In light of searching for that balance my thought for today is an introspection into the use of time and its connection to happiness. We all have the same amount of time in a day and it is our decisions about how to use that time that really defines who we are and what we become. I have experienced a profound shift in time culture over the last year or so.  It seems like only yesterday I was in Africa sitting in a store called “No Hurry in Life Enterprise”, a virtue in their community but an oxymoron in the culture I find myself part of on the East Coast. Everyone is very dedicated and in my particular workplace we are all working for a very noble cause which might justify it more but sometimes I question whether the long hours are really the legacy I want to build and have to show for my time on earth. There is always a time and place for long hours/intense work, they are a component of nearly every great achievement, but a culture of work that over the long run cuts out family, recreation, time for contemplation, etc. is, I think, detrimental to the individual and society as a whole.

Can I have it both ways or will I need need to move to Africa… only time will tell.

ShareThis

Watching the evolution-religion discussion is particularly interesting due to the extremely strong reactions it produces from both sides. It truly is difficult to find objective, balanced discussions. Before I write about my own perspectives I offer two articles I recently came across on Newsvine that I think represent an honest exploration of the theory and the surrounding discussion of the topic. The second only strengthens my confidence in the integrity and unabashed honesty of Ron Paul. Enjoy.

The Metaphysics of Evolution

Ron Paul and Evolution

ShareThis

This is all in good fun

Behind the silliness are some potentially more serious and thought-provoking questions:

Is chance really the driving mechanism behind our lives? Is the family, location, and religion of our birth simply chance? Is all of life an accident? That is the answer of science. I’m in the middle of reading E.O. Wilson’s The Diversity of Life and in a section I recently read he makes the point that everything, the diversity of life, all of it, is an accident, “beauty arises from error.” Life is a statistical anomaly. There is no plan, there is no meaning.

The question of placement at birth in such vastly different conditions makes absolutely no sense without a before. There must be a story before. Reincarnation is probably the most easily recognized example of an attempt to explain the issue. Most do not want to touch the issue with a ten foot pole or have so very little to go on to even be able to speak about it. How can a God of justice and mercy be maintained in the face of so much inequality from birth? Such a God falls apart.

So the question is about a before. What’s the story? What happened? Why did it happen? Most of the world’s religions begin with this life as Act I and the afterlife as Act II. The whole story changes if this life is Act II? I think it is interesting that it is relatively easy to conceive of living indefinitely yet it is absolutely mindboggling to think of an endless before.

ShareThis

What should we be doing? Well, first off, we should be thinking about that question. What should we be thinking about? What should we be doing? Such contemplation will allow us to examine ourselves to “know thyself” to identify our values and priorities and ultimately to realign our behavior according to high principles and high ideals.

Of course, this question assumes we ‘should’ be doing some things over others. I think that word is appropriate if we want to do the most good. There are levels of goodness just as there are levels of beauty, and yes it’s somewhat in the eyes of the beholder but there are some ‘goods’ that are inherently more good than others just as such things as symmetrical faces are universally judged to be more beautiful than unsymmetrical faces. Not the best comparison but I do think we are faced with multiple ‘goods’ and some ‘goods’ are better than others.

Back to the question…another way to categorize what we should be doing can be according to the mind, the heart, and the body. In the previous post I talked about a searching for knowledge. I think it is primarily an exercise of the mind although the heart also plays a role. Often when I study or read new material I can digest it through my mind but also have a feeling or sense that certain things are true. One thought will be enlivening and ‘ring true’ while another will feel suspicious, or just a bit out of whack. So I think we should always be exercising our mind. And I’m not referring to Sudoku and Rubik’s cubes in this case but in the consuming of large amounts of information from all sources and experiences and then categorizing, analyzing, making connections, and formulating principles of truth leading to discernment.

Exercising the heart– we should be anxiously engaged in doing good, in associating one with another to feel, express, and receive empathy and love. That seems pretty straightforward so let’s move onto the next section which I’ve been thinking more about recently.

Exercising the body– if we assume or believe that this is the first time we have experienced having a physical body and that that body is critical to this life experience then we should embrace and use our body for good. I don’t agree with the traditions that disparage the body. I also don’t think it is intended to be a free-for-all to maximize bodily pleasure. I love the imagery in a phrase from Alma, “see that ye bridle all your passions” which echoes Paul’s language in James about controlling the tongue. A wild horse can be bridled, guided, and over time and trial be maneuvered about for all kinds of wonderful ‘goods’. That power and goodness can be cultivated. I think that the bridling (notice not chaining) of the body can heighten all our physical senses and make our lives richer.

