimizing “porn addicts”, the rhetoric should focus on re-humanizing the people involved with pornography and re-emphasizing the sexiness of humans connecting with humans.

Intimacy is the opposite of what Satan suggested Adam and Eve do when they discovered their nakedness in the garden.  Before he found them, they were naked and were not ashamed.  Adam was fully exposed to Eve – and Eve to Adam.  This is the light that pornography should be seen in.  Humans are not meant to experience sexuality in front of computer screens, alone, feeling cycles of shame and guilt.

Confessing:

Boyd Packer told members during the most recent General Conference that:

The priesthood holds consummate power. It can protect you from the plague of pornography—and it is a plague—if you are succumbing to its influence. If one is obedient, the priesthood can show how to break a habit and even erase an addiction. Holders of the priesthood have that authority and should employ it to combat evil influences.

I think the evidence on this site should make it clear that you do not have to do anything with your bishop if you have viewed pornography.  A person that has viewed pornography has most likely committed adultery in his heart – if he were married, then confession to a spouse would be warranted.  But whether or not a person chooses to talk to his or her bishop is a personal decision – and it should be made in light of what will be the most helpful to the person.  When confession to a bishop is not expedient – as it would be in cases of unrepentant sin brought to the authorities by witnesses – then confession should be treated only as a tool to help the person.  One should weigh the risk of opening up grounds for a witch-hunt from an unprepared or unrighteous priesthood leader with the comfort that being completely open with a trusted and capable bishop can bring.  For example, I spoke with my bishop in the past when I had fell into a habit of viewing pornography – because I knew him to be a man of integrity and Godly love.  I received no formal or informal disciplines.  It was hard to speak openly about it with my wife, and I used my time with him to get many things off my chest.  I, unlike Packer, would not recommend confession to a bishop to everyone.  Many bishops are unprepared for dealing with such a nuanced situation and have been conditioned to use extreme measures with pornography because of inflated rhetoric about the subject.  So tread carefully.

Moving on:

I don’t mean to say porn can’t be a problem for some people.  However, it is more often the symptom of a different problem – e.g. poor socialization by parents on sexuality, unaddressed childhood abuse, an addictive personality, or feelings of insecurity.  The visual depiction of a man and women engaging in sexual relations is not, in and of itself, sinful – not any more than shopping is, or spending too much time on the computer.  The current state of pornography is a complicated issue and calling it evil or a plague doesn’t help anybody.  All you do is demonize something that, unless you have some dependence on it, isn’t bad for you.  Proclaiming some moral absolute on a mental health issue is just harmful to those involved.

We should take comfort in the fact that, for our generation, pornography is largely a problem of technology.  Just 30 years ago, to obtain pornography, a man would don a trench coat and sunglasses and go to the back of a dimly lit store to secretly purchase a VHS tape, hoping no one would see him walking back to his car – then he’d have to keep the tapes hidden at home, hoping kids or spouse didn’t find them.  However, today, I can type in a URL in the privacy of my home or office, instantly steam hours of free videos, and then delete my browsing history.  That’s it.  The reason this is a good thing for anyone who finds themselves habitually viewing pornography – if technology is the reason it is so available to you, then use technology to make it less available.  Effective webfilters are as readily available as free porn sites.  Humans should choose to connect with people — not pixels.

Next Article by Justin:  The Garment

Previous Article by Justin:  Tribal Relationships

What The Priesthood Is


Note: I found this essay while surfing the Internet this past week.  I took it from the mormon_anarchy Yahoo group.  Wake_Up posted it there on Sun Oct 8, 2000, as the third message and now I’m re-posting it here in a slightly edited fashion (I tried to correct some typos). I have also re-posted three more of his essays.  (See Why Father is an Anarchist, Congruence vs. Obedience, and Agency: The Single Principle for a Continuous War.)

Please keep in mind that I did not write this article. I tried to contact the author, (whose real name, according to Stirling D. Allen, is Jahnihah Wrede), but my email was returned as “Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender.”  If you want more information about him or his views, I suggest you visit his (now defunct) web site, which you can view by using the Way Back Machine.

What The Priesthood Is

Whenever I ask this question, people invaribly answer with,

“The Priesthood is the authority to act in the name of God.”

Unfortunately, this rhetorical regurgitation does not even address the question.

To explain ‘what’ the Priesthood (PH) is requires first to know what its substance is. Only then can one understand its purposeful use. One must come to realize that the PH has parts and attributes to it that define ‘what’ it really is before one can be capable of attempting to ‘use’ PH power.

It would be very much like trying to use an automobile to convey one’s self down the street when lacking an understanding of what it is, or the manner in which each component functions to utilize it as it was created for – to safely travel down the street. Can you remember any time in your life when you were completely perplexed by something totally foreign to your knowledge? All of us have experienced this. Learning about the pro-creative powers of our bodies and the truth behind the ‘birds and bees’ astonished us all when we found out what ‘it’ was for. Coming to an understanding of ‘what’ the PH is, is no different.

Allow me to ask you a simpler question to help define where our focus should be in answering ‘what’ the PH is.

“What is a credit card?”

If your answer begins to explain what you can ‘do’ with it, or the responsibilities attached to it, or who can use one, then you have not told me the first thing to answer my question which should be an explanation about it being a piece of plastic. How perplexed would a person be 70 years ago in their attempt to describe a piece of plastic? Could anyone have conceived of such a substance that was neither wood, metal, leather or glass, yet was a substitute for them all? It didn’t exist then, but we take plastic for granted as it is everywhere a part of our daily lives now. It’s the same with the PH. Now you see that any answer that does not begin to define the nature and substance of the PH is a stumbling block to truly being able to function within it, or operate congruent to it.

So then, ‘What is the PH ?’

In reading the Holy Writ of God, we typically find certain nouns being used, but we rarely associate attributes to these nouns.  Further more, we don’t compare the sets of attributes of each noun with one another to obtain a much larger perspective on what God is telling us. Take ‘Truth’ for example. Like defining ‘PH’, we are stuck with rhetoric instead of enlightenment. ‘Truth’ has certain attributes as does ‘Spirit’, ‘Light’, ‘intelligence’, ‘charity’, ‘faith’ and of course, ‘PH’.  When we discern the attributes and nature of each these nouns, we begin to discover something odd – that they all share the same attributes and nature, though some are merely sub-sets of the others. In other words, God has apparently been holding our hand in a very detailed manner to explain to us everything about who He is, and how He operates ALL though scripture.  We just haven’t taken advantage gathering up all these details, and then standing back to look at them for what they are, and their relationship to each other.

All through this article, which is admittedly my own personal paradigm, you’ll find that each subject doesn’t really have a clear beginning and end because each item of discussion are all inter-related to the others and consequently I am talking about only ONE thing by taking several different perspectives in order that I might be understood. Consequently, my weakness in writing only compounds the already difficult task. My apologies, please bear with me through all of this.

Several times in scripture we are told about the attributes of PH, but we mistake them for ‘how’ we ought to be behaving BEFORE exercising the ‘PH’. The reality is that those attributes ARE the detailed description of the ‘PH’, and until we are indeed living congruently within those Godly attributes ourselves, we can forget about ‘using’ the powers “inseparably connected” to the PH.

Instead of listing those attributes here, I listed them above as ultimately ‘charity’ contains the exact same set of attributes as PH, because it is indeed “inseparably connected” – even the same thing with a little different descriptive perspective. Charity is ‘what’ Priesthood is – provided that you know ‘what’ charity truly is, you also know ‘what’ PH is.

While this turns authoritarian mindsets upside down, I want to remind you that men have consistently reversed the meaning of the truth of the Gospel. Sometimes unintentionally out of ignorance; most other times intentionally in attempts to obtain or maintain control upon men rather than to ‘let them go’ after the presentation of the truth. While it is true that a ‘church’ is an assembled body of believers, the intention was to refrain from stifling growth toward mankind’s pinnacle of potential – being Joint-Heirs with Jesus Christ; Godhood.

As long as men maintain control of ‘PH’, and only hand salvation out piecemeal to those who are required to believe a specific dogma before obtaining it, all mankind will remain in bondage. While it is true that PH authority is conferred, even that person can not hold onto it if they become incongruent to PH itself. NO ONE, by mere virtue of having been ‘ordained’, can justify acting in any Godly authority if they are incongruent to the attributes and methods of operation of PH. A person’s ‘calling’ or ‘office’ does not give them PH, and it can not sustain them in acting incongruent to the very powers they wish to violate or disassociate themselves from in ANY DEGREE.

Many people fear this paradigm because of the idea that God is somehow ‘inferior’ to PH. God is congruent to PH as He Himself has developed the nature and attributes of Godliness, which attributes and nature are those He has described as ‘charity’ or PH.

