I’ve been keeping an eye on Richard Dawkins since my last post, and just read another article of his entitled, Why I Am Hostile Toward Religion.

Now, at first glance, the title seems rather… antagonistic, but after a quick read, I’m finally realizing that I actually side with Dawkins view. He’s leveling some really harsh criticism at folks who don’t try to think at all, they just side with the Bible and the prophets, giving little to no thought to the morality surrounding the circumstances.

In the article he relates the story of a geology professor who abandons a successful career as a scientist because of his “religious” views about the age of the Earth.

The wound, to his career and his life’s happiness, was self-inflicted, so unnecessary, so easy to escape. All he had to do was toss out the bible. Or interpret it symbolically, or allegorically, as the theologians do. Instead, he did the fundamentalistthing and tossed out evidence and reason, along with all his dreams and hopes.

Two things: first, I think there are certain times in our lives when we need to obey—at least at first—without asking questions. This is a common request by mortal fathers, and a divine father shouldn’t be much different. That said, I don’t think we need to reduce the Bible (or any accepted doctrine) to allegorical mush in order to make science and theology abide in the same cranium.

I don’t think any of these people were intellectual slobs:

• Robert Boyle
• George Washington Carver
• Christopher Columbus
• Michael Faraday
• James Clerk Maxwell
• Samuel Morse
• Isaac Newton
• Louis Pasteur
• Hugh Ross
• Wright Brothers
• Socrates

I wonder if Mr. Dawkins has considered the possible errors that follow the fundamental scientist as well as he’s outlined those in fundamentalist theism. I don’t think a balance of the two is incompatible, and neither did the above mentioned scientists.

I think Dawkins is right, if he’s accusing the ever-thoughtless obedient Christian. If we can only point to the Bible and say “I told you so”, then Mr. Dawkins is spot on. I think it is becoming increasingly necessary that members of the Church be able to maintain their positions using secular devices. If we can’t explain and communicate to our friends down here who don’t believe in God, I think we’re not living up to God’s expectations. We really aren’t helping anyone find truth.

Is the average believer guilty of Dawkin’s claims?

Jeremiah makes a great statement in chapter two of his book, and nails the reality of sin right on the head:

For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.Jeremiah 2:13

It’s so simple and so true:

1. People forsake the true source of life and nourishment: the fountain of living waters (the Gospel of Christ)
2. They fashion fake, broken replicas in order to fill the void.

Just in case you’re not familiar with the word, a cistern is a large, water-holding tank. It is often used in places where water is scarce. Jeremiah’s usage of the metaphor is brilliant when paired with that of Christ as the living water. In effect, he’s accusing his audience of replacing a pure fountain (Christ) with fake, broken water tanks (sins and idols).

I love how he points out that most “cisterns” are handmade. I know from my own experience that the justification for crafting a cistern is not often borrowed from another, it’s homemade. Unfortunately, most cisterns are self-crafted and self tailored.

Seems like many of the most virulent sins work this way, and it’s a favorite tactic of the devil to take what is good and right in this world, and give it a spin…until it’s a handmade and broken replacement. A water cooler for Niagra Falls.

Think about a few prime examples. Drugs are a substitute for exercise, or any other natural high (like winning a soccer game or playing at a concert). Pornography is the WWF of human relations, a horrible substitute for natural physical affection and love. The word of God itself is a broken cistern to some: those who get caught up in Bible-bashing or speaking in tongues so much that they neglect the meat-and-potatoes doctrines of the gospel.

It’s always some fake replacement of a naturally good feeling, but it’s different in that it is addicting and incomplete. There’s no work to be had to get the feeling. It’s a free high, that never leaves you satisfied.

The scary thing about this tactic, is that it is extremely crushing to those who get caught up drinking from their own cisterns. The devil basically paints a picture for you that you can’t have. With drugs, you can’t get quite get the high you’re after. For pornography, you can’t recreate this fake, simulated experience. I think this is often why people resort to crime: it’s because the devil has helped them craft a cistern that won’t hold water. You’re always needing more. It just isn’t possible to have the fantasy you’ve become addicted to. You can’t get satisfaction from a cistern.

The nice thing about living the gospel is that you can have your cake and eat it too. The living water that springs from righteous living gives you the highs you’re after. You’re creating the kind of life you want to life in the hereafter by making good choices and surrounding yourself with goodness. Just make sure you’re getting your nourishment from the right source!

A great lesson today opened up a passage of scripture that has always been a favorite of mine. Just like with many of the famous passages in the scriptures, sometimes I’ve been guilty of focusing so much on that particular reference, and ignoring the valuable verses the surround it. The passage discussed today was in Doctrine & Covenants 121: 41-46.

I’ve usually viewed the end of this section as a warning intended for the tyrannical priesthood leader, but the scope has been really broadened in my mind. The first part of this passage is familiar to me: a checklist of attributes we need to have in order to lead. One insight I think is very true is the very first phrase, “No power or influence can or ought to be maintained…”. I think it is very wise to view coercion as not only immoral, but also impossible.

Upon reviewing this list of attributes today, I realized that these scriptures are describing the life that God himself lives. It is—quite literally—a description of how God deals with his own children: his own kingdom. He never forces his will, but is a man of patience. He does reprove sharply at times, but afterward with an increase of love (and often uses covenants as symbols of that love). This passage is perfect advice for parents of any experience.

The next verses are the ones that I had more or less neglected:

45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.

46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.
Doctrine & Covenants 121

The key word in verse 45 seems to be the word “let.” While I think that often we really have to work hard to be charitable or have virtuous thoughts, I think the admonition here is to get to the point where we let greatness come into our lives. The earlier verses have talked about the character traits we need to have, and these last instructions might be indications that we’ve arrived at the right place. We’re patient, humble, and we’re to a point where we just let charity trickle out through our daily interactions with people.

I also thought that the use of the word garnish was an odd choice here. Why not have virtue be the main course? I think this is a concession that the Lord really understands us. We work and we play: we don’t always think about eternal things. I wonder if the advice here is to keep goodness as the base of our understanding so it naturally flows from what we think and do.

When I lived as a full-time missionary, I really felt like charity and virtue were something very manufactured and overly tracked. I often felt that my daily activities were robotic and insincere. The training we received, most of the time, encouraged word smithing and basically manipulative interactions. I think that lately, the leadership of the Church has been crying for us to do better. Thanks to some really great instruction (thank God for Elder Ballard), and the new replacement for the Missionary Guide, Teach My Gospel, these principles that I’m talking about are called for more and more. We’re expecting missionaries (which includes non-full time members, of course) that can let their bowels be full of charity to those in and outside of the Church. They expect to have people that are to a point in their spiritual progression that can let virtue garnish their every word and deed: they’re just good people.

Now, when you’re at that point of goodness, the “doctrine of the priesthood” just comes to you like the morning dew. You’re at a point where you’re pretty good at most of the Christ-like characteristics mentioned in this section, and charity and virtue are a matter of opening up and letting goodness happen.

Dew is some pretty cool stuff. After having learned a bit about storms a while back, I decided to check out some scientific facts about dew as well:

• Dew forms at dawn and dusk (when light meets dark), as the surface of the earth cools
• It forms as a result of the water, which is all around us, condensing out of the air
• Dew can only form in a calm, as wind moves warmer moist air away

I think the symbol of water here is well placed as well.

The last verse of this section was the most amazing to me. Basically, once you’ve mastered yourself, and got yourself to a point where goodness flows from you and truth just comes to you, you will have an everlasting dominion, “and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.”

Everlasting dominion? I don’t think that’s ever been something on my Christmas list, and I’ve often been confused by the references to rule in the scriptures (and the temple). I can’t really picture myself as the leader of some kingdom. For me, some sort of kingship would be more of a punishment than a reward. Who wants to be bothered with politics and procedure for eternity?

Today I had the chance to attend a baby blessing, and most of the family was there. My cousin was blessing her third son, and anyone who could make it was there. My grandparents made the trip from southern Nevada, and seeing them there at the blessing today helped me understand what all this talk of kingdom is really about.

My grandpa and grandma are pretty good examples of what this passage in the Doctrine & Covenants is talking about. They are fantastic people, who live Christ-like lives. They’re imperfect like the rest of us, but they really are at a point where goodness just comes to (and from) them naturally. My grandpa leads the family with the same kind of authority and presence this passage of scripture is talking about. He’s placed himself in such a position that his leadership is never by coercion or pressure, and I’m sure all my cousins would share my feelings in that we’d all do anything he’d ask us to do. When God talks about a dominion that exists “without compulsory means,” I think my grandpa has already started working on his.

My father is the same way. Both he and my grandpa have been fantastic people for so long, that people can’t help but love them and want to follow them. Sure they make mistakes. Sure they need to keep working on things. Sure they have weaknesses. But they’re doing their best to have the spirit as their constant companion. When someone is like that for a prolonged period of time, they really are granted a dominion. This isn’t some sort of coronation: its the natural outcome of living a righteous life. People want to be good, and they’ll follow goodness, no matter if it is found in Jesus, Ghandi, or my grandpa.

God has been like that for so long, that everyone wants to follow him. We look for him because people want to be close to goodness. He doesn’t force us. He is just so good that we can’t help but follow him.

Eternal life is the life that God lives, and that is what is being described in these verses. I guess that somehow I thought that “Eternal Life” was grand result of living a good life: something like God handing you the keys to your brand new car after winning the game show. These scriptures, however, helped me realize that Eternal Life is something that you start right now. My grandpa already has a few hundred subjects in his little kingdom, and he has already started to reap the rewards of his own good life.

I wonder if after all is said and done, God won’t really need to make some special effort to bestow our eternal reward. We’ll already be taking advantage of it.