Three Movements, the Church, and Our Understanding of Doctrine

Two broad protest movements have been swirling around the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for the last several years. One is Ordain Women, an organization whose goal is the ordination of women to the Priesthood. The other is related to gay marriage, demanding that homosexual relationships are treated by the Church the same as heterosexual ones. This is not news to anyone close to the Church, and there is a lot of attack and defense of the Church related to these subjects. I don't feel a need to delve into most of it, as it's been done, and as I've done a good deal of thinking about it in other settings. But there is one particular comparison made by protesters and critics which I think is enlightening to approach. You see, leaders in both of these movements draw comparisons to the ordination of men of African descent to the priesthood. And so I would like to look at these three different movements, primarily from an LDS theological point of view, to point out some of the issues with this comparison.

The key theological understanding from which you need to approach these movements is what we refer to as "The Plan of Salvation." At its simplest, it's the idea that God has a broad plan involving Jesus Christ by which we can be saved. It's not an accident, God knows what He's doing. There are a lot of specifics that one could delve into, and most of them aren't necessary for our present discussion, but there is one thing which is both peculiar to Mormons and totally relevant: The end goal of that plan.

For Mormons, the greatest end of God's plan isn't for us to sit around all day playing harps. Rather, God's goal is that, as He is our Father and we are His children, He wants us to grow up to be like Him. He has the power to make more of us than we can imagine, and He wants us to have that joy, and in basically every way it requires us to "grow up" and be more like our Heavenly Parents. That last phrase is also peculiar to Mormons: we believe that in addition to a Father in Heaven, we have a Mother in Heaven. So, in the end, both men and women are supposed to grow to be like Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. That is the end of God's plan: More than a place, it is about a state of being.

Now there are actually a lot of things that are kind of fuzzy about that final state of being. But a couple of things are at least sort of clear about it. One thing that is pretty clear is that the very nature of that state of being requires man and woman working together. Just as Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother are working together eternally for the joy and salvation of Their children, so it must be with us. A fact of LDS doctrine is that marriage was originally instituted by God. While many purposes for marriage can be talked about, perhaps the most important reason for it is to prepare the couple to work together in eternity and to be able to receive, together, the greatest joy which God intends to give them. To Mormons, the scripture is literally true, "Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11:11), in that the joy God intends for them both cannot be achieved without their being bound together eternally in marriage. They have to be together, bound by the priesthood power of God.

At the same time, this is a joy which God intends for everyone. "Behold, hath the Lord commanded any that they should not partake of his goodness? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but all men are privileged the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden.... And he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile" (2 Nephi 26:28, 33).

These two principles will suffice. Let's start by looking at the issue of blacks and the priesthood.

Where I just quoted in 2 Nephi, I explicitly chose the part where it says, "black and white," and also the part about "Jew and Gentile." This one verse makes any restriction based on race or ethnicity (or, really, anything) for any blessing from the Lord completely out of line. At the same time, there are certainly examples of this. Biblically, we have the fact that only people of a very particular tribe (Levi) of the Jews had any access to the priesthood from the time of Moses until Christ. Much more recently, we have restrictions for anyone of African descent. The simplest way of understanding this issue is to note that God has an eternity to "work things out," He's not just limited to this life, so He can make it right. But still, that's difficult to swallow and kind of awkward. In fact, even many of the top leaders of the Church thought so while the priesthood ban was in effect. Spencer W. Kimball, who was the prophet when the ban was lifted, spent a long time praying in the Salt Lake Temple because he could not understand it, and because we can understand from verses like the ones I quote in 2 Nephi 26 that this cannot be the Lord's real, permanent plan. The priesthood ban always was theologically problematic, though some members of the Church tried their best to come up with explanations to understand it. In the end, even the Prophet, President Kimball, felt that the ban could not be removed without direct revelation from the Lord, and so he plead with the Lord on the behalf of these faithful brethren and sisters who could not receive all the blessings which the Lord seemed clearly to intend for them (based on scripture), at least they could not receive those blessings in this life. Eventually, as many in both the membership and the leadership of the Church expected, the revelation came, though it came in the Lord's time. The most interesting things about the Lord's timing, in my view, are that the Church (both many of the private members and many of the leaders of the Church) had been pleading for this revelation for some time, and that it came at a time when protests against the Church had been pretty limited in recent months (this is particularly noteworthy to me as some modern protesters look at this revelation from 1978 and speak as though it indicates that protest against the Church is a perfectly good way to get the Lord to change His mind, when in fact the history would seem to indicate, if anything, the opposite).

As to the original reason for the priesthood ban, that is purely a matter of speculation. I started writing some of the ones that seem most likely to me, but frankly, I would rather not that my speculation be taken as doctrine. What is essential is that the ban was in place, it was theologically problematic, but it required a revelation for it to be removed. That revelation came, eventually, after people humbly asked the Lord. This is a change which was pretty much demanded by the fundamental theology of the LDS Church.

The second movement that I'd like to mention is Ordain Women. In my view, the goal of this movement is certainly not required theologically, but not outright against the most fundamental aspects of the theology. The thing to remember is that, in LDS theology, men and women must fundamentally be taken together. The idea of comlimentarity of the sexes is really enshrined in the very nature of the end goal of the Plan of Salvation. You can't understand LDS theology by wholly separating men and women, as doctrinally they are so completely interdependent. At the same time, the idea of women being ordained to the priesthood is not obviously contrary to the fundamental theology. I frankly don't expect it, I frankly believe that the existence of the distinction between men's and women's roles in the priesthood is a matter of divine design and a part of the eternal Plan of Salvation (in ways which I do not yet fully understand), but I think it possible that the Lord will one day reveal that it is time for women to be ordained to the priesthood. I cannot tell you how it is that this cannot be, that it is contrary to the Lord's plan that women ever be ordained to the priesthood, but I also cannot see how it would be required that women are ordained to the priesthood.

The third movement is about homosexuality in the Church. Here, there is a fundamental difference and issue created by the very nature of the Plan of Salvation. Given that the ultimate goal of God's plan fundamentally requires man and woman bound together in marriage for the very existence of the final desired state, I cannot see the Church budging on the larger questions related to homosexuality. Perhaps the Church will, as it has in recent decades, come to understand better the difficulties those who are alternately called "same-sex attracted" (a term which the Church uses because it is very clear in differentiating the desires and attractions of people from their choices and actions, which is a key component of the Gospel understanding of moral agency) or LGBT (a term which has the advantage of being better recognized and accepted by the community it describes, but which the Church only uses occasionally because the way the terms "lesbian," "gay," etc., are used often make the distinction of desire and choice more difficult to see) face and so better seek to address the needs of this community, but I do not think that certain fundamentals can change, because changing them would be to act directly at odds with the eternal joy which God desires His children to eventually receive. As this is so, it seems that what the Lord considers a chaste life, and what the Church will continue to consider a chaste life, will require our "gay brothers and sisters" (as one friend so wonderfully puts it) to remain celibate.

This fact requires a bit more commentary from me. If a faithful, orthodox member of the Church reads this blog, I want you to consider carefully that fact, and how much it stinks and how hard it must be for our gay brothers and sisters. I only got married about a year ago, and chastity required celibacy of me until that point. Well, sometimes that's hard. But think harder, it's worse than that for our gay brothers and sisters. You don't just have to remember the difficulty and pain of not being able to fully connect or express yourself romantically. You have to add to that a missing hope. I always had hope that I could get married and receive all the associated joy in this life. At best, our gay brothers and sisters who are seeking to be faithful to the teachings of the Gospel can hope that such blessings will be available to them in the next life. And, worse, given that "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man," this is a Church that is built around families. So for the whole of their lives, our faithful, gay brothers and sisters cannot so much as hope to receive all that you might hope for, stuck in a place where they can see that they're missing out, left behind in a Churh that seems to be built for everyone else. Yes, they can build their lives in other faithful, positive ways, but my point here is that as faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, even while we acknowledge the almost certain permanence of the Church's position, it is our absolute duty to understand to the best of our ability the struggles of others, to build empathy for their plight, to "mourn with those that mourn; yeah, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort" (Mosiah 18:9), to love, to support, to uphold, to help, and to serve. This is always true: even when you feel it is your duty to defend the Church (as it sometimes is), you cannot shirk your responsibility to be kind in the least.

Sexuality and Chastity: Underlying Principles

I do not think that many would disagree with the statement that there is dispute on the subject of sexuality. I've started several posts related to the subject, but in all cases I find that I need to lay some groundwork first (as I best think about things from basic principles, as you've surely noticed if you've read my thoughts before). So I begin with underlying principles.

The doctrine to which I subscribe and the belief which I have about sexuality is full of a sense of the sacred. People are sacred. Their bodies are sacred. Sexuality is sacred. The parts of the body associated with sexuality are sacred. All of these things are tied to the very purpose of life, and our potential to grow and to become all that we are meant to become.

The moral principles of chastity are fundamentally tied to this sacredness. We are to be chaste because God so commanded, but also because, in doing so, we honor our own sacredness, the sacredness of those around us, the sacredness of the body, the sacredness of sexuality, the sacredness of sex organs, and the sacredness of life and godhood. These things are not to be treated lightly, and this sacredness is so great that God has given very direct commandments about what is required in our respect for them. These things are not to be mocked, displayed and so opened to mockery, made use of except in a context equal to their sacredness, or otherwise treated lightly. This sacredness is, so far as I am aware, the underlying principle by which we may understand the Law of Chastity and associated commandments.

This conception of sexuality and chastity is clearly at odds with some other ideas that one might have about the topic. By subscribing to it, I obviously reject the idea of "free love": it is not morally right to act on all sexual impulses simply because we have them, we cannot in righteousness sleep around as we wish, and indeed this respect for the sacred requires us to exercise self-control in abstaining from sexual activity except in very particular circumstances. At the same time, I reject the notion that sexuality is evil: Chastity exists not because sexuality is evil, but because it is so very good. I believe that God wants us to enjoy sex, that it is supposed to be pleasant and to build sacred bonds between husband and wife, beside the fact that its role in producing life is a key part of His plan for this life. Yet these things, pleasant though they are, and though God intends that men and women should enjoy them, must not be indulged in except in His way.

One more piece of theology, in order to suggest the great depth of this sacredness. One of God's great roles, indeed, among the things that defines His Godhood, is His role as creator. Sex is the means by which men and women can act as co-creators with God in this life. And it is not only a creative act in a very divine sense, it is the creative act by which the pinnacle of creation, a very child of God embodied in the flesh, is brought into the world. In sexuality, properly respected, we work with God for the very fulfillment of His work and glory, the growth, progression, perfection, and eventual immortality and eternal life of His children. At the same time, it looks forward to God's plan for us, to grow and to become as He is, creators and parents as He is a parent. In sexuality, there is a microcosm of godhood, and a foreshadowing of what God, in His mercy and power, will make of us if we will allow Him. This idea is so glorious, beautiful, sacred, and divine, that with all the care, awe, and respect that I might give, I am fully aware of my inadequacy in approaching the subject; yet I hope that this account of things gives at least some sense of the level of respect which sexuality deserves.

I hope that this may serve as a guide in considering related topics, and I hope that as I approach them, I am in clear in illustrating how they are tied to both this sacredness of sexuality which I have considered tonight, as well as the sacredness of other things which may be implicated (particularly people).

"Courage Is Not the Absence of Fear, But the Mastery of It"

I wanted to draw attention to this quote for a simple reason: It's really just a special case of a more general principle.

"Virtue is not the absence of temptation, but the mastery of it."

It is true that we can sometimes act in ways which bring temptation on ourselves, and that can be a matter of foolishness or wickedness, but a great many temptations come regardless of individual action. Indeed, many temptations grow out of desires which are, of themselves good.

As evidence, sexual sin is quite severe. However, we are told that attraction, even sexual attraction, is a desire which is God-given for a purpose which is essential to His plan. Sex and the desire for sex are, of themselves, good things, and part of the reason that sexual sin is so severe is that it profanes a thing which is so sacred. So it is good and right, but only at the right time, in the right way. As Elder Jeffrey R. Holland once taught, 'When faced with that inherent appetite, a disciple of Christ must be willing to say, "Yes, but not this way."' (The Inconvenient Messiah)

So temptation cannot be taken as proof that a person is bad. Indeed, the ultimate example of virtue, Jesus Christ, "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). Let us be like Him. So I say again,

"Virtue is not the absence of temptation, but the mastery of it."

Title: Usually attributed to Mark Twain, though there seems to be some doubt on the subject

"My yoke is easy and my burden is light"

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly of heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. -Matthew 11:28-30

The Lord taught me something new about this beautiful passage recently, something I thought worth sharing.

Think about a yoke. What does it do? What is it for? A yoke is a device used to connect two draft animals, such as oxen. It is a frame that goes around their necks so that a load can be pulled on their shoulders. It is a device, in short, to get animals to do work, to allow greater loads to be pulled by them.

Seen this way, it seems odd to say that taking His yoke upon us will help us find rest. Taking His yoke upon us is submitting to work and to trial. Indeed, taking His yoke upon us is submitting to commandments and covenants, committing to service and work. It's anything but laziness.

Yet that's not understanding the whole purpose of a yoke. A yoke gets animals to do work, but does so by combining the efforts of two of them. So when we take Christ's yoke upon us, we are committing to work, but we're also combining our efforts with the being with which we are yoked: Christ Himself. So we are adding to our load in one sense, adding callings and tithing and the commandment to forgive to all of our other challenges, but at the same time, Christ is suddenly helping us with our load.

To this He adds, "My yoke is easy and my burden is light." And it is. Compared to the baggage we bring to this wagon team, His burden is very light indeed. And He is, in the language of this analogy, the strongest ox we could possibly be paired with. Yes, He brings an additional load, but then He does almost all the work on both His and ours, all He asks is our best effort.

The Gospel is work, but the Lord is doing the heavy lifting. Don't worry about whether you have the strength to commit to do His will, because you'll find that He provides it.

"The Principle of Power"

Joseph Smith's "Lectures on Faith" are a theological treasure. By them, we understand eternal truths of deep significance. Yet the first lecture has given me a puzzle which I would like to concern myself with tonight.

The first lecture primarily concerns itself with three points: First, the definition of faith. Second, that it is the "principle of action in all intelligent beings." Third, that it is "the principle of power."

I may wish to speak at length on the first point another time, as there are several useful ways of defining and understanding faith. But that would be a post in itself, and I wish to concern myself with the other points tonight, and so I will let suffice that Joseph uses the definition given in Hebrews, that it is "the substance" (or, Joseph says, "the assurance") "of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen;" or, as Moroni writes, it is a hope for things which are not seen, but which are true (see Ether 12:6).

The second point I find clear enough, and I believe that the prophet demonstrates it quite well. The prophet notes that faith's status as the principle of action in all intelligent beings follows necessarily from the definition in Hebrews. To simplify his argument, if you carefully consider any action, you must recognize that motivation to act requires a belief in obtaining a certain result from that action, though you don't yet see that result. So even the most ardent skeptic will never act except by faith, though he claims otherwise, and though his faith is not in God. The full argument on the subject is in Lectures on Faith 1:8-13, especially 10 & 11.

This leaves only the third point, and here we come to my real questions. Joseph Smith provides evidence that faith is the principle of power (a combination of examples from the scriptures and the simple statement of the Lord that it is so) but I have not yet found an explanation as to how or why this is so. Faith is the principle of power, dominion, and authority over all things, but how is it that faith has this power? Why couldn't the Brother of Jared be kept from within the veil because his faith was so powerful? Why is it that faith grants power, above and beyond its necessary role in motivating action? While similar questions with regard to faith's role as a principle of action are answered easily, I am completely at a loss as to how it is the principle of power. I know that it is, for the Lord Himself has revealed as much, and anyway I've seen and even experienced miracles wrought by the power of faith, but I have no idea how it is so. Faith has great power, but I don't know why. Any ideas?

Title: Lectures on Faith 1:15

O how great the plan of our God!

You wouldn't know it from most of my posts, since I'm usually trying to address all the loopholes in complicated issues, but I like to see things simply. To me, a beautiful idea is one that is very simple but explains a lot of things. So today I would like to approach things that way. I would like to state things that I think profound simply.

God loves you. God lives the happiest sort of existence possible. We are God's children. He has all power. Therefore, He wants us to be happy the way He is happy, and He has the power to make it happen. He wants us to grow up to have the same kind of existence that He enjoys. Because He is happy, He wants us to be like Him. However, this kind of happiness requires that we want it. What does it profit a man if a gift is bestowed on him and he receives not the gift? But God has this gift which He wants to give us, the greatest joy possible, the kind of existence that He lives. While He won't force us, for we wouldn't get the joy out of it if we were forced to do as He would do, that is His great hope. He wishes for us to be agents to ourselves, to act rather than to be acted upon, and He wishes for us to use this power to choose to grow up to fulfill our ultimate potential and be happy.

We do not have the power in ourselves to make of ourselves beings of a kind greater than we are. We don't have the strength to become something else through sheer willpower. In addition to this, justice is an eternal law, and justice demands payment in response to error and wrongdoing. Thus, to grow up and become the kind of beings that God wants us to become, beings like Him which enjoy the kind of happiness He enjoys, and in order to satisfy the eternal demands of justice which prevent us from enjoying this kind of happiness, we need help. For this reason, He prepared a plan and a way, to which Jesus Christ, His Beloved Son, is central. Through the Atonement (the suffering, death, and resurrection) of Jesus Christ, the demands of justice are satisfied and we can become greater than we are today and enjoy a kind of existence greater than what we enjoy. To do so, we must allow ourselves to be changed and to receive these blessings, we can always reject them. For this reason, God prepared the Gospel, the good news, the plan by which, through the Atonement of Christ, justice may be satisfied and we may obey and be changed. By faith, repentance, and reception of and obedience to the ordinances and covenants of the Gospel, we grow up and gain this joy.

In order to teach this perfect plan in purity, God chooses from among those who are willing to listen and capable of understanding Him, and calls these as prophets. God can talk to anyone, and in fact He really wants to, but it takes time to learn to listen and understand. Because of this, there is strength, safety, and security in calling one to be a prophet. Through this prophet, God establishes an organization, a Church, with power and authority from Him, to act in His name, to stand in His place. By giving men this power, He enables us to serve one another and to grow. This authority is required in the ordinances in His plan for us.

God has prepared a way for everyone to enjoy this power and His blessings. In this life and afterward, this power is working to help us to grow, and in this life and afterward, everyone will have the opportunity to accept or reject the opportunity to grow.

That's what it's all about. God is our Father, we are His children, and He just wants us to grow up to be like Him, so that we can be happy like Him. I know that this is true. God Himself has revealed it to me. God loves us. Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world. Christ was born, lived, died, and rose again the third day, and He lives. Through Christ's Atonement, His great sacrifice, we can grow up to be like our Heavenly Father and to be happy like our Father. Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and through him God's authority, power, and Church were restored to the earth, and it continues on the earth today as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Thomas S. Monson is a prophet of God. Christ leads those who will listen today through him. In this Church is the true Gospel of Christ, the one way to grow up to be like our Heavenly Father and be happy like Him. Jesus Christ lives, and through Him there is real power in the Gospel. He lives!

Title: 2 Nephi 9:13

It must needs be an infinite atonement

The two areas in which I may claim some expertise (physics and theology) intersect and interact in many interesting ways. I'd like to consider a rather compelling point of intersection. Both of these fields deal with infinity, and the way in which both do so is instructive and interesting.

In Physics, infinity is generally a nuisance. We really don't know how to deal with it. There's a couple of reasons for that. For one thing, you never actually measure anything infinite, so most infinite things contradict reality. Sure, there's "limiting cases," a kind of reality check that we do where we say "as a in our equation gets really big, things should tend to do x, so let's make a approach infinity in our equation and see if things do what they're supposed to," but even then we're not looking at a real, physical situation... a pretty much never gets that big, whatever a represents. But most of the time if infinity shows up in an equation, you either have to explain why the equation doesn't apply here, find your math error, or... well... those are your only options, really. Heck, one of the most powerful and useful theories ever, Quantum Field Theory, was in trouble for decades as people struggled to figure out how to explain away the nasty infinities that kept showing up, eventually settling on a scheme called "renormalization" that boils down to saying "Well, if we just assume that there's an extra negative infinite term to cancel the positive infinity that shows up in our calculations, we can get the right answer and make good experimental predictions." That's right: infinity is such a nuisance in physics that theoretical particle physicists were concerned literally for decades with trying to get rid of it.

At the same time, we love infinity in Physics. It's useful. If something is infinite, everything else is tiny by comparison and can be neglected, so equations simplify. Sure, we know that walls aren't infinitely strong, if you hit them hard enough you can break them, but as long as you're just ramming your shoulder into 12-inch-thick concrete, you can just pretend that its strength is infinite, then the math becomes much easier to make predictions (of course, in the shoulder against concrete example we don't need any calculation to predict that you'll mess up your shoulder if you don't find another way through that wall, but there are cases where intuition isn't quite so wonderful). Still, in Physics there are a lot of things which we can't make sense of if they're infinite, so infinity can cause us a lot of trouble.

In Theology, on the other hand, infinity looks a little bit different. Sure, we still have a hard time wrapping our heads around "infinite" and "eternal," but rather than being a problem which we must solve when it shows up, or at best a reality check, it may be said that infinity is the resolution to many, many problems.

The thing that comes to mind most often for me is my mistakes. I've certainly made them, and in doing so I've certainly robbed myself of opportunities and blessings. Are those things lost forever? Sometimes they're not, but in many cases they are. Then isn't that a problem? Doesn't God want more for me?

Well, yes. He's sad for my disappointments and losses. But at the same time, He sees much greater things for me. Sure, I made a mistake, and perhaps it will make life more difficult for the rest of my life and then some, perhaps in a small way, perhaps in a big way, perhaps the effects will disappear in time, perhaps they won't. However, it simply doesn't matter. The blessings which God plans to give us are infinite. Thinking quantitatively, if we assign some units to happiness and say that some error I make subtracts one from my happiness, even if the subtraction lasts forever, sure, you might say that's a problem, but there's a trick: as time goes on, my happiness goes to infinity, and infinity minus one is still infinite. In fact, even if I make a huge error and subtract a million from my happiness, eventually my happiness approaches infinity and even a million gets swallowed up in the blessings I receive.

I think that this is one of the ways in which the Atonement works. Christ certainly heals and fixes things, but in other things there are still consequences, even long-lasting ones. Some things He hasn't fixed (at least not yet), but does that matter? It's a finite loss compared with the infinite power of the Atonement, so that our afflictions, even while they remain, may be "swallowed up in the joy of Christ" (Alma 31:38). That applies both to our sins and to the misfortunes that we endure through no fault of our own, all are nothing compared to the infinite and eternal glory and power which is through Christ.

Title: 2 Nephi 9:7

Whatever God commands is right

Today I wish to answer an old problem, the Euthyphro Dilemma. The dilemma boils down to the question, "Is it morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good?"

Now, the question itself is interesting, but the fact that it is framed as a dilemma and sometimes used as a "proof" of the nonexistence of God is... ridiculous. The fact is that whether God does what He does because it is good, or good is defined by what God says, either way one has not developed a contradiction to the idea of God. Just because you don't know which of the options is right doesn't mean that He isn't there.

Now, returning to the question itself, LDS Theology on the point seems quite clear: God commands it because it is morally good. LDS Theology considers there to be moral truth independent of any being, and God is in complete correspondence with this moral truth. He is perfect, and statements such as "God would cease to be God" give us a pretty clear sense that morality is independent of Him, that His perfection is according to external principles by which He may be evaluated, but always passes perfectly. Now, I used the fact that God's morality provides an objectively preferred morality as evidence for Moral Realism, but the argument is not weakened by supposing that God Himself is subject to morality, as the idea of God's activity being evaluated according to external principles is itself a manifestation of a moral reality. Furthermore, the idea of God's morality being a way to learn of moral reality is not weakened, as God is Himself perfect, so that it is a matter not of defining moral reality from God's commandments, but noting perfect correspondence with morality so that we may still trust His commands to give us a perfect sense of moral reality.

Title: Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith

Hope for things which are not seen, which are true

I've been pursuing a common thread in my last several posts, building my basic philosophy of Ethics and political philosophy, and I will be returning to both of these themes very shortly, but at least for this post I'd like to depart from them and consider a bit of Theology. Of course, I can hardly take credit for my Theology; in fact, I hope that I can refer to it as "my Theology" only in the sense that it has been confirmed to me, for its origin should be God and revelations from Him. But, then, I may speculate some, and I alone must take the blame for such speculation.

So in establishing first principles of Theology, it may come as no surprise that I follow in the footsteps of Joseph Smith, who, after all, was a prophet, and quite possibly the greatest Theologian since Christ Himself, at least in terms of teaching actual truth. So I will begin where he began: with Faith. Now, the truth of the matter is that I am utterly inadequate to add to Joseph's own masterful Lectures on Faith. If you wish to really understand the subject of Faith, then read that. However, while I cannot add, I can summarize or condense.

Faith is assurance or confidence of the existence of things which we have not seen. Now here, from the very start, the secularist objects: Why should we act based upon things that we do not see? Yet the prophet Joseph Smith gives us a response, near the beginning of the first lecture:

If men were duly to consider themselves, and turn their thoughts and reflections to the operations of their own minds, they would readily discover that it is faith, and faith only, which is the moving cause of all action in them; that without it both mind and body would be in a state of inactivity, and all their exertions would cease, both physical and mental. Were this class to go back and reflect upon the history of their lives, from the period of their first recollection, and ask themselves what principle excited them to action, or what gave them energy and activity in all their lawful avocations, callings, and pursuits, what would be the answer? Would it not be that it was the assurance which they had of the existence of things which they had not seen as yet? Was it not the hope which you had, in consequence of your belief in the existence of unseen things, which stimulated you to action and exertion in order to obtain them? Are you not dependent on your faith, or belief, for the acquisition of all knowledge, wisdom, and intelligence? Would you exert yourselves to obtain wisdom and intelligence, unless you did believe that you could obtain them? (Lectures on Faith, 1:10-11)

So there it is. We should act on things that we do not see because every consequence to every action which we undertake is unseen until we perform the action, so that we can have no purpose except one toward something which is not yet seen. The restriction should not be against action based on what we do not see, but against action based on what is not true. Granted, we cannot always discern truth from error, but the point is that the inability to see something does not make it a poor basis for action.

Let us narrow the subject a bit. There is the very general principle of Faith, which we must exert in anything we do, but our confidence can be rooted in many different things. For example, we have Faith that the sun will rise because experience teaches us that it happens every day, and though we do not yet see that it will happen again tomorrow, we are quite confident of it. This Faith in our senses and past experiences is something which almost everyone considers reasonable. In contrast, there is Faith in a person, confidence in that person. To have confidence in someone is to trust them in some way: to trust what they say, or to trust that they will be capable of doing what they have said they will do. Of course, we generally find that this sort of trust can be good or bad, as a person may or may not be worthy of such trust, and absolute and perfect trust in a person (which is most often associated with Faith) is surely misplaced. Finally, there is Faith in God and Faith in Christ. This would still indicate trust. The difference is that it is always sensible to trust God or Christ, for Their nature makes Them perfectly trustworthy.

Thus, the first two requirements which Joseph Smith lays out as essential for a person to have unshaken Faith are evident from its very nature: Joseph says that a man must first have the idea that God exists (for it is impossible to have confidence in that which you believe to be non-existent), and second he must have a correct understanding of the perfections and attributes of God. After all, when one knows that God is perfectly loving, all-powerful, all-knowing, unchanging, and so forth, then he knows that God is never wrong (for He is omniscient), whatever He instructs will be to the man's benefit (for He is perfectly loving), and He is capable of carrying out whatever He sets out to do (because He is omnipotent). A man who knows that God possesses these attributes fully and unchangeably must conclude that he can trust God perfectly, but if a man does not know that God possesses these attributes, then he cannot have such complete trust, but must suppose that God, like any man which he trusts, must also be prone to error.

Now, I have barely scratched the surface on Faith, but it's already enough to establish some important consequences: First, there is the prophet Joseph Smith's statement, "Whatever God commands is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith). Beyond moral imperatives, God is always right. If God says that He has a plan (and He has said so), then that plan is the best way for us to attain happiness, and it will succeed. There is the need for humility before God: After all, if God knows everything, then He is smarter than you, and if He has all power then you're reliant on Him, so you'd be foolish to set yourself up as greater than or even equal to Him.

Finally, there is perhaps the most practical consequence, what R. Conrad Schultz of the Seventy referred to as "Faith Obedience." Boyd K. Packer said, "Latter-day Saints are not obedient because they are compelled to be obedient. They are obedient because they know certain spiritual truths and have decided, as an expression of their own individual agency, to obey the commandments of God" (Agency and Control, April 1983 General Conference). That is, because we know that we can trust God, it makes sense to obey Him. In fact, you might say that nothing makes more sense. He is never wrong, so whatever He tells you to do will bring you the most happiness possible if you obey it. It's that simple.

Title: Alma 32:21