God ‘surfs’ the wave of PH. He doesn’t attempt to change it, or fight against it. The very principles that allow the entire universe to exist is the method of harmony God has found to be Eternally True, and thus He has made every effort to explain them to us, also.  Invariably, everything that Christianity teaches about Jesus being a person full of love is exactly the harmony existing in the universe.  Becoming congruent to that existence is what God has done, and what we must also discover for ourselves. We could fight against it, but we would then be like Lucifer. It’s our choice.  We have complete freedom to choose it just as God or Lucifer does.

The ‘spirit’ or ‘PH’ is not withdrawn from us the very moment we exercise any degree of unrighteous dominion, but we ‘fall’ from it.  When we choose to be incongruent to those attributes, we disconnect ourselves from the very powers of Heaven. God can also suffer the same consequence because He is just as free to choose as we are, but it would require Him to do something totally outside of His nature and character. It would require Him behaving in a manner that is totally unlike Himself. Just as it is inconceivable to the vast majority of us to commit murder, it is for God to become incongruent to PH. God can fall from being God, just like Lucifer did, and just like we can freely choose to become congruent to PH or to fight against it, and consequently God, too.

Wake_Up

Next Guest Contributor article: Congruence vs. Obedience

Previous Guest Contributor article: Why (Heavenly) Father is an Anarchist

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Opening old wounds


I’ve never written about World Trade Center attacks of September 11th, 2001 (9/11) on this blog before, so I’m breaking new ground.

Recently, I came across the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth group, which is calling for a new investigation into 9/11.  AE911Truth has assembled evidence that the three World Trade Towers came down in a controlled demolition, using thermite incendiaries.  So, after perusing their web site and watching their videos, curiosity has gotten the better of me.

I’m wondering if the visitors to the LDS Anarchy blog are supporters of the official reason given by the government as to why the towers came down, or are supporters of another theory.  If another theory, do you find AE911Truth’s collection of evidence compelling and should there be another investigation, or should this whole thing be put behind us?

Here is their web site with all the presentations, videos, articles, etc.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

buscard

Next Secret Combinations article: Mormon.org profiles: enhanced membership tracking?

Previous Secret Combinations article: “And Thus They Did Obtain the Sole Management of the Government”

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The Split-Brain Model of the Gospel


About this article: It was the book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain by Dr. Betty Edwards that first got me comparing split-brain research with the gospel.  I had developed some ideas about it, but never wrote them down, though I did verbalize them to what4anarchy.  Recently, though, at the library, I picked up an old Stanislaw Lem book, Peace on Earth, which brought the research back into my mind.  So I again took the subject up, this time going a whole lot deeper.  Afterward, I passed it through what4anarchy and told him I was thinking of writing an article on this topic.  He suggested I do so immediately.  So, I put pen to paper and came up with the following…

Two Brains, Not One

Modern brain research has discovered that what we term our brain is really two brains working together. One brain resides in the right hemisphere, which I will call the right-brain, while the other resides in the left hemisphere, which I will call the left-brain. The right-brain controls the left side of the body, while the left-brain controls the right side of the body.

Each brain is the mirror image of the other, and like mirror images, they express themselves and perceive reality in opposing ways. However, the two brains are joined by a bridge of connecting tissue, called the corpus callosum, which allows them to communicate with each other and to combine their individual expressions, so that outside observers perceive a single message.

Inner Conflict

We all know that there is an inner conflict or turmoil within us, though no one else may be aware. We often desire two conflicting things at the same time and must make instantaneous decisions to suppress one desire over another. What we may not be aware of is that these conflicting thoughts, feelings, desires and impulses are coming from our opposing brains.

Observing the Conflict

The conflicting messages transmitted by the two brains are largely unobservable by outsiders. However, when a callotomy is performed, which severs the corpus callosum, neither brain can communicate with the other and thus they become incapable of coordinating all of their actions. Once this main communication line is cut, and by using specific tests, the independence of each brain can then plainly be seen.

Through these tests and observations of callotomized humans, modern research into the differences between the left and right brains has so far revealed the following:

Left and Right Brains Compared

The left-brain uses intellect.
The right-brain uses intuition.
The left-brain is convergent.
The right-brain is divergent.
The left-brain is digital.
The right-brain is analogic.
The left-brain is secondary.
The right-brain is primary.
The left-brain is abstract.
The right-brain is concrete.
The left-brain is directed.
The right-brain is free.
The left-brain is propositional.
The right-brain is imaginative.
The left-brain is analytic.
The right-brain is relational.
The left-brain is lineal.
The right-brain is nonlineal.
The left-brain is rational.
The right-brain is intuitive.
The left-brain is sequential.
The right-brain is multiple.
The left-brain is analytic.
The right-brain is holistic.
The left-brain is objective.
The right-brain is subjective.
The left-brain is successive.
The right-brain is simultaneous.

Thus, we see with the above list that there are “two ways of knowing.”

Left and Right Brains, Another Comparison

Here is another comparison between the left and right brains:

The left-brain is verbal; using words to define.
The right-brain is nonverbal; using non-verbal cognition to process perceptions.
The left-brain is analytic; figuring things out step-by-step and part-by-part.
The right-brain is synthetic; putting things together to form wholes.
The left-brain is symbolic; using a symbol to stand for something else. For example, the + sign stands for the process of addition.
The right-brain is actual, real; relating to things as they are, at the present moment.
The left-brain is abstract; taking out a small bit of information and using it to represent the whole thing.
The right-brain is analogic; seeing likeness among things; understanding metaphoric relationships.
The left-brain is temporal; keeping track of time, sequencing one thing after another, doing first things first, second things second, etc.
The right-brain is nontemporal; without a sense of time.
The left-brain is rational; drawing conclusions based on reason and facts.
The right-brain is nonrational; not requiring a basis of reason or facts; willingness to suspend judgment.
The left-brain is digital; using numbers as in counting.
The right-brain is spatial; seeing where things are in relation to other things and how parts go together to form a whole.
The left-brain is logical; drawing conclusions based on logic; one thing following another in logical order; for example, a mathematical theorem or a well-stated argument.
The right-brain is intuitive; making leaps of insight, often based on incomplete patterns, hunches, feelings, or visual images.
The left-brain is linear; thinking in terms of linked ideas, one thought directly following another, often leading to a convergent conclusion.
The right-brain is holistic (meaning ‘wholistic’); seeing whole things all at once; perceiving the overall patterns and structures, often leading to divergent conclusions.

Chinese Comparisons

The Chinese description of yin and yang is but a description of the brains, too. Notice in particular, those of you who subscribe to the notion that we were initially created as dual, composite beings, male and female, that one brain is female, while the other is male.

The yin (right-brain) is feminine.
The yang (left-brain) is masculine.
The yin (right-brain) is negative.
The yang (left-brain) is positive.
The yin (right-brain) is the moon.
The yang (left-brain) is the sun.
The yin (right-brain) is darkness.
The yang (left-brain) is light.
The yin (right-brain) is yielding.
The yang (left-brain) is aggressive.
The yin (right-brain) is the left side.
The yang (left-brain) is the right side.
The yin (right-brain) is cold.
The yang (left-brain) is warm.
The yin (right-brain) is autumn.
The yang (left-brain) is spring.
The yin (right-brain) is winter.
The yang (left-brain) is summer.
The yin (right-brain) is unconscious.
The yang (left-brain) is conscious.
The yin (right-brain) is emotion.
The yang (left-brain) is reason.

Two Ways of Seeing – Convergence and Divergence

Human eyesight has elements of both right and left brain characteristics.

Convergence Our eyes focus on a single point, the smaller and more defined that point, the clearer the vision. This is known as central fixation and is the key to superior eyesight. Thus, your eye must be single, or centrally fixated, to be able to see the light. Central fixation is typical of left-brain convergence, converging the attention on a single point.

Divergence However, we also see what surrounds that point. This is known as eccentric vision. Eccentric vision takes in the whole picture, the whole view, with less clarity than the central point we are fixating our eyes upon. With eccentric vision, we get a sense of where everything is in relation to everything else. None of what we see with eccentric vision is very clear.  In fact, it could almost be termed “dark.” This dark, eccentric vision is typical of right-brain divergence, as attention is diverged among all points and not just one.

In this way, using centric and eccentric vision simultaneously, we are able to see the one and the all at the same time. Both are necessary for proper vision, otherwise blindness, to a greater or lesser degree, results.

Two types of blindness If you were to become eccentrically blind, so that all you could perceive was a single point, you would not be able to determine where that point was in relation to everything else. You would literally be lost, having no idea (spatially) where anything was. And if your centric vision became blind, so that you could only see everything around the point you fixated your eyes upon, you would be able to determine that there were things around you, knowing (spatially) where everything was, but you wouldn’t be able to see it with any clarity, meaning that you wouldn’t really know what it was with any detail, nor would you know what the point you were focusing on was.

