DiscussMormonism.com

During a recent spring cleaning event, I discovered a binder in which I had collected many of the notes I took as a missionary. Among these notes from various Sacrament meetings, zone conferences, and a multitude of other meetings was a collection of thoughts I had jotted down on various gospel topics. It was prefaced with a thought about how each represented a branch of the gospel that was worthy of consideration by itself, yet it was important to step back and recognize their inter-relatedness. There is a reference to the Gospel of John and Christ being the true vine, etc., and then the following scriptures -

D&C 84:19-22 "And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.

21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live."

Moroni 7:30 "For behold, they (meaning angels) are subject unto him, to minister according to the word of his command, showing themselves unto them of strong faith and a firm mind in every form of godliness."

D&C 19:10 "For behold! the mystery of Godliness, how great it is!"

There are various personal thoughts I included after this, some of which I still found interesting, others very naïve of more expansive LDS theology. But there is an unmistakable thought process in these notes that I find interesting - I firmly believed that, as Bruce R. McConkie said, "To know God is to think what God thinks, and to feel what God feels" and that this was something that could be achieved in mortality to some extent, even if it had to be perfected through the processes of resurrection.

This left me considering - how do most LDS on the boards view the transformation of wo/man, as God/ess-in-embryo, into Godhood? Are the traits of God something that most view must be developed through practice and persistent effort in mortality? or are they to be bestowed on a person when they have crossed a threshold? Like having posted so many times, regardless of content, on a message board maybe?

Since rediscovering this, I have found myself contrasting my previous Mormon view with other religious concepts I since became familiar with regarding what may be called "exaltation" in some form or other.

For example, I have always been subtly drawn to the ideas in zen regarding enlightenment and how it manifests in a person. One story that, even as a Mormon, I loved was this one -

Anyone walking about Chinatowns in America will observe statues of a stout fellow carrying a linen sack. Chinese merchants call him Happy Chinaman or Laughing Buddha.

This Hotei lived in the T'ang dynasty. He had no desire to call himself a Zen master or to gather many disciples about him. Instead he walked the streets with a big sack into which he would put gifts of candy, fruit, or doughnuts. These he would give to children who gathered around him in play. He established a kindergarten of the streets.

Whenever he met a Zen devotee he would extend his hand and say: "Givewme one penny." And if anyone asked him to return to a temple to teach others, again he would reply: "Give me one penny."

Once he was about his play-work when another Zen master happened along and inquired: "What is the significance of Zen?"

Hotei immediately plopped his sack down on the ground in silent answer.

"Then," asked the other, "what is the actualization of Zen?"

At once the Happy Chinaman swung the sack over his shoulder and continued on his way.

This imagery, of Hotei swinging his sack over his shoulder and continuing on his way always felt powerful to me. Many similar stories from multiple faith traditions have a similar influence on my thinking about purpose and "right thought, right action".

In practical matters, there seems to be much that could be learned from many faith's views about life's purpose when the dogma is removed.

Yet in matters of exaltation, the outcomes for the Mormon vs. the Buddhist are strikingly different. For the Mormon, the result seems to be a heightened individuality and separateness. God/esses are men and women of holiness, separated from common or natural things. In Buddhism, the result is the opposite - the breaking of the karmic cycle leads to the dissolution of the (false?) boundaries that appear to separate all things back into their true nature. In a sense, it appears to be the opposite of godhood, because it is singularity rather than exaltation. Or so it seems. Yet the Gospel of John also speaks of "becoming one" and coming to know God in some way that appears to transcend knowing of Him. Maybe there is a similarity there after all?

What then is the purpose of exaltation? and Godhood?

And, ultimately, how would this manefest in a person if they were well on the path in mortality?

My current view is summed up in the first part of Eliot's Ash Wednesday, which I freely acknowledge was suggested by something I had read from Karen Armstrong -

Because I do not hope to turn again
Because I do not hope
Because I do not hope to turn
Desiring this man's gift and that man's scope
I no longer strive to strive towards such things
(Why should the agèd eagle stretch its wings?)
Why should I mourn
The vanished power of the usual reign?

