Social Responsibility and Being Christlike

So a little while ago I was pondering what it means to be Christlike. It's something I ponder a lot, but during this time it was weighing a little more heavily on my mind. I suppose what prompted it was a Sunday School lesson (an hour of theological discussion and learning that occurs during my weekly church services) where we discussed the idea of social responsibility. For the sake of full disclosure, I will admit that I was in fact the teacher during this particular lesson.

The lesson covered Ezekiel 34 (among other chapters) wherein is a metaphor given by the Lord. The Lord talks of His people in terms of shepherds and sheep and seemingly blames the shepherds not only for their own actions (in not feeding the sheep) but also for the consequent actions of the sheep as well. He describes the sheep as being "scattered" (v. 12) which to me means that they have fallen away from the Lord's true gospel and teachings and have become worldly.

I found this story interesting, because the Lord never once blames the sheep for becoming scattered, yet surely people are responsible for their own actions. It makes me wonder, then, whether others can't also be (at least partially) responsible for one person's actions. Certainly United States law (and I imagine other countries' laws as well) take the actions of others into consideration, yet it has been my experience that many people (especially members of my church) believe very strong in the idea of personal responsibility and vehemently argue that the only person responsible for Person A's actions is Person A. I have to admit here that I have never been able to believe that, because I can't help but feel responsible when someone I know does something bad.

It was while thinking on this that I was reading an article that mentioned the fact that Christ took upon himself the sins of all other people. Then it hit me. Christ is quite literally the perfect example of social responsibility. He, the only sinless person to ever live, took upon himself the sins of every other person who has ever lived, who does live, and who will ever live. He endeavored with everything He was to make Himself responsible for all the bad things that anyone has ever done and will ever do. He said, "Let me be responsible for Person A's actions, not Person A." He was arguably the only person who has ever lived and will ever live who could truthfully say that He is not responsible for anyone else's failings. But He wants to be. The culminating act of His life was an attempt to make that statement untrue.

Which makes me think about people today, including myself. I personally am reticent to admit responsibility for another's actions. They're their own person and should be able to take care of themselves, right? (Don't get me wrong, I can't help but feel guilty, but that doesn't mean I like to. I have enough of my own problems that I don't really want to feel responsible for others' as well.) Yet if I am serious about being Christlike, and I certainly try to be, being responsible for others' actions (or at least striving to be) is exactly what I should be doing.

Living the Question

Rainer Maria Rilke once wrote, "I would like to beg you dear Sir, as well as I can, to have patience with everything unresolved in your heart and to try to love the questions themselves as if they were locked rooms or books written in a very foreign langauge. Don't search for the answers, which could not be given to you now, because you would not be able to live them. And the point is to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps then, someday far in the future, you will gradually, without even noticing it, live your way into the answer."

I rather like this quote. Probably because it was shared with me shortly after I had come to the same conclusion. Living the question should be our goal, not living the answer. Which is a rather difficult thing to grasp. I still don't fully understand it and I've been trying to do it for a few years now. And yet I really think it's the way each person should live. Allow me to explain.

Each of us has family and friends, people we love. I imagine that most people believe in the idea that we should try and love all mankind, each and every person. Perhaps with the rare exception, such as Adolf Hitler or Osama bin Laden, but for the most part, we should love everyone.

How do we do this, however? There are many answers out there. The most common one is probably the well-known Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." A great sentiment. One that is common in my church is service. If we want to love someone, we should serve them. Another great sentiment. And there are many more out there.

But I can't help think that maybe in answering the question we've missed the mark. As we interact with another person, whether it be through talking or actions, we should not be thinking, "I must treat this person as I want to be treated." Instead, in my opinion at least, we should be thinking, "How can I best love this person?" A question should guide our actions, not an answer. If I'm a parent and my kid disobeys me, rather than deciding that either justice or mercy is the correct answer, I should ask myself, "What is the best course of action with this child in this situation?"

If we want to be the best person we can be, we must realize that each context, each set of circumstances, is different. And I don't know about you, but for me living the question is the only way I have even the slightest chance of doing something resembling the right thing.

Hyper-religiosity and (Non)Conformity

So as you may or may not know, depending on how well you know me, I currently work at a substance abuse treatment program where I teach classes. Put simply, I give drug addicts tools and ideas to help them overcome their addictions.