A Cerebral Struggle for Dominance

Just as both centric and eccentric vision are necessary for proper perception, so are the left-brain and right-brain necessary, yet modern man tends to favor the left-brain processes over the right-brain ones. In fact, the left-brain almost always dominates the right-brain in adults because the speech centers are typically located there, whereas the right-brain is mute. In a debate between a highly articulate man and a mute man, the articulate one wins every time.

As both brains are essentially opposites in every way, and compete for dominance over the man, it is not surprising that the left-brain has ridiculed the right-brain in every language. All words and verbal expressions come from the left-brain. It names everything. It also controls the right hand. So, it is not surprising that everything good is associated with the right hand, whereas everything evil is associated with the left hand, which is controlled by the right-brain. To give you two examples of how the left-brain builds itself up while putting the right-brain down, consider the words “sinister” and “adroit.” The etymology of “sinister” is left, while that of “adroit” is right. Sinister has a bad connotation, while adroit has a good one. The left-brain, in control of speech, takes every opportunity, in every language, to aggrandize itself and belittle the right-brain.

Again, I say, that such behavior is not surprising because, invariably, the right-brain actions—the messages it communicates to the outside world—are always believed over the words verbalized by the left-brain. The right-brain, being mute, communicates through gestures and body language. When a man talks to someone else, and his words do not match his body language, invariably the listener will believe the message communicated by the body language, over what is spoken in words. The left-brain’s words only gain credibility if the right-brain’s body language and gestures match them. Each brain, though, is independent and wants to make itself heard and to dominate, so the necessity of working together can be frustrating, which frustration is manifested by the left-brain calling the (right-brain controlled) left hand names.

In the gospel, we are taught to be one and we tend to think of that in terms of two or more people.  However, in its most fundamental practice, it means to harmonize the two brains so that they work in unity, instead of fighting between each other.

The term “one,” used in the scriptures to describe the Godhead and us in relation to God, should (says I) be translated “united.”  “United” is a more descriptive term; it recognizes the individuality of the parts while showing the harmonious relationship of the whole.  The left-brain, however, is the one that chooses the words of the scriptures and so it is understandable that “one” is the word used.  The left-brain does not want to even recognize the existence of the right-brain, therefore, according to its thought, we are to become one homogenized being, centered smack dab in the left hemisphere!

What the Left-Brain and Right-Brain Actually Are

If you were to ask a person to point with their finger where they are in their body, they would eventually figure it out and point to their brain.  For example, although they control their knee and can see and feel it, it is “over there,” not “in here” where they are.  If you ask where their mind is, they will point to their brain (either hemisphere).  When you ask where their heart is, they will point to their chest.  When you ask where their sentimental heart is, not the physical heart, they will point to the same location, the chest.

For most people, the sentimental heart and the physical heart are located, like the knee, “over there,” not “in here” where they are.  Yet, all sensations are sensed in the brain, not in the extremities.  It is the brain that interprets the signals coming from without as pleasure, pain, etc.  The organs at those extremities are designed to collect information about the inner and outer environments and to transmit the information to the brain, which then interprets it as “feeling.”  We can see physical organs at every location of the body, but the sentimental heart, which we say is located in the bosom somewhere, has no physical organ that collects sentimental information.  Where, then, is the location of the sentimental heart?  Where is the organ of the sentimental heart?  It is the right-brain.

In its quest for dominance of the brain, the mind of man (the left-brain), has named the location of the heart of man (the right-brain), as “out there,” somewhere in the bosom or chest area.  In the reality of the left-brain—which is the dominant brain in adults—the heart is something that is to be subject to the mind, like any other part of the body.  It, the left-brain, wants the man to believe that his mind (which is the left-brain) occupies the whole region of the cerebral area, both left and right hemispheres, while the heart (which is his right-brain) is in a nether region.

The truth of the matter is, though, that the left-brain, which deals in symbols, has created a symbolic location for the sentimental heart.  The actual location is unnervingly close to the mind, right across the corpus callosum bridge, and it, the heart, is every bit as big and complex as the mind.  In fact, the heart of man is not just the equal of the mind of man, but is actually the primary brain organ, while the left-brain is a secondary brain organ.

From this point on, I will refer to each brain by what they actually are: the left-brain-mind and the right-brain-heart.

Man is from the Beginning Right-Brain-Heart Dominant

We come into this world right-brain-heart dominant.  Over time the speech and other centers of the left-brain-mind develop and, due to the mastery of speech and writing, the left-brain-mind often and largely takes control of the man, dominating the right-brain-heart.  The return to a heavenly state, such as our pre-mortal state, indicates a return to right-brain-heart dominance.

In one of the lists above, the left-brain-mind is called the secondary brain, while the right-brain-heart is called the primary brain.  Let’s explore why this is.

Right-Brain-Heart: Primary; Left-Brain-Mind: Secondary

When Jesus visited the Nephites, he was complying with the commandments of the Father, who had given him a to-do list (and a to-say list.)  After finishing the list of tasks, he was to return to the Father and then to go to the lost tribes but he changed plans, because his right-brain-heart, the primary brain, which contains the emotional centers, felt compassion towards the Nephites.  He then stayed longer, said more and performed more acts than he had been instructed to by the Father.  In other words, Jesus took initiative and expressed his individuality.

The right-brain-heart trumps the left-brain-mind every time.  It takes precedence over the logic of the left-brain-mind.  We left-brain-mind dominant humans, when thinking of the oneness of the Gods, tend to think in mathematical logic like a computer program which gives the proper response to every conceivable situation, as if the Gods were robots.  Such thinking is uniquely left-brain-minded, in other words, it is convergent.  Although the Gods utilize their left-brain-minds, and thus are capable of convergent thought, they are right-brain-heart dominant, which is divergent.  There is not one proper response or solution, but an infinite number of proper responses and solutions.  Diversification and variety are functions of the right-brain-heart.

So, despite going beyond what the Father had told him to do, Jesus acted properly.

The Nonverbal Gesture Language of the Right-Brain-Heart

The right-brain-heart of man, although mute, possesses the language of gestures.  No matter what language you look at on this planet, you will find that human verbal expressions are often accompanied by hand and body gestures.  Try telling someone to describe a spiral staircase to you and see if they don’t make a spiral gesture with their hand as they give their description.  The gesture language of the right-brain-heart appears to be more or less the same regardless of language or culture.  We all use the same or similar gestures, with some variance among the like generalities.  When picking a mate, gestures or body language is virtually identical in every culture.  This is known as the pair-bonding sequence.  All of this mute body language is the right-brain-heart communicating with another right-brain-heart.

In the heavens, as everyone there is right-brain-heart dominant, the principal language is a gesture language.  The language given to Adam was also a gesture language.  (Think back to Adam’s prayer in the temple.)  The gospel ordinances consist of bodily movements and gestures.  This is the language of the right-brain-heart.

The language of the right-brain-heart cannot be expressed in words or written down.  The verbal left-brain-mind cannot understand the expressions of the right-brain-heart.  It is all a mystery, unknowable to the left-brain-mind.  That is, perhaps, why we find such curious passages of scripture in which Jesus prays to the Father and no one can speak or write “the things” they both saw and heard him speak.  Part of the reason could very well be because Jesus used the gesture language of his right-brain-heart in front of the multitude.

Later, on the second day of his visit, Jesus again prays a prayer that was impossible to speak or write.  Finally, on the third day, the babes and little children spoke unspeakable things, as did many of the later church converts.  (The children, still right-brain-heart dominant, were already in the proper dominance state, so right-brain-heart speak would come first and easiest to them.)  All of this may be indicative of the gesture language of the right-brain-heart.

A built-in lie detector; a built-in lying machine

The right-brain-heart always tells the truth that it perceives, whereas the left-brain-mind is capable of lying.  (The left-brain-mind has the ability of lying through its rationalization processes.)  If the left-brain-mind speaks a lie, even to the point where it attempts to control the person’s body language to make the deception complete, the right-brain-heart will nevertheless cause a body part to manifest that the words spoken and body language shown are untrue.  As much as the left-brain-mind tries to control the right-brain-heart’s bodily gestures, the message of truth always gets through, via so-called involuntary functions, such as pupil dilation/constriction, etc.  A person trained in these right-brain-heart body signs can always tell when someone is lying, just by careful observation of the body signals.

The Spiritual Center of Man: the Right-Brain-Heart

The residence of the Holy Ghost All spirituality is centered in the right-brain-heart.  When explaining how the spirit of revelation operates, the Lord said, “I will tell you in your (left-brain-) mind and in your (right-brain-) heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your (right-brain-) heart.”  (D&C 8: 2.)

In addition to residing in the right-brain-heart, the Holy Ghost utilizes the peculiar processes of that hemisphere to communicate divine knowledge.

