The Philosophies of Men, Mingled with Scripture: We All Do It to Some Degree

"The philosophies of men, mingled with scripture" is a phrase that has different meaning depending on the context of its use, and I believe it is important to realize what it means for different people and how pervasive it is throughout religious history.  

When I think of that phrase in the context of how it is used in the temple, it is important to remember that it is used to describe people trying to gain a following - and that it originally was focused specifically on "preachers".  In its purest form, the primary focus is teaching the philosophies of men - meaning, to me, that someone is teaching what they see as man's ideas void of any reference to God. In other words, at its base it's a structure that denies God. That fits its use by Lucifer as something he taught and of which he approved.  That, however, would not appeal to religious people, so the secondary focus is scripture - and I see "mingling" as "adding just enough to get people to buy into the philosophies of men". At its most manipulative, it is using just enough religion intentionally to make religiously oriented people think they are focusing on God when they actually aren't.

In other words, the combination of the two, worded in that way in the temple context, means that someone is crafting something intentionally that contains just enough "God-speak" to deceive people who otherwise would not believe them - and it focuses on what is taught (the philosophies of men), not what is left out (a comprehensive scriptural foundation) in an attempt to convince the religious.  Again, it is just enough religious justification to make it sound religiously valid.  That is critical, in my opinion, when trying to understand some people who are trying to convince religious people to follow them.  

There are lots and lots of people who fit that description - both in religion and outside of it. It's rampant in politics, for example, where religious terminology is used to appeal to religious people.  There are problems with the other extreme (teaching scripture exclusively, believing it is the inerrant word of God and not realizing it also represents, in some cases, the philosophies of the men who wrote or compiled it - or, in some cases, was understood originally to be figurative, allegorical, mythological, etc.) or teaching exclusively the scriptures and condemning entirely the non-canonical philosophies of men (with advances in scientific understanding being the best example), but, for those who are "preachers of religion", focusing on human, non-God-centered wisdom first and supplementing only as much as necessary with God-focused,"faithful" teachings is one of the purest forms of heresy.

People can argue constantly about the exact nature of specific teachings, but I believe it is the orientation and focus that is the point of the temple phrasing. 

Finally, I think that phrase is used as a hammer in many situations where a hammer isn't necessary or appropriate at all - generally to mean: 

"That's not how I interpret that scriptural passage, so you must be relying on the philosophies of men." 

Having said that, I also believe the tendency to teach the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture, is natural to all who are religious - and I think the Priesthood ban is probably the best example in Mormon history of using scripture to justify the philosophies of men.  Members of the LDS Church absolutely aren't immune to the principle involved, since all of us tend to see what we believe in the scriptures. Just as "nearly all" who have a little authority, as they suppose, tend toward unrighteous dominion, nearly all tend toward mingling scripture with human philosophies (using scriptures to explain our natural beliefs). That is very much part of our natural selves, and I believe it's important to understand that tendency.

"The Middle Way" vs. "My Way"

I believe strongly in the concept of "a way" - and it is encapsulated beautifully for me in Jesus' statement that He was the way, the truth and the light.  Thus, I have no problem with people talking about "the way" when it comes to religion.  However, I also believe strongly, based on decades of personal experience talking with thousands of people and on my own faith journey over the course of my life, that all of us see many things in slightly or even radically different way - that there are numerous "faith orientations", if you will.  Since I believe in the principle that allows every person alive to worship God according to the dictates of her own conscience, I believe that there are many unique "ways" to worship God legitimately - ways that are acceptable to Him, because they are sincere and the best each person can do.

There is a movement of sorts among some members that has been happening online for quite some time to self-identify as "middle way Mormons".  Having said what I did in the paragraph above, I don't believe in "the middle way" as it is used by this group of people. I believe in individual ways - each person finding what works for himself or herself. I actually dislike the term "the middle way" used in this context - simply because it implies there is one way ("THE middle way") that works or ought to work for those for whom a more traditional, orthodox way doesn't work.

I've known enough members over the course of my life to believe strongly that there is no collective, all-encompassing way that works or ought to work for every member of the Church. For example, there is absolutely no way whatsoever to believe and follow everything that has been taught (or is taught currently) within Mormonism and the LDS Church. It's impossible, and anyone who disagrees hasn't studied what church leaders have said over the years in detail. Even the apostles and prophets and Presidents haven't agreed on many things over the years - so even they have had to construct their own understanding, their own "way", in a very real sense.

On the other hand, I really love the Confucian use of "the middle way", even if, in the context of our own time and within the context of our own church, "the middle way" has come to mean something very different than Confucius' meaning. Confucius focused on an individual path, as I described above - what I choose to term "finding my way"; "the middle way" as used collectively now is becoming more and more a group path that is radically different than what Confucius taught.

To make my point a little differently:

Most members I know, even most members who would be classified as traditionally orthodox, actually do strive for balance in their lives. Of course, there are members who are extremists (on each side of any question), but they are nowhere near the majority, in my experience. Even within the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, that is true. For example, President Packer is a lightning rod due to his stance on moral issues, especially homosexuality, but he also has made many statements over the years that sound like they are straight from Confucius' middle way philosophy. I mean that seriously. I think most members who struggle with his stances on moral issues would be shocked at how dominant his "balance" statements are numerically. The message of balance is taught repeatedly - but the messages that jar the most for some people shock their systems so much that they dominate their memories and distort the other messages that aren't extremist.