I think this implies that we should seek to train our bodies to do all sorts of wonderful activities and enjoy them– creating music, learning to sing, sculpture, dance, athletics,… jump in with the kids and try that hulahoop again, take a big whiff of that flower or freshly cooked bread. It is a matter of cultivating the good.

Well, that’s it for today, I’m going to go jump in a pile of leaves.

ShareThis

1. Seeking to understand God’s plan and desires for us.

The extremes of this activity could be a Buddhist monk, a Havard Divinity School student, or a life-long missionary; full dedication to this objective. Is this ultimate level required in terms of career? No, but I think elements of these examples are expected to be part of every individual’s life. I think meditation and contemplation should be practiced by all, primarily on the important questions of life. I think we should all be a student of the Divine in terms of seeking out information, reading, exploring, and processing that information. I think it is also expected that this search for truth and right is to be a life-long commitment. There is that element of endurance.

2. Focus on relationships and how we act towards our fellowman.

In this objective the options of positive activities are endless. In the home it implies being willing to work to be a loving spouse and a loving parent. In work, it implies that we should seek the good of all and not just ourselves at the expense of others. It means being willing to forgive others, from the guy who flipped you off on the freeway to the close family member who hurt you dearly. It means expanding your circle of concern outside of yourself, to your community, even to communities on the other side of the world. It implies a willingness to sacrifice your personal means and energies to the great social issues of our time, the scourge of extreme poverty, the building of peace, and the prevention of innocent suffering.

The hallmarks of a religious seeker should therefore be two fold: a desire for knowledge and understanding regarding God’s master plan for mankind (also how we personally fit in that plan) as well as a sincere desire and continuous effort to become a person with the same will and desire that God has for all men. The question is not “to be or not to be” as Hamlet says but as Truman Madsen rephrases it-  “To become or not to become.”

ShareThis

First, what do we see mankind generally doing with their time? Now, there are endless varieties in activities but I will discuss two that I see as major trends in our current age: accumulating wealth and seeking entertainment.

Our world society has become intoxicated with profits and extravagant living. The question of our age is– do you have any money?– and the answer to that question is the primary guide behind personal and institutional decisions and judgment. The personal quest for wealth accumulation, at the expense of other ideals, can and does lead to broken marriages, alienation of children, war, oppression of the poor, destruction of the environment and the host of societal ills present in our society. Individuals have become consumed with consumerism.

Entertainment is not inherently bad, just as money is not inherently bad, but the gentle waves have turned into a destructive tsunami. The movie theaters and sports stadiums are full while the libraries and churches sit empty. The television has turned into the central shrine of the home, religiously worshipped. Children spend more time looking into the fuzzy flicker of a television or computer than into the eyes of a loving parent. We proudly collect shelves of pre-packaged entertainment while the shelves and stomachs of millions are empty.

I provide these observations as a call for people to wake up out of their thoughtless stupor, for each of us to think about how we spend our time and what it says about our priorities and values.  I’ll talk about specific positive actions in the following posts.

ShareThis

I believe there are two fundamental elements being tested:  a test of our loyalty and a test of our heart, or our desires and will.  Loyalty to what?  Loyalty to the organizer of this world and his plan, I will refer to this person as God.  How is  loyalty tested?  I think the principles of testing loyalty are evident in companies with employees, families with children, relationships, etc.  One telling situation is how the person behaves when they are alone or when they think nobody is watching.  I think God is using this same principle.  It suggests that we shouldn’t expect him constantly on the scene.  We should not be surprised if he only shows up intermittently throughout history, which seems to be his pattern–showing up, delivering his message to an individual and telling them to write it down.  Another way of testing loyalty is to make requests of someone.  The behavioral response is telling, how much is a person willing to sacrifice their personal agenda, what priority do they give the request, do they do it grudgingly or are they anxious to give of themselves.  A way of making the test more poignant is to not provide a complete explanation for the request.  Those who trust the lawgiver will obey initially out of that sense of trust and confidence in the person and not the logic of the idea per say.  Providing a complete explanation beforehand makes the test not about the lawgiver but about the specific law.  So, if God is testing our loyalty to him we should not t be surprised if certain questions remain unanswered.  We should anticipate having to step out into darkness with faith and trust.  Once the test of loyalty is over, however, one could expect explanations, but not all of them if the test is to last over one’s entire lifetime.  It is also understandable if the requests are difficult or illogical, even purposefully so,  because such requests again stress the loyalty to the person over the idea.