Dreams As the right-brain-heart controls the subconscious, many prophets and seers, such as Lehi, received divine dreams.

Timelessness The right-brain-heart has no concept of time, so we find Joseph Smith matter-of-factly stating, after his visions with the angel Moroni, “After this third visit, he again ascended into heaven as before, and I was again left to ponder on the strangeness of what I had just experienced, when almost immediately after the heavenly messenger had ascended from me the third time, the cock crowed, and I found that day was approaching, so that our interviews must have occupied the whole of that might.”  (JS-H 1: 47)

Children, in particular, routinely demonstrate the timelessness of the right-brain-heart.  Being right-brain-heart dominant, they have the innate ability to immerse themselves in the reality of the right-brain-heart, without very much input from their left-brain-minds.  Such a brain state might be termed R-mode.  Only by activating the time keeping function of their left-brain-minds, can R-mode be broken.

For example, when my youngest son is engaged in an enjoyable activity, which I need to interrupt because it is time to go, there is no way to disengage him without him becoming upset.  This is because he has no concept of time while in R-mode and feels cheated to be suddenly taken out of it.  Even if he has been playing for hours on end, to him it wasn’t enough time, since he wasn’t aware of time while doing it.  What I need to do in order to avoid a scene is to engage his left-brain-mind (or L-mode), which does keep time, by saying, “Okay, we’re leaving in 15 minutes!”  Instantly, the left-brain-mind of the boy starts a countdown, which overrides the right-brain-heart’s timelessness.  At intervals, he will ask me, “How much time is left?” because his left-brain-mind still has no concept of how long a minute is, let alone 15, and it needs information to pace the countdown.  When the time is up there is no scene when leaving because his rational left-brain-mind is telling his right-brain-heart that he was given “enough” time to play and “fair warning.”

As things really are The right-brain-heart is concrete, seeing things as they really, actually are, and not projecting symbolic relationships, so, when the Lord wishes to reveal truth, which is “knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come” (see D&C 93: 24), he does so through the right-brain-heart of man.

More on Timelessness: Patience is Centered in the Right-Brain-Heart

Patience takes on a new meaning when in a timeless state.  There is no sooner or later in eternity or timelessness.  You either get something or you do not.  The right-brain-heart will ask God for something, believing that it will receive it.  “I do not know when I will get it, I just believe that I will get it,” says the right-brain-heart.  The right-brain-heart is, by nature, patient, because waiting an eternity to receive something is the same as waiting one day.  Without a concept of time, it is all the same.

The Exaltation of the Left-Brain-Mind (by Man)

Modern man, being left-brain-mind dominant, tends to idolize the left-brain-mind attributes, whereas the right-brain-heart attributes are considered inferior.  So, a man with strong intellectual powers, rational and analytic in thought, with strong verbal skills, who is punctual and can follow instructions precisely, is lifted up on a pedestal as ideal.  Such a man is a thinker, thinking things through and figuring things out, linking things together like a Sherlock Holmes detective until he comes to the “only logical conclusion.”  Logic, reason, intellect, mathematical concepts, with emotions being held in check at all times, so as not to cloud one’s thoughts, these are the qualities of the scientific, left-brain-mind dominant man.

The Use of the Right-Brain-Heart (by God)

Unfortunately, such a man, whose right-brain-heart is largely neglected, while the left-brain-mind becomes over-developed, misses every opportunity to hear the voice of God, because God dwells only in the right-brain-heart.

Spatiality God shows the spatial relationships of the heavens to man in vision through the right-brain-heart, not the left-brain-mind.  “These are the governing ones,” the Lord said to Abraham (in Abr. 3: 3), as he showed him the planets and their spatial relationships.  The left-brain-mind must rely upon telescopes and math to get a picture of where everything is, whereas the right-brain-heart has the built-in capacity to see the whole picture at once, so God uses it when giving vision.

Intuition When we have an “a-ha!” moment, that is the right-brain-heart in action.  We finally understand something, though we may not be able to put it into words, or the words we use to describe the understanding is inadequate.  Although the left-brain-mind processes, like advanced mathematical equations, are very complex, they still only deal with the one point or thought that is in the mind.  The right-brain-heart has the job of dealing with everything other than that one point or thought.  In other words, the right right-brain-heart sees the whole picture (eccentric vision), while the left-brain-mind sees only one point of the picture (centric vision).  Right-brain-heart processes embrace the all or infinite, while the left-brain-mind embraces the one or singular.  The left-brain-mind sees one thing at a time, sequentially; the right-brain-heart sees multiple things at a time, simultaneously.  As a result, the right-brain-heart is vastly more complex than the left-brain-mind.  Its processes are much too fluid and complex to be put into words.

Miracles As LDS, we often fall into the left-brain-mind track and approach the gospel in a left-brain-mind way.  Each side is to be fully developed and harmonized, or united, becoming “one.”  If one or the other must dominate, the right-brain-heart, the primary brain, is to be the one in the control seat, not the left-brain-mind.  If the order is reversed, we may find ourselves going through a list of gospel actions, which is inherently left-brained, without experiencing any of the miracles, visions, dreams, tongues, angelic visitations, etc., which are associated with right-brain development and dependence.

Gospel principles Faith, hope, charity and all the rest of the gospel principles are right-brain-heart centered.  It is impossible to exercise these principles utilizing the ordered left-brain-mind.  To the left-brain-mind, the right-brain-heart appears disordered, chaotic, anarchic, much too free and unrestrained.  The left-brain-mind likes to be told what to do, to be directed, guided, and confined into limitative schedules and restrictive borders.  This is because the left-brain-mind only sees one thing at a time and the dot or point it sees has specific boundaries, everything converging at the center.  The right-brain-heart, though, sees everything at once, and there are no boundaries to what it sees, all things diverging in all directions.  It enjoys the freedom of boundless space and the natural order that the things it sees “settle into.”  It doesn’t like to be confined and it has no sense of propriety.  All it sees is infinite variety, all of which it deems “proper.”

The Return to Right-Brain-Heart Dominance

Our task here on earth is to return to right-brain-heart dominance so that God can reveal the way to become one, so that both brains act in harmony, firmly under the control of the right-brain-heart, which sees the big picture.  This is why the scriptures state that God requires the heart of man.  Once God gets a man’s right-brain-heart, He can show man the big picture and man can see where he fits in the universe, what his potential is and how to obtain it.

As I said before, all mankind is born with a dominant right-brain-heart.  As infants, babes, toddlers and little children, we learn chiefly using the right-brain-heart processes.  At some point we learn how to speak, read, write and do arithmetic (which are left-brain-mind processes) and the left-brain-mind overpowers the right-brain-heart, suppressing the imaginative and creative right.  Such left-brain-mind dominance impedes our spiritual progression.  What then becomes necessary is that we become as little children, repent and be baptized (see 3 Nephi 11: 37) and also repent, be baptized and become as little children (see 3 Nephi 11: 38).  We must become as little children both before and after baptism.  In other words, we must become again right-brain-heart dominant.

Often many of the instructions given by the Lord to LDS are switched by the LDS, so that we try to perform a right-brain-heart function with the left-brain-mind and vice versa.  For example, when the Lord told the Nephite disciples to cease praying but not to cease praying in their hearts, we might confuse “praying in the heart” with praying with the mind.  The (left-brain-) mind uses words, while the (right-brain-) heart is mute.  It can feel and make gestures, but it cannot express itself in words.  Therefore, to pray in one’s heart is to express a feeling towards God.  It is entirely possible to continually pray in one’s heart to God while performing other tasks.

Likewise, pondering in one’s left-brain-mind and pondering in one’s right-brain-heart are two separate things and have different results.  Left-brain-mind pondering is analytic, abstract, propositional, temporal, rational, digital, logical and linear and leads to intellectual stimulation. Right-brain-heart pondering is synthetic, analogic, imaginative, nontemporal, nonrational, spatial, intuitive, holistic and nonlineal and leads to spiritual stimulation and revelation. Unless one ponders with the right-brain-heart, it may result in no spiritual progress.

Many of the “techniques” we are taught to use for gospel study are nothing more than left-brain-mind processes.  In fact, any and all studying engages only the left-brain-mind.  This is why the Lord said to Oliver Cowdery, “You must study it out in your mind.”  (See D&C 9: 8.)  Faith is right-brain-heart based and study is left-brain-mind based.  And so the Lord said, “And as all have not faith…seek learning, even by study (left-brain-mind) and also by faith (right-brain-heart).”  (See D&C 109: 7.)

To maximize gospel progression, the right-brain-heart must be engaged.  The more it is engaged, the more rapid the progress.  The right-brain-heart has the capacity to dwell on something continually, night and day.  Ask any broken-hearted fool if he feels the effect of his lost love continually and he’ll tell you.  By placing the affections of the heart upon the Lord (see Alma 37: 36), we keep it open to receive communications from that quarter.

