I've been noticing lately in my discussions with the JWs that their conceptions of the Godhead depend largely on how they incorporate space and time into their theology. For example, take an argument like this:
1. Jesus is God's son. (e.g. Mark 1:1)
2. This mean Jesus was born of God. (as stated in e.g., Col. 1:15, which JWs also understand to mean that Jesus was the first thing created)
3. Sons don't exist until they are born.
4. Therefore God existed before Jesus.
5. Therefore God and Jesus cannot be the same person.
What is interesting about this argument is how it changes depending on how we imagine that God and Jesus exist with respect to time.
Since shortly before I became a Christian, I have understood that God and Jesus exist outside of time. That is, they transcend it. They are present within the space-time complex that is our universe, and they are also present beyond it, and are not contained by it.
If I conceive God and Jesus as transcending time in that manner, then I will understand the phrase "son of God" to be referring to a relationship between two beings. Of course it won't occur to me (at least, it hasn't occurred to me) that the phrase implies that Jesus' existence started after His Father's existence started. I considered the term figurative, and never would have thought that they precedence aspect of birth was meant by it. In fact, thinking of "son of God" in that manner didn't occur to me until talking with the JWs about this last Tuesday.
On the other hand, if I take the far more concrete view that the JWs have, where Jesus (and perhaps God – I've yet to check on that) exist only in space-time like we do, then a phrase like "son of God" will imply the material creation of a child after their parent as we are familiar with, and will thus imply that point 3 is valid in the sense we usually understand "born" and likewise that the rest of the argument follows from it.
My point: depending on our preconceptions about God/Jesus and how they exist in time, from the same scriptures we will come to different understandings of God. And, on the basis of the Bible, I don't know how to distinguish which perception of God is correct. (This may well just be a limitation of my knowledge of the Bible – I welcome correction, if that is the case.)
Another interesting example is the JW's beliefs about the afterlife. Since they do not believe that any part of a human is exists outside of time, their conceptions of death and resurrection are a little different from the orthodox Christian views. The idea is that humans did not exist before they were born, exist for their lives on Earth (in the material world), entirely cease to exist when they die, and then are recreated eventually on an Earth with all of is problems fixed. The nifty thing is that they are recreated based on God's memory of them. Since He's God, He can remember and recreate them exactly as they were when they died.
If the material world of space-time is the only place for humans to exist, then this seems to me like a pretty reasonable way to understand life, death and resurrection. Where would people be between death and resurrection? They must simply not exist. And what could resurrection then mean? It must me recreating them in the material world. But again, if we are willing to allow that humans can exist (partly or wholly) outside of space-time, things change and we can arrive at an alternative understanding.
My understanding, given that I believe there is a material and non-material part to humans (the non-material part not existing in space-time – and maybe but not necessarily in some kind of time?), gives me no reason to think that the non-material part dies when the material part does. So it is quite possible for that part of a human to exist between their bodily death and resurrection.
Again, it has to do with weather we begin trying to work through things assuming it is all bound by space-time, or whether we do not assume that. In other words, whether we assume there is a supernatural, or whether we do not. I think JW doctrine, though it may place God in the supernatural, could be otherwise compatible with materialism.
So what are we left with? To me, it is obvious that there are non-material things. To the JWs – and I'm sure I'll discuss this with them at more length – it may not be evident. I doubt I will convince them otherwise, or that they will convince me otherwise. I've never been able to convince anyone that non-material things exist in the past, and don't expect that I'll start now. But there may be some benefit to showing them how things seem to me, and seeing how things look to them, in these matters. Perhaps we can recognize some truth in each others' worldviews.
A quick side note: To me, the JW beliefs are almost like a sci-fi story, with God as the great benevolent alien who creates a creature Jesus to help the people of Earth, and who through his great power and memory can recreate us frail and unenlightened humans after our deaths and allow us to live forever. It's a neat concept, although I'm not really sure what I think of such a God (he seems a short step away from the evil God in the His Dark Materials trilogy).
