| "In the Beginning..." Excerpt from Let Us Reason Together: Mormonism, Morality, and Common Sense by R. Frederick Lauer |
| Most people are torn between two conflicting
views of existence. The majority of the time, they live their lives according to one view, making decisions concerning their education, their jobs, how they will spend their time and money--even who they will choose as their friends and mates based upon it. For the moment, we'll call this view the "Week Day View of Existence." But in times of personal crisis and tragedy, or when making some momentous moral decision, these same people will usually discard their "Week Day View of Existence" and adopt (temporarily) a "Sunday Morning View of Existence"--so-called because it is the view traditionally taught in most Sunday Schools and church sermons. Of course, when trying to decide what is right and what is wrong, a person's ideas regarding the nature of the world in which he lives are extremely important. To be torn between two conflicting views of existence does nothing to bring moral clarity to any situation; and as we'll see "The Weekday View" and "The Sunday Morning View of Existence" contradict one another on nearly every point. Unless a person is content to go through life feeling morally conflicted, there comes a point when he has to commit to one view or the other. Let's examine both of these views and consider the moral implications of each. It may come as a surprise as to which of the two is the most morally sound. THE WEEKDAY VIEW OF REALITY : LIVING IN A MATERIAL WORLD Imagine that a young child comes running up to you, bouncing with excitement after watching Peter Pan for the very first time. She's convinced that if she thinks happy thoughts and really believes in fairies, she, too, will be able to fly. She wants you to come watch as she jumps from the second story window and takes to the sky. Of course, any adult in his right mind will quickly explain that Peter Pan is a fairy-tale and that real people can't fly just by thinking happy thoughts and believing in fairies. A rational person knows that, contrary to the world of make-believe, the real world in which we live has a particular nature and is governed by certain laws--in this case, the law of gravity being chief among them. Believe all you want, think all the happy thoughts you can dream up, but throw yourself out a second story window and you'll end up broken and bruised on the ground below, not soaring above the clouds like Tinker Bell. Suppose I believe that by running head-first towards a brick wall at just the right speed and in a particular frame of mind and emotional state, that the wall, just before the moment of contact, will miraculously part and allow me to pass through without a scratch. I have convinced myself that this is true; I have no doubts about it whatsoever. I position myself in front of a brick wall and begin getting into the proper frame of mind and emotional state. Hopefully there will be some rational people nearby who will try to talk me out of this little experiment. These good folk understand that bricks are very real and have a particular nature. When cemented together to form a wall, bricks don't suddenly change their nature and take on the attributes of intelligent beings. The bricks will not respond to my frame of mind or emotional state because by their nature bricks cannot. Also, given the makeup of the human body and the makeup of a brick wall, when the two meet at great speed, it will probably be the body that gives way to the force of the impact. Hopefully the rational by-standers will explain to me that regardless of the sincerity of my beliefs, if I run headfirst into the wall, the result will be not a miracle but a concussion. These good folk--as well as the adult who tries to keep the enthusiastic child from becoming air-born--are acting based on "The Week Day View of Existence." According to this view, physical existence (meaning the universe as a whole) is an objective reality; it is constant. The purpose of the mind is to comprehend this objective reality. Every waking moment of our lives, our physical senses flood our minds with information regarding the world around us. What are we to make of it all? Should we trust what our eyes see and our ears hear? When we reach out and lay our hands on something, should we accept the information sent to our brains by our sense of touch? To any rational person, the answer seems obvious: Of course we should. After all, our physical senses exist for the sole purpose of supplying our minds with information regarding our surroundings. Drawing on this information, we use our reasoning skills to develop ideas, concepts and theories in order to determine what we should do in a given situation. When we act upon ideas that are consistent with the nature of physical reality, we can avoid danger, overcome obstacles and prosper. Those who act upon ideas that fly in the face of physical reality, put their well-being and ultimately their lives at risk. Actions that tend to protect and enhance human life are generally regarded as good and moral; those that endanger human life or lead to misery are generally regarded as bad and immoral. Thus "The Week Day View of Reality" is based on the idea that physical existence is an objective reality; that it is a constant, and that each us must conform to the laws of nature that govern existence. In doing this, we not only survive but, with greater understanding, can use nature for our benefit and happiness. As Frances Bacon wrote, "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." "EXISTENCE EXISTS": THE PRIMACY OF EXISTENCE Philosophers have their own term for this "Weekday View of Existence." They refer to it as the primacy of existence. Philosopher Ayn Rand explained this concept thusly: The primacy of existence (reality) is the axiom that existence exists...that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity....consciousness [the mind] is the faculty of perceiving that which exists...man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. Consider the earlier examples given. It is not the child's belief in the claims of a fairy tale that determines whether she flies or falls; that is determined by a natural law-- the law of gravity. It is not my thoughts, beliefs or feelings that determine whether a brick wall will make way for my on-coming head; that is determined by the nature of a brick wall. All human achievements--from the recording of history to advancements in science, art and architecture--came about because those responsible for them acted on the primacy of existence. Historians don't invent facts; they record