United Brains – or, One Brain under (the Right-Brain-Heart, It Being under) God

The Lord has said that “children are whole from the foundation of the world.”  (Moses 6: 54.)  Another way of saying “whole” is “united,” “complete,” “not missing any parts,” “with no divisions or separations among the parts,” meaning that the two brains are united, each one working as they are supposed to work, in other words, with the right right-brain-heart in the dominant position.  Then they enter earth life, in which all the adults have brains in which the left-brain-mind is dominant, and as they grow up, “sin conceiveth in their (right-brain-) hearts” (Moses 6: 55.)  The effect of sin is that it separates us from God, so, as the right-brain-heart is our pathway to the divine, as soon as children allow their left-brain-minds to dominate or ignore the right-brain-heart, they begin to cut themselves off from Heavenly Father.

Satanic Strategies

The devil has a few strategies to “deal with” the right-brain-heart.  As the right-brain-heart is the conduit to God, one strategy is to get people to completely ignore it.  Using the left’s power of words, the attributes of the left-brain-mind are exalted while those of the right-brain-heart are ridiculed as foolishness.  In this way, no one wants to develop the right-brain-heart qualities because of its stigma in the popular mind-set.  Right-brain-heart dominant artists, creators, visionaries, and prophets are looked upon as slackers, knaves, vagabonds, lazy, crazies, etc.  Their “heads are in the clouds” and they need to “get their feet on the ground” and “face the realities of (left-brain-mind dominant) life.”  Right-brain-heart dominant individuals are not punctual, can’t follow a set of instructions precisely (they are prone to change the order of a sequenced plan on the spur of the moment), they can’t focus on any one thing at a time, instead thinking of everything at once, they are irrational (nonrational), etc.  Who wants to be like that?!  Just about every right-brain-heart process has been marginalized and made unpopular by the left-brain-mind so that hardly anyone wants to develop it.

The universities are especially adept at atrophying the right-brain-heart so that a man can enter a university with faith in God (the right-brain-heart functioning) and leave it as an atheist, with near total reliance upon the left-brain-mind.  Universities and most schooling in general teach left-brain-mind development almost exclusively.

Another strategy of the devil is to inflame the desire and emotion centers of the right right-brain-heart so that hate, anger and rage pour out instead of the love and goodwill that is supposed to be there.  He will also incite desires for sex, power, fame and money because the desires of the right-brain-heart never tire as do the thought processes of the left-brain-mind.  So, if he can’t get a person to ignore the right-brain-heart entirely, he will try to get the individual to spend right-brain-heart energy in anything other than God.

If all of this fails and the person still seeks God and continues to develop the right-brain-heart, he will give them religion, a religion that is largely left-brain-minded, that professes God with its mouth (the left-brain-mind words) but whose (right-brain-) heart is far from Him.  Or, if a person’s right-brain-heart is very developed so that left left-brain-mind dominant religion has no appeal, the devil will present spiritualism and other esoteric religions and paths to the individual, causing him or her to divert right-brain-heart energy to something other than God.  Women, in particular, are susceptible to this latter strategy.

The Right-Brain-Heart, the Key to Combating the Devil

The way to combat these devilish deceptions is to open up the right-brain-heart to God and to develop it despite the stigma.  “Yielding up the (right-brain-) heart to God” (Hel. 3: 35) is how the scriptures describe it.  This causes the right-brain-heart to become sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost which will then dwell there and deposit the gifts of the Spirit, which gifts will discern the deceptions of the devil (see D&C 46: 8) and will reveal the truth via miraculous manifestations.  So, the right-brain-heart is the key to everything.

Belief, Doubt and Prayer

The right-brain-heart is the believing brain, whereas the left-brain-mind is the doubter, unless the belief is based upon logic, facts, peer-reviewed evidence, etc.  So, when the Lord instructs us to pray in faith, believing that we will receive, nothing doubting, he is explaining the manner of using both hemispheres of the brain.  Verbal prayers require the left-brain-mind, while faith and belief both originate in the right-brain-heart.  And by saying “nothing doubting” He is explaining that the left-brain-mind is to speak but do nothing more.  So, there is to be no conflict between left-brain-mind and right-brain-heart.  Belief and faith are to come from the right-brain-heart without any doubt from the left-brain-mind.  In our prayers, then, we are to be one, meaning that our left-brain-mind and right-brain-heart are to be united, with the right-brain-heart in its proper role as the primary and dominant brain.  Prayer, then, becomes a means whereby we may train our left-brain-minds to be subservient to our right-brain-hearts.

Revelation and the Right-Brain-Heart

By changing our approach to the gospel from left-brain-mind to right-brain-heart dominant, suddenly one-way communication (prayer) turns into two-way communication (revelation) and God starts pouring down information about the nature of the Universe, expanding our horizons accordingly.  Joseph Smith, Jun., is the poster boy for what happens when you develop the right-brain-heart and turn it over to God: God fills it with visions of eternity.  Joseph’s left-brain-mind was in no way as developed as his right-brain-heart, which fact bothered him, but this did not present any obstacle whatsoever to him receiving messages from God.  The reason?  Because the left-brain-mind is not needed by God to communicate to us.  Only the right-brain-heart is. The Holy Ghost speaks to the left-brain-mind when the message needs to be put into words, as that is where the speech center is found.  If the message is only for the individual, the right-brain-heart alone can be used, but if the message is to be told to others, the left-brain-mind is also activated.

The Eternal Destiny of Man Requires an Organ that Can See Eternity: the Right-Brain-Heart

All of this talk of the importance of the right-brain-heart is not meant to imply that the left-brain-mind plays no part in the gospel.  It does, but it was always the intention that the left-brain-mind have a secondary, not primary role, in the gospel.  We are here on earth to learn to walk by faith (right-brain-heart) and not by sight (left-brain-mind).  The left-brain-mind, being of a limited nature, with narrow confines, boundaries, rules, etc., is designed to be a tool in the hand of the right-brain-heart to perform certain limited, sequential tasks.  The right-brain-heart has no limits, being as wide as eternity itself, and thus is designed to control the eternal destiny of man because its vision is large enough to see the big picture and man’s spatial relationship to all other things in the Universe.  The left-brain-mind is unsuited to control the eternal destiny of man because of its limited vision, seeing only one thing at a time and not knowing where it fits in the Universe.  But it is especially useful during mortality, to construct houses and perform other mortal tasks.

In eternity, the left-brain-mind is also used to perform tasks, but always in subjection to the right-brain-heart, which directs all things.  If you look on the lists above of left and right attributes, you’ll see the left hemisphere is “directed” while the right is “free.”  By nature and by design, the left-brain-mind is meant to be directed or to be given orders, whereas the right-brain-heart is meant to be free of direction.  Thus we see the resurrected Christ following the orders of the Father, performing left-brain-mind tasks, but when the right-brain-heart expresses itself, suddenly plans change.  Again, I repeat, the right-brain-heart is designed to do what it wants to do (freedom or anarchy, in other words, self-government); it is not designed to be directed.  Whereas the left-brain-mind is designed to be directed, and not to be free.  (The devil perverts this design by getting everyone’s left-brain-mind in the dominant position, with the devil doing the directing.  The Savior corrects this perversion with the Sermon on the Mount, whose instructions, if followed precisely, would put the right-brain-heart again in the dominant position.)

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is Appealing to Both Brains

The gospel contains elements meant to appeal to both left and right brains.  Gospel symbols, sequential commandments, prophetic directions, linear progression, the emphasis on study, the word of God, etc., all appeal to the left-brain-mind, while Gospel literalism, illogical and irrational commandments, faith and belief, the innumerability of the worlds (infinity), spatial relationships of kingdoms (planets), etc., all appeal to the right-brain-heart.  So, the gospel addresses the needs of both brains, but puts the major emphasis on the right-brain-heart as the primary organ that determines our eternal destiny.

The Lord’s Bountiful Sermon to the Nephites Corrects Brain Disunity

The pre-eminence of the right-brain-heart, the importance of it, cannot be over-stated.  The Sermon on the Mount given to the Jews and the Bountiful Sermon given to the Nephites, speak almost exclusively of the re-enthroning of the right-brain-heart, giving irrational, illogical rules to live by, such as turning the other cheek, etc., which rules fly in the face of the left-brain-mind’s sense of justice.  For example, “blessed are the poor in spirit who come unto me” is contrary to left-brain-mind pride.  “Blessed are all they that mourn” is contrary to left-brain-mind concepts of happiness.  “Blessed are the meek” is contrary to left-brain-mind aggression.  To the left-brain-mind, these instructions given by the Savior are irrational.  To the left-brain-mind, it is the strong that inherits the earth, not the meek.  The left-brain-mind cannot see how being persecuted can be of any benefit.  Left-brain-mind dominant people, therefore, do not obey the principles found in the Sermon on the Mount, only insofar as the left-brain-mind sees a rational benefit associated with them.  To the degree that it views no rational benefit, it avoids this sermon like the plague.