This idea that we must do whatever God requests presupposes that, first, we know what He has said and, second, that we understand it.  The situation becomes complicated when we acknowledge that everyone is being tested on their choices and that choices by some people can impact the available choices for others.  So we have the potential that the caretakers of the message could fail in their responsibility to get the word out or certain groups of people could be cut off from being able to hear the message, such as when government or other powers limit what is published, limit what is heard, and subsequently promoting their own curriculum, or simply so many voices pushing their curriculum that it becomes exceptionally difficult to sort through them all.  Therefore if the test is to remain fair there must be something built into the individual, call it conscience or natural law, so that even if the full message is not available there can still be a general feel between light and darkness, virtue and vice.  I would also expect that something to be critical in finding the right message and messenger, it will feel right, it will resonate in some way.

The opposite of loyalty to God is not necessary loyalty to another God but loyalty to oneself above all else.  For, if we all have that something that draws us towards God and yet we override that prompting with our choices based on what we think is best, having more confidence in ourselves and our own knowledge etc, we are in essence becoming a god unto ourself.  Our own knowledge or logic holds greater sway in our decisions than following that inner something from God and/or searching for the will of God.

Besides the test of loyalty there is the test of the heart, our desires or will.   Why would this be tested?  Let’s start with what would be the potential reward of the test.  God, in whatever definition or context one understands the word, is fundamentally about the perpetuation of life and control over matter.  As we’ve talked about the only valid question being ‘is this all there is?’, the foundation of any religion or worldview is built on explanations of (1) how we, this earth, and all life came to be and (2) how life, particularly our own life, can be perpetuated beyond our own short little experience of consciousness.  If creation and life are fundamentally what God is all about then one possible purpose of a testing experience would be to decide who and how to share this creative power and privilege.  A contemplative gaze into a starry night with that thought is completely overwhelming.  Evaluating the desires and heart of an individual becomes a predictor of what an individual would do with increased power, privilege, and responsibility.

What then is being tested about our desires?  I believe the test is fundamentally about how we interact with others.  Do we seek to maximize our own pleasure and interests or do we desire to uplift and benefit others first?  I believe this is the true nature of God– that his desires are to his children, to their development, to their becoming, which makes the primary characteristic of God love.  He seeks to share his glory, knowledge, powers, even residence with his children but his children must be on the same page,  they must have the same desires and ambitions.

This implies a few side thoughts.  First, marriage and family become the foremost testing ground.   It is in the intimacy of a marriage relationship and in the rearing of children that love is truly tested.  It can be relatively easy to be thoughtful and kind to a stranger but more challenging to love those whom you know all their faults, to whom you have made yourself emotionally vulnerable, and whom you have sacrificed greatly of yourself for the benefit of the other.  Such love is the closest approximation of God’s love.  However, such love would not be satisfied to remain among family and friends, the very nature of such self-sacrificial love would want to expand and embrace all.   It would be appalled by social injustice, poverty, hate, violence and the host of unkindness man does to man.

That’s how I see it, a test of loyalty and love.

ShareThis

In my observation, the limiting element of such a faith’s doctrine involves viewing this life as a one act play when in fact it is at least a three act drama, more accurately with endless acts. The common thinking is to view of our birth on earth as the beginning, our death as the end, followed by a judgement that determines our condition for the rest of eternity…done, close the book, end of story. With such a view those who do not accept Jesus, or the prophet Muhammad or God at all, let alone those who have never heard the name Jesus, are without hope. There is not a doctrinal explanation for why certain souls are born into favorable or less favorable conditions, nor a mechanism by which souls could be ‘saved’ despite their unfavorable lot in this life, nor an answer to the fact that a great percentage of souls that have been born into this world never lived past their fifth birthday. There are speculations and attempts to explain: the Calvinists turn to the idea of pre-destination; the religions of the East turn to reincarnation to explain (and unfortunately justify perpetuation of) distinct classes; while others turn to baptizing newborns to solve the issue in their mind. However all such efforts are merely patches. I find them all to be manmade attempts to reconcile the theological language by which they are bound with the observed conditions of the world around them.

The most profound statements to me in relation to this dilemma, came in the 93rd section of the Doctrine and Covenants, passages in the Book of Abraham, and the book of Moses. Some of these elements are given voice in a lecture by Truman Madsen in Timeless Questions, Gospel Insights speaking about suffering and the problem of evil. Or if you want the real meat, Hugh Nibley’s essay entitled Before Adam blows the socks off of the best religionists and scientists.