them and try to endow them with meaning. Scientists don't create the laws governing physics, chemistry and biology; they accept as a fact that the world has a particular nature regardless of what people might believe. By studying that nature, they try to understand the principles upon which it operates. Artists observe the world around them, studying natural laws regarding color, shape, weight, shadow and light; based on their understanding of these principles, they attempt to convey their own ideas and feelings through artificial creations that may mimic the natural world. All of these achievements are the result of accepting the fact that physical existence is primary and that it is governed by unchanging laws or principles. The condition of certain things that exist may change. For instance, the little girl who wished to fly will become an adult, grow old, die, and her body , when it decomposes, will become part of its environment. The brick wall in which I proposed slamming my head may one day be demolished, but in its place will be an equal amount of dust from the crushed bricks and cement. When all is said and done, existence as a whole is continuous and stable; it is a constant upon which we can all depend. This is the foundation for the primacy of existence and the "Week-day Approach to Reality." MIND OVER MATTER: THE PRIMACY OF CONSCIOUSNESS Now imagine holding the opposite point of view: that there is no such thing as objective reality; that all existence is the creation of your mind, a mere figment your imagination; that by merely changing your thoughts, the nature of existence can be changed. In believing such things, you would severe your rational connection to the world in which you live, putting your life (not to mention the lives of others) at risk. Could you be trusted to act responsibly? Would anyone feel secure leaving their child in your care? What would you say to the little girl who wants to jump out of her second story window? If existence is the product of the mind, then perhaps, by merely thinking happy thoughts and believing in fairies, she could fly like Peter Pan. And of course, you would probably agree with my ideas about brick walls magically parting. But could any rational person take your opinions seriously? Could others expect you to keep your word or live up to your obligations? Upon what would you base your code of ethics? Since you believe that your mind controls existence, when confronted with a moral dilemma, you could simply ignore the uncomfortable facts and retreat into your own world of fantasy. Yet no matter how real that make-believe world may seem to you, your every action would be doomed to failure because you would have rejected the basis of all rational thought: the objective reality of physical existence. As tragic as this situation seems, there is one that is even worse. Imagine going through life believing that existence is the creation of someone else's mind, that everything is merely a figment of someone else's imagination. Consider the implications of this belief. You could never trust your own eyes, ears or sense of touch and smell; what is real is determined solely by that "someone else" whose mind controls all existence. What would be the point in considering the opinions of others? They would also be under the control of that all-powerful "someone else," for they would owe their very existence to him.It goes without saying that you would consider the findings of science worthless, for at his whim the "someone else" whose mind controls existence could re-write the laws of nature. Likewise, you could embrace no objective set of morals; morality would be completely subjective, with right and wrong being determined by the whims and will of that mysterious "someone else." If you accepted such beliefs and valued your own life, your ultimate goal would be to discover the identity of that all-powerful "someone else" and do everything in your power to please him; otherwise he might annihilate you using the powers of his omnipotent mind. But what if that "someone else" doesn't want you to discover his identity? Since he controls all existence, you would helpless. Or perhaps, since you too are the product of his imagination, you would simply be incapable of understanding anything about him, even if he wanted you to reveal his identity to you. When all is said and done, worn down and feeling completely helpless and hopeless, you might decide to surrender all attempts at thinking for yourself. What would be the purpose of pursuing any goals or values? Believing that existence is the creation of "someone else's" mind, it would make perfect sense to believe that you and everyone else are powerless; that all human efforts are doomed to failure; that existence is essentially meaningless. In both of the above scenarios you would have accepted a view of existence held by many of the world's most famous philosophers: the primacy of consciousness. This theory holds that the mind (or consciousness) is primary. The mind came first; existence came second. Nothing exists independent of the mind because existence is the creation of the mind. In other words, perception is reality. Where is the proof for this theory? Its defenders, by rejecting existence as an objective reality, say that there can really be no proof for this theory--or for anything else. What is real for one person may not be real for another. "ANYTHING GOES!": MORAL RELATIVISM If existence itself is not stable, if there is no objective reality on which everyone can agree, then how can there be any universal standards of right and wrong? It's a small leap from "What's real for you may not be real for me" to "What's immoral for you may not be immoral for me." If "perception is reality," then all morals are completely subjective, and can vary from person to person based on nothing more than individual beliefs, whims and preferences. In short, anything goes! In the place of objective moral standards upon which everyone can agree, there is moral relativism. What is right and wrong depends on the situation, and the situation is what ever you think or feel it should be. It is no accident that when someone is completely self-absorbed, reacting with outrage when he doesn't get his way, feeling he has been wronged when his every wish isn't granted, being able to justify in his own mind the rightness of everything he does, others will often say: "He thinks the whole world revolves around him." On some basic level, such a person has accepted the primacy of consciousness. He thinks the world exists because of him, that its soul purpose is to satisfy his needs and desires. But such a belief can do more than merely stunt one's moral or social development; it can also pose a great danger to one's mental health, for all psychotics accept the primacy of consciousness. THE WORLD OF YOUR IMAGINATION: LIFE AS A PSYCHOTIC A psychotic is someone who is unable to differentiate between what actually exists and what he only imagines. For him there is no difference between knowing and believing. A family member, an employer and an imaginary friend all seem equally real. The psychotic experiences emotions not as reactions to things, but as the cause of things. His feelings are justified because he feels them. If he is afraid that the sky is about to fall, then indeed the sky must be about to fall. There are two type of psychosis. Organic psychosis results from an injury (such as a blow to the head), a disease, a chemical imbalance or the use of some mind-altering substance. On the other hand, functional psychosis can not be traced to any physical disorder; it is the result of one's thought processes, philosophy or beliefs. Being out of touch with physical reality, a psychotic is irrational and unable to make morally sound judgments. He experiences violent mood swings that have no visible cause. A psychotic is a danger to himself and society. Interestingly enough, most of history's greatest villains displayed symptoms of functional psychosis. (Hitler springs instantly to mind.) When the philosophies and ideologies of such people are examined, one always finds that on some basic level they accepted the primacy of consciousness.Not liking "the way things are" (usually code for not liking human freedom), they set about trying to "change things." But no matter how much power they acquire, their attempts are frustrated because existence--and human nature--is what it is. Resorting to force, tyranny and violence, they eventually self-destruct, but not before destroying others in the process. In the end, their memory is despised or they are forgotten altogether, and existence, still unchanged, continues. RELIGIONS AND REALITY: THE SUNDAY MORNING VIEW OF EXISTENCE Because every idea can be traced back to the relationship of the mind to existence, it's been said that all philosophies can be divided into two groups: those that accept the primacy of existence and those that accept the primacy of consciousness. As demonstrated, "The Weekday View of Existence" is clearly linked to the primacy of existence. This means that it's opposite--"The Sunday Morning View of Existence"--is linked to the primacy of consciousness. As explained earlier, the term "Sunday Morning" is used because this is the view of existence traditionally associated with traditional Sunday Schools and church sermons. This doesn't mean, however, that this view is found only in traditional churches or only in Christianity. Nearly all belief systems have embraced the primacy of consciousness. Practitioners of magic think that they can control the elements or change the nature of things by virtue of their beliefs, through the use of spells and charms. Ancient so-called "Earth Religions" believed that the forces and elements found in nature were created and controlled by immaterial spirits or demons. Many "New Age" devotees believe that reality is the creation of one's mind. The major religions of the world may differ on many issues, but for the past two thousand years, all have embraced one particular doctrine: that existence was created from nothing by an immaterial God. Regardless of whether they believe this God to be singular or triune, personal or impersonal, all agree that God is an immaterial spirit or power, a Supreme Consciousness, a "Divine Mind," the "First Cause"--responsible for the creation of all that was, is or ever will be. In this respect, the view of existence taught by the world's major religions is no different than that held by the person who believes that existence is the creation of "someone else's" mind. If you review our earlier hypothetical case, replacing the phrase "someone else" with the word "God," what is being described begins to sound an awful lot like the creeds of the world's major faiths. BACK TO THE BEGINNING: THE BOOK OF GENESIS This is not to imply that there is no God. (As we'll see in Chapter 3, God is very real, but very much misunderstood.) The subject here is the nature of existence and how our views concerning this effect the way we live our lives. Religions have always linked morality with a particular view of existence. To establish their moral codes, the various faiths have offered explanations of how the world came to be. These explanations--known as a creation myths--serve as the foundations of the world's religions. Since ancient times, believers have studied and meditated upon their particular faith's creation myth in order to better understand their place in the great scheme of things and to know what is expected of them morally. The most famous creation myth is found in the Hebrew Bible. Probably the world's best known passage of scripture is that which opens the Book of Genesis: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light, and there was light. (Genesis 1:1-3) The traditional interpretation of these verses has been so influential that even people who do not accept the Bible as scripture would tend to agree with its major points. By carefully examining this interpretation in light of the primacy of existence and the primacy of consciousness, one can begin to understand its moral implications. "In the beginning..." One might ask, "In the beginning of what?" This is a question that cannot be glossed over. The interpretation of these first three word makes an all-important statement regarding the nature of existence. According to traditional interpretations, "the beginning" in this verse refers to the beginning of time and of all existence. Before that "beginning" point, there was nothing: no elements, no matter, no life, no time, no space, no natural laws. "In the beginning God..." Tradition holds that in this "nothingness" there existed God.To many, this seems like a contradiction. If God was present before "the beginning," then how can it be said that nothing existed? Traditional religions have not only failed to give an answer, they've frowned on even asking the question. Theologians say that the human mind cannot possibly comprehend God; that a God who could be understood by mere morals would cease to be divine and worthy of praise. They insist that God is not bound by the laws governing existence because He alone created those laws. He cannot be relegated to a particular time or space because He exists outside of existence. (Whatever that means!) According to traditional theology, everything that exists has a cause--that is, something or someone caused it to come into being. God is the only exception to this rule. He is the "First Cause." Nothing came before Him. Nothing caused Him to exist. He is and always has been all-knowing, all-powerful and omnipresent--meaning, present in all places at the same time. God is the one and only Supreme Being. God cannot be understood in context of existence because He is superior to the natural world--He is supernatural. But these explanations only raise more questions:
Theologians have replied that before "the beginning," God was aware of Himself. Of course, this brings us back full circle to the first question: If God was aware of Himself, then didn't He exist? And if He existed, how can one say that before "the beginning" nothing existed? Struggling with this very concept, the character John Galt in the novel Atlas Shrugged observes: "Existence exists--and the act of grasping that implies...that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists. Over the past two thousand years, theologians have evaded the questions that arise from such thinking. When attempting to answer them, they have so tortured the definitions of "existence" and "consciousness" that the words have lost all meaning. This is the sad end result of traditional theology: the word "existence" becomes meaningless. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Tradition insists that God created the universe out of nothing. One moment nothing existed; the next moment, God--by virtue of His power and according to His will--began creating everything. At any time, if He so desired, God could annihilate all existence--send it back into the nothingness from which He called it. Nothing exists independent of God. Everything which has ever existed, which now exists or which will exist has its origin in His mind. This concept of creation from nothing (known as "Creation ex nihilo" ) is central to the "Sunday Morning View of Existence" held by nearly all religious traditions. "And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and there was light." After God created the earth, it was initially covered with water (referred to here as "the deep.') Then God, an immaterial spirit, moved over the waters and, by merely speaking, began calling all existence into being from nothingness. The natural laws that govern existence are the product of His mind, and therefore He can, at any time, reverse and rewrite them. "NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING..." The concept of creation from nothing has had a great influence on the traditional view of existence. It's safe to say that most people, regardless of whether they are religious or not, believe that at some point there was no existence; that the universe--the cosmos itself-- somehow came to be out of nothing. Despite this, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for an actual time or event that could be called "the beginning" of all existence. Science has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it is impossible to either create something from nothing or totally annihilate something that exists. The elements (the building blocks that make up all things) have always existed in some form or another. Cells may divide and multiply, causing living things to grow and reproduce. Eventually living things die and their bodies decay, releasing the elements into the environment. Non-living things decompose or change shape; they may be used for fuel and converted into energy. But on some level, the existence of things remain constant. No mind, no intelligence, no amount of will power, regardless of how great, can change this fact. Early Mormon Apostle, Parley P. Pratt wrote: "The science of chemistry serves to illustrate the subject in the most clear and lucid manner. For instance, by burning or melting any substance, not one particle is annihilated, they are only separated, decomposed, analyzed, and changed, and could the whole operation be reversed they would be restored to their former state without the loss of a single particle." This law applies not only to our planet, but to all existence. Modern science allows us to look out, beyond the confines of earth, into our solar system and beyond. Researchers are constantly discovering new information on how stars and planets are formed. Through the technological marvels of our age, we now able to observe what appears to be the births of new stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies. Creation was not a one time event, but seems to be continual. But theologians have traditionally resisted scientific findings. It was the theologians of the day who cried heresy when it was suggested that the earth was not the center of the universe. The cry went up again when it was suggested that the earth was round and that it moved around the sun and not visa versa. Even now as scientists penetrate what were anciently considered the mysteries of the universe, theologians eye their discoveries with suspicion. When news magazines report the latest findings from the exploration of space (findings that shed new light on the origin of our own planet and solar system), they often mention how these findings challenge the traditional interpretation of Genesis. "GOING THROUGH LIFE WITH BLINDERS ON" Religious thinkers struggle to force traditional theology to conform to new evidence of an ever expanding universe in which streams of solar systems and galaxies are being formed from eternal, self-existing matter. But their struggle is in vain because the idea of creation from nothing is simply incompatible with the facts. So theologians do something very strange: they point to their inability to reconcile their faith with the facts as proof in itself that their beliefs are true. Like their predecessors during the Middle Ages, they claim that for something to be divine it must be incomprehensible to mere mortals. That which can be explained is not worthy of awe and worship. Scientists reply that everything in existence has a particular nature. By studying the nature of a thing, one can eventually grasp the natural laws by which it is governed. In retaliation, theologians claim that scientific inquiry is possible only because God created an orderly universe and decreed natural laws. Ironically, in claiming that all things were created from nothing, traditional theologians add nothing to our understanding of the world. In fact, by claiming that God could annihilate His creation at any time, they rob existence itself (the very thing they wish to explain) of all meaning and value. If everything was once nothing and can be nothing again, the logical assumption is that existence in and of itself is meaningless. Concerning such theologians, Apostle Parley P. Pratt wrote: ...narrow minded sectarians whose motto is 'ignorance is the mother of devotion,' not only shun all investigation on this subject [the origin of existence]...they would fain compel all scientific men to be infidels whether they were willing or not. By insisting that God values human ignorance over knowledge, theologians effectively alienate the rational person from God. This is interesting given what Christ told his disciples concerning those who ignore their physical senses in order to preserve their preconceived religious notions: ....this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dulling of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. (Matthew 13:15-16) How ironic that so many who claim allegiance to Christ have, with their doctrine of creation from nothing and their distrust of science and rational thought, taken the opposite path of their Lord. Contrary to Christ's words, they seem to be saying: "Keep your ears dull of hearing and your eyes closed; lest at any time you should see with your eyes, and hear with your ears, and should understand with your heart, and should lose your faith in God." Such an approach to existence not only cripples the rational mind, it also perverts the notion of God as a moral being. God becomes a sadist, giving us our physical senses so that we can survive on earth, but then demanding that these senses be ignored. Such a God presents humanity with an awful choice: trust your senses, live now and be damned later, or ignore your senses, die now and "be saved" later. This is a classic example of a "Catch 22"/ "damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't" scenario. If people dealt with their children in this way, they would justifiably be labeled as abusive, unfit parents. Yet traditional religion presents our Heavenly Father as just this sort of character--all for the purpose of preserving a theology that embraces the primacy of consciousness. The scientist, the rational thinker and the morally responsible person has no choice but to distance himself from such a God--in short, to become an "infidel." Those who accept the traditional interpretation of Genesis (that the origin of all existence is in the Mind of God) clearly embrace a view of existence that could, when contemplated in depth, be labeled psychotic. Like a psychotic, the believers must forever doubt the information supplied by his own senses. Reality is not to be trusted; it is not what it seems. Today's facts may become tomorrow's illusions (and visa versa) because a mysterious, unfathomable Deity decides what is real and what is not. In short, God's perception is reality. RELIGIOUS LUNATICS: YOU REAP WHAT YOUR PHILOSOPHY SOWS Is it any wonder that throughout history, one finds examples of devout believers whose actions seem like those of mad men? What happens to a person's rational processes when he believes himself to be the messenger of a God who is bound by nothing and can rewrite the laws of existence whenever He wishes? How can one maintain a "grip on reality" when one believes that the nature of reality is determined completely by someone else's opinion? (In this case, God's.) Existence itself becomes shifting sand, incapable of serving as the foundation for anything, much less a code of ethics and morality. Is it any wonder that murders and atrocities have been (and continue to be) committed by those who accept traditional notions regarding the nature of God and existence? Such is the danger of accepting as gospel the primacy of consciousness. RETURNING TO GENESIS: RETHINKING "THE BEGINNING" But did the ancient Israelites mean to convey such a view of existence when they produced the Book of Genesis? For an answer, let us look once more at the opening passage of Genesis. This time, rather than using one of the standard Christian translations, consider a more recent and accurate translation taken directly from Hebrew: When God began to create the heavens and the earth--the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water--God said, "Let there be Light" ; and there was light. (Genesis 1:1-3, Jewish Publication Society of America) The first thing that jumps out at you when reading this translation is the complete absence of the phrase "In the beginning." The origin of existence itself is not the subject of the text at all! Instead the Israelites appear to have had a more narrow focus: the creation of the world that they saw around them, meaning the earth and its atmosphere (the heavens). Also note the wording of the opening phrase: "When God began to create the heavens and the earth." Clearly the ancient Israelites thought that God operated within the context of time. The concept of a god who "exists outside of existence" was conceived centuries later by certain Greek philosophers and was completely foreign to the original authors of the Bible. But what is most startling in this translation is that a description is given of the earth before God begins His work! The text clearly states that before God did anything, the earth already existed as a desolate entity covered with water ("the deep"). God comes upon the scene and from the elements found there, forms the planet, its atmosphere and all things in them. Far from depicting a deity who operates likes a mysterious cosmic magician, suddenly creating existence from non-existence, the scriptures depict a God who is more like an artist or master builder. GODS AND DRAGONS; ORDER AND CHAOS What is so revolutionary about this interpretation of Genesis, however, is not only what it implies about the nature of God but what it implies about the nature of existence itself. Existence has no beginning--and, by implication, can have no end. The elements and forces that comprise the universe are eternal. But do other Biblical passages support this radically untraditional view of existence? As discoveries in archeology and anthropology shed new light on the Bible, the answer is a resounding yes! Research has shown that Genesis was not the only account of creation embraced by the ancient Israelites. According to The Oxford Guide to Ideas and Issues of the Bible, The Biblical accounts of the creation of the world have their background in ancient Near East mythology, in which creation is often depicted as the deity's victory over the forces of chaos, represented by threatening waters, as a result of which the god is established as supreme king. There is evidence that at one time the ancient Israelites (like other Semitic people of the Near East) had another, more highly symbolic account of creation. In this account, the earth was once a dark sphere covered with water and ruled by Leviathan --"a legendary sea-monster representing the forces of chaos." But then God appeared on the scene, fought and defeated this dragon. In overcoming the forces of chaos, God established himself as the King, the supreme ruler of heaven and earth, bringing light, order and life to the planet. Remnants of this symbolic account still remain in our modern Bible, as is evidenced by the following verses: For God is my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth. Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength; thou breakest the heads of the dragons in the waters. Thou breaketh the heads of leviathan in pieces...thou hast set all the boarders of the earth. (Psalms 74:12-14, 17) Note that God did not create Leviathan; He did not create the earth in its earlier chaotic state; these things co-existed with God. Chaos and order are presented as two eternal, opposing forces within the universe, owing their existence to no one--not even God. Suddenly the description of the earth being void and covered with water begins to make sense. "The deep" symbolizes the chaotic condition of the earth before God came upon the scene. An interpretation of Genesis that incorporates this earlier (and equally Biblical) understanding of the creation clearly embraces the primacy of existence. Existence has no beginning; it is just a given--a constant, an eternal fact. This not only makes the Genesis creation account comprehensible, it also provides a context for better understanding God. Any discussion of His nature now has a solid foundation in existence itself. God is not to be worshipped and feared because He created all existence from an incomprehensible "nothingness." Instead He is to be loved because He battled and conquered chaos, imposed order and made life on earth comprehensible, meaningful and thus, valuable to intelligent beings. THE MEANING OF "CREATE" Is there any further evidence for this interpretation of Genesis, or is the primacy of existence being forced upon the text? A key to determining whether Genesis embraces the primacy of existence is to discover the meaning of the Hebrew word "baurau," which has traditionally been translated as "create." THE RESTORATION: "WHEN EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN" The Mormons did not view themselves as another Protestant denomination trying to reform traditional Christianity. They decisively separated themselves from all existing churches and creeds, declaring that God was restoring not only the Gospel as taught by Christ and his ancient apostles, but also those principles embraced "by all the holy prophets since the world began." (See Acts 3:21) In his effort to restore an understanding of the original intent behind the Book of Genesis, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught: Now, the word "create" came from the word "baurau," which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos-chaotic matter, which is element...they [the elements] may be organized or reorganized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end. Concerning the nature of existence, Mormon scriptures declare: "The elements are eternal." (D&C 93:34) In addition to the story in Genesis, Mormon scripture also includes two additional accounts of creation--one attributed to Moses, the other to Abraham. Interestingly enough, these accounts (published during the first half of the 19th century in The Pearl of Great Price) contain ideas regarding the nature of existence that are in complete harmony with the scientific discoveries of the late 20th century. For two thousand years traditional theology held that the earth was a unique creation, the center of the universe. But The Pearl of Great Price states that the earth is only one of an infinite number of planets, and that the formation of planets, solar systems and galaxies is a constant on-going phenomenon: For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man...The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man... And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come...(Moses 1:35,38) The Pearl of Great Price presents God as operating within the context of time and space. Within the universe, the measuring of time differs from place to place based on the speed with which various planets orbit various stars. This law also applies to the place where God dwells.(See Abraham 3:2-9) Abraham's creation account begins with God saying, We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth... (Abraham 3:24) Notice that God is going to a space that already exists; He did not create it. But by far the most significant aspect of this creation account is that the word "create" is completely absent. Instead this scripture describes how God planed to organize the earth, its atmosphere and all things in them from materials that already exist.. ( See Abraham, chapter 4) Elaborating on this revolutionary interpretation of the creation story, Apostle Parley P. Pratt wrote: I am aware that it has often been asserted that in six days God made all things out of "nothing," but such an idea is no where found in the scriptures. It has originated in the mysticism of modern times, and been kept alive by ignorance and folly. The Hebrew word "baurau" translated "he (God) created," does not signify that he originated matter from nothing; but, implies that he formed, built, made or organized it...for instance, he made fish and fowl out of water [Genesis 1:20]; he also created cattle, beasts and creeping things out of the ground [Genesis 2:19]; and he created man also out of the ground, and the woman out of a rib. [Genesis 2:7,22] So when we read that God made the heavens and the earth, we understand that he made them out of eternal elements, by organizing, combining, separating and rearranging them...Now if it were in his power to form them out of nothing, why make use of earth in order to form man, and beasts, and planets and flowers? And why subject Adam to deep sleep and loss of a rib, as a material out of which to make a woman, when it was just as easy to have formed her out of nothing?!!! Like other early Mormon Apostles, Parley P. Pratt was not afraid to inject humor into theological discussions. He considered the traditional interpretation of Genesis completely ludicrous, and probably thought that nothing he said in jest could be half as ridiculous as the theories put forth in earnest by the respected theologians of his day. EXISTENCE: OMNIPOTENT AND UNALTERABLE Although Parley P. Pratt was nicknamed the "Gauge of Philosophy" by his fellow Mormons, he