The Sermon on the Mount is designed to present principles which are intentionally contrary to the nature of the left-brain-mind so that mankind can learn to obtain control over it, to re-enthrone the right-brain-heart as the director and to become as a little child.

In particular, the Bountiful Sermon is a test, given to LDS, as to whether they will receive the “greater things” that were ministered to the Nephites by the Savior.  Of all the scriptures in the entire Standard Works, the four chapters found in 3 Nephi 11-14 are the most important. If a person were to throw away every other scripture and just read and live every principle found in these four chapters, the Lord would open up the heavens to that man and would re-reveal the rest of the scriptures, including scriptures the man never had, so that he would obtain, through the door of his right-brain-heart the keys of his salvation and enter into the rest of the Lord.  The fact that all these years have gone by and we still have not received the complete Nephite record shows that LDS are largely ignoring the Bountiful Sermon, perhaps complying with left-brain-mind commandments, but avoiding those that target the right-brain-heart.

As a result of this failure to comply with the Bountiful Sermon, choosing instead to let our left-brain-minds direct us, our right-brain-hearts have become hardened or atrophied.  All mankind begins life with dominant, soft hearts which, over time, grow hard and give up dominance to the left-brain-mind.  Like stones, hard hearts need to be broken open through repentance (a “broken heart and contrite spirit”) so that the Spirit of God can finally get in.  In other words, we need to become as little children again, with soft, dominant right-brain-heartsThe Bountiful Sermon is the way to achieve that goal.

(For The Anarchist Version of the Bountiful Sermon, see the post, The Words of Jehovah-Saves Anointed One, Spoken During His Nephite Ministry: DAY ONE.  That post is also my answer to the question posed in the post, If you could only read 3 chapters or sections…)

Hardness of Heart, Blindness of Mind and Looking Beyond the Mark

The scriptures refer to the left and right brains as being in a state of wickedness with the expressions “hardness of heart” and “blindness of mind.”  The left-brain-mind becomes blind only when it “looks beyond the mark.”  It can see, by design, only one single point or dot (mark).  If it attempts to see two or more things simultaneously, or if it attempts to see outside of the boundaries of its centrally fixated point, it cannot and becomes blind.  In other words, if the left-brain-mind attempts to see what the right-brain-heart can see, it fails and sees nothing, becoming blind.

Two Brains, Two Realities

The left-brain-mind and right-brain-heart perceive life in opposing ways.

A Circle Within a Circle The reality of the left-brain-mind consists of two circles, one smaller circle within a larger circle.  Within the smaller circle are all things the left-brain-mind has deemed “possible and probable.”  Outside of the small circle, but within the larger circle are all things it has deemed “possible, but improbable.”  Outside of the larger circle are all things it calls “impossible.”  The left-brain-mind sees reality in this way because, by nature, it is incapable of viewing it any other way.  It is designed by God to be an organ whose view of the Universe is limited, that is, it can focus only on the one and not the many.  It deals only in absolutes such as on or off, right or wrong, true or false, etc.

No Circles The reality of the right-brain-heart has no such labels, as it uses no words.  It merely sees all things at once as they are, or as they really look, and perceives their various spatial locations in relation to everything else.  It also perceives the similarities of the objects, as well as the differences or divergent paths.  As there is no end to the things it views, its view contains no boundaries, no symbolic circles, etc.  The reality of the right-brain-heart, therefore, is the reality of limitless eternity and infinite variety, in which “all things are possible.”  If all things are possible, then nothing is impossible or improbable.

The realities of the left-brain-mind and right-brain-heart are conflicting and create a clash within us.  “Which view is correct?” you may ask yourself.  But such a question comes from the left-brain-mind, which sees things as right and wrong, correct and incorrect, proper and improper.  In other words, for the left-brain-mind everything is either a 1 or a 0, either on or off, whereas the right-brain-heart sees everything in infinite gradations and variations.  Because the gospel of Christ is one of eternity, it must be lived in the reality of the right-brain-heart.  Therefore, the real answer to such a question is that both perspectives are correct.

Possible, probable, improbable and impossible If we are ever on our knees for some miracle to occur, and we think any of the following thoughts—

“I’m just engaging in wishful thinking.”

“I don’t really believe this will happen.”

“Do I really believe this will happen?”

“Maybe I should state this as a hope, not a belief.”

etc.

—all of these doubtful thoughts are coming from the left-brain-mind.  To the left-brain-mind, if what you are petitioning the Lord for falls into the “possible, but improbable” category of its reality—or even worse, the “impossible” category—you are engaging in “wishful thinking,” “delusion,” or some other designation of an irrational mind.  The left-brain-mind is incapable of comprehending the reality of the right-brain-heart, in which all things are possible, and must label the right-brain-heart’s reality in left-brain-mind terms.

The Four Modes of Existence

There are four modes of existence: 1) L-mode and R-mode expressing themselves simultaneously, with the left-brain-mind dominant, 2) L-mode and R-mode expressing themselves simultaneously, with the right-brain-heart dominant, 3) L-mode expressing itself with the right-brain-heart silent and 4) R-mode expressing itself with the left-brain-mind silent.

The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that only modes #2 and #4 are acceptable.  God is always to be a part of our existence (the main part) and as He manifests Himself through right-brain-heart dominance, only #2 and #4 put Him in His proper place.  The natural man, forever an enemy to God, chiefly expresses himself in modes #1 and #3.  Our task on earth is to switch #1 to #2 and #3 to #4.  Again, this is accomplished by applying the principles found in 3 Nephi 11-14.

The Split-Brain Model Applied to God and the Universe

The Universe is a finite sphere of light with well defined, but ever-expanding limits.  It is composed of kingdoms of glory (light) and space.  All of creation exists within the Universal sphere.  Beyond it nothing exists.  This nothing region outside is called “outer darkness” in contrast to the inner light of the Universal sphere.  Outer darkness has no limits or boundaries to it.  It is truly infinite.  (See the post, Deep Waters: Lehi’s model of the universe, for more info on this topic.)

God can see all created things within the Universal sphere through the capacity of His right-brain-heart, which sees everything simultaneously, but He also has the capacity to focus on the one, the individual creation, through the ability of His left-brain-mind, which sees only one thing at a time sequentially.

We know that God has already seen all things individually with His left-brain-mind, including each one of us, because He has stated that He has numbered every single thing that exists.  Numbering is a left-brain-mind process which requires centric vision, focusing on the thing being counted.

The capacity of God’s left-brain-mind to number things appears to be unlimited because we are told that the process of creation is ongoing and never-ending (“my works never cease”) and that He numbers all of His creations (“all things are numbered to me”).  We are also told that although all things in the Universal sphere are of finite number, the number is so very great that to man they are essentially infinite in number (“all things are numberless to man”).  This shows that the left-brain-mind of God, which is designed to deal only with the finite, is beyond the scope of comprehension of man and it, alone, is worthy of man’s worship and endless devotion.

Nevertheless, the left-brain-mind of God, though awe-inspiring and dumbfounding in its perfection and complexity, like the ultimate computer, is sub-ordinate to the right-brain-heart of God, which is designed to comprehend the infinite.  And where is the truly infinite?  Outer darkness.

God’s left-brain-mind does not gaze into outer darkness because that region is infinite and God would not use an instrument designed for finite measurements and counting to deal with the infinite, but if it did look, what would it see?  It would see nothing.  Why?  Because nothing is there.  The “mark” of God is the Universal sphere of light.  God’s left-brain-mind is not designed to “look beyond the mark.”  Were it to do so, it would become blind and see nothing.  Thus, to God’s left-brain-mind, outer darkness literally is dark.

Yet God does gaze into outer darkness.  And He sees an infinite number of things of infinite variety surrounded by boundless space.  He sees all these uncreated, non-existent things through the capacity of His right-brain-heart to imagine.  These are the future creations of God.

Thus, through the finite yet ever-expanding Universal sphere of light, God is able to fully engage the numbering and naming capacity of His left-brain-mind, while the infinite and divergent nothingness outside of the sphere fully engages the infinite imagination and eccentric vision of His right-brain-heart.  In fact, in a very real sense, God’s left-brain-mind is the Universal sphere of light (as mormonmilkman was cleverly able to determine), and, in like manner, His right-brain-heart is outer darkness.   See the post, Deep Waters: Creatio ex nihilo, creation ex material and creation ex deo are all true doctrines, for more on this topic.

(It is telling that God has His right-brain-heart’s eccentric vision continuously gazing into outer darkness, as it is His right-brain-heart and not His left-brain-mind that brings us into existence.  But that is a topic worthy of its own post, so I will take it up in the next installment of the Faith of God series.)

