Sunday, December 31, 2023

Emergent LDS Equation: more good = Mormon = beautiful = happy = loved by God

 


One thing that benefited me in reading and listening to Nietzche was the empowering psychological energy in his words. Most people misinterpret the parable of the Madman where Nietzche proclaims the "death of god." This is not considered a good thing by Nietzche. In fact, he spends the rest of his life reinventing the "concept of God" in a way that in his mind aligns with the forces of nature and biological reality. Thus he says things like:


“I should only believe in a God that would know how to dance.”


Source: Thus Spoke Zarathustra


He is trying to avoid the atheistic nihilism of philosophers like Schopenhauer, who go down the road of passive-nihilism and philosophical pessimism: a philosophy best represented visually through the character Rust Chole in the first season of the HBO series True Detective.  Nietzche wants to avoid that kind of atheism, which led Bertrand Russell to say that basically true atheism leads to "unyielding despair." Nietzche instead wants to believe in a "God" that affirms life as it is and empowers him and others. He refuses to embrace a pessimistic passive-nihilism, but instead seeks to create an active-nihilism of life-affirmation, which projects a concept of a God that can dance; and the belief that when one is strong and powerful and generative, one is loved by God(s). Thus he writes:


… [the] aristocratic equation (good = aristocratic = beautiful = happy = loved by the gods) … the contrary equation, … namely, "the wretched are alone the good; the poor, the weak, the lowly, are alone the good; …—but you, on the other hand, you aristocrats, you men of power, you are [according to Lutheranism] to all eternity the evil, the ​horrible …


... [the aristocrats as the] positive and [their] fundamental conception (saturated as it is with life and passion), of "we aristocrats, we good ones, we beautiful ones, we happy ones."


Source: The Genealogy of Morals by Friedrich Nietzsche, translated by Horace B. Samuel "Good and Evil," "Good and Bad" First Essay, Aphorisms 7, 10


Joseph Smith said ".... The word Mormon means literally, more good." So combining Smith and Nietzsche, I realized that my Emergent LDS Equation would be this: more good = Mormon = beautiful = happy = loved by God. 


During my exmormon atheism phase I eventually realized that by proclaiming atheism I was saying the opposite of "more good = Mormon = beautiful = happy = loved by God." I was instead saying (at the very least unconsciously) "we are victims = pessimistic = unhappy (despairing) = abandoned by God." Of course, I claimed that I did not believe in God (so I would have said I wasn't really feeling abandoned by God as I lacked a belief in God), but ultimately deep down on an existential level I often felt as if I was a cosmic orphan, a victim of accidental happenstance in an unfriendly Universe trying to kill me. This is exactly what the agnostic atheist Neil Degrasse Tyson once declared: that the Universe is trying to kill us; which is in contrast to Einstein who argued that we should perceive the Universe as the God of Spinoza and choose to see the Universe as a friendly place


So I realized the psychological usefulness of Einstein encouraging us to perceive the Universe as a friendly place, as a way to reduce stress and over reactiveness. Meanwhile, Nietzche's body of work indirectly helped me realize the importance of one's personal philosophy and ethics (e.g. Christian) or ideology (e.g. Neo Marxism), one's God-concept (loved by God) or being anti-God (abandoned by God). I began to see that the attitude of the Universe is trying to kill us and we are not loved by God, but are cosmic orphans as cosmic accidents, was not inspiring or motivating or empowering toward feeling empowered and happy.


So I began to experiment pragmatically -- for the sake of my own self-esteem (my own well-being and confidence) -- with embracing a belief in God in the sense that the Universe is a friendly place, and believing that I am favored by God, and I am loved by God. As I psychologically experimented with these worldview perceptions, I realized that I began to feel much better, more empowered, and my overall mood improved.


Through my Emergent Mormon paradigm, I could believe in a God who does not just dance, but is an embodied God that affirms the sensual body as good and holy. I could not go with Nietzsche all the way toward Nietzscheanism, but could at least go with him partially, as far as joining him to a degree by saying we are "saturated as it is with life and passion … we Emergent Mormons, we good ones, we beautiful ones, we happy ones, we who are loved by God."


I realized that by 2023 others had come to a similar conclusion that I did. I began to notice several former atheists beginning to become religious (or quasi-religious) and saying things like they are God's favorite or they are loved by God, and noticing that this simple affirmation empowered them psychologically. I noticed that their saying that God-belief can restore meaning, order, and societal stability for the sake of civilization, had merit. I could tell that this "God" energy was empowering and enlightening and purpose-inducing.


There was also in contrast to this "theistic renaissance," a noticeable different energy: an energy of the Universe is not a friendly place, that we are abandoned by God and orphans in an empty Cosmos, and from this mindset the social contagion of feeling insecure, resentful, angry, and unhappy; as these kinds of atheists, as nihilistic postmodernists and neo-marxists, seemed to want to create meaning for themselves by acting "Christian" without the metaphysics of Christianity. As in they seemed to want to build a similar edifice that Christianity had built but were doing so without the legs (God, a soul, objective morality/the Good) that formed the tabletop of the Christian Ethos (which formed our Judeo-Christian civilization).


Watching all these former atheists become Christian again after 2020, and utilize belief in God as a source of meaning, direction, and empowerment, helped me realize that I was not being naive or that my experiences were merely subjective; for I could objectively see others benefiting from a similar pro-God worldview and attitude.