Because I do not hope to know
The infirm glory of the positive hour
Because I do not think
Because I know I shall not know
The one veritable transitory power
Because I cannot drink
There, where trees flower, and springs flow, for there is
nothing again

Because I know that time is always time
And place is always and only place
And what is actual is actual only for one time
And only for one place
I rejoice that things are as they are and
I renounce the blessèd face
And renounce the voice
Because I cannot hope to turn again
Consequently I rejoice, having to construct something
Upon which to rejoice

And pray to God to have mercy upon us
And pray that I may forget
These matters that with myself I too much discuss
Too much explain
Because I do not hope to turn again
Let these words answer
For what is done, not to be done again
May the judgement not be too heavy upon us

Because these wings are no longer wings to fly
But merely vans to beat the air
The air which is now thoroughly small and dry
Smaller and dryer than the will
Teach us to care and not to care Teach us to sit still.

Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death
Pray for us now and at the hour of our death.

It especially interesting to that that this poem in full is considered his conversion poem and the later parts ascend into a place I no longer find familiar and do not share with him.

Teach us to care and not to care,

Teach us to sit still.

This is an interesting topic, honor. I recognize the resonance in Eliot, even in the later work like Four Quartets. Eliot was huge influence on me when I was still a child in the Utah wilderness, eager for whatever glimpse I could get of the larger world. He certainly kept me lingering at the gate of the faith of my forefathers for a few years.

Are you familiar at all with Orson Pratt's writing? I'm not, and I mean to correct that sooner or later. I'm curious about the various threads of mystic thought that run through Mormon history. I'm less interested in its latter-day manifestations right now than those that might of existed earlier.

I'll try to get back to this thread with more thoughts in a few days.

Hey Honor,

Wonderful thread and compelling ideas. I think one of the coolest facets of Mormon theology is the topic of exaltation and the nature of God. I think Mormons radically depart from your standard forms of theism found in Judaism, Islam, or creedal Christianity. In my opinion, this is the coolest aspect, with so many avenues to explore.

I think Mormon theology makes God into something akin to man, not some kind of complete and total Other or some transcendent intelligence that seems almost impossible to relate to.

Blixa and Stak,

I appreciate your comments and thoughts. Since this thread almost reached 100 views for each post, I thought it was time to say more than the OP. It's also 1 month since the OP was penned. I thought I'd give it one more chance.

Blixa - I have not read much by way of Pratt. I was raised with the impression that Orson Pratt was potentially a Judas Iscariot who, being at war with Brigham Young, walked a mighty thin line. Unfortunately, at the time I was beginning to dethrone Brigham from his elevated status, I also had begun to lose interest in uniquely Mormon ways of thinking.

Instead, I spent most of my time studying religion in general as the major crisis for me was in losing God, even more so than the belief in a church. But I think you are right that he is worth reading, and perhaps I have reached a point where I can approach his thoughts with interest and appreciation.

Stak - I agree and wish it were reasonable to carry on a conversation about exaltation here. I would be sincerely interested to hear the thoughts of our LDS participants, including Dr. Peterson who may have a longer view on the topic than most. Perhaps it is too much to hope for but I will bump this thread in the hopes that something more may come of it.

..........................................................................................................

As an interesting aside, I read an article this morning I linked to through CNN.com about satanism and how they view death. I was struck by the statements they quoted from the official church of Satan's website that, rather than a worship of a supernatural being called Satan, the real beliefs of the church of satan were to elevate the self to the position of God. I would think that LDS would have interesting comments on how this is a perversion of the true gospel, and also critics would have some interesting thoughts on how thin a line it can be between believing in exaltation and belief in self-deification.

honorentheos wrote:
As an interesting aside, I read an article this morning I linked to through CNN.com about satanism and how they view death. I was struck by the statements they quoted from the official church of Satan's website that, rather than a worship of a supernatural being called Satan, the real beliefs of the church of satan were to elevate the self to the position of God. I would think that LDS would have interesting comments on how this is a perversion of the true gospel, and also critics would have some interesting thoughts on how thin a line it can be between believing in exaltation and belief in self-deification.

