The other day I came across a quote in a news article that caught my eye. The story involved a case where someone had been issued a citation for "profanity". One of the lawyers involved in the case was quoted as saying,“I have no idea what is indecent or is profane, and nobody else does for that matter.” I thought that was a very interesting statement to make.
The first part of the statement is particularly interesting because it would seem that the lawyer is admitting his ignorance as to what it means to be indecent or to use profanity, but I do not think that that is how he meant it. I think it is more an indictment of the state of our society rather than an expression of personal ignorance. He is in a sense saying that there are no words that could be considered to be profanity or indecent. The fact that we live in an "anything goes" society with no checks, either personal or legal, on behavior is an indication of a larger problem in society. Because there is neither a personal morality nor a public ethics that dictate a limit on what is considered civil indicates that as a society we are wholly incapable of restraining criminal or anti-social (meaning against, or destructive of, society as opposed to individualistic) behavior.
But the second half of his statement I also found odd because while he is at first insisting on his own (or society's in general) ignorance of what constitutes profanity, he then extends that ignorance to everyone else. He is in essence saying that because he his ignorant of something, everyone else is too. This is a classic case of a deductive fallacy, where the subject (the lawyer in this case) assumes knowledge of what everyone else knows based on what he knows. This is to say that everyone else is ignorant of what is indecent just because he is. This seems rather presumptuous. To be honest I do not think that was what he meant by his statement, but my argument still holds because he is still making the assumption that because he cannot pin down the definition everyone else is wholly incapable of defining it either. He is essentially saying that because he holds a particular world view everyone else necessarily holds that same world view. This seems rather presumptuous.
So leaving behind the deductive fallacy, let us look at the ideas that prompted him to make this statement in the first place. In referring to profanity and indecency he is recognizing that there is a measure of vagueness in what constitutes profanity. I will admit that there is some vagueness in whether or not some words, or a single word in particular, can be considered profanity. I have known some people that would use certain words without thinking twice about it, while other people would blush when the same word was used in their presence and would never even think of using the word themselves. Thus for the two different people the same word can at the same time be considered profanity and a natural part of the conversation. I am not referring to words that are used differently in different countries, I am talking about the same words used in the same country. But now that I mention that I can also point out that there is a word that when it is used in Mexico it is a terrible swear word, but the same word in Argentina is used commonly by most people, including nice, little, old grandmothers who would never use foul language. Coincidentally there is also a word in Argentina that is never used in polite society, yet the same word is a common verb in other countries and is regularly taught to first year Spanish students in the US.
So yes there is some vagueness as to what can be considered profanity, yet that does not create the fallacy. The fallacy comes from the assumption that just because something is vaguely defined, it automatically has no definition. For example, the edge of the earth's atmosphere is not sharply defined yet there is no doubt that there is a difference between outer space and the atmosphere, because if there were not discernible difference then we would not use the terms in the first place. The mere fact that the terms exist is an indication that there is a distinction and that at least someone understands it. How we define the transition is a separate matter, but it is still a fallacy to deny the distinction just because there is some ambiguity in how to define the transition. We can also debate the usefulness of using the distinction, and this is also an important question in some situations, yet in the case of profanity and indecency there is still general acknowledgment in our society that profanity exists (and in some cases they are trying to come up with new definitions, laws and punishments for it). So to deny at least the existence of a definition is disingenuous.
Almost all the arguments I have encountered about why profanity should be acceptable and not punished/looked down upon either use the vagueness argument, or they use an argument that uses a fallacy known as the suppressed correlative. Essentially individual words which at one point were considered profanity are successively defined as not being "bad", or come into such common usage so that no one (or very few) considers them to be profane. After changing the definition to the point that all words that were profane are no longer, the definition becomes pointless (i.e. the empty set) and it is logical to do away with the definition. Strictly speaking this is a kind of a reversed suppressed correlative, but it applies. Still, as long as the word remains in common usage then it still has a definition that can be applied, even in a court of law.
There are some considerations that we have to take in to account. We do not want an overly broad definition because that would mean we are guilty of the reverse, yet at the same time because the distinction exists and it is up to our judgement to figure out where the line is drawn. To deny the existence, like the lawyer did, of the distinction between what is profane and what is not, is for me an acceptance that we cannot, or do not desire, civility in out society. And for me that is a terrible fallacy.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
When I Get Called Heretical
I find it particularly odd that when ever my religion gets called heretical it usually goes something like this:
"You believe X, therefore you are heretical."
To which I respond, "Um, I actually don't believe X."
"Yes you do."
"Um, no I don't."
"No, you actually believe X."
"Um, I don't believe X, because I actually say that I don't believe X."
"Well you must be mistaken, or lying, because you actually believe X."
It never ceases to amaze me that when people will bash my religion they will first tell me what I believe and then tell me why that is wrong, rather than actually asking me what I believe and then figuring out what I mean by that and then trying to figure out why that is wrong (or possibly trying to understand why I think it is right). Though I guess this can go both ways. I have heard some Mormons giving base characterizations of other Churches and beliefs, but I do find that on the whole Mormons do listen respectfully and respond respectfully to other's beliefs. When ever I am confronted with a belief that I find odd or particularly off the wall, I try to remember that most people want to be rational about their beliefs and are sincere in their beliefs an we should understand them as they do and not as we do.
"You believe X, therefore you are heretical."
To which I respond, "Um, I actually don't believe X."
"Yes you do."
"Um, no I don't."
"No, you actually believe X."
"Um, I don't believe X, because I actually say that I don't believe X."
"Well you must be mistaken, or lying, because you actually believe X."
It never ceases to amaze me that when people will bash my religion they will first tell me what I believe and then tell me why that is wrong, rather than actually asking me what I believe and then figuring out what I mean by that and then trying to figure out why that is wrong (or possibly trying to understand why I think it is right). Though I guess this can go both ways. I have heard some Mormons giving base characterizations of other Churches and beliefs, but I do find that on the whole Mormons do listen respectfully and respond respectfully to other's beliefs. When ever I am confronted with a belief that I find odd or particularly off the wall, I try to remember that most people want to be rational about their beliefs and are sincere in their beliefs an we should understand them as they do and not as we do.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Setting Realistic Goals
As a new year begins many of us will be setting goals for the new year and making a list of things we want to do, or to stop doing. Related to this is the common joke about how long the average new year's resolution lasts, which is used ad nauseam to the point of no longer being funny.
Today during Elder's Quorum we had a lesson about goals and setting realistic goals. As I was sitting there I remembered what I had learned about setting goals on my mission. One of the things that we did every week was to sit down as a companionship and set goals for the coming week. At that time our mission president asked us to keep track of all the work and teaching that we did. This meant keeping track of the the number of charlas (discussions) taught, the number of hours we worked, the number of baptismal commitments that we extended, the number of baptismal commitments accepted, the number of people progressing towards baptism subdivided into potential priesthood holders and everyone else and the number of people baptized and confirmed. Although we were not required to have a minimum number of any of those things (except for the total hours worked) we were frequently encouraged to increase the number of charlas taught, and the number of people we were teaching. So while there was not a minimum standard set by the mission president we were all encouraged as a companionship to look at what we were doing and try to find ways to increase the number of charlas, commitments and people taught. That is, it was left up to us to set a goal and to obtain it.
