O how great is the nothingness of the children of men; yea, even they are less than the dust of the earth. – Helaman 12:7
I recently read Ayn Rand’s short novella Anthem. I was struck by how true this book is, and also how false. The story follows the life of a man living in a totalitarian collectivist dystopia where everyone exists for everyone else. To exist for oneself, or to privilege one’s own interests over those of others, or even to have desires for one’s own good are forbidden. Indeed, one should not ever think or work alone, but only with and for everyone else.
I noted as I read the story that Rand weaves some interesting imagery into the collectivist society– much of which evokes the Garden of Eden and the Fall.
As in other classic works of totalitarian fiction (e.g., 1984 and Brave New World), our hero comes to realize that his idealist society is more bondage than privilege, and attempts to escape to a higher state of being, always with the help or inspiration of a woman.
By escaping the collectivist Eden, Rand’s hero (who later takes the name of Prometheus, he who took fire from the gods to impart to men) understands the glory of being a human, and more so, of being an ego— a sole, individual mind with self-determined will and destiny, dependent on no one. The final two chapters of the story contain the ‘Anthem,’ in which Prometheus exults in what it means to be ‘I’ instead of ‘we.’ The anthem begins with the simple, existentially fraught assertion: ‘I am.’
These passages stir a deep, celebratory spirit in me. They also sound much like a familiar poem:
INVICTUS
by William Ernest HenleyOut of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find me, unafraid.It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.
I’m sure many of you are also familiar with Orson F. Whitney’s reply:
Art thou in truth? Then what of him
Who bought thee with his blood?
Who plunged into devouring seas
And snatched thee from the flood?Who bore for all our fallen race
What none but him could bear.—
The God who died that man might live,
And endless glory share?Of what avail thy vaunted strength,
Apart from his vast might?
Pray that his Light may pierce the gloom,
That thou mayest see aright.Men are as bubbles on the wave,
As leaves upon the tree.
Thou, captain of thy soul, forsooth!
Who gave that place to thee?Free will is thine—free agency,
To wield for right or wrong;
But thou must answer unto him
To whom all souls belong.Bend to the dust that head “unbowed,â€
Small part of Life’s great whole!
And see in him, and him alone,
The Captain of thy soul.
I wonder if anyone else feels a conflict of loyalties between these two eloquent positions. Elder Whitney’s tone seems a bit harsh, given that Henley’s celebration is borne from a stubborn sense of self that most of us share. And yet, there is no question that man, for all his sound and fury, is ultimately nothing of himself.
With her evocation of Adam’s fall, Rand introduces even more complexity than what’s at stake between the dueling poets. This is so because the freedom and individualistic exuberance is available only after the escape from Eden, only where commitments and promises to others are severed. Man exists in his intended, glorious, demi-godlike state only where he is unencumbered by the chains of enforced groups and societies and external rules and dogma.
Even though her error is more clear than Henley’s I still agree with a great deal of Rand’s point. I think we often fail to realize what an enormous lift we got from the Fall. Our language, even our name for Adam and Eve’s transgression, suggest a shameful tragedy. The LDS view has improved upon the rest of Christianity by showing how necessary this was. But Rand seems to have pushed beyond even that position: by painting her pre-Fall society as something awful, she shows how the Fall is actually glorious, defining, liberating in every sense.
And I think she speaks the truth, even though I don’t see Eden as containing anything but light and goodness. Despite this, isn’t it true that our expulsion from Eden was a simply revolutionary step forward in exploding mankind into a truly glorious creation? In what ways were Adam and Eve above the animals in Eden? In what ways were they above the animals in the lone and dreary world? I submit that the addition of moral agency in the latter setting hurled them light years ahead. I don’t think Prometheus’ anthem to human-ness would have been too foreign in Adam’s mouth, after he tasted the sweetness of his powerful existence in a real world. Having tasted the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, he had become like the Gods. (Again, I am speaking about the glory of being Adam and Eve, individuals with God-like potential, fully-formed in God’s image. The glory is in the affirmative advancement, not in the negative sense of having left the beautiful garden and with it the transcendence of God’s presence. I do not believe Eden was unpleasant in any way).
