March 9-10 1945

This post should probably be written in a week from now instead of tonight at 2:30am, but I just finished watching Grave of the Fireflies and felt like giving some thoughts on this mostly unknown date in American history.

While most Americans probably could not name any specific events tied to August 6th and 9th of 1945, they most surely are aware of the atomic bombs dropped by the US Military on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on those dates. On the other hand, I am willing to bet that most Americans know nothing about (nor have even heard of) the firebombing of Tokyo by the US military on the night between March 9th and 10th that intentionally burned over 100,000 civilians to death in a single night - more than were killed by either atomic bombs in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Nor do most Americans know that this tactic against Japanese civilians was repeated on dozens of cities, such as Kobe which killed over 80,000 civilians in a single attack.

The photo above was taken shortly after the attack on Tokyo. Using a mixture of explosive and incendiary bombs, 16 square miles of the highly populated city were intentionally burned by attacking the outer edges and letting the fire burn form the outside in. Combined with strong winds, this tactic made in nearly impossible for many to escape. Unlike in an enclosed building where victims usually suffocate before being burned, those above died painfully by literally being burned to death. The heat created by the incendiary bombs was so hot that many who jumped into nearby rivers and ponds to avoid burning were killed instead by boiling water.

The picture above is of a mother and her child who died while trying to escape the heat. She was carrying the child on her back when the fire got to them, which left her back rather unscathed compared to the rest of her charred body.

This latter image is especially powerful for me as it could have easily been a picture of my mother's mother and sister (my Obaachan and Noriko-bachan). During the attack on Tokyo, my grandmother was literally running from the flames with my mother's oldest sister on her back. They were close enough to the flames that at one point my aunt's hair caught fire and needed to be smothered out. By grace and luck they managed to survive. My mother was born a few years later.

Brigadier General Bonner Fellers, and aide to General Douglas MacArthur, called it "one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non combatants in all history"; and Robert McNamara later said that if the US had lost the war, he and others who orchestrated the attacks would have been tried and found guilty of war crimes.

We don't discuss this with our students in our history classes though. Our high school textbooks about the Second World War at most have this tucked away in a footnote or in the margins. It's too dark. It's too ugly. It goes against this myth of the American way of war that we have built up for ourselves to justify our ambitions for empire. We are supposed to be the good guys who set the example, not just the same as everyone else. If the truth about our wars were known, we could never stand by them.

Liberation Theology and LDS Theology #2

"The universal church, always prompt to condemn Marxism, has been more tolerant of the evils of capitalism, even in its most damaging imperiest forms. . . . The church that lives in the wealthy countries does not denounce with sufficient vigor the exploitive conduct of these countries toward the rest of the world. It preaches mercy rather than justice, thus leaving aside one of the central themes of historical prophecy."

-Ignacio Ellacuria, "Utopia and Prophecy in Latin America."

Make whatever connection you will to the LDS Church and/or its members.

Liberation Theology and LDS Theology #1

I'm taking a course right now on Latin American liberation theology. As I'm reading key texts in liberation theology, I'm finding many connections between this and LDS theology and scripture. I'm just going to post thoughts on them occasionally as I see them.

"We must ask in all seriousness what the sin of the world is today, or in what forms the sin of the world appears today; . . . Here is wehre the theology of liberation, situated at the heart of the passive and active praxis of the poor, has spoken its word and has shaken the conscience of the church, and in some ways also the conscience of the world.
"If we look at the reality of the world as a whole from the perspective of faith, we see that the sin of the world is sharply exzpressed today in what must be called unjust poverty."

-Ignacio Ellacuria, "The Historicity of Christian Salvation."

"But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin."

-Doctrine and Covenants 49:20

Stephen Colbert and Glenn Beck: a contrast of genius and stupidity

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Truth From the Gut

Colbert Report Full Episodes
Funny Political News

Christian Bale Parody
Joke of the Day

My 1000th post!

This is post #1000 on project mayhem. And what better way to celebrate then with a crazy Chinese lady who missed her flight in the Hong Kong airport.

The Narrator is going into hiding

Angela and I set up a new blog to document our wedding plans and such. Because of this, I am going to be changing my name from 'the narrator' to 'Loyd' to avoid confusing others on the blog.