With my first companion we had a great time and I loved working with him, but every week when we set our goals for the coming week it went something like this:
Comp: "We have 10 appointments this week, but some of them will fadge on us, so I expect us to have 5 appointments actually work." [The word "fadge" is not a typo. It is a transliteration of a slang word used only by Castilian speaking Mormon missionaries. Technically it should be spelled "fall-ed" but it is pronounced "fadged" or "fashed" or "fadshed". It comes from the Spanish word "fallar" which literally means "to fail" or "to mess up" and when we had an appointment that didn't work out (i.e. the person wasn't home) we would say that the person "nos falló" or they fell through on us, or they failed us. In Argentina the double L is pronounced with a strong "sh" sound, thus the common phrase "nos falló" when used by native English speakers would become slang "they fadged us". Anyway back to the story...]
Comp: "We have 10 appointments this week, but some of them will fadge on us, so I expect us to have 5 appointments actually work."
Me: "OK, we'll put our goal down as 5 charla unos (first discussions)."
Comp: "Well we have to try to keep our goals up and if we don't then we will never have something to aim for. So let's put down 10 charlas as our goal for the week."
Me: "OK."
Next week:
Me: "Well we only taught 4 charlas this week. A lot of people fadged us this week. Our goal was to get 10."
Comp: "Well let's try harder this week. We have 10 appointments, so let's put our goal as 12 charlas."
Next week:
Me: "We we only taught 3 charlas this week. Perhaps we should lower our goal."
Comp: "Well you heard what Prez [The mission President] said in the last conference, and the AP's [Assistant to the President] said that we need to focus on increasing the number of charlas that we teach and what better way than to set a high goal."
Me: "OK."
Next week:
Comp: "Well this week was really bad, everyone fadged us, we only got 2 charlas..."
Me: "Three actually."
Comp: "That one doesn't count....Well what should our goal be for the next week?"
And thus it went on for most of my mission. It was not just my first companion that this happened with. It happened with most of my companions. We would have our weekly companionship meetings and we would set our goals for the coming week, but invariably we would set goals that we would never achieve. For most of my companions this was OK because for them the point of a goal was to set something impossibly high because, as their reasoning went, the purpose was not to achieve the goal, but to set it high enough that it would drive us to do better than we normally would have. But for some of my other companions, the only reason why the goal was set so high was because it was expected of us to set a high goal, and then we would do whatever we saw fit and completely ignore our goals that we had set. But the practical effect was that our goals would be treated as meaningless. There was no point because our goals moved up and down independent of how much work we actually expected to do.
Part of the problem was that we did not want to admit defeat on some points and concede that most of our appointments would fall through on us. We wanted to maintain at least the appearance of an optimistic outlook. We wanted most of the people to actually want to listen to us. But we didn't want to be honest and admit that it just wasn't true.
As I thought about this throughout my mission I slowly came to the conclusion that the only way I could make our companionship goals useful was to be honest about it and to lower my expectations. I reasoned that it is better to set an impossibly low goal and actually achieve it than it was to set a high "motivational" goal and not achieve it. The reason for this was the over time if our goals were never achieved then no matter how high (or moderately) they were set they became meaningless and were promptly ignored. It did not matter how motivated we were when we set the goal, if we consistently failed to achieve it then we consistently ignored it as irrelevant. But because of the seriousness of what we were doing we felt that it was not possible to treat our goal setting lightly or humorously, even with my companions who also saw the futility of the goal setting, we still took the setting of the impossible goals as seriously as we could.
So at some point during my mission I decided to try a new tactic, I would set low, achievable goals. Rather than using the standard method of calculating what should be our goal for charlas (which was generally to take the number of appointments set for the week and then add a random number of between 1 and 5, sometimes more, to the number of appointments we already had set and that set the goal for the next week). Instead I would take the number of charlas we had already set up and then divide that number by two to account for those that would fadge us and then subtract an additional one or two from that number to get my goal for the week. When I first proposed this idea, my companion, who was a big believer in setting impossible goals in order to motive us, said I was crazy and said that I was just trying to be lazy. I tried to explain to him my reasoning and he still insisted that I was trying to justify being lazy, so he went ahead and set his own goal of somewhere between 12-15 charlas for the coming week. I set a goal of 4.
The next week we looked back at what we had actually accomplished, and through no fault of our own we had managed to have a total of 4 charlas that week. It was the first time in my mission that I had managed to achieve the goal that I had set. I pointed this out to my companion when we were talking about our goals for the coming week, and he still insisted that I was just trying to be lazy. So again he set a goal of 14 or 15 charlas for the week. I set a goal of 5. We got 3.
After that I really stopped using the goals and focused more on the number of people I was teaching rather than the number of people I thought I should be teaching. The total number of charlas, and I must say the quality of the charlas, I was teaching went up after that. Things got better after that. While I had some companions who insisted that we go through the whole charade of making up an impossible goal that we would never keep, I learned to ignore the impossible and to focus on the possible. I learned how to make more realistic goals that weren't self-defeating and detrimental to my motivation.
While there is something to be said for setting high standards and for using goals to stretch us, I found that in order for that to work we must achieve some minimum level first because otherwise the goals that are meant to stretch and motivate us end up demotivating us and preventing us from being challenged to achieve at a higher level. It's a delicate balancing act, but we must keep in mind that when we set goals we should set them so that they can be achieved every now and then rather than always chasing The Impossible Dream.
Today during Elder's Quorum we had a lesson about goals and setting realistic goals. As I was sitting there I remembered what I had learned about setting goals on my mission. One of the things that we did every week was to sit down as a companionship and set goals for the coming week. At that time our mission president asked us to keep track of all the work and teaching that we did. This meant keeping track of the the number of charlas (discussions) taught, the number of hours we worked, the number of baptismal commitments that we extended, the number of baptismal commitments accepted, the number of people progressing towards baptism subdivided into potential priesthood holders and everyone else and the number of people baptized and confirmed. Although we were not required to have a minimum number of any of those things (except for the total hours worked) we were frequently encouraged to increase the number of charlas taught, and the number of people we were teaching. So while there was not a minimum standard set by the mission president we were all encouraged as a companionship to look at what we were doing and try to find ways to increase the number of charlas, commitments and people taught. That is, it was left up to us to set a goal and to obtain it.
With my first companion we had a great time and I loved working with him, but every week when we set our goals for the coming week it went something like this:
Comp: "We have 10 appointments this week, but some of them will fadge on us, so I expect us to have 5 appointments actually work." [The word "fadge" is not a typo. It is a transliteration of a slang word used only by Castilian speaking Mormon missionaries. Technically it should be spelled "fall-ed" but it is pronounced "fadged" or "fashed" or "fadshed". It comes from the Spanish word "fallar" which literally means "to fail" or "to mess up" and when we had an appointment that didn't work out (i.e. the person wasn't home) we would say that the person "nos falló" or they fell through on us, or they failed us. In Argentina the double L is pronounced with a strong "sh" sound, thus the common phrase "nos falló" when used by native English speakers would become slang "they fadged us". Anyway back to the story...]
Comp: "We have 10 appointments this week, but some of them will fadge on us, so I expect us to have 5 appointments actually work."
Me: "OK, we'll put our goal down as 5 charla unos (first discussions)."
Comp: "Well we have to try to keep our goals up and if we don't then we will never have something to aim for. So let's put down 10 charlas as our goal for the week."
Me: "OK."
Next week:
Me: "Well we only taught 4 charlas this week. A lot of people fadged us this week. Our goal was to get 10."
Comp: "Well let's try harder this week. We have 10 appointments, so let's put our goal as 12 charlas."
Next week:
Me: "We we only taught 3 charlas this week. Perhaps we should lower our goal."
Comp: "Well you heard what Prez [The mission President] said in the last conference, and the AP's [Assistant to the President] said that we need to focus on increasing the number of charlas that we teach and what better way than to set a high goal."
Me: "OK."
Next week:
Comp: "Well this week was really bad, everyone fadged us, we only got 2 charlas..."
Me: "Three actually."
Comp: "That one doesn't count....Well what should our goal be for the next week?"
And thus it went on for most of my mission. It was not just my first companion that this happened with. It happened with most of my companions. We would have our weekly companionship meetings and we would set our goals for the coming week, but invariably we would set goals that we would never achieve. For most of my companions this was OK because for them the point of a goal was to set something impossibly high because, as their reasoning went, the purpose was not to achieve the goal, but to set it high enough that it would drive us to do better than we normally would have. But for some of my other companions, the only reason why the goal was set so high was because it was expected of us to set a high goal, and then we would do whatever we saw fit and completely ignore our goals that we had set. But the practical effect was that our goals would be treated as meaningless. There was no point because our goals moved up and down independent of how much work we actually expected to do.
Part of the problem was that we did not want to admit defeat on some points and concede that most of our appointments would fall through on us. We wanted to maintain at least the appearance of an optimistic outlook. We wanted most of the people to actually want to listen to us. But we didn't want to be honest and admit that it just wasn't true.
As I thought about this throughout my mission I slowly came to the conclusion that the only way I could make our companionship goals useful was to be honest about it and to lower my expectations. I reasoned that it is better to set an impossibly low goal and actually achieve it than it was to set a high "motivational" goal and not achieve it. The reason for this was the over time if our goals were never achieved then no matter how high (or moderately) they were set they became meaningless and were promptly ignored. It did not matter how motivated we were when we set the goal, if we consistently failed to achieve it then we consistently ignored it as irrelevant. But because of the seriousness of what we were doing we felt that it was not possible to treat our goal setting lightly or humorously, even with my companions who also saw the futility of the goal setting, we still took the setting of the impossible goals as seriously as we could.
So at some point during my mission I decided to try a new tactic, I would set low, achievable goals. Rather than using the standard method of calculating what should be our goal for charlas (which was generally to take the number of appointments set for the week and then add a random number of between 1 and 5, sometimes more, to the number of appointments we already had set and that set the goal for the next week). Instead I would take the number of charlas we had already set up and then divide that number by two to account for those that would fadge us and then subtract an additional one or two from that number to get my goal for the week. When I first proposed this idea, my companion, who was a big believer in setting impossible goals in order to motive us, said I was crazy and said that I was just trying to be lazy. I tried to explain to him my reasoning and he still insisted that I was trying to justify being lazy, so he went ahead and set his own goal of somewhere between 12-15 charlas for the coming week. I set a goal of 4.
The next week we looked back at what we had actually accomplished, and through no fault of our own we had managed to have a total of 4 charlas that week. It was the first time in my mission that I had managed to achieve the goal that I had set. I pointed this out to my companion when we were talking about our goals for the coming week, and he still insisted that I was just trying to be lazy. So again he set a goal of 14 or 15 charlas for the week. I set a goal of 5. We got 3.
After that I really stopped using the goals and focused more on the number of people I was teaching rather than the number of people I thought I should be teaching. The total number of charlas, and I must say the quality of the charlas, I was teaching went up after that. Things got better after that. While I had some companions who insisted that we go through the whole charade of making up an impossible goal that we would never keep, I learned to ignore the impossible and to focus on the possible. I learned how to make more realistic goals that weren't self-defeating and detrimental to my motivation.
While there is something to be said for setting high standards and for using goals to stretch us, I found that in order for that to work we must achieve some minimum level first because otherwise the goals that are meant to stretch and motivate us end up demotivating us and preventing us from being challenged to achieve at a higher level. It's a delicate balancing act, but we must keep in mind that when we set goals we should set them so that they can be achieved every now and then rather than always chasing The Impossible Dream.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Happy Annen Juledag
In much of Scandinavia today is known as Annen Juledag in Norwegian and Swedish (also spelled Anden Juledag in Danish). Literally it means "Second Christmas" (Annen = second and Juledag = Yule day or Christmas Day). The day is usually marked by joyful singing, dancing about the house in a line holding hands and eating lots of food with friends and family.