But if I find Rand’s focus on the brilliance of being a human being with free will and reason to be true, I, like Orson Whitney, believe it to be woefully incomplete. Rand’s analysis, in this and her other works, seems to be that this is the greatest good, to be self-interested, to act for oneself. As one who has seen where these gifts have led in my own life, I simply can’t agree.
Soon after one understands the beauty of being a Prometheus, free to wander the earth and build and create, one also realizes that this freedom leads one to brushing up against forces far greater than oneself. We eventually yearn to be Gods ourselves, and we build towers to Heaven, steal fire from the Gods, and end up with our language confounded, shackled to a mountain. The glories of personhood and agency dissolve, and we become low, like the beasts again. Thus, when we speak of the fall, we do not only mean a fall to free will and moral reason, which are good, but a fall to the places those gifts will lead us if we use them unchecked in a fallen world. This is no glory at all.
I sometimes think the Good News of the gospel would be more poignant if we learned only the bad news for a while, before finding out the good part. What if we could know the effects of the fall, see the suffering and error that we inevitably devolve toward, and could see no solution? What if the glory of man was all there was to believe in? How long would our yawps on the rooftops last before the black pit and the menace of the years swallowed us whole again?
The gospel is Good News only when we’ve realized how terribly, horribly bad off we would be if we were indeed our souls’ only captains. This is why Ayn Rand doesn’t think she needs the gospel– she hasn’t realized how bad the bad news really is. Like Rand, we must find a way to celebrate the triumphant gifts that are our agency and individuality and ingenuity. Taken by themselves, these things are among the most awe-inspiring creations we can behold. We must exult in our unconquerable souls. But we must also see how fruitless, how empty and how completely miniscule are those things the moment we begin to use them– for we will always use them badly.
And then, seeing the dilemma, we may realize how very good is the Good News. How sweet it is that even as we were released into the world, to act out there our children’s game of being kings and titans, someone clothed us in protection, set limits on the devourer, and ultimately promised to come and save us from ourselves. How much sweeter is the good news than the simple half-truth that we are great in our humanity?
In the end, I believe that we too, like the survivor in Invictus, and like the revolutionary in Anthem, must come to a point of celebration of ourselves. I would be a fool not to see the glory it is to be a being so beautiful as me. But this cannot last. The moment after we begin singing our praises we go too far. At that moment, we must praise another even higher than us, more beautiful for his ability to use these same gifts in a way that actually privileges others over self, and commitments over independence. It’s a stunning reversal to see how much glory is contained in our former shackles. But we cannot argue that glory is His.
I may say, briefly: I am my own. I may enjoy that moment. Then I must grow, and learn to say: I am not my own– I have been bought by one far greater than me. By this knowledge, I will become something extraordinary. And only then can I imagine a time in a future too distant to know, when I will look down at another being just as majestic and puny and beautiful as I am now, and I will reach down to him, and I will say rightfully and with authority: I am.
I hadn’t read this when I wrote this, but I am glad to find others thinking in a similar vein. Good post, Ryan.
John, I enjoyed your thoughts on your blog. It’s very true that when we seek the same end as God, but approach it through means different than God’s we end up all a mess. You’ve expressed the idea of different gospels very well.
I think the challenge of doing things our way vs. the way of God relates back to the original Greek story of Prometheus, which has really consumed my thoughts since I began this post. It’s also expressed so well in Helaman 12:6, which I read this morning: Behold, they do not desire that the Lord their God, who hath created them, should rule and reign over them; notwithstanding his great goodness and his mercy towards them, they do set at naught his counsels, and they will not that he should be their guide.
It’s interesting to see how even we disciples, who believe in the mercy and goodness of God toward us, still struggle to let him rule and reign over us. We simply want to do it ourselves, believing still in our own greatness and glory. This frames life as a spectrum between submission and rebellion, which I think is very helpful in showing me how to find my place in God’s universe.
I have to admit that I don’t associate whatever with the sentiments expressed in Henley’s poem. I’m inclined to see the darker side of agency then to dwell on its marvels. To be perfectly honest, as I survey the world, it’s difficult for me to reconcile it with the idea that God does nothing save it be for the benefit of his children. I guess I long for the Garden of Eden.