Now do you understand why floods of English Druid Satanist took over the LDS Church? It is not true doctrine that exaltation equates to the same status held by our Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. But the tares wanted it that way and so it has been. Doctrine Defiled.

The other thing that matters most to Satanist is getting other people to do all the work. Making them WANT to do all the work is more better Satanism.
Amassing lots of wealth under any pretext is perfect Satanism. There are only two churches. Zion and everything else. We all know that the LDS repudiate Zion while keeping its habiliments with all the other disguises.

Blixa wrote: I recognize the resonance in Eliot, even in the later work like Four Quartets. Eliot was huge influence on me when I was still a child in the Utah wilderness, eager for whatever glimpse I could get of the larger world.

We should take that wooded walk and sing vespers at Little Gidding. Then we can make the sign of
an inflatable Godzilla . There are other places which also are the world's end, some at the salt stink
over a dark lake, in a desert or a city— but this is the nearest, in place and time, now home of
Killer Mexican Food.

honorentheos,

Thank you for pointing out this post and poem in asking for what might JlhProf and myself are/were seeking out. It is an excellent post. What was my hopes, faith and expectation? What was the purpose in all of this?

see
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 1#p1041011

I firmly believed that, as Bruce R. McConkie said, "To know God is to think what God thinks, and to feel what God feels" and that this was something that could be achieved in mortality to some extent, even if it had to be perfected through the processes of resurrection.

In thinking back, my desires were more selfish than that. They would have been to Known what God knows and to have the power in the priesthoods that God has.

It struck me years back how many adult TBM engineer work associates were engrossed with the Harry Potter series as the books first came out. These years later, having learned of the magical worldview that Joseph Smith was raised up in, I can see it's this white magic, the power of the personal wands (priesthood) and knowledge beyond and hidden from normal society which was the draw. It was a pursuit of things mystical in the fight against the black magic with it's powers and priesthoods. I wanted/needed to be a powerful and wise wizard, a modern day Captain Moroni.

Are the traits of God something that most view must be developed through practice and persistent effort in mortality? or are they to be bestowed on a person when they have crossed a threshold?

I strongly believed that active development in mortality was the only way. This feed my egotism as being more elect than even the unknowledgeable High Priest whom I sat with on Sunday's and had little clue of anything beyond the 50+ years of milk they had been feed. Working in the Temple twice a week for over eight years, I was light years of worthiness to receive my wand of power and knowledge than any of them.

Unlike the Hotei, I sought to be the Zen Master of Mormonism. Your question about the purpose of exaltation struck me today, as I realized I had never put any thought into what is exaltation, but only the pursuit of Zen Master.

Years after my fall, upon telling my sad tell of woe in my search for the holy grail (wand), the listener patiently listened to the end, then struck me, as it were to the ground with no possible response. "I did not hear you mention charity once in that story".

So yes, the realization, way too late that the Hotei was indeed the true path, that the humble carpenter's cup, that charity was the path beyond my personality, my ego, my ability to achieve.

Thanks for sharing this, rockslider. It is very touching and exhibits self-knowledge which has its own power. I admire that a lot.

When I was around 15-16 I happened by pure chance on the fictionalized biographic story of Miyamoto Musashi written by Eiji Yoshikawa. I was impressionable and actively involved in marital arts which created an opening in my otherwise strict LDS upbringing for eastern thought. But it was also alien to me, so I had no guidance for properly contextualizing it. Nevertheless, it became part of my personal scripture. I came back to it after serving a mission and realized how off my original interpretation was, yet there was nothing "bad" about my then interpretation. It met me where I was at, and I created something from it as an individual that was necessary for my own maturation and worldview formation that has proven valuable over time. I would be a different person had I not found it, and who knows who that person would be. But I don't care to explore that untaken and therefore false path. I revisited the same book after we had our daughter, and I was renewed while also corrected. I read it with her when she was old enough to get the underlying story, and I was again the student. It's getting close to the time I will be rereading it again, and I expect I will learn something more.

What makes a good life, what makes for exhaltation of the natural into the divine? I think those remain valuable meditations beyond Mormonism. To me, the divine is potential that exists in each of us which we realize and fail to realize at various times in our day-to-day living. Perhaps there's a touch of stoicism as well as absurdism in my worldview that demands "constructings something upon which to rejoice" in a way that accepts it's transitory and ultimately lost in the vastness of time and space. I don't live in the eternal, I don't interact beyond the mundane, the immediate. Purpose, value, enrichment, love, charity - these can exist in that mundane immediate space even if they collapse quickly. It's mine to realize them as best I can, I guess. Or whatever. WUBALUBADUBDUB!

Anyway, you might find this little section of an otherwise unrelated and potentially offensive discussion interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE&t=7690s

It eventually gets into Harry Potter as archetypical morality tale and makes an alternative explanation for how it is a modern-day myth in the vein of Joseph Campbell. Kinda interesting.

Wow, thank you for introducing me to this Jordan Peterson. I've sampled some of his youtube presentations and find him very compelling. Funny how I also find Sam Harris compelling.

No wonder I'm so screwed up:

What is Truth

Thanks for sharing that link, Rock. I had seen it in the YouTube side bar and thought it looked interesting, and your linking to it decided me I should give it a listen. It turned out to be a couple of hours of very tight inside baseball, in my opinion, regarding the definition of truth. But it was also interesting inside baseball so I didn't mind the time spent.

One of the analogies shared seemed like it had the potential to break the discussion open but neither Harris nor Peterson had the thought I did when it came up. I wish they had, even if it had turned into another dead end. That being the analogy of the madman who demands one recite the list of US presidents back to them in order or the mad man would kill the person for their mistake. In Sam's analogy, he posits the possibility that this person had the list wrong but the person reciting just happens to make the same mistake and recites the list of presidents back in the non-chronological order that matches the beliefs of the mad man on what the correct order is. The person then survives, proving the utility of both his belief assuming he believed it to be the correct order and how it aligned with the belief of the mad man. But somewhere out in the ether of Google there is an ontological representation of the list of Presidents that matches their chronological order that is in fact "true" which is contradicted by the utility argument around the mad man scenario.

Neither of them crossed over into this representing an ontology and how this might conflict with the epistemological approach being asserted.

But I really hoped one of them would make the leap to applying the same analogy to the sciences and ask, how is our approach to applying the scientific method any different? We very well may be functionally correct but ontologically wrong on any number of issues when it comes to scientifically derived notions of what is true. The history of scientific discovery demands we accept this is probably true of almost everything we currently know to be true. That neither condemns the scientific method nor demands we not consider what we know this way to be true. It just asks the question of Harris how he would avoid the same dilemma he thought was only being imposed on Peterson.

I also enjoyed this thought from Sam's blog -

_Summary: It all comes down to Hume’s law_

The whole discussion revolved around Hume’s law (the is-ought problem). Sam took the position that the only statements that are true are those that are arrived at through a scientific process (starting with that which “is”). Jordan took an alternate position that the only statements that are true are those that are arrived at through a evaluative moral process (starting with that which “ought” to be).
Jordan seems to believe in Hume’s law, (that it is impossible or at least not easy to cross from is to ought), so he stuck to his solution of the is-ought problem (start on the ought side and stay there). Sam spent most of the discussion trying to state the reverse of Hume’s law (that you can’t easily cross from ought back to is). (e.g. you cannot start with the claim that “releasing smallpox and killing millions of people is wrong” and use that to justify the truth value of “the chemical structure of the smallpox virus is <such and such>”. Sam claims to be able to cross from ‘is’ to ‘ought’ but we never got to hear how he does it.

I personally think they are both right with regard to Hume’s law: it is difficult (maybe impossible) to cross Hume’s law *in either direction*.

_Redefining the meaning of True_

At several points Sam accused Jordan of adopting a strange definition of Truth. In this, I think Sam was partially correct, but also partially incorrect. In everyday English usage, the words true and truth are regularly used in both ways (for scientific facts and moral facts) Jordan’s use of “truth” to apply only to statements that are grounded on a moral basis is an uncommon usage. But in one sense Sam’s position is *just* as unusual because it (according to Jordan) only applies to statements grounded on a scientific basis, which (because of Hume’s law) preclude moral claims from being true.

_The conflict_

Sam spent a LOT of time coming up with specific examples of conflicts between moral statements and scientific statements that were carefully constructed to make it seem obvious that the scientific statement’s truth was primary. Jordan (to Sam’s frustration) never gave in.

While I was frustrated by Jordan’s stubbornness, I think I understand his position from a pedagogical perspective. Had Jordan conceded any of these micro-examples, Sam might have felt justified in generalizing this to conclude that scientific claims _always_ dominate moral claims. I think that Jordan suspected that Sam was heading in that direction, so to avoid that outcome Jordan took a skeptical position that it is always possible that somewhere in each example there was a conflict with a moral truth. I think Jordan was trying to make a point of principle, that no matter how strongly you feel about the truth of a scientific statement, if it comes into contradiction with a moral fact, then the scientific statement is false *no matter how strongly you believe in the truth of the scientific statement*.

_A more charitable interpretation of the conflict:_

While it does seem that both of the speakers believe that there are facts on both sides of Hume’s law, I believe that their disagreement was really about which of these two is primary.
Sam appears to take the position that scientific truths are primary. Sam seems to be working towards a very strong generalization: If there is a contradiction between a moral statement and a scientific statement, then the moral statement is false. This may not be Sam’s position, but I think this is the position that Jordan was arguing against.

Jordan takes the opposite position that moral truths are primary. He is also arguing for a very strong generalization: If there is a contradiction between a moral statement and a scientific statement, then the scientific statement is false.

_My resolution:_

In a sense I think that the conflict is silly. The real maxim ought to be: If there is a contradiction between a moral statement and a scientific statement, *one* of the statements is false. And to judge which one is false takes a complete understanding of the situation (which may be difficult). If there is no conflict then there is no problem with truths on either side.

The new thing that I’ve realized is that it may not be necessary to cross Hume’s boundary at all. Maybe there is a way to dervive moral truths from data about moral situations just as there is a way to derive scientific truths from data about scientific situations. I will have to think about this more.

I personally feel a bit uneasy about Jordan’s philosophy. Why should I accept his Darwinian basis of morality. How does one justify such a view. How do I compare Jordan’s position to other philosophers position on such justifications? Who is right? By what means do I use to judge between them? If the answer is to think really hard, and see whose ideas “resonate”, then I think I have a problem, because that isn’t good enough for me.

I don’t see why we can’t apply the scientific method to moral statements directly - not to derive moral statements from scientific principles, but stay completely in the moral domain. The science of morality doesn’t need to be derived from physical sciences any more than the science of psychology needs to be derived from the principles of physics. All you need is data about moral situations. The two studies need to be compatible, but you don’t need to deductively derive one from the other.

If there were a claim about psychology that conflicts with a claim in physics. One of them is wrong, and there is NO way to know a-priory which one is wrong. Similarly if there is a moral claim that conflicts with a scientific claim, one of them is certainly wrong. I refuse to adopt a generalized rule that a-priory decides which one of these *automatically* wins. So in this sense I disagree with both of Sam and Jordan’s apparent positions (so far as I understand them)