Anyways, you can check out the new blog here: http://angela-loyd.blogspot.com/

Yeah. It'll probably be a little cheesy.

Relocating the Eternal: D.Z. Phillips, Immortality, and Death

The following is a precis for a paper I hope to present in the upcoming conference for the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In his book, Death and Immortality, D.Z. Phillips argues that the common conception of immortality and eternal life in Christianity, as being the survival of the soul after death, is based on a confused understanding of life and death. He writes, “If one understands what is meant by 'survival' and what is meant by 'death,' then one is at a loss to know what it means to talk of surviving death.”¹ While Mormon teachings of material spirit, physical resurrection, and continuing relationships avoid the conceptual problems of immortality indicated by Phillips, much of what Phillips has to say about eternal life for the Christian believer can provide helpful insights for the concept of eternal life in Mormonism. Phillips' insights, in light of LDS scripture and the distinction usually made within Mormonism between immortality and eternal life, show that eternal life is not a type of life than can only be achieved in the 'post-mortal' life, but is one that can and ought to be experienced and achieved during our mortal existences. Our ability to experience the eternal in our present lives does not only provide further insight to our understanding of eternal life, but has similar implications for our understandings of other “eternal doctrines” such as eternal punishment and eternal families.

According to Phillips, the notion of an immaterial soul continuing to survive after death is nonsensical for three primary reasons. First, it does not make sense to speak of the continued existence of an immaterial soul or person. This is because our concepts of life and existence are tied to our material bodies. Furthermore, our concepts of existence (and especially continued existence) are tied to material things. While some may argue that there are non-material things that exist (such as God or Plato's forms), it would be bizarre and perhaps contradictory for someone to talk about those things as continuing to exist—as if their non-existence were even conceivable. Phillips' second argument against the continuation of life after death also hinges on the notion of an immortal immaterial spirit person. The insistence that we continue to live after death as persons is problematic because our grammar and concepts of what a person is depends on material bodies. “Persons are not mysterious entities that we never meet directly or have direct knowledge of. On the contrary, we do meet persons, come to know them to varying degrees, sometimes know them better than they know themselves, share or nor share their private experiences, and so on.”² If we have no continuing material existence, then to say that we continue to live as persons after death is nonsensical as our very notions of being persons is tied up with our material bodies. Finally, according to Phillips, our notions of being persons are also tied up with our conceptions of being persons in relationships. We are not persons in isolation, but who we are only have sense in relationship to others. “The question arises, then, of how one can know one's father after death without being his son, how one can know one's lover without still being a lover oneself, or how one can be a friend without the bonds of friendship. Yet no one suggests that the features of this life which can make these relationships . . . are perpetuated beyond this life.”³ If who we are as persons is dependent upon our relationships, to say we continue to exist in this life as the same persons is senseless if those types of relationships (and the physical and societal means for them) are not also present after life.

The Mormon teachings of physical material spirits, physical bodily resurrection, and the continuation of societal and personal relationships into the next life⁴ provides a context for speaking of the immortality of persons without the problems that Phillips sees in traditional Christian theology. With the belief that persons are (at least partly) composed of material spirit bodies provides a context for which it makes sense to speak of being persons after death—and continuing to exist as persons after death.⁵

While Mormonism may provide adequate responses to Phillip's criticism of immortality, his conceptions of what eternal life is (and should be) for the Christian believer is insightful for Mormon thought. Because the belief in the continued and immortal existence of the person is confused, Phillips argues that eternal life for Christians is not a state of existence in a future post-mortal life, but is a type of life that Christians can and should strive to attain in our present lives. “Eternity is not more life, but this life seen under certain moral and religious modes of thought.”⁶ For Phillips, “eternal life for the believer is participation in the life of God.”⁷

An oft-appealed to scripture in Mormonism is in the LDS Book of Moses where God tells Moses, “For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39). In discussing this and similar scriptures, a distinction is usually made between immortality and eternal life, where it is pointed out that immortality refers to the never-to-die-again state that all humans will receive after the resurrection, and that eternal life is a state of immortality-plus for those who keep God's commandments. Eternal life is usually understood as the ultimate goal which is achieved following the resurrection where we both live immortally and live the type of divine life that God does now. Immortality is usually described as the default state anybody achieves regardless of their faith or righteousness, while eternal life is the privileged state reserved for those with faith who live righteously.