Showing posts with label Afterlife. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afterlife. Show all posts
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
JW: Getting inside the JW view of resurrection
After several weeks of not meeting, due to the Mormon guys being stuck at a meeting in Halifax, and one of the JW missionaries getting the Norwalk virus, I finally met with both again this past Tuesday.
In this entry, I will focus on one particular aspect of the JW mindset that I've been grappling with. And by grappling, I mean something like "trying to understand from the inside". This is my default mode of trying to understand anything, trying to see if from the inside – in anthropological terms, to come to the most emic account possible of a worldview. For me, the etic account it forced, but I inherently seek the emic one. The benefits of my default approach are many: it promotes empathy and allows closer relationships with others. The risks are that I may lose too much of my own identity, and that I lose the benefit I would otherwise have as an objective observer.
The JW's believe that, in the afterlife, everyone will be resurrected to an earthly paradise. All of the things that make Earth bad, such as disease, natural disasters, crime, and so on, will be destroyed, and the New Earth will be a cleansed version of the current one.
I think the JW doctrine I have most often heard (and heard misrepresented) is that the New Earth is to be ruled by 144,000 "anointed" followers of Christ, who will be with Christ in Heaven. I have yet to investigate just how the "anointed" are chosen, how they are known on Earth right now, etc. However, I can say that it is clear to me that they do not believe that only 144,000 humans will be saved. Also, their doctrine makes a bit more sense if you interpret, as the JW's do, Biblical references to the Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven as references to a government God wishes to institute over the Earth. It is questionable exegesis, and requires a more figurative interpretation of passages such as Luke 11:14-20. But then "Kingdom of God" is a figurative term to start with.
The Greek is not helpful either. βασιλεια, the Greek word for Kingdom used in the phrase "Kingdom of God" and elsewhere, was most commonly used in the same sense as the English word Kingdom, to mean a dominion. However, sources contemporary to the writing of the New Testament also used the term to mean a reign, or a governmental office.
I personally believe it makes more sense to take the terms "Kingdom of God" or "Kingdom of Heaven" to mean God's dominion, rather than a governing body He will appoint, but as B— once pointed out the JW's have taken their equation of "kingdom" and "government" and incorporated into a self-consistent system of belief and hermeneutics, which is more than I've accomplished for myself so far.
Returning to the main topic, the argument for a restoration of the current Earth, as presented to me by the JWs, is as follows:
1. God created Earth, animals, plants, etc (Genesis 1:1-25).
2. When God created Earth, it was good (Genesis 1:4,10,12,18,21,25,31).
3. God created humans and told them to live on the Earth, and said that was good (Genesis 1:26-31).
4. The above, combined with a handful of additional verses, demonstrate that God meant for the humans to live in Paradise on Earth (e.g. Psalm 37:29).
5. God always achieves His purposes (e.g. Isaiah 46:9-11, Isaiah 55:11).
6. Therefore, in this case, God must in the end achieve His purpose of having all the humans live in a Paradise on Earth.
(The above essentially summarizes the first section of Chapter 3 in the JW book What Does the Bible Really Teach?)
This bothers me because I have been hoping for a unity with God in heaven that I cannot even imagine right now, and certainly not one contained within the normal workings of our physical universe.
There could be many counterarguments to the above JW claims (the abuse of scripture, or so it appears to me, is disturbing), and you can find them easily enough at sites like this. But my goal here has been to try to see their worldview from within, and to understand why they find their concept of Heaven not only tolerable, but preferable.
From the way they talk about it (I've got them being far more sincere than when I first talked with them), JWs really do feel their idea of Heaven is better. And I'm starting to understand some of the reasons why they like it.
First, and most substantially, JWs believe that (just about) everyone gets to live forever. We all die (they don't believe in an immortal soul, so all of us dies), God remembers us, and from His memory God re-creates us on the Paradise Earth, with the same mental state as when we died. That means that if your Mother wasn't a believer, and has passed away, you have comfort. She will be resurrected, and into a perfectly governed world where she can learn to be a perfect person.