 I realized that in the past my saying "I'm an atheist (or agnostic)" and "I don't believe in God," was unconsciously synonymous with saying "I believe in Nothingness." This subconsciously equated to "I am nothing," rather than saying "I am loved by God." I also began to realize that by rejecting belief in God (as the Father God in particular) I was indirectly promoting Occult Feminism or Satanic Feminism (as an anti-Fatherhood cult) and the destruction of the family and fatherless homes, leading to an increase in chaos, degeneration, incivility and crime. By not believing in the concept of a Cosmic Father (God) I was unconsciously in a way rejecting All Fathers, for God as a concept is at the very least a metaphor for the universal father archetype. So asserting that I was favored and loved by God, and perceiving the Universe as a friendly place, not only saturated life with meaning and passion but it also promotes fatherhood and motherhood and the family; it thus puts me on the side of a healthy future for my species and future generations. In other words, if I wanted to be pro-living and affirm Life and not be anti-Life, it would make sense to affirm a Lifeward God: that as a symbol of the universal Father affirms all fathers in the fatherly role (with mothers) of raising the future generation. It was also in my own best interest to affirm God in order to inherit a more civilized society I would be living in as I aged; and it was in the best interest of my species to affirm a God that can not just dance but generate a Healthy People and a more Just Society.

Saturday, December 30, 2023

Introduction to my Blog Series "Worthy" Already by Grace & The True Meaning of Sin & Repentance


The first five years of the Mormon Church (1830-1835), Mormon Scripture taught the Protestant doctrine of Grace Alone


The Book of Mormon actually teaches the doctrine of grace in many places. For example, here is 2 Nephi 2:4,6-8 (emphasis added):


4 [...] And the way is prepared from the fall of man, and salvation is free.

6 Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.

7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.
[In other words, no one else can perfectly obey God's moral law codes, and will always fail to obey all of God's laws]

8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.
[In other words, one's own merits cannot answer/fulfill the ends of the law codes of God. Thus, only through the grace-gift of the redeeming Spirit of Christ in you (implanted in you) can you be redemmed/exalted]

 

So the Book of Mormon is clear that one is saved (made immortal) and redeemed (exalted) through the Spirit (Pneuma) of Christ. Pneuma is pronounced "Nooma," and is a fluid substance that enters the body and redeems and glorifies it (see my post here). For it is the merits of Christ (as lived as the perfect Messiah on earth) that makes one perfectly holy, and not through their own merits


Later LDS Scripture explains that the Spirit (Pneuma) of Christ is transferred into humans though the Holy Spirit (Sacred Pneuma), which redeems them by changing their Fallen/Adamic body into a celestial body. See my posts here for more details. D&C 88:4 (dated 1832) teaches this by stating that the "Comforter [Sacred Pneuma] is the promise which I [Christ] give unto you of eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom;" verse 17, "And the redemption of the soul is through him [the merits of Christ] that quickeneth all things ..." This "quickening" is meant the transformation of the Fallen/Adamic mortal body into a resurrected celestial (pneumatic) body of glory. This is clarified in verses 27-29 (emphasis added):

For notwithstanding they [who] die, they also shall rise again, [as] a spiritual body. They who are of a celestial spirit [gifted the pneuma of Christ] shall receive the same body which was a natural body; even ye shall receive your bodies, and your glory [splendor] shall be that glory by which your bodies are quickened [transformed]. Ye who are quickened by a portion of the celestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness. [This "fulness" is God's splendorous omnipresent Fluid Pneuma as explained in the 5th and 7th Lectures on Faith, published in 1835].

Verses 18-21:

Therefore, it [the Fallen/Adamic body] must needs be sanctified from all unrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestial glory; For after it hath filled the measure of its creation, it shall be crowned with glory, even with the presence of God the Father; That bodies who are of the celestial kingdom may possess it forever and ever; for, for this intent was it made and created, and for this intent are they sanctified. And they who are not sanctified through the law which I have given unto you, even the law of Christ [the Law of Christ per the Book of Mormon] ...

The rest of the section 88 goes on to discuss the importance of abiding in "the law" to avoid filthness, but again, the law here in context is the law of Christ as described in the Book of Mormon, which is simply repentance unto baptism. In other words, the Book of Mormon is clear that repentance was practiced before baptism, afterward you simply endured persecution as a Christian to be redeemed (rested in the Lord). For it was your "baptism of fire" (fiery pneuma) which redeems you (by the merits of Christ) and not your own merits. So exaltation with a celestial body is a free gift of grace, yet one is to ideally be greatful for the gift by reciprocating it by being loving and kind as a gift to others, while trying to aviod "sin," etc. As D&C 88: 86 goes on to say, "Abide ye in the liberty [freedom through grace alone] wherewith ye are made free [free of the heavy yoke of the Mosaic law code via the easy yoke of Christ: love]; entangle not yourselves in sin, but let your hands be clean, until the Lord comes." 


A careful study of the LDS Church after 1900, shows that it began to reject the original teachings of grace in LDS scripture and began to instead teach pious perfectionism and to be exalted via one's own pious merits. Yet I have seen some positive changes in the LDS Church (AKA the Brighamite sect) when it comes to reducing shame cycles, perfectionism, and chronic feelings of inadequacy. For example, the current LDS President (as of 2023), gave a talk in the past titled Perfection Pending. Meanwhile, the Utah-based LDS Church has made somewhat of a radical shift in the last several years toward emphasizing grace over works, which is not what I grew up hearing as an LDS youth. For example, in this recent debate (by A Thoughtful Faith podcast), the Latter-day Saints in this video strongly emphasize the saved by grace doctrine (found in the Book of Mormon itself) while they reinterpret or underplay the past teachings of LDS leaders on works-based exaltation (not by grace alone). This is an interesting change.