This view of eternal life, however, should be problematic for Mormons for a few reasons. If our definition of eternal life includes immortality, then it would be either nonsensical or redundant to speak of God's goal for his children to be both immortality and eternal life. That would be like telling somebody that they are both a good parent and a good mother. Furthermore, it would be bizarre (if not blasphemous) to claim that God's goal, or his work and glory, is to bring immortality to some and eternal life to others. If God loved all of his children equally, it would seem odd to think that eternal life was not a goal that God would want for all of his children.

Furthermore, equating eternal life with an (temporally) endless divine life seems to go against LDS scriptures where the concept of eternal is used to describe the qualities of a thing and not to describe its duration. For example in the Doctrine and Covenants, God (in discussing punishment) says “Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment. Again, it is written eternal damnation; . . . For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—Eternal punishment is God’s punishment. Endless punishment is God’s punishment” (D&C 19:6-12). Here, God states that the eternal in eternal punishment—and even the endless in endless punishment—is not used to mean “there shall be no end,” but is rather used to denote the type and quality of the punishment. As names for God, eternal and endless indicate the types of punishment, they are God's punishment. It is for this same reason that D.Z. Phillips says that “eternal life for the believer is participation in the life of God.”⁸

One way to get around this is to do what many Mormons have done by making immortality and eternal life two distinct categories for our potential post-mortal lives.⁹ Here, the former describes the temporal quantity of that life while the latter describes the quality of that life. The end goal then is to possess both immortality and eternal life. Though not describing the duration of this new life, eternal life is still understood as something that is not attained until the next stage of life.

This exclusion of experiencing the eternal to our post-mortal lives also seems to go against LDS scriptures which depict the ability to experience the eternal in the present moment. For example Alma the Younger says that for three days and nights he “was racked with eternal torment” (Alma 36:12). This scripture shows that the eternal (in this case eternal torment) could be experienced both in mortality and in a finite amount of time.

Like Phillips, Nephi taught that “to believe in [Jesus], and to endure to the end, . . . is life eternal” (2 Nephi 33:4). Nephi here does not say simply that faith and enduring eventually result in eternal life, but rather that faith in Christ and the act of enduring is eternal life. Like the eternal punishment experienced by Alma's unrighteousness, eternal life can be experienced in the present and is not just a result of righteous living, but is righteous living. This equation of righteous living with eternal life by Nephi correlates with his Father's (and brother Jacob's) teachings that we are free to choose between eternal death and eternal life. If immortality is necessary for all humans, then like eternal life, eternal death cannot refer to an endless duration of death, but would rather refer to a type of death, or an unrighteous type of life. According to Phillips, if eternal life is identifying one's life with that of Gods, then eternal death would be a distancing of one's life with that of Gods. “For a person to die unaware of his distance from God would not, for the believer, be a matter of that person escaping anything, but of his dying in the worst possible situation.”¹⁰

For Phillips, the understanding of eternal life as not a state of a next life, but rather as a state of one's current life was not a mere issue of philosophical or theological speculation, but was of special ethical importance for the Christian believer. It is here to that understanding the eternal in temporal terms can have significant ethical importance for Latter-day Saints. Phillips argued that this view of eternal life focused our religious/ethical to the present conditions of ourselves and others. Rather than succumbing to the temptation and criticism of Camus to ignore the present conditions in hope for better condition in the next life, we must focus on achieving and helping others achieve eternal life today. For living like God (loving, caring, sharing, liberating, etc.) are not activities that will lead eventually to eternal life, but are acts of eternal life.

This concept of eternal is not exclusive to eternal life. As already seen, it's opposite, eternal death or eternal punishment, are also not types of life that can only be experienced in the next life, but can be and is a condition that we suffer from today. Anybody whose actions are in defiance of God's love are in a state of eternal death and punishment. To be or feel locked in the chains of addictions, sins, poverty, and other obstructions that keep us from loving like God or feelings God's love are states of eternal punishment that we must seek to end. All to often, in seeking to save someone from eternal punishment in a post-mortal sense, we ignore the suffering and hell they are currently in.