As many know I really dislike Rand. However I love “Invictus.” I even confess to being Nietzschean in many ways. I’ve not read this particular book of Rand’s so I can’t comment to it. However from reading her other books it seems like the “other focused life” is never actually *portrayed* as other focused. Rather it is me focused by some caricature of the weaker masses against the hero. That is, the hero never is really other focused.
This caricature always bothers me because it seems akin to trying to act righteous while being wicked, showing that doesn’t work, and then making the false dichotomy that selfishness is the way to go.
Long before I joined the church, I was working with a guy who was reading “The Fountainhead”. As I got to know him, I learned he went to BYU and he revered Rand. After I joined I was at the institute for YSA FHE and this guy giving the lesson quoted Ayn Rand and asked for opinions. I’ve seen at least a few posts by lds people on blogs about her before this one. What little of hers I’ve read, I found philosophically hedonistic and depressing. Is there a bigger picture that links her with our doctrine or is she just that popular of a philospher? The only other people I know who fancy her are both atheists.
Davis, I understand that it’s easy to get lost in the down side. But Henley’s not making it a clean get away. We’re just escaping from the black pit, and still living under the shade. He doesn’t sound very optimistic, really, mostly just defiant. It seems that with your world view of observant pessimism, that has to be a bit appealing.
But I can’t see how, knowing what we know, the garden could ever be. But maybe you need to live through a dystopian novel yourself to actually understand. Just watch out for Room 101.
Clark, your critique had actually occurred to me as well, that even as Rand has her hero celebrate his complete independence and autonomy, he is emotionally dependent on his companion, the woman that escapes with him. It’s clear that she hasn’t completely bought her own hype.
Adeline, I’m not sure why Rand has a hold on Mormons, if it’s true that she does. I certainly don’t see a whole lot in her ideology that fits well with Mormonism, besides the kind of human-elevating rhetoric I’ve described in the above post. I can see how this resonates with our view of humanity, as gods in embryo, glorious now, and glorious in potential. But as I’ve beaten dead above, the resonance dies a quick death when she emphasizes our independence and fully self-actualized potential. So, my answer is, I really don’t know.
On another note, I am interested if anyone else finds this view of the fall appealing– the fall to a great freedom and glory, from a place that, for all its beauty and good company, could not offer an environment capable of sustaining our limitless capacities. Or must the Fall always remain hopelessly tragic?
I thought the fall was a good thing. Am I wrong? I just barely taught my children about it. I explained that Adam and Eve didn’t do anything in the garden and they weren’t learning. Since learning is why we are here, the fall made it happen. Adam and Eve might still be sitting around in the Garden had it not happened–unless there was another way that we don’t know about for it all to happen.
I am more interested in why God told them not to eat the fruit. That is the part I had trouble explaining to my children. I would like to have a better understanding of that.
Adeline, I think most philosophers would cringe at Rand being called a philosopher.
If you are interested in some Rand bashing, here’s one post from my blog. (I have a few others as well)
I’m not at all convinced that Rand interest is as widespread among Mormons as some think. I think it is more that she’s popular in the west among a certain strand of conservative. What’s funny is that the Mormons I’ve met who are pro-Rand clearly disagree with most of her views. So I’ve never quite figured out the attraction. The ones who start apologizing for Rand and trying to reconcile the two views are the funniest though.
I think what attraction there is comes from Mormonism’s strong view of personal autonomy and the need to ultimately be responsible for oneself. That’s certainly an aspect of Rand’s thought. However the rest…
Regarding the fall being positive, I think that a fairly common LDS view. Indeed I think we’re fairly unique among Christians for seeing the fall as necessary.
Clark,
What about God telling Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit. Can you help me out a little?
What about it? The lesson I think most Mormons take from it (assuming they don’t go Br. Brigham on us) is that sometimes one has to choose a lesser evil to bring about a greater good. Exactly how one reconciles it will vary. (Assuming it can be really reconciled) The most famous reconciliation is of course the sin/transgression distinction – although I have mixed feelings about that. But I think it undeniable that most Mormons think Eve did the right thing.