ShareThis

I would expect God to have a consistent message across all time, cultures, and languages. I would expect the message would be understandable and meaningful to great philosophers as well as poor illiterate farmers. With those expectations I can understand a God using symbolism, telling stories with layers of meanings, and relying on physical objects, including a written record, to teach a common message across generations. These are fundamentally exemplary teaching methods. Methods that can be simple yet expansive. Methods that are conducive to contemplation and memory, such as tying teachings to the physical world around us or having elements that are fantastic and out of the norm. All modern day memory techniques rely on using visual images combined with elements of exaggeration, exuberance, and high impact, and then pegging bits of information to those images. So I wouldn’t be surprised to find such simple yet fantastic elements intermixed in messages coming from a Divine teacher.

However those same techniques and strategies can be used by men who want to secure power and prominence. The masses are easier to control when they are ignorant and reliant on superiors for information. Therefore, I think it can be wise to be suspicious. Being suspicious is good if it is accompanied by sincere inquiry with a desire to discover truth. Being suspicious can be bad if it leads to a dismissal of all, getting more pleasure in tearing things down, or giving up in the search for knowledge, because such an attitude can lead to all sorts of negative consequences, both for society and the individual. The difficulty thus becomes deciphering truth from error and the question becomes ‘how can one know’ which I wrote about previously.

I think there is also a sense that God cannot interact in this world in a physical way. This belief has its foundation in Greek philosophy regarding physical matter. It was adopted by the theologians and intermixed with religious doctrine. But trends in philosophy would not stop truth or limit God in the way he communicates with man.

On the opposite extreme you have the belief that God will show himself in the shape of a potato chip or weeping picture. And so the strange and unbelievable are also projected by believers who have zeal without knowledge. While such cases can be faith-diminishing for the educated it does not mean that God has not or cannot interact with the physical world. Again, just calling for increased wisdom in judgment.

My last thought has my own religious assumptions but if life is fundamentally a kind of test of our loyalty and choices of priority then leaving some ambiguity becomes crucial to that test. So no matter how much we would like to know the answers to every question immediately, a wise organizer of this earthly experience, in pursuing his ultimate objectives for us, would leave some questions unanswered. Such a strategy is merciful and ingenious.

ShareThis

I also believe that God has, at certain times in the course of human history, intervened to setup and reveal his purposes and desires. Therefore certain strands of religion could be considered deviant offspring of a once pure understanding. How does deviance come about? It is not difficult to diagnose: through the choices of men, choices primarily made because of man’s confidence in his own power and greatness. The drama can be found throughout the historical record as well as in families all around the world. Children can be taught and directed but not forced to obey the wisdom of their parents. And so men create their own religions, sometimes created from nothing but most often modified versions of previous models. Men sit around tables and vote for doctrines. They take what was once given as law and become lawyers, definers of the law, replacing the role of Him who was the original lawgiver. It is not always done with cruel intentions, modified version are oftentimes done by those that have the most keen sense of celestial homesickness but they happen to come along after the initial deviation has already occurred. Sensing the deviation they strive to return to the ideal. These are the great and decent men and women that lead the majority of religions but they are fundamentally at a loss, they must rely on their best judgment, they function with a limited number of pieces of a grand puzzle. The direct divine intervention that fills their sacred writ seems so distant, even preposterous, to their modern experience.

Numerous religions are also bound to come forth because religion has within it power, power because it provides answers to the terrible questions. Control over the answers is control over the masses. Human history is a rather sad tale of individuals seeking to control the masses, maximizing their own power and magnificence at the expense of their fellowman. If religion does the trick, they will use it as a weapon. Power is the door to wealth and the good things of this world, and so religion attracts those that seek for personal greatness. Suddenly, in the hands of such men, messages centered on peace and love are transposed into swords and guns.

What then is to be done? Are we to dismiss religion altogether? Does the host of man-made religions preclude the possibility of a true and pure religion? Or the possibility that the divine could make another direct intervention? I think we live in a remarkable age when one can study and explore, not being confined to the religion of our cultural inheritance. I also think, for that same reason, this is the most challenging of ages, there are so many different voices, so many claims, and we must have the will and patience to sort through the waves of information we are fed to discern what has been touched by the hand of God as opposed to the hands of men.

ShareThis