While I’ve experience with the practice in no-mind from my youth when I used to do a lot of Aikido, I’m not sure how much it has to do with Adam’s project. He’s said in the past the parallels to what he is talking about is less Zen (which I’m familiar with) and more the early stages of the Indian tradition and Theravada. Although others back in 2009 noted parallels between Adam’s project and Vipassana practices. That is no-mind as a kind of openness. To me at least in my practice no-mind was something I usually interpreted as over learning so that your brain did things automatically without conscious thinking and rationality. So I’ll be the first to confess that I interpret most of the practices in decidedly non-mystical ways.

This is in some ways more a question about quietism in both Mormonism as well as philosophical phenomenology. I confess a lot of skepticism of quietism although as I recall the discussion there was more of Heidegger, Marion, Derrida and company rather than Buddhism. Adam appeared to not agree with quietism either, although again I don’t feel comfortable quoting from LDS-herm here.

I guess this is what I am not understanding. Is secular grace the creation of a moment of time? I guess I do not know Adam’s view of secular grace. In Buddhism one seeks to empty themselves of all content–Dhyana or “no-mind” where one has become detached from all worldly concerns, and in this sense one exists outside of time and seeks “nothingness.” But I do not think that is what you are saying.

I know this thread isn’t about Buddhism, but you brought up the parallels and I am just trying to understand those parallels. Comment or not.

That’s a complex question and I’m not sure I’m the best suited to answer it. So I’ll give the short superficial answer. I think the notion of transitoriness and nothingness in Buddhism is akin to how Adam perceives secular grace or the creation of each moment of time as an event. So I think Adam is just appropriating elements of Buddhism rather than the whole kit and caboodle.

I should also note that within Future Mormon Adam doesn’t really address Buddhism at all even though in some ways it’s there lurking in the margins. Back around 2010 Adam and I had a bunch of discussions of Buddhism on LDS-herm. Adam clarified then that most of what he is interested in isn’t Buddhist religion parallels with Mormon though but rather a kind of phenomenological aspect of Buddhism as a more general philosophical way of looking at things. I don’t know if that’s still his view.

The main attraction back then to Buddhism seemed to be it’s focus on pluralism and multiplicity. Even though that won’t be discussed in this reading club, the topic independent of Buddhism relative to platonism is the theme of several chapters. I’m sure I’ll discuss it a lot then.

That hits the nail on the head.

Clark, please indulge me and discuss the nexus between the grace of Christianity and the “grace of Buddhism.” Are you speaking of the Bhoddhisatva stream of Buddhism? Or are speaking of a more fundamental idea inherent in the awakening of consciousness that is the object of Buddhist thought? Or what?

Adam’s theory is much more a “beyond law” theory. The problem I have with that is that it’s hard to distinguish from a “law unto ourselves” model. Adam attempts to avoid that by saying what counts is whether we accept grace. But the problem there is that logically that transforms grace into something very similar to the obedience model. All that’s changed is that instead of saying “obey” and then blessings we say “receive grace” and then blessings. But structurally they seem the same.

This scripture has never made sense to me. So, today, I am going to say something I have never put in print before. I welcome any and all constructive criticism. That’s how I learn. :)

It sounds like we are to be obedient to the law of obedience. Not sure just what that means. Here is my take. The law of the universe is the law of attraction as explained in the book, “The Secret.” “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” And, “for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.” I read a book over 30 years ago that made the claim that Job, in the OT, received what he got, because it was what he feared the most.

This will have to be in two post.

For the problem of evil, I’ll probably wait to discuss theodicy when we come to those parts. Briefly though most forms of buddhism I’m familiar with see it as a non-problem. The issue isn’t evil so much as our response to it. Stoicism has a similar tact. The first step in Stoicism is to be able to figure out what is under your control and what is no and only worry about what you can change. Both Buddhism and Stoicism tend to see most problems as the longing for difference in what we can’t change. For the Stoics evil usually was the result of irrationality or being unwise. So all of us are evil which cause us not to follow the Logos which is similar to Adam’s sense of grace but with more rationality tied in with it. Buddhism has some similar ideas although obviously there are important differences. The Stoics considered the entire universe a single organism with each of us being parts. We need to figure out our roles in the whole and rationally do them so that the creature as a whole functions properly. (Paul makes use of this idea with the metaphor of the body of Christ) A consequence of this is often the idea that what’s good for the whole can be bad for parts. The idea for instance that rain that benefits the whole country might be bad if it floods your basement. That then gets extended into the more metaphysical notion of privation.