When I heard this from one of the JW's, I first connected with why they love their afterlife so much. To me, this sounds nice, and I want to believe that something like it is true – that this life isn't the only test, and that there's a more "fair" one later. Not for my sake, because I can tell that I'm free to choose almost everything I do, and for me the test seems as fair as I could ask for. But people I love who have died, I don't want them to be condemned to some kind of torment based on their actions in a fallen world. The JWs think that it's ridiculous to call a God who condemns people to eternal torment loving. I think that it only makes sense if those people knowingly choose not to be with God. But how are we, who haven't died yet, to know about such things?
The second appeal of the JW's heaven is that it's very concrete. It can be grasped and imagined. We know what Earth is like, and it's not so hard to imagine Earth minus the bad stuff, plus a good government. It's graspable.
I get that to some extent, since I know that people are often comfortable with concepts they can grasp. I've never been much like that myself, so I can't internalize this reason very well, but I do think it makes sense and is powerful. That said, when my heart is pierced upon seeing a beautiful tree, smile or sunbeam, the experience is far more meaningful knowing that it transcends the physical reality, and I find it impossible not to long to know as fully as possible that transcendent beauty. I mean, I think the beauty comes from God, and if experiencing it directly all the time isn't what the afterlife is about, well, the afterlife sounds better than death, but still unbearably disappointing.
I think after all my thoughts on this, my conclusion is that I ought to choose the unimaginably good afterlife over the imaginably good one, lacking substantial evidence to do otherwise, and in this case, I will. (Yes, I did just casually discount Occam's Razor. Deal with it :) ) So unless something convincing comes along, I personally will anticipate a heaven better than I can imagine. If I set myself up for disappointment, so be it.
In this entry, I will focus on one particular aspect of the JW mindset that I've been grappling with. And by grappling, I mean something like "trying to understand from the inside". This is my default mode of trying to understand anything, trying to see if from the inside – in anthropological terms, to come to the most emic account possible of a worldview. For me, the etic account it forced, but I inherently seek the emic one. The benefits of my default approach are many: it promotes empathy and allows closer relationships with others. The risks are that I may lose too much of my own identity, and that I lose the benefit I would otherwise have as an objective observer.
The JW's believe that, in the afterlife, everyone will be resurrected to an earthly paradise. All of the things that make Earth bad, such as disease, natural disasters, crime, and so on, will be destroyed, and the New Earth will be a cleansed version of the current one.
I think the JW doctrine I have most often heard (and heard misrepresented) is that the New Earth is to be ruled by 144,000 "anointed" followers of Christ, who will be with Christ in Heaven. I have yet to investigate just how the "anointed" are chosen, how they are known on Earth right now, etc. However, I can say that it is clear to me that they do not believe that only 144,000 humans will be saved. Also, their doctrine makes a bit more sense if you interpret, as the JW's do, Biblical references to the Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven as references to a government God wishes to institute over the Earth. It is questionable exegesis, and requires a more figurative interpretation of passages such as Luke 11:14-20. But then "Kingdom of God" is a figurative term to start with.
The Greek is not helpful either. βασιλεια, the Greek word for Kingdom used in the phrase "Kingdom of God" and elsewhere, was most commonly used in the same sense as the English word Kingdom, to mean a dominion. However, sources contemporary to the writing of the New Testament also used the term to mean a reign, or a governmental office.
I personally believe it makes more sense to take the terms "Kingdom of God" or "Kingdom of Heaven" to mean God's dominion, rather than a governing body He will appoint, but as B— once pointed out the JW's have taken their equation of "kingdom" and "government" and incorporated into a self-consistent system of belief and hermeneutics, which is more than I've accomplished for myself so far.
Returning to the main topic, the argument for a restoration of the current Earth, as presented to me by the JWs, is as follows:
1. God created Earth, animals, plants, etc (Genesis 1:1-25).
2. When God created Earth, it was good (Genesis 1:4,10,12,18,21,25,31).
3. God created humans and told them to live on the Earth, and said that was good (Genesis 1:26-31).
4. The above, combined with a handful of additional verses, demonstrate that God meant for the humans to live in Paradise on Earth (e.g. Psalm 37:29).
5. God always achieves His purposes (e.g. Isaiah 46:9-11, Isaiah 55:11).
6. Therefore, in this case, God must in the end achieve His purpose of having all the humans live in a Paradise on Earth.