Finally, the Universal sphere of light converges at the center point where God resides “in the midst” of all things.  Outer darkness, though, is best described as divergent.

Justice and Mercy

Justice is a characteristic of the left-brain-mind, which sees things as black or white, on or off, good or bad, righteous or wicked.  Mercy is a characteristic of the right-brain-heart, which sees things as diversified and varied.  The gospel of Jesus Christ allows us to obtain the mercy that resides in God’s right-brain-heart by developing our own right-brain-heart to match that of God’s, so that He can speak to us heart to heart.  If we do not take advantage of the gospel, God will speak to us mind to mind and we will then be exposed to the justice that resides in God’s left-brain-mind.  The sense of justice of our left-brain-mind is patterned after the sense of justice of God’s left-brain-mind, so those who receive God’s judgment will find themselves confessing that God’s judgments are all just and that they are guilty of their crimes.  The key to avoiding God’s justice and obtaining His mercy is by using the gospel to submit our right-brain-hearts to God.

Conclusion

When the gospel is viewed through the split-brain model, many of the human and Godly behavioral mysteries suddenly clear up.  Once informed by this model, no longer need we spurn the characteristics of the right-brain-heart as embarrassing, primitive, unnecessary and unwanted, but can heartily embrace them as just as much a part of the human nature as any aspect of the left-brain-mind, for such they are.  Application of the model allows us to more accurately ascertain where we are on the gospel path, based upon the left or right processes we regularly use.  By taking inventory of how we act, we can determine whether we are directed by our left-brain-minds or by our right-brain-hearts.  And by using the Savior’s corrective Bountiful Sermon, we can unite our brains and re-enthrone the right-brain-heart as the dominant organ, allowing the Lord to open up a direct channel to us and pour light and truth into our right-brain-hearts.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Deep Waters: Creatio ex nihilo, creatio ex materia and creatio ex deo are all true doctrines


For background on this post, please first read Lehi’s model of the universe.  This article begins where that one left off.

creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing)

Everything originally came from outer darkness, or out of the lake of fire and brimstone, into the inner light or sphere which is the kingdom of God (the created Universe.)  Everything in the created Universe (the sphere) has agency.

All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.  Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.   (D&C 93: 30)

This means that everything placed by God within the sphere of light exists, while everything without the sphere of light (in outer darkness) has no existence. In other words, what exists outside of the sphere of light?  Nothing exists outside of the sphere of light. The sphere of light is all there is. There is nothing else outside of it.  And yet, it is just from this “nothing” that God created the Universe and it is from this “nothing” that He is continually expanding His kingdom, for the sphere is growing.

Existence, as used in the above scripture, does not mean life. It does not mean that within the sphere of light things are alive and outside of it things are dead.  Instead, existence means “the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence.”  A dead thing, after all, although dead, still exists. However, an empty spot, in which there is nothing there, has “no life neither death,” which is Lehi’s description of what is found outside of the sphere of light, meaning that an endless void is out there.

Creatio ex nihilo, therefore, is a true doctrine, as God created (past) the whole created Universe from that which does not exist (the “nothing”) and is continuing (present) to expand His Universe by creating more Universe from that same “nothing.”  This creative act out of “nothing” will continue on forever (future).

Note: more information concerning this non-existent state outside of the sphere of light can be found in the article Lehi’s model of the universe.  That article described the “nothing” in terms of a material or an existence.  Nevertheless, in actuality, there was nothing out there, not any substance, material or existence.  Each time you read in that Lehi article the words exist, existence, substance, material, compound or any other term that indicates some type of material or thing in regards to outer darkness, it should be read as if there were quotation [“”] marks around it.

Also, the Lord makes it plain that if there is no agency, there is no existence, therefore all things inside of the sphere of light have agency and existence, whereas outside of the sphere of light—which is the location known as outer darkness—there is no agency and no existence, in other words, there is nothing. Agency is a gift of God given to us at the moment we came into existence (when we entered the sphere of light from outer darkness.)  When the Lord states “otherwise there is no existence” it presupposes that there are things that exist (on the one hand) and that there is also nonexistence (on the other hand), in other words, that there is an opposition in all things, including the state of existing and not existing.  Not existing is just as real as existing is and by giving us His definition of what are things that exist (independent truth and intelligence placed by God within the sphere of light and given agency) God has also given us the key in determining where such nonexistence is located (outer darkness.)  For a more in-depth treatise on agency, see The role of free agency in political systems, as well as The faith of God, part ten: The relationship of faith to agency (power) and Deep Waters: What would have happened if Lucifer had won the vote? )

Lastly, all truth and intelligence placed in the sphere is independent, meaning that these are individual bits, or individuals. Outside of the sphere, the void is a single mass, with no individuality or independence.  Inside, the Universe is made up of independent individuals.

creatio ex materia (creation out of pre-existent matter)

The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth; and no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments. He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things. Man was also in the beginning with God.  Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.  All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.  Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.  And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.  For man is spirit.  The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; and when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.  The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.  The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.  Light and truth forsake that evil one.  Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed  man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God.  And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers.  But I have commanded you to bring up your children in light and truth.  But verily I say unto you, my servant Frederick G. Williams, you have continued under this condemnation; you have not taught your children light and truth, according to the commandments; and that wicked one hath power, as yet, over you, and this is the cause of your affliction.  (D&C 93: 26-42)

There are but two fundamental materials that make up the created Universe: spirit and element.  The scriptures call these two materials by different names according to what aspect of the material is being described.  And so we have fire (spirit) and brimstone (element), light (spirit) and truth (element), intelligence (spirit) and truth (element), wisdom (spirit) and knowledge (element), that which acts (spirit) and that which is acted upon (element).  We also have Spirit of truth (spirit of element) as well as descriptions of intelligence as both the light of truth (spirit of element) and light and truth (spirit and element).  (It is interesting to note that the scriptures never speak of truth of light or truth of spirit [both element of spirit], only of light of truth and spirit of truth [both spirit of element].)

The term “intelligence” throws everyone off.  For most LDS, when asked what an intelligence is, according to the scriptures, they would probably say it is the third part of us that is neither spirit nor element, that is our fundamental being, and which is neither created nor made but exists from all eternity.  This definition, of course, is an invention on their part, as the scriptures do not describe a third part of our being.  The scriptures only describe two parts of us: spirit and element.  The reason why the word “intelligence” is so confusing is that the Lord uses it to mean more than one thing, even in the above quoted scripture.

Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.  (D&C 93: 29)

Intelligence, in this sentence, is referring to the “nothing” that has no existence located in outer darkness.  It is the compound-in-one, good-for-nothing “substance” described by Lehi and referred here by the Lord as intelligence.  (It is useful to refer to “nothing” intelligence as a “substance,” although a substance would technically be something.  Just keep in mind that I’m not actually saying it is a substance when I use the term “substance.”)  This “nothing” intelligence has no purpose and cannot be created or made, as it would destroy God and His purposes were He to create nothing (“something” that has no purpose according to Lehi.)  This “nothing” intelligence is also described as the “light of truth,” which allows us to understand that it is the compound-in-one substance from which the light (spirit) part was extracted from the truth (element) part, in the godly splitting operation which continuously makes an opposition in all things at the lake of fire and brimstone.

All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. (D&C 93: 30)

Intelligence in this sentence refers only to the spirit material that is split from the compound-in-one “nothing” intelligence.  Truth (element) and intelligence (spirit) are then the fundamental building materials, preexisting prior to the creation (formation or organization) of the Universe.  This process is creatio ex materia and is ongoing as the Universe both expands and is re-organized into its various stages of development.

There are two other uses of the word “intelligence.”  One meaning is of a spirit body, such as the spirit bodies of men, which were “organized before the world was.”  (See Abraham 3: 22.)  Another meaning of intelligence is “something” intelligence, as opposed to “nothing” intelligence:

The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.  (D&C 93: 36)

Whereas the “nothing” intelligence is the light of truth, the “something” intelligence is light and truth.  To recap: the “nothing” intelligence is the original “nothing”, namely, spirit and element compounded into one “substance,” good for nothing, not existing, and found outside the sphere of light in a region called outer darkness.  This “nothing” intelligence cannot be created or made by God (or anyone else.)  Creatio ex nihilo occurs at the lake of fire and brimstone whereby this “nothing” intelligence is split into two fundamental materials: spirit and element (or light and truth).  This creates the opposition in all things.  It is now “something” intelligence, meaning, it has purpose, existence, agency and can be useful for constructing or organizing an entire Universe (creatio ex materia.)

creatio ex deo (creation out of the being of God)

There are two ways or senses in which all things were and are created out of the being of God.  One is that everything came from the same nothingness, the “nothing” intelligence, including God:

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)

The “beginning” referred to in this scripture is the very first beginning, when we were part of the compound-in-one “nothing” intelligence that cannot be created or made.  We were there, in our uncreated nothing state, and God was there, too, in His uncreated nothing state.  We were all as one body. We did not exist as individuals, but as part of a single mass of nothingness, and in fact, we did not exist at all.   A portion of this mass was brought out of outer darkness before us, becoming the individual we now know as God.  Thus, God was brought out first.  Then, later, He brought us out along with all of the rest of the created Universe, so that we now all exist as individuals.  But keep in mind that originally, we all were part of the same whole, the same mass of nothingness, including God.  Thus, as the “nothing” intelligence literally was/is a part of the being of God and we were/are a part of it, too, creatio ex deo is a true doctrine.