There has been books by LDS scholars making attempts to shift LDS culture in a healthier direction as well after 2005. For example, Terryl and Fiona Givens' books The Christ Who Heals and All Things New, attempt to correct past Brighamite traditions, which has been steeped in Augustinian and Protestant dogma; and move the culture toward what they see as Joseph Smith's actual Restoration (away from Protestantism and Augustinianism). 

There are even LDS Leaders in the top ranks who are troubled by LDS members feeling unhealthy perfectionism and chronic states of inadequacy (being stuck in shame cycles). For example, when I was a youth I was encouraged to read and abide by the content of the book The Miracle of Forgiveness. Today, that book has been officially condemned by an Area 70, see the short video: Area Seventy: comments on recognizing the spirit, shame & pornography and body shaming and modesty ( Aug 13, 2021) by YouTube Channel Thoughts on Things and Stuff. The video explains:

[In an August 2021] Stake Leadership meeting at the Herriman Utah Rose Canyon Stake, Area Seventy Richard N. Holzapfel responds to comments from the youth about being able to recognize the spirit - but also on pornography and body shaming. His comments reflect a significant shift in the framing of these issues for the youth. 


Also see the short video: Area Seventy: The church has taught hurtful things about repentance leading to toxic perfectionism by Thoughts on Things and Stuff. The video description explains:

[In an August 2021] Stake Leadership meeting at the Herriman Utah Rose Canyon Stake, Area Seventy Richard N. Holzapfel asked a couple of youth how they felt about repentance. He told them to be honest and authentic. His response to their frank answer was a remarkable assessment of the impact of decades of what he described as hurtful teachings about repentance, purity and perfection.

The video transcript reads:


This has been really great … now … let's be honest here these are two amazing young men and young women. I mean really be honest, these are great so if they're telling you this think of what other kids are saying, think about other adults what they're thinking. Unfortunately, some of you know that Elizabeth Smart as a young girl was stolen from her bedroom in the middle of the night by a by a nut and he raped her repeatedly and did awful things, awful things, because Elizabeth Smart grew up on the east bench of Salt Lake in a very wealthy, exclusive Latter-day Saint community in Salt Lake. She had some ideas in her brain and one of them was that she now was like a old piece chewed gum. Who wants a piece of chewed gum? She didn't realize that man could not take her virtue. She wasn't like a piece of wood that the nail was in it and repentance is removing the nail but the hole is still there. Some phrases that we've used in seminary and in young men and young women, in Sunday Schools for decades in this Church that have hurt the rising generation; and so we've got to get this clear about what repentance is and I suggest that we read President Nelson deeply and President Elder Anderson, I think Lihona, I can't remember [if it is the] February issue, I'm not going to promote his book, his book is great though, everybody should read his book but the article in the Liahona which is free you we should read that and we should accept the prophetic teachings of today. We don't want to go back to the to The Miracle of Forgiveness by President Kimball. You know what he said in his diary before he died, [he said] if I could go back I would rewrite that book. So let's let's drop the dead prophets and embrace the living [prophets]! So President Nelson, apostles and prophets such as Elder Todd Christopherson in particular but Elder Anderson, who's really come on strong this last year in teaching … that the number one problem we have is perfectionism, it's among both the young men and young women but principally the young women are struggling with perfectionism; and there's things that we say, do your best. What's the best? I never can do my best, we have to look at our language, how it's being read, how it's been understood.


Despite these changes however, LDS (Brighamite) culture continues to be rather perfectionistic as a high demand religion: often causing feelings of inadequacy and perfectionism and scrupulosity (religious obsessive compulsiveness). So as an unncorrelated, Independent Mormon, I plan to not ever feel obligated to enter a bishop or stake presidents office. This is based on past negative experiences, as well as my reading of Living on the Edge of the Inside: A Survival Guide by Christian Kimball, and realizing that there's just too many problems with that legalistic way of being a Brighamite Mormon (that simply doesn't work for me personally). Yet I am not against the Brighamite sect and and see it as a net good. But I would ideally like to see the day when there is no longer any manner of "-ites," and all Smith-Rigdon Restoration branches become one.

 I do think that one can be a mentally healthy Brigamite Mormon if one has good boundaries which I discuss in my introductory post to this blog. The site StayLDS.com has good advice on handling the worthiness interview process for those who wish to go down that route. I also think that for serious crimes like murder or incest or rape one can benefit from an ecclesiastical system that disfellowships or even excommunicates (in these specific instances), on top of confessing their crime to law enforcement. 

So this blog series will not be an attempt to encourage all Latter-day Saints to avoid attending the temple or paying tithing or any like that. I am a Big Tent Mormon and respect and support any Mormon in any direction they wish to take. I have just chosen to take a different Restoration path that does not involve worthiness interviews or attending the temple. This blog series will explain why I came to this conclusion. 