I’m not sure I buy Adam on the law. I know that’s the typical more Lutheran take, but I confess that’s a place where I have a lot of problems with Adam. In particular we have to distinguish between law as the Law of Moses, law as particular laws, and law as any enforced norm in general. There’s a lot to this though. Derrida’s “Force of Law” is probably lurking in the background for how both Adam and I think about this.

My problem with Adam on the atonement is that it’s not all all clear under his conception why Jesus had to be born, suffer and so forth for the atonement to work. If it’s merely recreation why can’t God just do that without Jesus? In other words the key problem is gethsemane for those Mormons who focus on that and the cross. Otherwise it seems like all we need is a way to be resurrected. But that seems to minimize Christ’s role. Again though it’s not fair to really discuss that on the basis of this chapter since it’s just an overview.

The point on the tension between the attributes or essence of God and his persons was key to Brigham and Orson’s debate. We can say that while the attributes are important they aren’t key, but the question then becomes whether Adam is successfully doing that. It seems to me the persons tend to become less important for Adam in certain ways. But there’s definitely a tension there in his thought. My point was largely just to point out this is a long standing tension in Mormon thought.

“I feel like all of this is an important corrective to a strongly Calvinist-influenced version of Mormonism that focuses on our ability to “earn” salvation, with all the attendant problems related to that construction of Atonement.”

1. Grace as primal: I buy Adam’s argument here, although I agree with Clark’s flagging of some problems with ironically Platonistic implications.

First, the good: I think that grace as primal and sin as us getting in our own way makes sense. I also think it fits together well with Book of Mormon descriptions of what death and sin and hell are. I think it describes a believable version of a loving God that doesn’t deny any of the data points. I like Charlie’s statement on this: “The right reason to be kind, loving and forgiving is because it is the right thing to do and expect nothing in return,” a more than halfway decent definition of grace, and even if we don’t call it grace, “I have no idea what [else] has the power to change one’s heart.”

Furthermore, the reminder to focus on grace gives us a chance to feel what Robert C. mentioned, making grace “common and prevalent,” which is important as soon as we understand that we’re raising the floor, not lowering the ceiling.

I feel like all of this is an important corrective to a strongly Calvinist-influenced version of Mormonism that focuses on our ability to “earn” salvation, with all the attendant problems related to that construction of Atonement.

Next, the criticism: Adam’s focus on grace as primal seems to depend on accepting all things, good and evil, as grace. This is, ins some ways, quite beautiful, and I think that Daniel C.’s wonderful application of it shows how powerfully it can work: it seems potent to believe that “the unpleasent parts of my life are not things I need God’s power to fix. Rather they are the grace of God working to redeem me.”

But as Clark points out, there are some weird implications to that kind of passive reception of all things as grace, one of which is the problem of omnipotence and the source of evil. Early Christian theologians struggled with on the nature of evil coming from an omnipotent and omni-loving God, as did the Stoics and Buddhists, and frankly, I hope Clark will bring this back up as we go along because I don’t know what their solutions were (let alone if they are satisfying to me.)

Another problem is agency contrasted with the passivity implied by Adam’s conception of grace. The idea of people being insufficient receptors of grace really makes us as agents somewhat irrelevant, and it suggests that we misunderstand everything from causality to culpability. Grappling with this problem is what gave us such painful doctrines as predestination.

In my own limited understanding, I think a serious treatment of agency takes us out of these cul-de-sacs. For me, the most likely solution is that God is not omnipotent in the platonic sense due to an irreducible agency in human beings (at least in human beings.) Then, perhaps relying on something like the repentance in Riddle (which haven’t read yet, but Clark, it looks promising here) it becomes possible for grace to be primal AND for God not to be responsible for the fact that I haven’t received it yet. But I don’t see that in this chapter, and I wonder if there are things about that assumption that might mess with his project on levels I don’t understand.

2. Exception to the law: The proper framing of the law and its purposes is perhaps the most useful (for me) development in this chapter. If law is about compulsion, then law cannot bring us to love; if the point of the law is to bring us to love, then at some point it must be transcended; if God gave us the law, however, we must still fulfill it, but willingly, not being compelled. Therefore, obedience is never going to fulfill the law.

I buy this completely. Clark, you mentioned you find Adam’s reading of Romans somewhat problematic, and I hope you’ll bring up those points going forward, because I think it explains it very, very well. Personally, I have never viewed the law as about obedience anyway but as a kind of training regimen for righteousness – which, here, would be defined as grace and love. Since an obsession with the law brings us nowhere, but because the law is a method of assisting us to learn love, it is (as Adam so effectively quotes Nephi) “dead” to us, though we fulfill it, looking forward to Christ.

Take, for example, Adam’s chart on being subject to the law and on fulfilling the law. Paul describes the Christian position perfectly and also gets upset at those who try to be exceptions to the law without fulfilling it. [1] skwmsg’s observation about D&C 130 is therefore resolved, because the law (irrevocable or not) is still an instrument built toward love. [2]

Clark, you mentioned that you see some problems with this structure; I hope you’ll engage with it directly going forward.

3. Grace as (re)creation and atonement: Clark, I hope you could help me understand what concerns you here. I thought the opening with McConkie’s pillars of eternity showed how he was tying this all together, but I might be missing something problematic. [3]

4. Grace independent of (and prior to?) God, ontologically (and maybe metaphysically): This is largely in response to Clark’s critique as I understood it. I’m going to go out on a limb here and way out of my league — I know that Clark has done a lot a work on this and I haven’t, but here it goes anyway…

Not every Mormon likes this, but Mormon theology has ways of dealing with the idea that the being that we worship as God the Father isn’t quite the sum of God-ness. I don’t think we need to, in fact, because the Christian obsession with this issue has to do with Platonism – which, as both Clark and Adam point out, we don’t need to subscribe to. Not only do we believe that we can somehow remain ourselves and participate in God-ness, as suggested by the Endowment and modern scripture, but of course there’s that old contention about perhaps God not always having been God, with all its hairy incarnations and implications. Even excluding those (which I don’t, personally), Mormonism inherently resists the Platonic monotheism of traditional Christianity – for example, by refusing to explicitly collapse the Godhead into one God. Yes, this gets messy and makes traditional theologians very uncomfortable; yes, if we start pointing at something else other than God as a defining feature of God-ness, we are wandering off into very speculative theologies. But it’s not that such things are disallowed by (at least some versions of) Mormon theology.

So is grace more important than the person God? Probably not, but then, without grace, would God “cease to be God”? Mormon theology is unusually prepared to engage with such questions. “God is love,” said the author of John, and maybe in some sense he actually is.

—

Probably irrelevant notes quarantined for everyone’s safety:

[1] The analogy to the antimodian in Agamben is the way that modern governments are using states of emergency to define exceptions to the law – which then become the rule – and therefore become “laws unto themselves,” utilizing the force of law without any of its constraints. I thought about developing a long-winded explanation of what I’ve found out about where Adam is getting some of these ideas, particularly in Agamben’s “State of Exception,” which developed from Walter Benjamin’s ideas, but I realized that it was not directly applicable yet and I need to do a little more homework first before I can do it justice. I’ll try to come back to it.

[2] Although I think this works, it would require a more rigorous defense to stand on its own, which I’m skipping for now unless someone wants to take it up as a debate. The issue about whether the law can be subordinated to love in the way Adam suggests is going to repeat throughout Future Mormon and not everyone is going to buy it right away, I think.

[3] I actually think of Atonement very differently, based on a mutual conciliation between Creator and Created, and on a Book-of-Mormon-centric reading of the inversion of the demands of justice and the law. While I don’t necessarily buy all in on (re)creation, although I think (re)creation is a pretty good description of goal of the project of Atonement. But this is not the place for me to spew my (underdeveloped) ideas about Atonement, so I’ll leave it alone for now.