Another way we are created out of the being of God is through the Light of Christ.  The Light of Christ is the (extended) body of God.  Through it He is able to both be in one single location at a time and also everywhere at once (omnipresent).  Although the Light of Christ is a creation of God, it has been endowed with all of His vast powers, knowledge and all other attributes in their fullness.  This is one of the reasons why the Light of Christ is indistinguishable to modern Christians from the real God that created it.  Nevertheless, as it is the arm of His power, extended throughout the Universe, it can be considered an extension of His very being, allowing Him to be both the one and the infinite at the same time.  It is the Light of Christ that has organized (creatio ex materia) and that maintains the entire Universe.  In this sense, creatio ex deo is a true doctrine:

Wherefore, I now send upon you another Comforter, even upon you my friends, that it may abide in your hearts, even the Holy Spirit of promise; which other Comforter is the same that I promised unto my disciples, as is recorded in the testimony of John.  This Comforter is the promise which I give unto you of eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom; which glory is that of the church of the Firstborn, even of God, the holiest of all, through Jesus Christ his Son—he that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth; which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.  As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made; as also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made; and the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.  And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—the light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things. (D&C 88: 3-13)

God does it all

To summarize, God splits the nothingness of outer darkess into its two component parts, spirit and element, bringing the single-mass nothingness (singular intelligence) into individual somethingnesses (a plurality of intelligences), from nonexistence into existence, placing the individual spirit and element bits within the growing sphere of light (the created Universe) and granting both components agency.  This creative act occurs at the lake of fire and brimstone, is in reality creatio ex nihilo and is ongoing.  As the singular nothingness was/is part of the being of God, this creative act is also creatio ex deo.

Once inside the sphere of light, split into spirit and element and granted agency, God organizes these fundamental bits into spirit and physical bodies.  This creative act is creatio ex materia and is ongoing.  As the Light of Christ is (essentially) part of the being of God (an extension of Him) and as we are organized (created) by and of the Light of Christ, it being in us, powering us and maintaining us (and all other things), this creative act is also creatio ex deo.

Previous Deep Waters article: Deep Waters:Lehi’s model of the universe

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The faith of God, part twelve: Truth


Continued from part eleven.

Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth; and truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; and whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning. (D&C 93: 23-25)

Here the Lord defined what truth is. He also defined, in the same sentence, what a lie is. Just about everyone understands this. If a man goes into a convenience store and robs it, taking exactly 10 dollars, and I see it happen and witness to its occurrence, I’ve spoken the truth. If I say he took exactly 11 dollars (more than the truth) or exactly 9 dollars (less than the truth), I’ve spoken a lie. In the economy of heaven, truth has bounds or limits, whereas the liar from the beginning has unlimited freedom to create fables.

Now get this: the word of God is the seed of faith, yet the word of God is truth, which is knowledge. How can faith be knowledge and knowledge be faith?

Knowledge creates faith and faith creates knowledge

That sounds like a reasonable statement, as the word of God, which is truth (knowledge), when planted in the heart of man and watered by the Spirit creates faith and faith eventually produces fruit (knowledge), however, it’s a bit simpler (or more complicated, depending on your viewpoint) than that.

Two types of knowledge*

There is the type of knowledge that you can see with your own two eyes and ascertain with a perfect surety that it exists. This is the first type. This can be termed perfect knowledge. This type of knowledge makes faith dormant in that thing, for the object of faith was to produce such fruit.

The other type of knowledge is awareness of something that really does exist, with witnesses or testimonies or evidence, but which you still haven’t seen with your own two eyes. This can be termed imperfect knowledge.

Faith requires imperfect knowledge

The word of God (the seed of faith) is imperfect knowledge which eventually produces the fruit of perfect knowledge. Imperfect knowledge does not nullify faith, only perfect knowledge makes faith dormant. This is why the obtaining of more and more of the word of God, through revelations, prophecies, visiting angels, visions, dreams, tongues, etc., only has the effect of increasing one’s faith. The more imperfect knowledge we obtain, the greater our faith can become, and the greater our faith becomes the more perfect knowledge we can obtain, or in the case of God, create.

God possesses all knowledge, both perfect and imperfect

Here is the kicker: it is because of God’s imperfect knowledge that he is able to have, maintain and increase his faith. More on this later.

God sees all the fables

Everything that isn’t the truth (what really was, what really is and what really will be) is a fable or a lie. Truth has limits, fables do not. Therefore, there are an infinite number of versions of what wasn’t, what isn’t and what won’t be. (Comic book fans might say these are alternate universes or alternate versions of reality, etc.) At any rate, God can see all the truth as well as all the fables. In fact, the devil’s ability to create fables or tell lies comes from the the Father’s ability to see the lies as well as the truth. The difference is that God presents lies as lies and truth as truth, whereas Satan presents the truth as lies and lies as truth.

Most people have an easy time dealing with the past and present when it comes to the gospel. Where people choke are the future elements of it. How can God tell the future? How can he know what will happen before it does? These and other questions like them are a great mystery to many people.

Some people invent theories such as predestination to explain how he does it. Others just don’t think about it, taking it on faith that this is just how it is and no one will understand it until the Millennium.

The one thing to keep in mind, though, is that God does not violate free agency. Ever. Therefore, theories like predestination are patently false, as they violate one of the revealed laws of heaven. And we know that if God violated one of his own laws he’d cease to be God, so that doesn’t quite work.

Back in the teacher’s quorum

I remember one Sunday being taught by my teacher’s quorum adviser a lesson which really shook up the quorum. The man said, “In the pre-existence, God could have pointed to people and said, ‘You will be saved. You won’t. You will. You will. You won’t.’ etc. He has foreknowledge of all things and knows beforehand who will be saved and who will not.” I don’t know how new this guy was to the gospel, but he seemed pretty sure of himself and no one shot him down. Nevertheless, I didn’t buy the argument, despite myself being new in the gospel.

This idea of his, though, is not unique. I have found many people believe the same thing. Some people try to explain away the problem of a person’s agency (which poses a problem to this line of thinking) by saying that God simply knows us so well that he can tell what we are going to do before we do it, like a parent knows the habits of a child.

The future is uncertain

Contrary to what these people believe, though, the future is uncertain. As we make choices, right or wrong, we are statistically more or less likely to make more right or wrong choices. However, despite statistics, repentance always offers us a way out, unless the last door to salvation is finally closed by us.

When the Lord looks to the future, he sees everything: what will happen, what won’t happen, what can’t happen, what might happen, what probably will happen, what probably won’t happen. Because he sees every possible variation of the future, the truth is in there somewhere along with all the fables. How does he determine what is the truth and what is fable? In a word: FAITH.

The sight of God has divisions

Although God sees all things, both past, present and future, his sight has divisions. For example, he sees all the fables, but not in actuality, as they don’t exist. He sees them in his mind’s eye, or using the incredible imagination that makes up his mind. The truth, however, past and present, actually exists or existed, and he sees or saw them in reality.

When the sight of God is turned to the future, however, the foreknowledge of God (and faith of God) comes into play. Remember, there are two types (or stages) of knowledge: perfect and imperfect. All truth that has existed and exists is perfect knowledge. All truth that will exist is imperfect knowledge. (The reason is because of agency, which is an open variable.) Nevertheless, imperfect knowledge is capable of generating faith and faith is capable of producing perfect knowledge. Therefore, God, when he sees the future (that which will occur) with his mind’s eye (as it is not yet a reality), sees it “with an eye of faith” until it becomes a reality. (See Ether 12: 19; Alma 5: 15 and Alma 32: 40.)

The other things he sees, the fables, he has no faith that they will happen, thus, they do not occur, as faith is what makes things happen, or that makes things reality.

This same principle applies equally to man as to God, which is why faith saves us.

Footnote

* The prophets of the Book of Mormon emphasize that there are two states or types of knowledge: perfect and not perfect.

Next Faith of God article: The faith of God, part thirteen: How charity fits in

Previous Faith of God article: The faith of God, part eleven: Why knowledge doesn’t save

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist