Worst of all possible worlds

Worst of all possible worlds?

I just read this very interesting critique on the penal substitution model of the atonement. I really recommend it because I don’t think Latter Day Saints on the whole thing often enough about what the atonement actually is  and how to understand it in line with god’s divine attributes.

The comment that really struck me in this post was this one

“6. I repeat: God does not punish Jesus, or even will the death of Jesus tout court. Herbert McCabe: “The mission of Jesus from the Father is not the mission to be crucified; what the Father wished is that Jesus should be human…. [T]he fact that to be human means to be crucified is not something that the Father has directly planned but what we have arranged.” That is, the crucifixion of Christ is not a penalty inflicted by God but the result of human sin, what inevitably happens when human sin encounters divine love. The cross, therefore, represents the wrath and judgement of God not directly but indirectly: God “gives us up” (παρέδωκεν, Romans 1:24, 26, 28) to the consequences of our destructive desires and actions, the human condition with which Christ identified himself in life, and to which God “gave him up” (παρέδωκεν, Romans 8:32), and to which we (with Judas) “betrayed”/“handed him over” (παρέδωκεν, Mark 3:19), in death.”

It made me think about Enoch’s dialogue with God in the Book of Moses Chapter 7

32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;

33 And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood;

34 And the fire of mine indignation is kindled against them; and in my hot displeasure will I send in the floods upon them, for my fierce anger is kindled against them.

35 Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also.

36 Wherefore, I can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also, and among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren.

37 But behold, their sins shall be upon the heads of their fathers; Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom; and the whole heavens shall weep over them, even all the workmanship of mine hands; wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer?

38 But behold, these which thine eyes are upon shall perish in the floods; and behold, I will shut them up; a prison have I prepared for them.

39 And That which I have chosen hath pled before my face. Wherefore, he suffereth for their sins; inasmuch as they will repent in the day that my Chosen shall return unto me, and until that day they shall be in torment;

40 Wherefore, for this shall the heavens weep, yea, and all the workmanship of mine hands.

41 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Enoch, and told Enoch all the doings of the children of men; wherefore Enoch knew, and looked upon their wickedness, and their misery, and wept and stretched forth his arms, and his heart swelled wide as eternity; and his bowels yearned; and all eternity shook.

Aside from being one of the more striking and beautiful passages in all of scripture, this passage raises some interesting theological questions.

In particular  verse 36 suggests that we are the most disobedient of all of Gods creations

36 Wherefore, I can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also, and among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren.

Indeed, all of the other beings that we are aware of on this earth obey the word of god perfectly. We are the only beings we know of that ever disobey or go against the will of the Lord. Our divine agency is a major factor, but this passage suggests that agency and obedience can go together and have gone together better elsewhere.

Notice the language in line 39

39 And That which I have chosen hath pled before my face. Wherefore, he suffereth for their sins; inasmuch as they will repent in the day that my Chosen shall return unto me, and until that day they shall be in torment;

We are disobedient and deserve death but plead before God for forgiveness THEREFORE Christ suffereth for our sins.  In other words, Christ suffers because of the horrid state of man. We are the ones that mandate that he suffers.

This led me to speculate about the other planets where God has given agency to intelligent beings. Are we the only planet that has sunk so low as to crucify its redeemer? Is it possible that other planets did not require a divine redeemer in the same sense that we do? If we believe that As Man is God once was, does this imply that God once led a sinful life and required the redemption of another being, or can we think that God likely led a perfect mortal life and therefore did not require redemption.

Ultimately, the lesson I take away most strongly from this passage is that even as the atonement is a needed part of our redemption, the torture and pain Christ underwent was not inevitable but contingent. If human beings had acted more humbly or lovingly, might Christ not have lived a full long life and organized his church in the same way that he did after the resurrection among the Nephites? I have faith that had he not been placed on the cross, Christ would have found another way to redeem mankind. Heavenly father is not a vengeful being with a bloodlust. Christ’s martyrdom was necessary because of our wickedness, but our wickedness was neither inevitable nor desirable

What are the implications for our day to day life? What I take away at the very least is that we should not act as if the inevitability of sin is a reason to look at it with the least bit of tolerance. We need to take more active roles as Latter Day Saints in opposing misery and suffering worldwide. Often, I think we have this mentality that thinks ‘the end of the world is coming soon and therefore there’s not much we can do,” but this notion is contrary to our agency and purpose on this earth. We can spare the world a portion of its suffering and even still reverse the course of misery for untold millions. In my view, it is our duty and privilege to do so as disciples of christ.

Elder Hales on Secularism Part two of two

This is the second part of a two part post about Elder Hales talk on secularism:  I am going to talk a little bit about the end of Elder Hales talk which I think has a lot of potential but can be improved by a better understanding of what ultimately can be effective.

Elder Hales is better at the end of his talk when he simply invites people listening to : “Cultivate a diligent desire to know that God lives. This desire leads us to ponder on the things of heaven—to let the evidence of God all around us touch our hearts. With softened hearts we are prepared to heed the Savior’s call to “search the scriptures” and to humbly learn from them.”

Ultimately, cultivating this desire to know that God lives is the task of Latter Day Saints and all believers. We must present a belief structure that is interesting, enticing and ultimately something that others wish to be true.

When I was an atheist I believed that my atheism had three pillars. The first was the notion that we can understand the universe without a belief in deity—This pillar still holds as I think that we ultimately have come to the point where arguments from design and natural forces are equally persuadable and that we have to make the choice based on other factors. The second was that the nature of evil in the world made it more likely that a loving god did not exist ( Theodicy). The third was that belief in God actually caused more ill than god in the world and so I would rather that God did not exist.

It is not the first pillar that we should be attacking. The problem with Christianity is that it has been too concerned with trying to prove itself on the basis of evidence for creation. Karen Armstrong illustrates this point beautifully in her book “The Case for God.” Instead, what led me to believe again and what I think ultimately is most effective in getting people to seek God with humble hearts is to show them that faith in God can and does make people ultimately better, and that this world is consistent with a loving a merciful deity. Ultimately, the examples of scripture show that what is most vital in the search for God is a true desire to know that he is and that he lives. Arguments from design can at best lead to agnosticism and more and more often lead to atheism altogether. The more we understand about the natural world the less effective such tactics are and the more God becomes a God of the gaps.

“Gaining this knowledge is ultimately the quest of all God’s children on the earth. If you cannot remember believing in God or if you have ceased to believe or if you believe but without real conviction, I invite you to seek a testimony of God now. Do not be afraid of ridicule. The strength and peace that come from knowing God and having the comforting companionship of His Spirit will make your efforts eternally worthwhile.”

I think that this is a promising bit on enticement to prayer sincerely. Yet, Elder Hales does not seem to understand that the chief problem of those that do not believe is not that they are afraid of ridicule. Indeed, living in America means that one is more likely to be ridiculed for a lack of faith than faith. Instead, it is an inability to see how such language can be anything other than subjective. I think that there is a real need to emphasize why we believe that such prayer works.

Ultimately, a loving deity would want to communicate with his children in a way that cuts across language barriers and knowledge barriers alike. One should not require a theology degree or a PHD in astrophysics in order to be able to commune with deity. Prayer is thus a simple language that we can all cultivate regardless of our language of birth or our standing. For me, prayer is a great equalizer of all men before God. That is why I seek spiritual insight and tend to believe what I receive with all of my heart and soul. It is precisely the way that a deity that is no respecter of persons would communicate with us.

Elder Hales talk is ultimately a bit misguided. He does not seem to understand what leads people to lose faith or how to reach out to people in language that is inviting rather than shunning or antagonistic. I hope that our general authorities or the rising generation in the church learn to become better equipped in ways to more effectively reach out to those in doubt.

Premortal existance

What does life without premortal existence resemble: A parable

There once was a mighty king with wealth untold. He went out into his kingdom one day and found the poorest and most destitute individual that seemed to subsist but hardly exist at all. He went up to this individual and handed him a million golden coins. The king told the man that he had no choice but to take the golden coins because if he attempted to return them he would be viewed as ungrateful and that the penalty for this would be death. The king then proceeded to tell the man that he had recently passed an extensive set of 613 very complicated laws regarding to individuals to whom the king had granted presents, and that the penalty for the violation of even the smallest of these would be death. He told the man that he expected that he govern perfectly and in command of the law even without perfect legal training. He told him that his son was an especially good lawyer and that he could get the man out of any sentence pro bono so long as the man called upon the song and told him that he had been recommended by his father. The man was warned that one day he would be brought before the king and judged. If he did not properly utilize the money, he would be killed. 

Premortal existance: A parable

There once was a mighty king whom had three sons. The youngest son grew up for a while in the close presence of his father and grew and developed. One day, the father decided that the young son could no longer learn anything new in the perfectly controlled court environment. The father spoke to his son and they agreed that the son should venture far out into the world. If the son remained too close to home, the father knew that the son could never fully and totally grow. Thus, the father gave the son a million gold coins as a grant and sent him into the far reaches of the world. Yet, the father knew the son could get into trouble and thus they agreed that wherever the son would be, he could call on his older brother whom would be sent to bail him out of any trouble. After a while, the father brought his son back and judged him based on his deeds and stewardship. If the son showed himself a worthy stewart, then he would be given his own kingdom and be appointed a viceroy by the most high king. If he did not show this type of responsibility he would inherit a lower station and that the worst negligence of all could merit banishment 

Which of these visions of the King seems more just? It seems to me at least that the king in the first version is not a figure that the man should admire or respect although he should certainly fear. In the first, the man was given no choice and no opportunity to deny the present. Thus, a whole set of criterion and laws were pushed onto him without his consent. The king is not completely capricious because he does offer his son as a way to redeem ones failures. Still, all of risks are pushed onto the man without an option and thus the very scenario this man finds himself in is crafted by the king. Even if the king has the mans ultimate interest in mind and is truly altruistic, this king is still a despot and certainly not a being that the man should love.

The second king in contrast deserves the sons love and admiration. He has worked in concert with the son to develop a plan that he feels will best develop the sons potential. Moreover, he has given the son the choice and shown him the consequences of success or failure. Thus, this king has not imposed coercive rules with their consequent punishments but the son has instead voluntarily entered into a covenant with the father.