"There must needs be opposition in all things." 

Therefore, by definition, every way is "a" middle way - a way between opposites.

When we talk in extreme terms, migrating to an extreme (any extreme), we lose sight, recognition and understanding of the other extreme which must needs be. We become incomplete due simply to being pulled to an extreme. We move from a balanced "way in the middle" from which we can see, evaluate and internalize things from all directions and incorporate anything that rings true for us to a more restricted, unbalanced way from which many things vanish from sight.

Ironically, things look clearer as we become unbalanced, but it's because we are able to see and contemplate LESS than we could in the middle.

I talk of "the muddle in the middle" for two reasons:

1) There is more through which to sift, making the glass through which we see mistier / darker / less clear;

2) Slowing down in order to muddle through everything keeps us from jumping to conclusions about the meaning of what we see - which, ironically, in the end, makes our ultimate decisions more fully ours. True growth and progress, in my opinion and experience, occur from the need to sort through much and make informed decisions - not from seeing only one option and pursuing it unwaveringly.

That, by the way, is a decent, alternate definition of faith.

A Plea for Proper Projects

My oldest daughter explained yesterday why she hasn't posted on her new blog recently. (bringingvirtueback.blogspot.com) As a former school teacher, I understood the reasoning behind the project, but as a parent and discerning oxygen consumer, I was annoyed.

In English, they are studying the transcendentalists and romanticists - those who longed for a simpler time, before the roiling rush of modern civilization ruined the pristine paradise of nature. In order to understand this ideology, the teacher assigned a project wherein the students would experience life without some of the modern technologies that intrude on a "natural" existence.

At first blush, this might sound reasonable - or even like a very good, well-conceived idea, but I personally think it is a waste of time and, actually, misguided. At the most basic level, I think most forms of transcendentalism / romanticism are warped constructs of paradise created by those wealthy enough to sit around doing nothing but spend precious time concocting elaborate justifications for their laziness. At a deeper level, however, I am troubled by two things: first, the inherent pessimism of an outlook that says, "My life would be better if only it were different," and second, the idea that there is something intrinsically bad about any technology that moves us away from our "natural state" - that turns us into something other than the "noble savage" of Burroughs and Cooper and other writers.

To be blunt, noble savagery is crap. People in those situations died early of things that hardly bother us now. Their lives usually were filled from sunrise to sunset with tasks designed simply to keep them alive. They often had little or no leisure time, so they never had time to think and ponder on the things of their soul - and, I contend, the ability to ponder spiritual things is the foundation of the ability to recognize and deepen spirituality. The vast majority of them never dreamed of spending time perusing blogs written by friends and family - keeping in touch with each other across unfathomable distances. Anyone who romanticizes a technology-free life has never lived such a life - or, conversely, has never known anything different. Nobody with half a brain would choose to go through surgery with a doctor who used a steak knife and a hammer (although those who would might end up with half a brain); there is a reason some new technologies are used while others die an ignominious death. Some make our lives more productive and provide joy; others don't.

Which brings me to my original rant. My daughter was asked to live for one week without using a cell phone or a computer (except for homework, which is the most ironic disclaimer I think I've heard in my entire life), watching TV, listening to the radio or an ipod, playing video games, using a microwave - in all, ten prohibitions in the project. In the end, I am left to say, "So what? What's the point?" They will not have gained an ounce of appreciation for life without such technologies; in fact, they will complete this project thinking even more adamantly that those they are studying were stupid and foolish. They are surrounded by thousands of people who are not bound by these restrictions, so they will not come close to experiencing what those they are studying extolled. Finally, they will have not gained any insight into the core principle being espoused - namely, that simplification can bring a peace that frenetic activity cannot. Technology is not the villain; a disconnect from nature is - and there is a HUGE difference between those two.

Ironically, it often is technology that provides the opportunity to simplify, reduce stress and enable increased peace. Some people decry the use of technology in schools without realizing that books and pencils and erasers and chalkboards all are technology that make learning easier and less restricted to the upper socio-economic classes. They decry the fracturing of family and the collapse of communication without recognizing that those who communicate the most broadly and the most often with the most people do so through the use of telephones (in all their varieties), e-mail, instant messaging, blackberries, etc. - all of which are nothing more than modern versions of the ancient couriers and written communication like mail. They decry the use of microwaves and instant foods without understanding that such inventions allow the elderly and more feeble to care for themselves in ways that were impossible just a few generations ago.

As with most things, I am left to decry those who advocate any extreme. I want my daughter to learn how to USE technology properly - how to integrate it into her life without letting it take control of her life - how to exploit its potential for good while avoiding its influence for evil. I want her to learn to strive for balance and moderation in all things, not to consider all things only in their extreme iterations. I want her to appreciate the wonder of nature, but I also want her to grow beyond her natural self. Most of all, as a teacher and educator at heart, I don't want her to waste precious time doing things that will not help her understand and achieve this balance and moderation - that rather, will drive her away from the lessons attainable in a more carefully and thoughtfully constructed experiment. I want it done correctly or not at all. In cases like this, partial exposure is worse than no exposure - and there is a lesson in there somewhere for any other area of our lives.