(The above essentially summarizes the first section of Chapter 3 in the JW book What Does the Bible Really Teach?)
This bothers me because I have been hoping for a unity with God in heaven that I cannot even imagine right now, and certainly not one contained within the normal workings of our physical universe.
There could be many counterarguments to the above JW claims (the abuse of scripture, or so it appears to me, is disturbing), and you can find them easily enough at sites like this. But my goal here has been to try to see their worldview from within, and to understand why they find their concept of Heaven not only tolerable, but preferable.
From the way they talk about it (I've got them being far more sincere than when I first talked with them), JWs really do feel their idea of Heaven is better. And I'm starting to understand some of the reasons why they like it.
First, and most substantially, JWs believe that (just about) everyone gets to live forever. We all die (they don't believe in an immortal soul, so all of us dies), God remembers us, and from His memory God re-creates us on the Paradise Earth, with the same mental state as when we died. That means that if your Mother wasn't a believer, and has passed away, you have comfort. She will be resurrected, and into a perfectly governed world where she can learn to be a perfect person.
When I heard this from one of the JW's, I first connected with why they love their afterlife so much. To me, this sounds nice, and I want to believe that something like it is true – that this life isn't the only test, and that there's a more "fair" one later. Not for my sake, because I can tell that I'm free to choose almost everything I do, and for me the test seems as fair as I could ask for. But people I love who have died, I don't want them to be condemned to some kind of torment based on their actions in a fallen world. The JWs think that it's ridiculous to call a God who condemns people to eternal torment loving. I think that it only makes sense if those people knowingly choose not to be with God. But how are we, who haven't died yet, to know about such things?
The second appeal of the JW's heaven is that it's very concrete. It can be grasped and imagined. We know what Earth is like, and it's not so hard to imagine Earth minus the bad stuff, plus a good government. It's graspable.
I get that to some extent, since I know that people are often comfortable with concepts they can grasp. I've never been much like that myself, so I can't internalize this reason very well, but I do think it makes sense and is powerful. That said, when my heart is pierced upon seeing a beautiful tree, smile or sunbeam, the experience is far more meaningful knowing that it transcends the physical reality, and I find it impossible not to long to know as fully as possible that transcendent beauty. I mean, I think the beauty comes from God, and if experiencing it directly all the time isn't what the afterlife is about, well, the afterlife sounds better than death, but still unbearably disappointing.
I think after all my thoughts on this, my conclusion is that I ought to choose the unimaginably good afterlife over the imaginably good one, lacking substantial evidence to do otherwise, and in this case, I will. (Yes, I did just casually discount Occam's Razor. Deal with it :) ) So unless something convincing comes along, I personally will anticipate a heaven better than I can imagine. If I set myself up for disappointment, so be it.
Friday, December 18, 2009
LDS: Testify!
I'm afraid I've been negligent. I've had three meetings with the Mormons since I last posted about one. This is largely because of a paper I was writing in my academic life, but is also a result of my rampant procrastination.
Despite my generally vague memory, there are some things about the recent meetings that have really stuck in my mind; and I will try to relate those as well as I can, though I warn you that what I still remember is not deeply theological. If that is what you are after, I am sure it will come up in later posts.
Also, I must mention that B— has been with me at two of these meetings (and would have been all of them if I had asked), and has greatly helped the conversation along, especially by adding some inductive questions to my largely deductive approach.
And now on to the report.
First off, there has been a reorganization of the LDS mission areas. As a result, I am no longer meeting with Elder M. and Elder C., who have been transferred to Nova Scotia. Elder C., sadly, had to leave before I could say goodbye – I understand they are often transferred with little notice, as was the case here. Of the three meetings I have referred to, the first was with Elder M. and Elder V.
Elder V. was in Fredericton during the summer, before being replaced by Elder C., and so was an old friend. He had been transferred to Woodstock, but was passing through Fredericton on his way to his own new posting in Nova Scotia, and so he accompanied Elder M. to meet with us.
The second meeting with with the new elders, both from Utah, Elder Mo. and Elder R.