I will provide evidence in LDS Scripture and early Church history itself, that does not support invasive worthiness interviews. I will show how the word "repentance" itself does not describe an ongoing process of  confessing to clergyman; but instead repentance is about re-choosing the rightwise path toward God. I will explain in detail why I disagree with the Brighamite "covenant path," which in brief is because LDS Scripture itself actually teaches instead "saved by grace alone" through a kind of "spiritual gene therapy" and deification. I will argue that you cannot perfect yourself and earn your exaltation but instead you are already rooted in the "true vine" with a body of glory through faith in the merits of Christ; and like a branch on a vine blooming and bearing fruit, you are simply called to become who you already are in Christ as a luminous being. 

I have argued in this blog series that the temple itself and it's Freemasonic rituals and emphasis on procreation and a God of sexual parts and passions, was aimed at changing the consciousness of the Saints; and those rituals achieved their goal by 1890 and therefore the temple ritual in my opinion is not necessary for one's exaltation. Instead, one's degree of exaltation is one's bodily state. One is either of the seed of Adam and in that bodily state, or through faithful loyalty one has undergone a kind of spiritual gene therapy through the seed of Christ through faith: becoming literal children of Christ (as the Book of Mormon itself teaches) and thus co-heirs with Christ.

In chapter 1 of his book Passing the Heavenly Gift, Denver S. came to a similar conclusion regarding the temple ordinances, writing:


Interestingly, the language of [D&C] Section 20 also defines the process for salvation and justification. The doctrine is important still. Quoting from the original published version in 1833 (then Section 24): 


And we know, that all men must repent and believe on the name of Jesus Christ, and worship the Father in his name, and endure in faith on his name to the end, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God. And we know, that Justification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, is just and true; And we know, also, that sanctification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, is just and true, to all those who love and serve God with all their mights, minds, and strength, but there is a possibility that men may fall from grace and depart from the living God. Therefore, let the church take heed and pray always, lest they fall into temptation; Yea, and even he that is sanctified also. [16]


 These doctrines of justification and sanctification, along with the church offices which allowed ordinances of baptism, laying on hands and administration of the sacrament were established without regard to priesthood. Priesthood and church office were not originally conflated; they would later become so. But that is a revisionist view of the events.


Denver continues to explain that the ordinances like in the temple are merely symbolic and ceremonial, pointing you to develop your own direct experience of resting in the Lord:


Most of the ordinances of the [LDS] church are not the real thing. They are types, symbols of the real thing. They are official invitations ... The [LDS] church and its ordinations and ordinances does not confer power. They invite the recipients to press forward into God’s presence and receive Him, where the actual endowment of peace, joy, promises of eternal life, and power are conferred by Him [Christ] who has the right to bestow them. The keeper of that gate is the Holy One of Israel, and He employs no mortal servant there.[31] If men could confer more than an ordination, there would be nothing to prevent corrupt, wicked men from selling salvation to their friends, family and those they favor even if unworthy; or from barring salvation to others who are worthy, based on petty jealousies and envy. This idea of men holding God’s power is what led to the corruptions of Catholicism.


In other words, the ordiances are a shadow of the goal itself, which is to enter the presence of the Lord. Denver goes into much more detail in his book.

Believing one is saved by grace through the merits of Christ alone, and not by achieving a "worthiness status," does not mean that one's righteous/rightwise deeds and loving acts don't glorify God (according to LDS Scripture); for the Christian is called to let their light shine with caring acts of charity and affection. It just means that one is not "chasing worthiness" but one has been made worthy of "God's presence" through the merits of Christ alone. So that it is not about checking off boxes to earn one's ticket to heaven. Instead, heaven is the state of luminous beings, as God is like the sun as a radiant Force that requires every being in His presence to have a luminous body like His Messengers in the Divine Council. So that it's not about checking boxes or acting pious or "holier than thou." It's about a transformation of one's character through a renewing of the mind and becoming a new creation.

Furthermore, my study of the word "repent" in LDS scripture reveals that the word repent simply means to have a change of mind or heart, which even LDS church President Nelson has affirmed. The context of repentance in LDS scripture (especially between the years 1832 to 1844 when Joseph Smith was the prophet, seer and revelator), is largely based on the language of the Methodist camp meetings at the time. Thus, in the proper historical context, the word repent meant for the first Mormons (reading the Book of Mormon in the mid 1800s) that they should undergo a change of heart and mind and move away from a life of S.I.N. (Selfish, Impulsive, Nobodying) and receive the Pneuma (pronounced Nooma), being born anew through the baptism of fire

The original concept of repentance and confession was along the lines of changing your mind, admitting your fallibility, confessing your misdeeds to those you have harmed -- by apologizing and making restitution -- and publicly confessing your faults in public to those standing before you at the waters of baptism while conveying your commitment to a new life. In other words, it was the equivalent of an AA meeting and was not a one-on-one "worthiness" interview of sitting before a single male priest behind closed doors.


The Book of Mormon on the repentance process:


The current Utah-based LDS Church (Brighamite sect) has set up gatekeepers to interview you before entering through the gates of the temple into the realm of the Holy One; but in my view this is against Scripture. As we read in 2 Nephi 9: 41 (emphasis added):


O then, my beloved brethren, come unto the Lord, the Holy One. Remember that his paths are righteous. Behold, the way for man is narrow, but it lieth in a straight course before him, and the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name.


