My Favorite View of the Garden of Eden Narrative

I love the idea that the garden narrative is an allegorical telling of the pre-existent war in heaven between Jehovah and Lucifer. I know that is a very Mormon reading of it that probably is not consistent with the original purpose of its recording, but I don't mind, since I like the concept of likening all things unto ourselves.

The very short summary:

God's children had to choose between remaining in a state of never-ending stagnation, luxury, and ease (Eden) or leaving God's presence (as couples, not individually) by following Satan into a world of turmoil, strife, hard work, sin . . . and eternal progression.

In this view, the competing commandments were nothing more than the only options: commandments simply because they had to choose one or the other. They weren't commanded to to both; they were commanded to choose one or the other.

I also think it is fascinating and instructive that, in the garden narrative, they had to be tricked into choosing the right one (and that Adam only agreed in the end because he knew that staying with his wife was more important than staying alone with God) - that their "nature" (and prior experiences) leaned toward ease and unchallenging bliss. There is a deep lesson in that part of the narrative.

I love the Garden of Eden story - but only if I take it completely as an allegory / grand creation myth from which I can draw conceptual meaning. I don't believe at all that it is historically accurate.

Varying Valiance in the Pre-Mortal Life: An Abominable Remnant of Apostasy

I started thinking about it because the premise that this life is a continuation of the pre-mortal life and that the state we are born into is a result of our valiance and effort in the last life.

I believe in a pre-mortal existence, but I think the idea that the state into which we are born into mortality is a result of valiance and effort in that existence stems from a faulty foundation and is a mutation that stemmed from the earlier attempts to justify the Priesthood ban and on-going attempts to claim that we in the LDS Church are special. I see both of those justification motivations as the result of pride, even as I understand how deeply attractive they are to the natural (wo)man.

I believe more in the concept of, "There but for the grace of God go I," than in the idea of, "There but for my superior diligence and righteousness go I." 

Those are two very different premises, and they address belief in a pre-mortal existence and rewards for varying levels of righteousness. The first one (a continuation of life from a previous existence) in no way depends on the second one (some kind of valiance determinant), and the second one is only stated directly in our scriptures about "the noble and great ones" (in Abraham). It can be read as implied about others in places like Jeremiah 1, Alma 13 and D&C 138, but it is not an automatic and obvious implication unless that belief is held prior to reading those passages.

There is no indication whatsoever anywhere in our scriptures to support the idea that someone born into poverty or with a disability of some kind was less valiant in the pre-existence than someone born into wealth or full health - or, just as importantly, vice-versa. In fact, in the one case where disability is mentioned in the same passage as a pre-mortal life, Jesus said the blind man was born that way to manifest the power and glory of God. (and that passage is crystal clear in its portrayal of Jesus' followers believing in a pre-mortal existence and Jesus not contradicting that belief)

So, even if we take the scriptural accounts literally, which I generally don't do, the idea of varying degrees of valiance in a pre-mortal life affecting birth into mortality for the vast majority of people who have lived and now live just isn't there. I believe that we, as a people, needed a justification to deny black people access to the temple (not just a Priesthood ban), so our former leaders bought into the whole curse of Cain nonsense that was being preached in the Protestant congregations of their upbringings (since they all were converts originally) and used that to develop a uniquely Mormon version that expanded the apostate belief to include valiance in the pre-mortal life. We also wanted a reason to claim special status as individuals (as pretty much all religionists have done since the beginning of time), so we took the Protestant idea of pre-destination and the general idea of the noble and great ones being fore-ordained and morphed that into the idea that every person who is born or baptized into the LDS Church was fore-ordained because of pre-mortal valiance.

In short, I believe in a pre-mortal life, but I don't believe in varying degrees of valiance in that life that are exhibited in this life. I don't believe there were fence-sitters in the War in Heaven.  I think our temple theology annihilates the idea of varying valiance (or, at the very least, that, if it did exist, it matters in any way whatsoever after this life), and I also like Bruce R. McConkie's statement after the Priesthood ban was lifted that said we need to forget every justification that was uttered by anyone, no matter who they were, to explain the ban - that "we" spoke from "limited light and knowledge". For me, that includes the idea that pre-mortal valiance played / plays any part in the objectively quantifiable circumstances of our mortal birth.

How Many of God's Children Followed Lucifer?

We are told in scriptures that 1/3 of the host of heaven followed Lucifer in the pre-mortal war in heaven.  That generally is believed to be a literal 33%, but there is another view that resonates more with me.  

There is an interpretation of ancient numerology that believes 1/3 is more accurately translated as "a third part" and means "an unspecified minority" - and 2/3 means "an unspecified majority". Along those lines, "none" and "all" would be written as 0/3 and 3/3 (although they are never stated that way).

That changes the whole math of salvation dramatically - and in a way that is very important and foundational for my view of eternity. In that light, 1/3 can mean a few billion, but it also can mean a dozen or so and anything between - and I FAR prefer that ambiguity to the assumption of a literal 33%.

To Be Less Proud: The Danger of Over-Applying Fore-Ordination

I want to make and discuss one simple point this weekend, as I have been contemplating being less proud this month.  It relates directly to a long conversation I had once with a friend about pride.  It is this:

Pride has nothing fundamentally to do with one's strengths, weaknesses, material possessions, social status, or any other "objective", measurable criterion.  Pride is an attitude - an internal outlook.  The weak, poor, uneducated, lowly, incapable, etc. person can be just as proud as the strong, wealthy, educated, prominent, capable person.

 

Pride is not a recognition of one's strengths.  Rather, it is a valuing of one's self over the value placed on another - a view that I am better than someone else intrinsically.  ("vaunting" one's self above others)  It is not understanding that I am better "at" something than someone else; it is a belief that I, as a person, am better "than" someone else - that my strengths make me a more valuable person than someone who is not as strong as I am in those areas.  It is a focus on elevating myself over others - and it is every bit as prevalent in the religious as in the irreligious, unfortunately. 

My biggest concern in this regard is that members of the Church too often accept the natural tendency to adopt the philosophy of "the Prosperity Gospel" at the individual level and too often make value judgments based on financial success, career paths, callings in the Church, etc.  Most members I know don't do so consciously, but there is a current coursing through much of the Chosen People rhetoric that carries a constant temptation to succumb to the notion that God chose us for a reason - and that reason must be because of some inherent "betterness". 

Perhaps the most obvious example of this is the way that too many members assume that those who are born in the covenant or who convert at some point from another religion or denomination were foreordained in the pre-existence to do so - the extrapolation of passages in Alma and Abraham, for example, to all within the Church.  The flip side of this coin is the unstated assumption that those who are not born in the covenant or who do not convert are not foreordained to that - that they are not deserving of it for some reason.I don't know for sure about such things, but I am concerned about the subtle, pride-inducing justifications underlying such extrapolations. 

Those same justifications were used to explain the Priesthood ban before it was lifted, and Elder McConkie's admonition to "forget everything we have ever said about it" with regard to the judtifications for the ban has a place, I believe, for consideration when we view how close our statements about special valiancy in the pre-existence are to those justifications we have been told to forget with regard to race and the Priesthood.   

I'm NOT rejecting the concept of foreordination - not at all.  I do believe in it - to some degree and for some people.  However, it's a fine line between foreordination and predestination, and it's a fine line between foreordination and arrogance - but it's not a fine line between a theology that offers salvation and the opportunity of exaltation to all and one that posits special status for some based on pre-existent "betterness" that elevates them above others in an important way. 

That is pride, plain and simple, and it's something of which we need to be aware and which we need to fight in all its manifestations.