Anyway, today in class we got on the topic of Utah culture and how it's dominated by Mormons and the problems associated with that. I explained my theory as to why Utah culture is kind of messed up: homogeneity leading to hyper-religiosity. I think any time you have too much homogeneity, it leads to extremism. But then I started wondering why that is, and I'm not sure I came to a complete explanation, but I think part of it at least has to do with conformity.

I was thinking about how different groups and classes of people like to separate themselves from others. The classic example are the self-described "nonconformists," those that wear things noticeably different from the norm because they want to be noticed as being different from the norm. As many have correctly said, however, these so-called "nonconformists" in fact just conform to a different set of guidelines/principles/ideologies and in fact aren't really nonconformists at all. But they highlight something I think we all do: focus on what makes us different, unique. And by that, I mean we focus on what makes us along with our group of friends different, because what makes us different and unique makes us important; it gives meaning to our lives.

Thus, in the case of Mormons and Utah, what makes us different is not drinking coffee, not cursing, and a host of other rules and commandments and traditions that are less important for salvation but more important for our own personal security and identity. And I think often--especially in areas where there is more homogeneity--these less important rules and traditions become more important than the truly important commandments and laws, even when we don't mean them to be. Nor do I think Mormons are unique in doing this. I think similar phenomena can be seen in polygamist colonies, among Evangelical Christians, and among Muslim extremists in the Middle East.

So I think the question is: What can be done about it? And I hate to break it to you, but I don't have an answer to that. We can try fighting against those ideas and social norms that we don't agree with, but that can lead to serious problems. A Mormon can't very well drastically reject the social norms, because that would lead to breaking commandments. Yet if said Mormon then completely acquiesces to the social norms, then s/he just contributes to the problem.

So I think the answer has to lie somewhere in the middle, but for one that's incredibly difficult, and for two I'm not convinced that it actually does any good. As someone who's been trying for 25 years trying to stay in that middle ground, I can say that I feel totally lost the vast majority of the time. I don't really have any group of friends that I hang out with, nor have I ever had one. I have a few good friends here and there, but staying in the middle means not really conforming to anyone one group's standards, which means not conforming enough to be a true part of that group. Thus, you end up in a void with lots of acquaintances but few real friends.

Also, I don't know that my being in the middle (or at least attempt at) has done any good whatsoever. All I know is that I can't bring myself to do otherwise; I'm already too far down this path. So here's to hoping.

Agency

So seeing as how agency was a big theme this past General Conference, I decided to give some of my thoughts on the subject, as it is something I've thought a lot about. In Conference and during various Sunday School lessons, agency has been defined. The definition that has almost always been given is the right or ability to choose. I, however, am not so sure that's the case. Well, I should clarify a bit. I think when we talk of agency today, that is the definition we use; but I don't think that's the correct definition of agency when it is used in scripture. Come with me on a little journey as I will attempt to explain what I see as the correct scriptural definition of agency.

To start off, we go to Moses 4:3, where we learn that Satan tried to "destroy the agency of man." We also know from a number of scriptures, including the very next verse, that Satan seeks to lead us captive--in other words, enslave us. So it seems logical to assume that there is something about agency that allows us to be free, to avoid captivity. I think most people are still with me, but here is where I think I divert from most people.

See, I think most people would say that it is agency itself that makes us free, that as agency and choice decrease, captivity increases. As far as I can tell, however, that is not what the scriptures say. For example, look at 2 Nephi 2:27, where is states that "men are free to choose captivity and death." Nowhere in that verse or in surrounding verses does it say that one must give up one's choice in order to be captive. In fact, it seems to say that choice is a necessary condition or prerequisite of being captive. I think this interpretation is supported when you consider the fact that men are also able to "choose liberty," as 2 Nephi 2:27 also states. If choice was what made men free, then why would they have to "choose liberty?"

Now let's take a look at an oft-quoted scripture in the New Testament: John 8:32, which states, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (emphasis added). This verse seems to say that it is not choice that makes us free, but rather the truth. So, if my analysis is correct, then agency must be inseparably connected with truth. Which means, as I see it, that the correct scriptural definition of agency is not "the ability or right to choose," but rather "living truthfully" or "living according to truth."