Mosiah 3: 13 basically explains in the years before 30 AD, that if people merely believed in Christ before he had come, that they'd receive a remission of their sins. It's basically a born again doctrine of believe and you'll be saved (reconstituted and made holy), resting in the Lord. It is made all the more clear that believing in Christ -- by faith and baptism alone, and taking upon oneself his name and receiving his seed, saves (reconstitutes you) -- because in this case, Christ has not even come yet in Mosiah 3; but just believing that he will come, this believing (trusting assurance) that he will come and will fulfill the role of the Messiah, will remove sins from them and saves (reconstitutes them). In other words, when you take on the name of Christ, his seed (DNA) is implanted into you and grows in you and swells and reconstitutes you (see Alma 32) forming you into a holy one like Christ who is a holy being (see Lecture 7).


In the Book of Mormon, wickedness has more to do with how you treat people socially: whether or not you give in to classism and elitism or are stiffnecked and pridefully self-centered and contentious with murderous hate. Note as well that the Book of Mormon updates the concept of the atonement in Alma 7:12:


And [Jesus] will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor [1828 dictionary: support; assistance that relieves and delivers from difficulty, want or distress] his people according to their infirmities.


I interpret this as Terryl and Fiona Givens do, as Jesus experienced our infirmities (our woundedness, suffering, hurts), but not to simply "remove" them from us. He experienced our infirmities (woundedness), so that he'd gain our experience which he needed in order to support us as a consoling friend when we experience infirmities. In other words, he knows exactly what we are going through and wants us to be healed and empowered. Like a friend dusting us off and picking us up to go on fighting the good fight.


Hence, the emphasis is on the healing Christ, healing our traumas and woundedness, not the "sanitizing" Christ leading to perfectionism and pharasical ideas and "purity policing."


The Doctrine and Covenants on repentance and clergyman getting involved in the process:


In D&C 121: 34-37 we read (emphasis added):


Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson –That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. 


Many LDS Leaders have in the past (and even today), sought "to exercise control or dominion or compulsion," by for example demanding a young woman going into extreme detail about their sexual experiences during a "worthiness interview," or body shaming them (as the Area 70 covered above). Or a leader demanding the LDS member believe exactly as the LDS leader does (as John Dehlin experienced during his excommuncation process). Or withholding a temple recommend from a person who doesn't choose to wear the LDS garment as much as they are supposed to (according to the dictates of the LDS leader). This "controllingness" is not the case with every LDS leader, but the Brighamite system is set up to allow extreme forms of legalism based on the personality and temperment of the leader. So that if an LDS member has poor boundaries due to their belief that they need to be work to be perfect and achieve a "worthy status," they can be susceptible to "spiritual manipulation" and suffer religious trauma syndrome. This can be remedied if the LDS member understands that the actual restored gospel (in LDS Scripture) teaches that you are already worthy through the grace gift of Christ (being "in Christ"), regardless of what an LDS leader thinks or does (based on the current legalistic policies of the Brighamite sect). For example, we saw above that the policy I grew up with, of Leaders often encouraging you to read The Miracle of Forgiveness (and similar books and pamphlets) caused serious psychological harm, and is now considered wrong (as expressed from the pulpit by the Area 70 quoted above)!

"Worthy" Already by Grace & The True Meaning of Sin & Repentance (Blog Series)



 > Introduction 


The True Meaning of "Repentance" & "Confession" & The Book of Mormon in the Context of Methodist Camp Meetings


Atonement as Redemption & Repentance as to Come unto Christ (not a Bishop)


Only by Grace are Ye Saved (& Made a Holy One) Despite All You Can Do



Friday, December 29, 2023

Noomatic Gene Therapy by Matthew Thiessen

The following is an excerpt from the book A Jewish Paul by Matthew Thiessen (2023 Edition), from chapter 8 "Pneumatic Gene Therapy" (words in brackets are my own words, except the footnotes; the web links were also added):


... Paul’s writings demonstrate his abiding commitment to ancient ethnic reasoning. Gentiles need to become connected to Abraham so that they can inherit God’s promises to him and his seed. Paul argues against gentile circumcision not because he is trying to break down ethnic boundaries but because he does not think that circumcision has the power to bridge the genealogical gap between Abraham and the gentiles. For Paul, only the divine power of the pneuma [pronounced "nooma"] (often translated into English as “Spirit”) can truly connect gentiles and Abraham. Gentiles, in short, need to undergo pneumatic gene therapy in order to inherit the many things God promised to Abraham. ... 

 

... Paul argues that circumcision and adoption of the Jewish law in its entirety will not work for gentiles because Israel’s God never intended for non-Jews to undergo circumcision and adoption of the Jewish law. [2] ... a circumcised gentile has not addressed the underlying condition: he has dealt only with the flesh, not the pneuma [from now on nooma for ease of reading and pronunciation]. ... 

 

... Romans and Galatians speak about Abraham and Abraham’s seed at some length (Rom. 4 and Gal. 3– 4). Abraham is the father of all who believe, and those who trust in the Messiah are Abraham’s seed (Rom. 4: 11, 13; Gal. 3: 6, 29). These passages show that Paul believes that gentiles do indeed need to become related to Abraham in order to inherit what God promised. But if circumcision and law are unable to make gentiles into seed of Abraham, what can? ... in both Romans 4 and Galatians 3 Paul sets out to show how one becomes a seed of Abraham. Galatians 3: 29 provides the clearest distillation of Paul’s thinking on this point: “If you are [part] of the Messiah [ei hymeis Christou], then you are the seed [sperma] of Abraham.” For gentiles to become Abraham’s seed, they only need to belong to the Messiah. One does this by being immersed into and being clothed in the Messiah. Paul uses the language of containment—entering into (eis) and becoming wrapped by or clothed in (enduō) the Messiah (Gal. 3: 27). Such statements encourage us to think in very spatial categories. The Messiah is a location or a container or a sphere into which gentiles must enter in order to be related to Abraham. [6] ... 

