The Beauty Of Owning Our Own Post-Certain Religious Life

Brent Beal shared some profound insights about those of us who no longer claim to "know" truth with certainty and yet have rebuilt a life of faith. That transition from certainty to uncertainty is often accompanied from a transition of perceived orthodoxy to heterodoxy as one places higher priority on individual autonomy over simply following directions:

Many of us that have taken the heterodox fork in the road soon realize that we don’t really know anything. Our religious experiences aren’t any more valid or profound or “real” than anyone else’s. Our answers to life’s big questions are just that—they are “our” answers and however wondrous those answers may be to us (and however useful), the fact that we have answered life’s big questions in a certain way doesn’t mean that everyone else’s answers are inferior.  

We are not committed to secularism (or liberalism, or feminism, or progressivism) in the same way that orthodox Mormons are committed to “exact” obedience. We just realize that there is a lot we don’t know. If God speaks to humanity through spiritual experiences, then why does he communicate such radically different information to individuals based on their religious context? We don’t know. That’s it, really. We don’t know.  

Many of us have gotten to the point of “I don’t know,” stared into the abyss, searched our souls for some reflection of deity, and then seen the same thing: We’ve seen each other. We’ve come away from the experience with the profound realization that we–as in all of humanity—are in this together. We are truly one. Until further notice, therefore, it seems obvious that the one thing we can do—the low-hanging fruit, so to speak—is to be nice to each other. We should treat each other fairly, and with dignity and respect.  

Another common line of reasoning among those of us who don’t know much is this. If God created us with individual agency and the capacity for reason, then it makes sense that God expects us to use those capabilities...If forced into this false dichotomy [between “individual autonomy” and a “path of obedience to laws”], I suspect that what we do with our individual autonomy will matter more to God than how well we follow directions. For me it comes down to whether or not I believe God wants us to paint by the numbers or to paint our own pictures? As parents, what do we value more from our four-year-olds? A paint-by-the-numbers portrait identical to what’s on the box, or a free-spirited “Look, Mom, this is you and Dad in a rocket ship with a cow!” masterpiece? 

The path of “I don’t know” is difficult. Taking responsibility for one’s own spiritual life is difficult. Being nice to people is difficult. It’s not easy—not nearly as easy as the “exact obedience” path can be at times. But there’s a reason why most adults have abandoned paint-by-the-numbers projects.

History and an Open Future--According to Plan?

On the Fourth of July I decided to re-read David McCullough's masterful speech entitled "The Glorious Cause of America". The full speech is worth a read, but something in his opening thoughts (which I appreciate) made me ponder. He opens by stating:

"One of the hardest, and I think the most important, realities of history to convey to students or readers of books or viewers of television documentaries is that nothing ever had to happen the way it happened. Any great past event could have gone off in any number of different directions for any number of different reasons. We should understand that history was never on a track. It was never preordained that it would turn out as it did.

Very often we are taught history as if it were predetermined, and if that way of teaching begins early enough and is sustained through our education, we begin to think that it had to have happened as it did. We think that there had to have been a Revolutionary War, that there had to have been a Declaration of Independence, that there had to have been a Constitution, but never was that so. In history, chance plays a part again and again. Character counts over and over. Personality is often the determining factor in why things turn out the way they do."

My question arises by juxtaposing this idea (that history isn't preordained, that it didn't HAVE to happen the way it did, that there didn't HAVE to be a Constitution, etc.) with the LDS belief that God perhaps foreordained or at least "raised up" the founders to do what they did, that Nephi saw some of this continents' history in vision, and that the American Revolution was a prerequisite in order to prepare the way for the Restoration (as though it were on a track, which McCullough explicitly rejects because history involves chance).

How should a Latter-day Saint reconcile these seemingly contradictory ideas? Naturally, there is an important nuance between "foreordination" and "predestination", but how much of the "plan" has stayed on plan or has gone off plan? (Parenthetically, was "Plan B" concerning the 116 lost pages of the Book of Mormon because God knew what was going to happen or because He knew what was possible?)

Moving beyond history, it's an intriguing question to think about whether the future is truly open or already "fixed"--especially when prophecy is thrown in to complicate the picture. Sometimes Latter-day Saints start sounding like Calvinists (or maybe just fans of "The Adjustment Bureau"?) when they speak of God knowing the future as though it were predetermined, rather than allowing for real agency (not just the illusion of agency) and an open future.

Calling All Calvinists...(or one or two)

While participating in a recent discussion on the foreknowledge of God and free will, I wondered how a Calvinist, who believes that everything in the future is already predestined and fixed, makes sense of the idea of real “free will”.

Sincere question: Are there any Calvinists out there that could fill me in on this from the Calvinist perspective?