Ryan – this is a great post. It resonated with me particularly because I was such a devoted Ayn Rand fan in high school – probably since her philosophies granted me further license to be self-centered and arrogant (as if teenagers really needed license to act this way). I think I liked Ayn Rand so much because I felt “suffocated” by the dominant culture of Logan, Utah, where everyone seemed to dress the same, act the same, and think the same. Looking back, I understand how subversive Ayn Rand’s Objectivism can be – and see her books in the same vein as “Dianetics” or “Battlefield Earth”. But at the time, I thought she really knew what she was talking about.
Anyway, I’m sure this isn’t where you want your post to go, but as a recovering Ayn Rand devotee and economist, I find the clash between the individual and society to be supremely fascinating. And especially relevant in the LDS Church, where conformity and community are so often lauded over individuality. I think too much conformity and community can be just as damaging as too much individual freedom, but I’m not sure where to draw the line (no facial hair?).
I’m of the opinion that the fall was not necessary. If this has not been our proving grounds, there would have been another one. A different fall, if you will.
Consider 1 Nephi 3:7. There was a commandment not to eat of that tree. There had to be another option. God doesn’t give commandments with the expectation of disobedience.
We simply aren’t aware of what the alternative was because at the point of breaking that commandment not to eat of that tree, all other options were out the window, or garden as it were.
I can’t remember which book I read it in, but I’m pretty sure it was Robert Millett who wrote about not understanding the fall. I don’t, and if he doesn’t, that could be just one of the many things that we will have to leave till we get milleniums old.
A couple of thoughts. First concerning the two poets. We often think of these arguments as contradictory rather than complimentary. Think about the previous posts on the law of consecration and other doctrinal issues. All we have is given to us from God. The only thing we have that is truly ours to give is our agency. By choosing and acting we are giving back to God the true us. Not the money, food, crops or anything else we think of when we consider sacrifice. In that sense the first poet is right I am the captain of my soul. I steer myself where I will go. I would consider God and Jesus as the navigators, telling us where to steer for safe passage and the ability to return home. Its still up to me as the captain to heed that advice.
But the second poet is correct in that through the atonement all things we could not do ourselves are done by Christ. Perhaps we are still the captain but every other position on the ship from navigator to oarmen are filled by Christ. Even the ship (soul) it self belongs to God but it is our agency that pilots it through the waters of life.
Second, thinking of Rand and her interpretation of Eden as a totalitarian state. In her views the totalitarian state removes agency from the inhabitants. It is clearly a case where we should try to break out. The protagonist learns this and attempts to do so, freeing his mind and becoming enlighted. This only holds true if Eden is facist. W
Consider Eden and Zion. Eden is more of a location where things are done for us. A natural state where labor is minimized and we can enjoy being who we truly are. Zion is a state of mind if you will. It is established by all those who are in it. But the key is that actions and thoughts are not prescribed by the state and enforced. In Zion the people choose through their righteousness the actions that will benefit all. The negatives in society are conquered because we as individuals have turned away from them. That element is absent from Rand’s perception of Eden.
Last in my thought for now is how does the fall relate to this. The fall expelled us from Eden but is not the source of our free agency. That was given to us before the fall. Rand’s perception is that through abandoning Eden we enlighten ourselves and become individuals able to make free choices. That idea is an illusion as the freedom to choose is necessary to leave eden in the first place.
I don’t think the fall was neccessary. God provided a savior as it was counseled should we fall. It seems the fall may have occured before more instruction was given to Adam to accomplish the things which the Lord commanded him to do.
There was a commandment not to eat of that tree. There had to be another option. God doesn’t give commandments with the expectation of disobedience.
I’m not sure that’s true. I think God wanted Adam to sin and thus fall. But the only way to do that was to give conflicting commandments.
Charles, I’m really happy to see your thoughts on some of the themes I find so interesting in the clash of the poets and the Anthem/Fall imagery. I especially liked seeing your observation about the non-obvious semi-compatibility between Invictus and Whitney’s reply. That’s why I said I have a hard time going all the way with how harsh Whitney is, how much he seems to want to condemn Henley’s hubris.
In the end, it’s probably about point of view. When you look at it from one view, it’s hard not to think we humans are astounding, fantastically gifted beings. Reading Invictus and Anthem reminds me of that– our reason and other elements of our sentience just thrill me to contemplate. And truly, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.
But then you zoom out a bit and you see what supports us, what created us, what keeps is alive and what inspires us. It’s shocking to see how much more grand God is than us– we who’ve concluded we are very grand indeed.
So it’s very interesting to try to find a middle ground where we can celebrate our human-ness (which is in the image of God, after all), and also agree with Mormon in decrying our nothingness at the same time. The LDS doctrine of our divine destiny adds even more to the dilemma. Regardless, I still don’t want to go all the way with Whitnes in completely condemning humanism- although I suppose he’s got a lot more of scripture behind him than does Henley.
As for the Fall, I would argue with your point that you think agency existed before the Fall. I understand that Adam and Eve had some capacity to make choices, which they obviously used. But I don’t think that’s the full definition of agency, at least not in the higher sense under which we’re bound– perhaps the better term would be ‘moral agency.’ The elements of moral agency, in my mind, are 1. ability to choose, and 2. knowledge of good and evil. Thus, while Eve (and Adam too) apparently had some limited capacity to try to follow commandments, it seems clear to me that they did not have fully developed senses of morality, and thus were not accountable for their acts.
In other words, while the comparison is jarring, I think a totalitarian state makes quite a fitting analogy for Eden, if I can say that without being too blasphemous. Each of these settings is a place where people are able to live some ideal notion of life, but are bereft of the core of what makes real life fully dimensional for humans: agency. By casting Eden in this negative sense, Rand has done a very effective job of showing us just what needed to be escaped. It must have been very sad to lose the personal presence of God, but I still believe the acquisition of moral agency in a non-perfect world must have been an epiphany far greater than we can imagine.
Clark said “I’m not sure that’s true. I think God wanted Adam to sin and thus fall. But the only way to do that was to give conflicting commandments.
But the only way to do that was to give conflicting commandments.”
Is He the god of half-truths and lies? I thought that was Satan. God doesn’t lie. Ever. If we believe He lied, how could we ever know when to trust Him
Adeline, where did you get the idea that God spoke half truths or lies in the Garden? I certainly don’t believe that. However the notion of conflicting commandments seems quite common.
Clark said “Adeline, where did you get the idea that God spoke half truths or lies in the Garden?”
I got the idea that was your opinion based on your comment. If he said “don’t partake from that tree” and really wanted them to “partake from that tree” that makes him a deceiver and a liar. It’s an idea I don’t share. He never told them to partake.
God has given commandments that were utilized for a period of time and then another was issued for specific circumstances. Polygamy, murder, etc. However, God didn’t say “don’t eat from this tree” and “please eat from this tree”. Children learn good lessons from punishment and you may have a plan in place should your children disobey. But do you tell them not to do something and then hope they go ahead and do it so you can inflict the punishment resulting in a lesson learned? No, that’s senseless which God is not. He hoped for the best and prepared for the worst.
I just got home from the temple and the session reaffirmed my earlier comment. Particulary a line including “if they partake …” not when they partake. The endowment session is very clear on the commandment and that sacrifice would be something utilized if needed. There had to be another way without disobeying God’s specific commandment. We simply are unaware of what it would have been but there had to be one. God is nothing if not logical.
Could the fact that Rand escaped from the Soviet Union have a bearing on her view of Eden as a socialist paradise?
The one factor that I’ve heard from a Rand fanatic is: the virtue of selfishness is established in the fact that we can never offer more than we really are. If we truly want to offer a lot, then we can only achieve that by being selfish enough to get the best for ourselves. The only problem is, they seem to apply it to material possessions and not spiritual qualities. But then, altruism in her world is a sin.
So it can be difficult to reconcile Ann Rand, other than in terms of “me”.
Adeline,
Your point is well made about God being logical, but I believe your argument is flawed.
If you apply the “if” argument, and not the “when”, then the Council in Heaven, the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world etc. become “ifs”; and I don’t believe for a second that when He presented His Plan that “when” wasn’t the issue.
In order for Adam and Eve to exist in the Garden, they had to have a choice to make (agency being essential for existence at every stage of our existence), with two diametrically opposing results – that’s what ultimately defines agency in our first 2 realms of existence. God is logical and He knows what the results will be, simply because He knows all things and all things are present before Him. Or to be more precise, He knows the end from the beginning.
The problem with the Randian notion that to give the best we must be the best and being the best is selfish is the idea that only through selfishness can we be the best. (Yeah, bad runon sentence – but you get the drift) It’s like that movement in the 60’s where people dropped out of things to “discover themselves.” Except they rarely did. Discovering oneself paradoxically comes from losing oneself in charity. People who become too self-focused almost always end up neurotic messes. We are social creatures and too much self-centeredness simply doesn’t work well.
People who become too self-focused almost always end up neurotic messes. We are social creatures and too much self-centeredness simply doesn’t work well.
Excellent way of putting it.
I’m with Adeline. Because that deal of “Eve transgressed, but she did not sin” or whatever that complicated explanation is of how she broke a commandment, but did the right thing, just doesn’t wash with me. It’t too big brother-ish. I do not do double-think.
Although I have no clue, as is most often the case, what most of you guys are talking about. I could never get into Ayn Rand and have never read anything of hers. I’ve tried, but…so I don’t know how that relates to Adam and Eve.
Ryan,
I’ve been thinking about the second part of your response (# 16). I think agency before the fall is evidenced in several places. First, as I understand it the plan of salvation was to provide agency over a blanket salvation “get out of jail free” card. The Plan no doubt had provisions for certain actions, one of which was likely a savior in the case of premature knowledge. To me this means that agency was the cental part of the Plan, that we would come here to excercise our agency after passing through the veil.
In Eden, Adam used his agency. All things were given to him but it was commanded not to eat that fruit, but it was his choice to do so. In this case we see that agency was available prior to the fall. It seems that in Eden Adam and Eve were to learn the difference between good and evil through their experiences. This suggests that God, throgh the Plan, had something in mind to teach them. The fruit of the tree was like the answer book. Eat it and you don’t have to pass through experiences to learn.
Second, we see after the fall that the tree of life was guarded so they would not live for ever in their sins. If sin does not require prior knowlege to be a sin then the action was sinful, but if sin does require prior knowlege of right and wrong, by God labeling this as sin, we can conclude that the instruction to not partke was enough, even if Adam didn’t fully understand why it was a commandment, to be a sin. I would add that there are many commandments we do not fully understand the whys of, yet we accept them as commandments and disobedience to them as sin.
Thirdly, if Adam and Eve were unaccountable then they would not have been punished for transgressing the commandment to not partake.
One consideration I find interesting in Rand’s comparison of Eden vs. totalitarian state is that in both cases laws are given and the deeper knowledge of why something is right or wrong may be missing. In both cases it is given to obey. The difference, and I’m not sure if Rand illustrates this or not, is that Eden is more like the Eloi ( of HG Wells fame). That is in Eden things are given all for the use of mankind. In a totalitarian state the people exist to support the state. I’m not saying its a 100% in either way but I would tip the ballance to the people in Eden and to the State in a totalitarian reign. This of course is dependent on the motives of the ones in charge.
Something I find very interesting is that as a church we are not trying to establish Eden, we are trying to establish Zion. It seems that the fundamental difference is that in Eden we were given commandemnts, but in our infancy we did not understand the whys but were expected to obey. In Zion we are likely not to have any commandments, we will instead have a perfect understanding of why we should or should not do any action and we (as a people) will choose to perform the best action. This would result in our own paradise without a totalitarian state looking over us. They are in a sense two extremes of a scale and as we progress we must decide where we are in each.
William Henley suffered much : tuberculosis as a child, lost a leg at 16 due to some tubercular bone infection, and almost lost another leg. He wrote Invictus—which means unconquered—from a hospital bed. He (later?) lost a child to cerebral meningitis. He was born five years after Joseph Smith died, and I find it interesting that these two things—death of offspring and trouble with bone infection—touched them both.
Henley was also something of a jingo and an imperialist, as were other excellent poets of his time. He does not seem to have been as isolated as that other famously ill literatur, Nietzsche. Henley knew and had the respect of other British poets of his day; of a headmaster in his youth he wrote : “He was singularly kind to me at a moment when I needed kindness even more than I needed encouragement.”