This concept of eternal can and should be carried into other 'eternals' in Mormonism, such as eternal families, eternal covenants, etc. In each of these, rethinking the eternal as a type that is lived today, rather than one which is just experienced tomorrow, can bring us a greater understanding of those things.

Many may object that our focus must be placed on the next life and not this as, coupled with immortality, how these eternals are experienced in the next life have and endless duration and ultimately have a greater importance when one looks at 'the greater picture.' However, as Alma the Younger taught to his son Corianton, whatever type of life we live today will be restored to us in our next stage of life (Alma 41). If this is the case, if we focus on our current state, then what happens in the next life will simply follow from this. If we have eternal life now, we will have eternal life again. If we have eternal punishment, it will continue. If we live in eternal families and relationships today, then those relationships will also remain the same.

1D.Z. Phillips, Death and Immortality (London: Macmillan and Co, 1970), 15.

2Ibid., 5.

3Ibid., 17.

4To speak of the next life in Mormonism is not to speak of another different life, but rather refers to the next stage of the same life.

5However, as Phillips noted, much of our understanding of being persons depends on our physical flesh and blood bodies which we identify others with. Whether, and to what extent, our spirit bodies are sufficient to be understood (and recognized) as the same persons in the 'spirit world' between our deaths and bodily resurrection requires further discussion.

6Ibid., 49. Emphasis added.

7Ibid., 54-5.

8Ibid.

9See for example, Joseph B. Wirthlin, “Timely Topics: What Is the Difference between Immortality and Eternal Life?” Ensign (November 2006). “Eternal life, however, is something altogether different. Immortality is about quantity. Eternal life is about quality. To use a metaphor, immortality is how long the dinner lasts. Eternal life is what is on the menu and who is with us at the table.”

10Phillips, 60.

"I need to tell some people I am sorry"

The following are some great articles and a video about the grace that come into a person's life, not just to change him, but to change all those around him.

'I need to tell some people I am sorry'

Hate. Remorse. Forgiveness

People can change

Rock Hill man apologizes on TV for 1961 attack on congressman

Children high on drugs are the new awesome

Testimony of the First Vision? Why should I? and Why I Don't Have One.

Both my gospel doctrine and Elders quorum classes today spent the bulk of the time discussing the 1838 account of Joseph's vision found in the Pearl of Great Price, and in both classes the importance of 'having a testimony of the First Vision' was especially stressed. While I do believe that Joseph Smith was visited by God and Christ in 1820, I neither find my testimony of that event having any eternal, salvific, nor existential importance, nor do I consider my own beliefs about the event to necessarily constitute a testimony of the account as recorded in Joseph's 1838 account.

As James Allen has shown, the first account of the First Vision was not written until a very short version penned by Joseph Smith in 1832. Up until that point, no Latter-day Saint mentions nor seems to be aware of the vision. Knowledge about the vision did not become well known until the late 1830s and was mentioned in any official LDS publications until the early 1840s. The vision was not a part of LDS scripture until 1880 and was not utilized in an a sermon by LDS leaders until 1883. It wasn't until midway into the 20th century that the vision began to hold the 'foundational' status as it does in the Church today.

There seems to be at least two problems with the rhetoric today from LDS leaders concerning the importance of having a testimony of the First Vision as a foundation event for Latter-day Saints. As just noted, the Vision did not seem to have the level of importance in the early days of the Church as it does today. For most Mormons of the early 19th century, the foundational event of the restoration was not the virtually unknown vision of God and Jesus that Joseph had in 1820, but was rather the highly publicized visitation of Moroni in 1823. This was, for the early saints, the first and significant event that heralded Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, and it continued to be until the First Vision came into prominence in the early 20th century.