 

... By receiving with faith the good news that Paul proclaimed, the gentiles became recipients of this powerful [nooma] (3: 1– 5). Paul goes on to compare this gentile faith to Abraham’s faith in Genesis 15: 6, concluding that those who are born out of faith are Abraham’s sons (Gal. 3: 6). 7 The logic, then, of Galatians 3: 1– 7 is that through faith one receives the [nooma] (cf. 3: 14). Simultaneously, the one born out of faith becomes a son of Abraham. ... 

 

... It is not faith itself but what faith brings that makes one Abraham’s son. Faith brings the nooma, and it is the nooma that creates a connection between Abraham and the gentile believer. Why? Because of the identity of the nooma that these gentiles receive. According to Galatians 4: 6, God sends the nooma, which he identifies as the nooma of his son, the Messiah, into the hearts of these gentiles in Galatia. ...

 

... I recall a pastor telling me as a teenager that the thought that Jesus enters into someone’s heart was laughable—that this was nothing but a mere symbol or metaphor. I think Paul would disagree. Jesus the Messiah invades the flesh-and-blood bodies of those who trust in him via his own nooma. When gentiles receive the nooma by faith, when this nooma enters into their hearts, they have been infused with the stuff of the Messiah, which now permeates their bodies. Simultaneously, these gentiles are clothed in the Messiah. The Messiah, then, both envelops them and indwells them [compare the 1835 LDS Lectures on Faith #5 and #7]. ... 

... Understandably, this strikes us as odd. The best analogy that I can come up with is a sponge that one immerses in a pail of water. If held underwater long enough, the porous body of the sponge is filled with water while also being surrounded by it. The water simultaneously enters into the sponge and “enclothes” the sponge. This is close to, if not quite the same thing as, what Paul envisages. I have argued elsewhere, following the lead of Caroline Johnson Hodge and Stanley Stowers, that Paul depends here on the ancient science of his day to depict what happens to Messiah [8]. [Footnote 8 reads: Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs; and Stowers, “‘ Pauline Participation in Christ.’” ... According to Stoic philosophers, [the mixture of two substances was] called krasis. This is where this philosophical discussion becomes relevant to Paul (and others): the Stoics thought the supreme example of krasis was the mixture of an element they called nooma with other, coarser substances that were made out of the four lower elements of air, fire, earth, and water. So, for instance, the Stoics believed that the soul was made from the material of nooma and that this material perfectly combined (krasis) with the elements that made up flesh-and-blood bodies to make an organic unity. Nooma continues to exist as nooma, and flesh as flesh, but they share the same space. The Stoics called this the interpenetration of two substances. ... note how well this description fits what Paul says in a dense section of Romans 8 that talks about the very substance of the nooma: “But you are not in the flesh; you are in the nooma, since the nooma of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the nooma of the Messiah is not part of him. But if the Messiah is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the nooma is life because of righteousness. If the nooma of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised the Messiah from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his nooma that dwells in you” (8: 9–11). The first sentence parallels Stoic thinking about krasis (whether Paul knows it or not): the Messiah follower is in the nooma; simultaneously, the nooma is in the Messiah follower. Again, the best example I can think of is a sponge (the person) both saturated and surrounded by water (the nooma). Via his nooma, then, the Messiah dwells in his followers, and they dwell in him. They are in him and of him, and he is in them. This is no mere external relationship to or with the Messiah; it is full and intricate and intimate participation in the Messiah.

 

I have been convinced by other scholars that the nooma, God’s nooma, the Messiah’s nooma, in Paul’s mind is not something immaterial but the finest, most perfect form of matter. [Footnote 10: See especially Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self.] These arguments depend on ancient Stoic thinking again. Yes, this is controversial to many Paul scholars, not least because classical Christian theology has insisted on the immateriality of God. Such theology insists that God cannot be made up of matter because that would mean God is divisible and subject to change and decay. But that is not how some ancient people thought about the stuff of nooma. Philosophical and scientific reflection on nooma goes back at least to Aristotle, who argued that it was in some way related to a fifth element that made up the cosmos. Whereas previous philosophers had proposed four elements— fire, air, earth, and water— Aristotle conceived of one more element, a heavenly one called aether. ... Aristotle believed that aether was unlike the other four elements. It alone was unchanging, eternal, and divine. [11]. ... Aristotle had no problem speaking of nooma both as a body and as matter. [12]  [Compare D&C 131: 7-8]. ... 

 

... Paul was neither a Stoic nor a highly trained philosopher. But the basic elements of Platonic and Stoic thinking were the conceptual air that most people in the Greco-Roman world breathed. One would surely be wrong to think that all people today know what quarks and hadrons are, but many of us have a basic understanding of what gravity is or what atoms, protons, and neutrons are. So too, it is hard to believe that someone like Paul would not have known how the term nooma was being used more broadly in his day. And, if we can trust Acts on this point, Paul came from the city of Tarsus, a known hotbed of Stoic philosophy. This was his world, even if it is not ours. ... unless he unmistakably signaled that he meant something quite different, his readers would inevitably have heard nooma as those around them were commonly using it: to refer to a type of matter that was eternal and divine. While we cannot know what was in Paul’s mind, I would suggest that unless he was a very poor communicator, he would have known he needed to clarify what he meant by nooma if he meant something dramatically different from what most others around him would have meant by the term. Otherwise he would have opened himself up to inevitable misunderstandings. ... 