They used to make US Naval Academy plebes memorize Invictus; decorated Gulf War veteran Timothy McVeigh quoted it as his last statement before his execution for the Oklahoma City bombing.
Speaking of the Glory of God and the Glory of Man, If I had to counter this poem with another famous poem by another Imperial Briton, it would have to be
Kipling said it was the hardest thing he ever wrote; it was written for Queen Victoria’s Jubilee celebration, when indeed the Empire was at its peak. Kipling and his wife were, I think, inactive Methodists, but he names his poem for the hymn sung at that part of the Anglican service while the clergy and choir make their exit.
Kipling’s Recessional, except for its last two verses, appears in our LDS hymnal as number 80, and President Hinckley has quoted it in conference in the context of war and empire within the last few years.
It would ordinarily be the height to hubris to follow such titans as Invictus and Recessional with an obscure offering of my own, but Orson Whitney’s reply seems to miss the point dreadfully. I am trying to answer not Henley, but Invictus :
Blood brother
Who can stand before the armies of Shiz? (Ether 14:18)
Clear as the sun, fair as the moon
Bannered great and terrible
Nor army no, nor captain shall
Abide the scalpel of that final noon
Our dust shrinks at the letters of that knife
All knees shall bow, all tongues confess
Clench wounds, wolf down the flesh
Gulp as you will the Blood of Life
Come friend, I shall not pity you
I hear you do not ask my praise
We’ll let the fatted calf prolong his days
The sandal waits, the robe hangs crisp and new
Let death chase death
We shall not speak of absent kin
Keened and mocked by grace, each knows his sin
Nine moons in Zarahemla he recounts his fate
The effect of partaking of the forbidden fruit was to become aware of the difference between “good” and “evil” implying that Adam and Eve had no such knowledge prior to their partaking of it. To have a commandment given without comprehending the potential for “evil” in the act of willfull disobedience to that commandment nullifies the potential for “sin” in the act. Such disobedience, therefore, can only be considered “transgession”.
Apparently, Adam and Eve had the freedom to choose whether or not they would continue to obey God’s wishes, but not the comprehension of good and evil that undergirds the decision making process of those who are spiritually independent. They were indeed as little children growing into a spiritual adolesence of sorts.
Jack,
That is a good point that this was transgression, but beyond this act, Adam and Eve had not committed any other sins (not even one if you don’t consider this action a sin), but God makes it quite clear when denying them access to the tree of life it is so they will not live forever in their sin. This tells me that God saw this as a sinful act and a transgression of a commandment.
When God commanded them they were told that it was forbidden and the result of it would be death. One can argue if this was thought of physical death or spiritual death. Indeed they are both the same in this instance. Adam and Eve had not tasted death and likely never saw another living thing in Eden die. To them the distinction between physical death and spiritual death are irrelevant, not having a reference to either. It can be assumed they had some kind of understanding, either innate or explained but not written in the text, as to the result of transgressing.
They were told it was their choice, but that it was forbiddend and given the consequences of their actions prior to making the choice.
Charles,
It could be that the way of the tree of life was blocked because of their newly acquired comprehension of good and evil and not necessarily because of the transgession that lead to that comprehension. I find it easier to view them as in a sinful state because of their knowledge–which knowledge gives them the power to conceive evil in their hearts.
Alma,
I enjoyed your poem immensely. Thanks for sharing it with us. Well done.
Charles,
Interesting responses. I do think your points regarding agency and the Fall are mostly rebuttable however. Your idea that the plan was to keep Adam and Eve in Eden and learn from experience instead of cheating their way out through the fruit seems to reject the final principle at play in our discussion that has not come up yet: opposition. I don’t think it’s possible that Adam and Eve could have learned anything beyond some very rudimentary concepts, let alone be tested, in a place bereft of opposition. Earth was made to provide that setting, and that’s why the Fall was necessary.
As to the guarding of the tree of life, I agree with Jack: there is no indication that God thinks Adam has already sinned. More likely to me is that God knows that the world has now fallen, and sin has officially found an open door into the world. Thus, it is now inevitable that Adam will sin, indeed, he’s a fallen man. Such a man cannot be allowed to be immortal, so the tree must be protected. I see no reason to think Adam must already have been a sinner only a potential sinner.