Second, even if the account was well known in the early days of the Church, I don't understand why it should stand above and of more importance than other revelatory experiences of Joseph. The event itself had no major significance among New England Christians in the early 19th century. Far from the uniqueness of the event claimed by many Latter-day Saints, the reporting of a vision of God and/or Christ was rather common among revivalist Christians.  If Joseph was ridiculed for speaking of his vision, it was not because it was unheard of, but perhaps because it was common, and thus easily dismissed by others at the end of the Enlightenment (it would be akin to reporting a UFO sighting today). Furthermore, the Vision itself did not necessarily teach any new doctrines or truths. While still seeing two distince personages, Joseph did not seem to leave the vision with anything but a traditional concept of God and the Trinity. Evidence points to Joseph still believing that God the Father did not have a physical body and was still of unique oneness with the Son. It was not until later revelations that Joseph began to see the Godhead in ways more akin to how we conceive them today. As there was nothing of special foundational importance in the Vision itself, any other revelation or event could care just as much, or even more, importance than the First Vision. As far as the restoration of the Church goes, in Joseph's own accounts, it was the visitation of Moroni that marked the beginning of the restoration. As far as doctrinal or salvific matters go, the more publicized visions and revelations of Joseph Smith seem to be far more crucial to Latter-day Saints - such as the visitation of Jesus in the Kirtland Temple.

Also, in Joseph Smith's own accounts, the Vision is rarely understood as a foundational event for the Church as a whole, but rather as a very personal experience for the young Joseph, and perhaps only foundational for his own spiritual growth. His first accounts of the vision either barely mention (or omit altogether) anything about seeking to know which Church to join. Rather, Joseph focuses on his deep personal desire to receive salvation, and the assurance from Christ that his sins had been forgiven. It wasn't until his 1838 account that Joseph began to portray the vision of having any significance for others outside of his own personal salvation. If this event were foundation for anyone, it would not be for me, but for Joseph only.

Do I have a testimony of the First Vision as recorded in 1838 (found in the Pearl of Great Price)? Maybe, but I can't say for sure. There are two reasons why I am a bit skeptical of taking Joseph's 1838 account wholeheartedly as it is recorded. The first is the simple fact that remembered events change and evolve over time. Joseph experienced this vision when he was 15 and this account was written 18 years latter when was was 33. It would be very difficult for anybody to recount an experience they have had with any level of high clarity after this amount of time - even for an event such as this. As with any memory, redaction, revision, and addition are common and generally the rule. This is especially evident when comparing the 1838 account to other earlier (and later) accounts.

Another reason to possibly question the specifics of the 1838 account is the contect of the account itself. Joseph begins the account saying that it is being written in response "to the many reports which have been put in circulation by evil-disposed and designing persons." Rather than being targeted at non-Mormons, it is very likely that Joseph was responding to dissenters from within the Church. Joseph wrote this account in the midst of the Kirtland Apostasy where nearly 1/2 of the Church was beginning to Joseph with David Whitmer and others leading the charge that Joseph was a fallen prophet who had exceeded that which they believe God had commanded him to do. According to Whitmer and others, Joseph's duty was to translate the Book of Mormon and establish the Church, and nothing else. That, they believed, was his prophetic role. His actions subsequent to that were not divinely charged and were acts of a fallen prophet. Joseph needed to reassurt and solidify his prophetic authority. In doing so, he presented his account beginning with the First Vision, and not the visitation of Moroni as he had done earlier. Furthermore, this account utilized and retold the vision in a manner that set aside the very personal salvific import that it had for him previously, and instead told the experience in a manner that would strengthen his prophetic role. Whether this was done consciously or sub-consciously would be a matter of speculation.

Do I have a testimony of the First Vision? I don't know - because I'm not really sure what happened in the grove that day, nor do I really care. From all of the accounts (and Joseph's use of them), what happened in the grove was a special and unique experience for Joseph and Joseph only. It was what perhaps gave him the strength he would need to carry on when his struggles became unbearable. It was only under pressure that he used this private experience for anything but himself.

Rather than caring about a testimont of the First Vision, we should hope to have a testimony of our own visions and experiences - something powerful and private for ourselves that can help us when we need something to turn to and depend on.

Doubt

I just finished watching the screen adaption of Doubt with Philip Seymour Hoffman and Meryl Streep. I'm too tired not to say much about it, other than I absolutely loved it and was left wow'd by both the performances and the story.