 

... when Paul speaks about the nooma entering into people’s hearts, as he does in Galatians 4: 6 and Romans 5: 5 and 2   Corinthians 1: 22, or more broadly about those who follow the Messiah receiving the nooma (1   Cor. 2: 12; 2 Cor. 5: 5), modern readers should take this as materially as possible. The nooma is the material gift from God—it is the presence of God and God’s Messiah—that enters into human hearts, the epicenter of human bodies. The holy nooma materially inhabits human bodies (Rom. 8: 11; 2 Cor. 6: 16, quoting a modified form of Lev. 26: 11; cf. 2 Tim. 1: 14). [13] ... 

 

... gentiles have been infused, therefore, with the unchanging and eternal stuff of the Messiah, who himself became nooma at his resurrection (1 Cor. 15: 45; 2 Cor. 3: 17– 18). By infusing gentiles with the Messiah’s nooma, God has intervened in the gentile condition by editing their genetic code, modifying gentile DNA, so to speak. The nooma is a vector inserted into the bodies of gentiles so that they now contain the Messiah’s genetic code: anyone united to the Lord is one nooma with him (1 Cor. 6: 17).

 

Note how this supports my thesis in my blog series on restoring true theosis. Josh Gehly, in a Dec. 8, 2023 video presentation titled BOM 1 The Gospel comparing the New Testament with the Book of Mormon", at the 32-33 minute mark indirectly confirms this idea of LDS Scripture teaching that the nooma infuses into Christians God's DNA. Gehly references 3 Nephi 27:20, which states, "... come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day." If "Holy Ghost" here can be thought of as synonymous with the Holy Spirit (as explained in the Fifth Lecture on Faith), and according to LDS apostle Parley Pratt the Scared Nooma is a fluid substance; then this would align with Matthew Thiessen's explanation in his chapter of his book excerpted herein. For, the Holy Spirit (Sacred Nooma) would sanctify the Christian by making him or her spotless and thus unable to "sin" to the Mosaic Law (like circumcision) because God's sperma abides in them changing their DNA per 1 John 3:9. In other words, by replacing their Adamic (fallen) nature (seed of Adam) with Christ's seed, they partake of the divine nature (seed) through the nooma.  


Gehly's noting that we are "sealed unto salvation" by referencing Ephesians 4:30 and 2 Tim. 2:19, adds support to my blog post on Christ as the seal of Jehovah, as Jehovah's duplicate genome (DNA); so that when the seed (DNA) of Christ is sealed into us through the nooma, we receive the divine DNA of Jehovah by adoption through Christ as co-heirs with Christ, as his literal noomatic children; which is the genetic inheritance of having the ability to resurrect (among other things). In other words, just as Christ is the literal seal of Jehovah (his duplicate genome), the nooma as a fluid essence carrying the divine sperma (DNA) infuses the divine seed/nature into Christians: so that they are "sealed unto salvation" by noomatic adoption through the seed of the Messiah, thus becoming the seed of Abraham as well (as Thiessen explains below). 


Mathew Thieseen continues, giving more support to my thesis:


... Just prior to Galatians 4: 6, Paul outlines an argument that the Messiah is the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3: 16). ... Immediately before Abraham trusts God’s promise, he complains to God that all God’s promises seem to be oblivious to the fact that Abraham still has no child to inherit what God promises to give him. As Abraham puts it, “You have not given to me a seed [sperma]”(Gen. 15: 3). God responds with yet another promise: “The one who comes out of your belly will inherit you”(15: 4). [14] Genesis 15 defines Abraham’s seed (sperma), therefore, as “the one who comes out of your belly.” This phrase occurs in only two other places in Jewish scriptures, both of which refer to David’s offspring. Once it refers to one of David’s sons, who seeks to kill David (2   Sam. 16: 11). The other is 2 Samuel 7, where through the prophet Nathan, God promises to David that he will raise up David’s seed (sperma), “the one who comes forth out of your belly” (7: 12). The Hebrew in both passages is the same, potentially creating in Paul’s mind a connection between Abraham’s seed and David’s seed. [15] 

 

If Jesus is the Messiah, then he is not only the seed of David but also the seed of Abraham, whom God promised in Genesis 15. And if gentile believers have the Messiah’s nooma, then they have his material in them and are, at the same time, clothed in the Messiah. They are in the Messiah, and the Messiah is in them. They have received an infusion of the Messiah’s DNA, so to speak. Consequently, they are now materially, genetically, and genealogically connected not just to the Messiah but also to Abraham. They have undergone divine, noomatic gene therapy to address the fact that they were previously unrelated to Abraham. ... Through the nooma and in the Messiah, gentiles have become Abraham’s sons and seed.

 

... [Paul was arguing that] Gentiles had not received the nooma through works of the law [like circumcision], so why would works of the law address something that the nooma had not already? By adding works of the law to the nooma, such people were in effect (although presumably not intentionally) implying that works of the law could do something that the nooma could not, which is, of course, to imply that the Messiah had not fully addressed the gentile condition. 