Thirdly, I don’t have much faith in the view that the expulsion from Eden was a punishment. As I’ve stated through this discussion, I think it was a huge leap forward, which I think God knew very well. Thus, the expulsion was 1. objectively required, because fallen man could not exist in paradisaical Eden, and 2. Subjectively desired, by God, who wanted them to go and learn. My guess is that the parting was very tender, and filled with instruction and love.
Agreed that Adam was capable of making choices. Again, I think that’s only half of agency. They didn’t know as the Gods, knowing good and evil. Thus, they lacked accountability, which is at the core of moral agency.
Very interesting thoughts on Eden and Zion. I think your point that you don’t anticipate any laws being enforced in Zion is interesting. I’m not sure I agree, but that would be fun to discuss. But I completely agree that we do not seek Eden. It’s not that great a place. We want Zion with its dimension and depth.
All others: thanks for some very interesting comments (and Alma for the biographical sketch and poetical offerings). I have to run out now but hope to respond to a few more things later tonight.
Loved Alma’s marvelous poem.
Beautiful post, Ryan. The appeal we find in Invictus is the same appeal in Rand’s books–as they argue against totalitarianism and groupthink. Ayn Rand was very helpful in establishing an intellectual counterweight to communism. Communism/socialism had such a remarkable appeal to the intelligentsia, especially as the USSR rose out of the Revolution and well into the Sixties. Rand, and Orwell in Animal Farm, answered the seductive appeal of communism and gave high-school philosophers like Elisabeth and myself a secular framework to affirm the foundational value of the individual versus collectivism. Many of you having lived without seeing both the political and philosophical hegemony which collective thought gained, you will see the Rands of the world as pretty passe.
I think we would be too hard on both Henley and Rand if we treated them as having set forth ideas which compete for the final answer side by side of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than merely commending them as mere mortals who sought direction in a secular wasteland. They propound somewhat helpful terrestrial philosphies. I’m glad they rose above the telestial.
My comments are related to what Davis Bell said in regards to all the suffering in this world and not seeing how that fits in with God not doing anything for the benefit of the world. While I am not sure how it all fits together in the big picture, I have comtemplated this a lot. I think that there has to be every shade from black to gray to white and every subtle shade in between in this life. If we took away the ability of some to do the most heineous acts which will be judged against them if they do not repent, I think we would in some measure be taking away our ability to be complete. Without the contrast that we have in this life, I do not know if we could have a comprehension of Heaven or Hell.
Helen Keller said how this life is full of suffering and the elimination of it. Many selfless people seek to eliminate suffering of our brothers and sisters throughout the world whether it is by giving them knowledge of a Supreme Being or teaching people ways to be more independent. Then, there are many who give freely of their medical services to help people in need thoughout the world. Yes, much suffering still exists.
I heard someone of another faith speak of how he would explain the tragedy of the Holocaust. He said that as Christians we believe that God suffered with us. I do not believe he even had the fullness of the knowledge of all the suffering that Jesus took upon him as it is more oblique in the Bible without the additional revelation we have received in the restoration of the infinite suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane. I believe that our loving Father in Heaven wants all of his children to have blessings. He makes the sun to shine on the good and the bad. The flood at the time of Noah’s Ark was due to the evil that had swept the Earth. This gave his spirit children a better opportunity of being born into good househoulds. There are conditions that need to exist here due to our having agency and also the suffering and testing that is part of this probationary state. Yet, our Father who knows every head on our head gives us the means to help and aid our brothers and sisters near and far. Even with my severe limitations, there is much I can do and fail to do. I am glad to have a choice though. It is the choice of agency that makes us who we are that allows us to form bonds. Being forced would make us puppets with no abiltiy to effect humanity from the heart. There would be no nobility. We would just be without passion, without beauty, without purpose—–without love.
typo Davis Bell said he had troulbe reconciling how God does nothing save it be for the benefit of the world. It is early here. I am surprised that I made that mistake though as the scripture that he makes an allusion to is the one that I chose for my missionary plaque. I used to love sharing that scripture with investigators. 🙂