Elder Mo. is an extremely tall guy who seems to have thought about his beliefs quite a bit. He is 18 months into his mission, and seems to genuinely enjoy answering questions about his beliefs. Elder R. is a quiet guy near the end of his mission (they last 2 years), who pipes up occasionally with a solid or helpful comment. Though shy, he is bold to speak what he thinks is important, and I appreciate that.
The third meeting was with Elder Mo. and Elder J., who was visiting from St. Stephen. Elder J. was visiting a different mission area, as missionaries often do, so that they aren't just working with the same person constantly for months on end, and so they can have some experience in different environments and with different partners.
In our last meeting with them, Elders M. and V. told us the stories of how they became Mormons. I had already told them the story of how I became a Christian, so this seemed fair. I was intrigued by Elder V.'s testimony especially, since in some ways it paralleled my own. In particular, he wasn't interested in God for a long time, his older sister became a believer before he did, and he did a fair bit of investigating before his conversion.
Elder M. became a Mormon largely because of a prayer for a relative who had an eye condition that he had been told was incurable. The condition was repaired very rapidly, and Elder M. attributes this to prayer from some members of the LDS. It got him investigating the faith, until he also had a moment when he felt that he knew with certainty that it was true.
Testimonies are one of the key elements of the Mormon experience. Every missionary I've met so far has had at least one particular experience that has confirmed to them the truth of some important aspect of their beliefs. These experiences often, but not always, have included a feeling called by Mormons "the burning in the bosom", that is recognized as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit.
Elder Mo. felt it when, after a long time of questioning whether his beliefs were authentic or not, he read Moroni 7:16. For him, since he grew up in Utah where (according to Wikipedia) between 58 and 72% of the population are Mormon, it was hard to distinguish between responses to social/psychological pressures and true belief. He even admitted to us that he suspects that a great many of the Mormons there only see their religion as a social thing – just like many Christians do. For him, the burning his his chest and accompanying conviction that he felt when reading that passage demonstrated to him unequivocally that the book of Mormon is true, and furthermore that he could know it was true by its "fruits" (cf. Matthew 7:15-20), the good things that came of following it.
I have so say, this "burning in the bosom" thing sounds all too familiar to me. I have for years described the first time I experienced what I identify as God's presence as "feeling like my chest was about to explode," among other things. In fact, the first time any Mormons told me about the "burning in the bosom" was a few years ago when I was meeting with Sister C. and Sister K. (also missionaries), and they asked me about my experience with religion. After I described that part of the story, I remember them looking at each other a little surprised, and then one of them saying something along the lines of, "well, we talk about that sort of thing all the time!" and going on to discuss the experience of Joseph Smith (who also felt it), etc. In the end they decided that I have experience the presence of the Holy Spirit but not its fullness.
To wrap up the testimonies, something a little different from Elder J. His testimony comes from a time when he was confronted by a non-Mormon friend, about whether or not he believed non-Mormons would go to Hell since they were not part of the church. Elder J. reports that he was very unsure how to answer, since he didn't know much of the details of LDS doctrine at that time, but thet he started talking about it and words came to him – reminds me of Mark 13:11. He was more fully convinced later, when he discovered that LDS doctrine was consistent with the answer he had been given.
Elder J. was testifying in response to a question about the afterlife. B—, as he has several times in the past, was complaining to the Mormons that by revealing powerful truths to him now they are – if their beliefs are correct – heaping more condemnation on his head for not accepting the beliefs now when he is most able. (The LDS believe that we will still be able to change our fate after we die, during a time when they believe we will live as spirits, before the final separation into the three heavens and the outer darkness. It's a bit like purgatory, but only a bit. I have been told by some Mormons that it will be more difficult to change our beliefs as spirits.) Elder J. has, as a result of his testimony experience, thought a lot about the afterlife, and what the fate will be of those who are not Mormons in this life, and impressed me in a way that I think emphasizes the dedication of the missionaries to LDS orthodoxy, as well as their honesty.
Elder J. started to talk about some of his ideas about the afterlife, and then hesitated for a moment. He said, "Okay, now this is me speaking," and took off his name tag. He then went on to tell us that, in his opinion, we will all be given ample opportunity in the spirit world to change our ways, since God really does want everyone to reach the highest heaven possible (called the Celestial Kingdom in LDS parlance). It was important to him on one hand to answer B—'s concern as well as he could, and on the other, not to represent his own personal ideas as LDS doctrine. I was similarly impressed before with Elder C., who would stumble very awkwardly over explanations because accuracy was more important to him than elegance, and who would refuse to teach as doctrine anything not scriptural, even beliefs common among LDS members.
That is almost all for this entry, although I do want to mention a bit of flattery given by the LDS missionaries at our last meeting. I hope I do this not just out of pride (no doubt it is one of my motivations, given who I am), but also because I think it is an important commentary on how dialogues between faiths can fruitfully take place.
As Elder Mo. and Elder J. were leaving, Elder Mo. told me that, even though we had only met twice, of all of his meetings in the 18 months of his mission he thinks that these have been the most useful. I said I was glad, and asked why, and he said that it's because nobody there really has a hidden agenda, but that everyone seems to be trying as honestly as possible to find out what is true. Given the nature of the contributions of the missionaries to our conversations, I think that although they certainly do have an agenda – one that they are thankfully very open about – they also are willing to investigate their beliefs with a sizeable dose of intellectual honesty. I think that is why these talks work so well.
Stay tuned for a brief theological discussion relating to my latest talks with the Mormons, and a report of my latest interactions with those other door-knockers, the JW's. Soon it I will be on Christmas break and will have time for a great outpouring of blog posts.
Despite my generally vague memory, there are some things about the recent meetings that have really stuck in my mind; and I will try to relate those as well as I can, though I warn you that what I still remember is not deeply theological. If that is what you are after, I am sure it will come up in later posts.
Also, I must mention that B— has been with me at two of these meetings (and would have been all of them if I had asked), and has greatly helped the conversation along, especially by adding some inductive questions to my largely deductive approach.
And now on to the report.
First off, there has been a reorganization of the LDS mission areas. As a result, I am no longer meeting with Elder M. and Elder C., who have been transferred to Nova Scotia. Elder C., sadly, had to leave before I could say goodbye – I understand they are often transferred with little notice, as was the case here. Of the three meetings I have referred to, the first was with Elder M. and Elder V.
Elder V. was in Fredericton during the summer, before being replaced by Elder C., and so was an old friend. He had been transferred to Woodstock, but was passing through Fredericton on his way to his own new posting in Nova Scotia, and so he accompanied Elder M. to meet with us.
The second meeting with with the new elders, both from Utah, Elder Mo. and Elder R.
Elder Mo. is an extremely tall guy who seems to have thought about his beliefs quite a bit. He is 18 months into his mission, and seems to genuinely enjoy answering questions about his beliefs. Elder R. is a quiet guy near the end of his mission (they last 2 years), who pipes up occasionally with a solid or helpful comment. Though shy, he is bold to speak what he thinks is important, and I appreciate that.
The third meeting was with Elder Mo. and Elder J., who was visiting from St. Stephen. Elder J. was visiting a different mission area, as missionaries often do, so that they aren't just working with the same person constantly for months on end, and so they can have some experience in different environments and with different partners.
In our last meeting with them, Elders M. and V. told us the stories of how they became Mormons. I had already told them the story of how I became a Christian, so this seemed fair. I was intrigued by Elder V.'s testimony especially, since in some ways it paralleled my own. In particular, he wasn't interested in God for a long time, his older sister became a believer before he did, and he did a fair bit of investigating before his conversion.
Elder M. became a Mormon largely because of a prayer for a relative who had an eye condition that he had been told was incurable. The condition was repaired very rapidly, and Elder M. attributes this to prayer from some members of the LDS. It got him investigating the faith, until he also had a moment when he felt that he knew with certainty that it was true.
Testimonies are one of the key elements of the Mormon experience. Every missionary I've met so far has had at least one particular experience that has confirmed to them the truth of some important aspect of their beliefs. These experiences often, but not always, have included a feeling called by Mormons "the burning in the bosom", that is recognized as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit.
Elder Mo. felt it when, after a long time of questioning whether his beliefs were authentic or not, he read Moroni 7:16. For him, since he grew up in Utah where (according to Wikipedia) between 58 and 72% of the population are Mormon, it was hard to distinguish between responses to social/psychological pressures and true belief. He even admitted to us that he suspects that a great many of the Mormons there only see their religion as a social thing – just like many Christians do. For him, the burning his his chest and accompanying conviction that he felt when reading that passage demonstrated to him unequivocally that the book of Mormon is true, and furthermore that he could know it was true by its "fruits" (cf. Matthew 7:15-20), the good things that came of following it.
I have so say, this "burning in the bosom" thing sounds all too familiar to me. I have for years described the first time I experienced what I identify as God's presence as "feeling like my chest was about to explode," among other things. In fact, the first time any Mormons told me about the "burning in the bosom" was a few years ago when I was meeting with Sister C. and Sister K. (also missionaries), and they asked me about my experience with religion. After I described that part of the story, I remember them looking at each other a little surprised, and then one of them saying something along the lines of, "well, we talk about that sort of thing all the time!" and going on to discuss the experience of Joseph Smith (who also felt it), etc. In the end they decided that I have experience the presence of the Holy Spirit but not its fullness.
To wrap up the testimonies, something a little different from Elder J. His testimony comes from a time when he was confronted by a non-Mormon friend, about whether or not he believed non-Mormons would go to Hell since they were not part of the church. Elder J. reports that he was very unsure how to answer, since he didn't know much of the details of LDS doctrine at that time, but thet he started talking about it and words came to him – reminds me of Mark 13:11. He was more fully convinced later, when he discovered that LDS doctrine was consistent with the answer he had been given.
Elder J. was testifying in response to a question about the afterlife. B—, as he has several times in the past, was complaining to the Mormons that by revealing powerful truths to him now they are – if their beliefs are correct – heaping more condemnation on his head for not accepting the beliefs now when he is most able. (The LDS believe that we will still be able to change our fate after we die, during a time when they believe we will live as spirits, before the final separation into the three heavens and the outer darkness. It's a bit like purgatory, but only a bit. I have been told by some Mormons that it will be more difficult to change our beliefs as spirits.) Elder J. has, as a result of his testimony experience, thought a lot about the afterlife, and what the fate will be of those who are not Mormons in this life, and impressed me in a way that I think emphasizes the dedication of the missionaries to LDS orthodoxy, as well as their honesty.
Elder J. started to talk about some of his ideas about the afterlife, and then hesitated for a moment. He said, "Okay, now this is me speaking," and took off his name tag. He then went on to tell us that, in his opinion, we will all be given ample opportunity in the spirit world to change our ways, since God really does want everyone to reach the highest heaven possible (called the Celestial Kingdom in LDS parlance). It was important to him on one hand to answer B—'s concern as well as he could, and on the other, not to represent his own personal ideas as LDS doctrine. I was similarly impressed before with Elder C., who would stumble very awkwardly over explanations because accuracy was more important to him than elegance, and who would refuse to teach as doctrine anything not scriptural, even beliefs common among LDS members.
That is almost all for this entry, although I do want to mention a bit of flattery given by the LDS missionaries at our last meeting. I hope I do this not just out of pride (no doubt it is one of my motivations, given who I am), but also because I think it is an important commentary on how dialogues between faiths can fruitfully take place.
As Elder Mo. and Elder J. were leaving, Elder Mo. told me that, even though we had only met twice, of all of his meetings in the 18 months of his mission he thinks that these have been the most useful. I said I was glad, and asked why, and he said that it's because nobody there really has a hidden agenda, but that everyone seems to be trying as honestly as possible to find out what is true. Given the nature of the contributions of the missionaries to our conversations, I think that although they certainly do have an agenda – one that they are thankfully very open about – they also are willing to investigate their beliefs with a sizeable dose of intellectual honesty. I think that is why these talks work so well.
Stay tuned for a brief theological discussion relating to my latest talks with the Mormons, and a report of my latest interactions with those other door-knockers, the JW's. Soon it I will be on Christmas break and will have time for a great outpouring of blog posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)