The Weeping God of Mormonism

It’s easy to see why it was published posthumously. Really interesting – thanks.

I like this:

“We have in this experience of Enoch, of course, a version of the basic theological paradox, “How can God be all-powerful and still allow evil?” Enoch is encountering a completely new theodicy, a “justification” of God or explanation of how he can be considered just. It is a theodicy which, if not unique to Mormonism, makes Mormonism unique among large, growing churches. It is also, I believe, a theodicy which can make a crucial contribution to Mormonism’s emergence as a mature, compassionate world religion, one able to contribute in important ways to God’s efforts to save all his children, not just through conversion but also through sharing our revealed insights into the nature of God by dialogue with others.”

Especially the last part underlined. As a recently called Branch Mission Leader, it resonated with me I’m not trying to convert anyone, but I happy to share our insights into the nature of God and our perspectives on life and the eternities.

I’m still not finished, but notes so far:

p.63

The weeping God of Mormon finitism whom I am trying to describe creates a world for soul-building, which can only succeed if it includes exposure of our souls to the effects of natural law, as well as maximum latitude for us to exercise our agency as we learn how the universe works. Evil is a natural condition of such a world, not because God creates evil for soul-building, but because evil inevitably results from agency freed to grapple with natural law in this mortal world. You can’t have one without the other, not because God says so, but rather because the universe, which was not created ex nihilo and, thus, has its own intractable nature, says so. Thus, God is not omnipotent.

p.69-70 “…the “old absolutism”… has remained alive and well in Mormonism and now seems on the ascendant.

What I love about this essay is it perfectly illustrates a point I a gradually coming to terms with. The church leaders disagree. They campaign for one perspective or another. Hyrum Smith and Joseph Smith didn’t always preach the same doctrine. Orson Pratt and Brigham Young were hammer and tongs against each other on the nature of God.

Some men seem as if they could learn so much and no more. They appear to be bounded in their capacity for acquiring knowledge, as Brother Orson has, in theory, bounded the capacity of God. According to his theory, God can progress no further in knowledge and power, but the God that I serve is progressing eternally, and so are his children; they will increase to all eternity, if they are faithful.

Journal of Discourses 11 (Liverpool, England: B. Young, January 1867),286

By definition Orson Hyde, as an apostle, was also a “prophet, seer and revelator.” That’s what we sustain the 15 as. So if two “prophets” are creating warring factions then it simply illustrates how heavily a prophet is influence by his personal perspectives and paradigms. He also gives examples of different generations of prophets challenging and contradicting each other. Pulling the doctrine one way or another, like a big lump of play-dough.

This statement also rang true:

“…many absolutistic thinkers, including Mormons, in trying to exalt God by contrasting him to the mere human, instead begin to demean him as impersonal, passionless, even cruel. We tend to forget that all our attempts to understand and describe God are anthropomorphic, originating in our human notions and comparisons, and that using the more abstract, irrational, supposedly superhuman images may only make God appear more inhuman…”

In other words, we each create God in our own image, not the other way round. If God is actually inconceivable, Joseph Smith and several leaders after him painted a picture of God that is appealing. By making him seem more like us it allows us to be more able and willing to approach him.

On the other hand… others don’t want a finite, limited, graduated human God. They want an omnipotent God that they can trust entirely. They can invest everything in him, safe in the knowledge that even if they don’t understand, he does.

Truth is, I’ve absolutely no idea what God is really like. Is he the sub-god in the corner of a universe or the super-being that is bigger even than the universe? Does it matter.

Many times there are examples of God giving us metaphors and perspectives that stop us being crippled by the unknown “size” of God. D&C 19:7 teaches us:

5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

So for a while he was happy for his children to believe in a black and white, heaven or hell. Not because that was the reality, but because it was useful. I believe the three degrees teaching of Mormonism is a similarly simplified metaphor for a future that our human minds could never conceive. I had enough trouble scraping a ‘B’ in 11th grade Science. What hope would there be for me if God tried to teach me the actual reality of how he and all of the universe really works.

Perhaps it doesn’t matter if what we are taught does not turn out to be the reality. It only matters if what we are taught turns out to be useful. If it can “work upon the hearts of (some of) the children of men” then it is useful. For those it doesn’t work on, there are many other equally “express” perspectives available.

Mormonism has found different ways of “express” definitions in order to “work upon the hearts.” What’s called in the essay (quoting Thomas Alexander): “the reconstruction of Mormon doctrine” away from its original radical adventuresomeness, as part of the twentieth-century accommodation to American culture.”

More later…

A related concern is social action. Blomberg and Robinson end their book with a call for greater “cooperation” between Evangelicals and Mormons in social and political action. That seems to me to translate into active social conservativism, which in recent times has meant, in my judgment, mainly negative and divisive activities: pro-family through narrowing our definition of family, anti-pornography through censorship, anti-abortion through restricting choice, anti-gay rights, anti-affirmative action, anti-gun control. It’s certainly fine for Mormons to choose to engage in such activities, but it is a tragedy that, increasingly, those are made to appear as the official and only appropriate forms of political action for Mormons. They seem to me the very forms which tend to reflect the absolutistic temperament, which seems on the ascendant.

p.78

If Eugene England can stay his whole life and have this perspective, maybe I can too,