never used the term primacy of existence in any of his sermons or writings. Nevertheless, the following quotes from missionary tracts that he wrote clearly demonstrate that he accepted the idea: Let us turn to reason and philosophy. These would teach us that something cannot be made out of nothing: because this would contradict a manifest law of truth. Traditional religions, consistent with the primacy of consciousness, lean towards mysticism when defining the concept of "truth." A popular Evangelical bromide states: "When Jesus said, 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life,' truth ceased being a thing and became a person." According to this view, the truth is completely subjective; it is the product of the primacy of consciousness--in this case, Jesus' consciousness. Mormon scriptures, on the other hand, embrace a rational and objective definition of truth: And truth is a knowledge of things as they are, and as they were and as they are to come; and whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of the wicked one who was a liar from the beginning. (D&C 93:24-25) Simply put, truth is knowledge of what actually exists. Any attempt to evade the facts regarding existence can be properly classified as wicked. In light of this, Parley P. Pratt wrote: The laws of truth are omnipotent and unalterable--no power in heaven or earth can break them in the least degree. As a theological statement, this is revolutionary! It is nothing more or less than a declaration of the primacy of existence. The rest of the religious world, with their "Sunday Morning View of Existence," has insisted, despite of all evidence to the contrary, that only the mind of God is omnipotent and unalterable--that He is the author of all laws. But Mormonism, in harmony with a "Week Day View of Existence," teaches: Law is as eternal as God. There are laws that govern, control and condition things animate and inanimate, spiritual and temporal. God himself works within the framework of these laws, and there is no modifying nor escaping that framework for him or for us. In fact, it is by his understanding, abiding and fulfilling these conditions that he has gained his dominion, exaltation and glory. With this view of existence, all traditional religious notions have to be reconsidered. For instance, concerning the idea of divine miracles, Mormon theologian B. H. Roberts wrote: ...what men in their ignorance call miracles, are doubtless the results of application of higher laws or forces of nature not yet learned by men, and miracles are viewed not as happenings contrary "to the established constitution and course of things," under a universal reign of law, but as part of the not yet understood application of law to things and conditions that seem to produce effects that are in derogation of the ordinary course of the natural order of things. In other words, events are called miraculous out of ignorance of the natural laws involved. Even God Himself operates according to the principle observed by Frances Bacon: "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." It is existence itself (the universe as a whole) that is omnipotent and unalterable. There's no need to try to wrap one's mind around some contrived, nonsensical explanation for the beginning of existence. Existence exists--meaning, existence just is. God is a part of existence. He is an actual entity within the universe, and He cannot operate contrary to the "omnipotent, unalterable laws of truth." Concerning these laws as they relate to the traditional belief of creation from nothing, Apostle Pratt wrote: Among these laws we find that two and two make just four--that five from eight leave three, and that nothing added to nothing is nothing still. And ten thousand nothings multiplied together cannot increase the amount. Therefore we argue that it is a self-evident fact, clearly manifest to every reflecting mind, that the elements are eternal. That the earth was formed out of the eternal elements, and a man's body out of the earth. These facts are not only proven from scripture, reason and philosophy, but also confirmed by daily experience. The work of creation has been proceeding in every age up to the present time upon the same unchangeable principles...there is not a single instance of a thing or being produced from nothing...Modern discoveries in the science of geology have had a tendency to illustrate these important facts; and to explode the systems of mysticism...Suppose for instance, discoveries should yet be made which would demonstrate that some of the foundations of our earth had existed for millions of years. This would prove that sectarianism [institutionalized religious thinking] is false in its statement, that God made all things out of nothing some six thousand years ago... OH SAY, WHAT IS TRUTH?: "JUST THE FACTS, MA'AM" It is no wonder that traditional theologians have cried "Heresy!" ever since the first generation of Mormons came on the scene. By rejecting the primacy of consciousness and embracing the primacy of existence, the Restored Gospel pulls the rug out from under the rest of the religious word, presenting a new foundation for religious thought and ethics. Traditional theology upholds a mystical view of the universe against which human reason and ingenuity are powerless, and in which self-professed ignorance is considered virtuous. The belief in a universe created from nothing by a God operating outside the laws of nature simply doesn't allow people to speak with confidence concerning anything--much less ultimate truth and the nature of existence itself. Concerning those who embrace the primacy of consciousness, the character John Galt in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged observes: ...they want their consciousness to be an instrument not of perceiving but of creating existence...they want to be that God they created in their image and likeness, who creates a universe out of a void by means of an arbitrary whim. But reality is not to be cheated. What they achieve is the opposite of their desire. They want an omnipotent power over existence; instead they lose the power of their consciousness. By refusing to know, they condemn themselves to the horror of a perpetual unknown. Writing a half a century earlier, Mormon Apostle John A. Widstoe observed the same truth : The saddest feature of man-made religion is their lack of security. One man constructs one theology; another a different one, and men flock hither and thither, accepting the one that appears for the moment, to be the best, without the deep feeling that the one finally accepted in absolutely the one and only correct system of