Now what does this mean? Well, I'm not sure I have it all worked out yet. I can tell you that I know of two definitions of truth in the scriptures: 1) In John 14:6, Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (emphasis added), meaning that one definition of truth is Christ; 2) In Doctrine and Covenants 93:24, we read, "And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come," meaning another definition of truth is knowledge about reality, about the way things really are. As far as I can tell, either "living according to Christ/living Christlike" and "living in and according to reality" can both work for the definition of agency. In fact, I think both are supposed to work as definitions of agency. I just haven't yet quite worked out what they both mean exactly or how to actually do/live either of them. Let me know if you do.

God's Omniscience

So the more I think about it, the less convinced I am that God is omniscient in the way we generally understand it. We generally think that omniscience means that God knows everything about everything, including the future. He knows exactly what will happen when, no matter how mundane.

I think that this definition of omniscience destroys agency. Allow me to explain. Let's say God knows that I am going to to have to choose between choices A, B, and C tomorrow. Moreover, He knows that I'm going to choose B. Now, many argue that His knowledge of my choice does not determine that choice, but I'm not so sure. I think a requirement of choice is possibility, and God knowing that my choice will be B eliminates A and C from being possibilities.


Think of it this way. Let's say you come to a three-way fork in a road. Paths X and Z, however, are covered or camouflaged such that you never knew they were there. Thus, you chose Path Y. Would you really say that you chose Path B, though? I know I wouldn't. For me it's not a choice unless I know all the options available. I can't choose Path Y unless I know that Paths X and Z are also viable options.


Now, obviously there is a difference between the two scenarios: my knowledge/understanding of the circumstances. In the first case, I know that A and C are also viable options. In the second scenario, I don't know that X and Z are. Which raises the $64,000 question: Do you need different viable options or do you just need knowledge or understanding of different viable options in order to have agency?


I think you need both. Obviously you need some sort of knowledge or understanding of the different options available to you, but I think that those options have to actually be available. However, if God knows--for certain--which option you are going to choose, then how can you call A and C actual options? You can't choose A, because it's already been determined that you will choose B, and you can't choose C for the same reason; God may not have determined it, but it has been determined. Because it can't be any other way. And because you can't have a choice determined and still have it be a choice, I'm not so convinced that God's omniscience includes knowledge of our future choices.

Hiatus

So I haven't posted anything for a rather long time, and lately I've been trying to figure out why. The best answer I can come up with is that I was trying to fully process all the stuff I was working out before. It's one thing to come to a new understanding or new way of thinking about life and how to live, but it's quite another to actually live that way; to live according to that new understanding. I think that's what I've been doing, so I wasn't really able to think about any new stuff. I think I've managed to process it enough now, though, because I've now started thinking about new questions that I'm going to be discussing here. So stay tuned. Or don't. Either way, I'm going to be posting stuff, so it doesn't make a huge difference to me.

The Self and Relationships

So in one of my psychology classes this past week we discussed the interplay between relationships and the self. The question arose of which comes first, which gives rise to which: the self or relationships. Society today generally talks about the self giving rise to relationships. He proposed the opposite to be true, however.

His main evidence for thinking this way are the many "feral" children that have been found over they years (the most famous being Victor, found in France in 1799). Whether they grew up isolated, confined, or raised by animals, they all have one thing in common: their mental capacity never passed/passes a toddler's. Not only that, but almost all language and social learning comes after they've been found (I say "almost" only because those found in confined situations sometimes know a couple words, such as the case of Genie). Moreover, as with happened with Sudam Pradhana, he grew up normally until the age of 13; he was then lost in the woods until the age of 24, by which time he had lost all social and language skills. (You can go to www.feralchildren.com to read about more cases.)

Whether he's right or not, it's a very interesting idea. If he's right--and the more I think about it the more I agree with him--then who we choose (and sometimes don't choose) to interact with very much defines who we are. Our relationships make us who we are, and we can't be ourselves (or even fully human) without them. Suddenly who we choose to associate with is a much bigger deal. If we are who we have relationships with, then we really must choose who we associate with very carefully. And we must work hard to have positive relationships, because whatever our relationships are like is what we are like.