 

Paul again depends on the physics of his day when he makes this argument. Human flesh was made up of a combination of the four lower elements, and so it was mutable and non-eternal. To place confidence in a practice such as circumcision, then, was to place confidence in something that was passing away. If the Galatians tried to forge a connection to Abraham via circumcision, whatever connection they made, being merely skin deep, would simply not stand up to the test of eschatological time. They were making themselves Abrahamic sons according to the flesh (Gal. 4: 29), at best citizens of the “now Jerusalem,” a terrestrial [earthly] and therefore non-eternal citizenship in a Jerusalem that would not exist in the eschaton [end-times (the new earth)] (4: 25). In contrast, gentiles who became connected to Abraham through the Messiah’s nooma were Abraham’s sons according to the nooma (4: 29), connected to Abraham via an unchanging, indestructible, eternal material, and therefore were citizens of the Jerusalem above, the celestial and eternal Jerusalem (4: 25). To outline Paul’s argument succinctly:

 

Gentiles need to become Abraham’s sons and seed to inherit God’s promises.

The Messiah is Abraham’s son and seed.

Gentiles, through faith, receive the Messiah’s essence, his nooma.

Through faith and nooma they have been placed into the Messiah.

The nooma of the Messiah also infuses their bodies.

They have the Messiah’s essence in them, and they exist in the essence of the Messiah.

Gentiles have become Abrahamic sons and seed.

 

 


 


 


 

Friday, December 15, 2023

Plural Marriage Practiced in Jesus' day according to The Jewish Annotated New Testament

 In The Jewish Annotated New Testament (New Revised Standard Version), first edition, in the essay Sexual Mores we read the following (emphasis added, words in brackets my own):


Sexual behavior attracted legal attention in antiquity. The Emperor Augustus’s attempt to regulate adultery mandated that an unfaithful wife be divorced, but it did not punish husbands who had sexual relations with unmarried women (Lex Julia 123). Jewish law of the time defined adultery in terms of the wife’s infidelity but not the husband’s (as long as his sexual partner was unmarried [Ant. 3.12.1 (274)]), since polygyny (a man marrying several women) was allowed. The husband’s authority over the wife’s body was presumed by Roman law, but not the wife’s authority over the husband’s body, the position advanced by Paul. Rabbinic law accorded women some authority over her husband’s body, namely, the right to sexual relations (m. Ketub. 5.6). The late first-century historian Plutarch advocated an ethic similar to Paul’s (Mor. 144b), as did the first century Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus (frag. 9.5, 7). …


There is evidence for polygyny among Second Temple period Jews, yet the practice is condemned by the Essenes and Roman law (Josephus, Ant. 12.4.6 [186– 89]; 17.1.2 [14]; J.W. 1.24.2 [477], m. Yebam. 4.11; CD 4.20– 21; 11Q19 57.17–18; third century Cod. Just. 5.5.2, and Digest 48.5.12.12).


Celibacy was cultivated by some Essenes (Josephus, J.W. 2.8.2 [119]) and, according to Philo, the Therapeutae, a Jewish enclave in Egypt (Cont. Life 68). Jesus praises those who “make themselves eunuchs”for the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19.12) [Note that the Jesus Seminar disputes this  saying as a clearly authentic saying of Jesus and may have been influenced by Pauline tradition], and the book of Revelation identifies the first who are saved in the final judgment as male virgins (Rev 14.4). In light of his expectation of the Christ’s imminent return, Paul was more concerned about changes in marital status than marital status per se.


Nonetheless, Paul’s teachings inspired a second-century movement of Christian celibacy (Acts of Paul and Thecla 3.5), and virginity was esteemed as a Christian virtue (Tertullian, Exh. cast.). The practice did not survive among Jews, perhaps in part because it was so  emphasized by the early church. Christians began mandating celibacy for priests in the fourth century (Council of Elvira, canon 33). While the tradition of clerical celibacy continued in the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Church permitted clergy to remain married if they were already married at the time of their ordination (Council of Trullo, canon 13). After the Protestant Reformation, nearly all protestant churches abolished compulsory celibacy for clergy, though some sectarian movements (the Shakers) reintroduced it, and there were revivals of monastic orders in non-Roman Catholic churches (Anglicans).


This provides further evidence for what I have been arguing in this blog series, which is that Restored (LDS) Christianity can be thought of as a return to the original Hebrew theology that emphasized the goodness of the sensual body and sexual desire and reproduction, and did not contain the same body shaming aspects of later Augustinian traditions. Since "polygyny (a man marrying several women) was allowed" and there is "evidence for polygyny among Second Temple period Jews" (i.e. plural marriage was practiced by some Jews in Jesus' day) then plural marriage cannot be said to be inherently "sinful" as a practice. When this is combined with the clear history of a body-denying monastic mentality lasting all the way to the Shakers advocating celibacy in the 1800s (which D&C 49: 15-16 condemns), then Joseph Smith's reintroduction of plural marriage can justifiably be interpreted as a righteous restoration of original Hebrew theology and attitudes among Jews in Jesus' day, before mistaken apocalyptic expectations led to a despising of the body.


Jesus himself did not directly condemn plural marriage which was not forbidden by the Jewish Law that Jesus advocated. So if it was practiced by Jews in Jesus' day, one cannot affirm with certainty that Jesus himself rejected plural marriage outright. One can argue that Jesus might have preferred monogamy, but it's not certain. 


So my theory, that Joseph Smith was inspired to reintroduce plural marriage temporarily -- in order to change the consciousness of early Mormons away from the monastic mentality of Augustine and the Shakers and toward affirming the body -- has some indirect support from Jewish scholars as contained in this short essay.