thought. Yet, this is logically absurd, for a house is either red or not red; a stick is straight or not straight; a man has truth or only a semblance of truth. Two different truths cannot be parallel with respect to the same thing. The final philosophy of life must be based on irrevocable truth. That which is true must always be true, though the applications may change from generation to generation. It is the absence of such fundamental certainties, no doubt, that leads men into a new search for a satisfying religion, or that drives them away from their old theology. It's impossible to reconcile the "The Weekday View of Existence" with the "Sunday Morning View." It's also useless to differentiate between "spiritual truth," "worldly truth," and "scientific truth." "All truth can be circumscribed into one great whole" -- meaning that facts cannot contradict facts. If religion, science, philosophy or any other field of knowledge are addressing the facts of something that actually exists, then they cannot contradict one another. Concerning the relationship of the Restored Gospel to facts, Brigham Young taught: "Mormonism," so-called, embraces every principle pertaining to life and salvation, for time and eternity. No matter who has it. If the infidel has got truth it belongs to "Mormonism." The truth and sound doctrine possessed by the sectarian world, and they have a great deal, all belong to this Church...It embraces every fact there is in the heavens and the heaven of heavens--every fact there is upon the surface of the earth, in the bowels of the earth and in the starry heavens; in fine, it embraces all truth there is in the eternities of the Gods...It comprehends all true science known by man, angels, and the gods. There is one true system and science of life; all else tends to death...Truth will abide when errors pass away...truth is calculated to sustain itself; it is based upon eternal facts and will endure, while all else will, sooner or later, perish." EXISTENCE: THE FOUNDATION FOR A RATIONAL RELIGION Mormon Apostle and apologist John A. Widstoe often referred to the Restored Gospel as "Rational Theology." He considered sound reasoning essential to all human endeavors--especially in the areas of religion and morality; but he knew this was only possible with a religion that embraced existence itself as its foundation. Therefore he praised the Restored Gospel because... Its doctrine rests on demonstrated truths that lie at the foundation of all sound, acceptable thinking. For instance, as a cornerstone of theology, the Gospel recognizes, in connection with space and time, the existence of matter...the nature of matter is not, in and of itself, a subject of deep concern in practice of practical religion...That matter, whatever it is, is eternal, is however, a principle of highest theological value, for it furnishes a foundation for correct reasoning. "HIE-ING" TO KOLOB: A HYMN TO EXISTENCE In the mid-nineteenth century, Mormon Elder W. W. Phelps wrote what could be considered one of the world's strangest hymns. Traditionally hymns have been songs of praise to God. Often times the writer will wax poetic about the beauties of the natural world, ultimately praising God for having created them. ("For the Beauty of the Earth" is a lovely example of such a hymn.) But in writing "If You Could Hie Unto Kolob" W.W. Phelps turned the traditional objective of a hymn on its head by praising the nature of the universe. In fact, this song is nothing less than a hymn to the primacy of existence! Having rejected the traditional "Sunday Morning View of Existence," this Mormon Elder decided to set the record straight concerning the nature of physical reality, and show how his newfound understanding furnished a foundation for human virtue. Written a full century before the age of astronauts, Phelps begins his hymn by taking his audience on a flight through space: If you could hie to Kolob in the twinkling of an eye With references to such things as "matter" and "pure space," this hymn at times seems more like something one would sing in an astronomy or physics class rather than in a church meeting; its concepts seem as grounded in scientific inquiry as in religious fervor. And yet it is this odd quality--this joining of a rational, scientific view of existence with theology--that makes this hymn so fascinating. Phelps has presented the physical universe as eternal, without beginning and without end. Existence has a particular nature; it is constant; it can be counted upon. This is a view of existence that inspires confidence in man's ability to reason and comprehend the world in which he lives. Morality is no longer based on subjective feelings or mysterious beliefs; morality becomes understandable, and virtues seem attainable; religion and reason come together. With such a view, the values, endeavors and achievements of mankind take on profound and eternal meaning: There is no end to virtue; there is no end to might; _______________________________________________________________________________________ # quoted in The Ayn Rand Lexicon (Meridian: New York, NY, 1986 edition) p. 382 # Ibid., p.381 # A Beautiful Mind (winner of the Academy Award for Best Film of 2001) was an excellent look into the mind of a psychotic. # Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (Dutton: New York, N.Y., 1992 edition) p.1015 # The Essential Parley P. Pratt, (Signature Books: Salt Lake City, Utah. 1990) p. 110 # Ibid., pp. 107-108 # The Oxford Guide to Ideas and Issues of the Bible, (Oxford University Press) p.113 # LDS edition of The Holy Bible (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Salt Lake City, Utah. 1979), footnote 27c on p.982 # Discourses of Joseph Smith, (Deseret Book Co., Salt Lake City, Utah. 1977) pp. 344-345 # The Essential Parley P. Pratt, pp. 106-107 # Ibid., p. 107 # Ibid., p. 107 # My Religion and Me (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Salt Lake City, Utah, 1970) pp. 37-38 # The Truth, the Way, The Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology by B. H. Roberts ( BYU Studies: Provo, Utah. 1996) pp.64-65 # The Essential Parley P. Pratt , pp. 107-108 # Quoted in The Ayn Rand Lexicon, p.382 # Rational Theology by John A. Widstoe (Signature Books: Salt Lake City, Utah. 1997) p. 10 # Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Salt Lake City, Utah, 1997) pp.16-18 # Ibid., p.10, 12 # "If You Could Hie to Kolob" Hymns of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Salt Lake City, Utah, 1985 edition) hymn number 284 # According to Abraham 3:4-9, Kolob is the star closest to the place where God resides, by which He measures time. |
return to top