Most Churches will have a second worship service today in addition to the normal Christmas service, but that is in Scandinavia where snow and cold weather is normal. Where I live in North Carolina the moment a flake is seen the city shuts down and everyone prepares for the Apocalypse. Accordingly when we woke up this morning and saw this:
We knew that we would shortly get an email telling us about Church being canceled, and we did and it was.
Most Churches will have a second worship service today in addition to the normal Christmas service, but that is in Scandinavia where snow and cold weather is normal. Where I live in North Carolina the moment a flake is seen the city shuts down and everyone prepares for the Apocalypse. Accordingly when we woke up this morning and saw this:
We knew that we would shortly get an email telling us about Church being canceled, and we did and it was.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
"The mistake of attributing the extraordinary intellectual development of this period to the Protestant Reformation"
[Editor's note: This is an essay from The Student Handbook of British and American Literature by The Rev. O. L. Jenkins, A.M., S.S., late president of St. Charles's College, Ellicott City, Md. Edited by a Member of the Society of St. Sulpice. A note before the preface states, "Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1885, by P. P. Denis, President of St. Charles's College, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C."]
What we understand by the modern English period is all that interval of time which extends from the middle of Queen Elizabeth's reign to our own day. Doubtless more books have been produced than at any preceding period, elementary knowledge has spread more extensively among the masses, physical sciences have reached a wonderful development, criticism and philology have entered a new career, the novel and the newspaper have grown to be the daily food of the million. But it is right to conclude from these facts that the so-called Protestant Reformation originated this movement, and thus opened to mankind an era of unheard of progress in civilization and science?* [Footnote: "The times which shine with the greatest splendor in literary history are not always those to which the human mind is most indebted.....The first fruits which are reaped under a bad system often spring from seed sown under a good one." Macaulay, Essay on Machiavelli] Or rather, was not the intellectual activity of Europe already aroused and even fairly started with a promise of great progress before the sixteenth century, and did not that activity receive from the religious and political commotion of the Reformation a sudden check, from which it has recovered only to grow wild, and follow, to a great extent, devious and deceitful ways? We do not mean to enter here upon a full discussion of this vast subject, but merely to throw in a few remarks, corroborated in most instances by Protestant authorities, concerning the actual influence of the Reformation upon the principal elements of human progress, as literature in general, fine arts, philosophy, social order, liberty bother civil and religious; and then briefly state what we understand to be the real causes of the wider spread of letters in modern times.
1. Literature in General.--Erasmus, who was contemporary with the early reformers, and certainly no blind approver of the old state of things, gives his testimony that the Reformation was fatal to all wholesome intellectual progress, and he laments bitterly that wherever Lutheranism reigns, literature perishes. In one of his letters, speaking of the Evangelicals of his day, he tells us that to them is due the fact that polite letters are neglected and forgotten: "languent, fugiunt, jacent, intereunt bonae litterae." [Hallam's Lit. of Europe, vol. i, p. 189.] "The most striking effect," says Hallam, "of the first preaching of the Reformation was that it appealed to the ignorant....It is probable that both the principles of the great founder of the Reformation, and the natural tendency of so intense an application to theological controversy, checked, for a time, the progress of philological and philosophical literature on this side of the Alps." [Ibid., p. 192.] Thomas Arnold, in his work entitled Chaucer to Wordsworth, thus characterizes the English reformers: "The official reformers, if one may so call them,--Henry VIII. and his agents, and the council of Edward VI.,--did positive injury to education and literature for the time, by the rapacity which led them to destroy the monasteries for the sake of their lands. Many good monastic schools thus ceased to exist, and education throughout the country seems to have been at the lowest possible ebb about the middle of the century. The sincere reformers, who afterwards developed in the great Puritan party, were disposed to look upon human learning, as something useless, if not dangerous; upon art, as a profane waste of time; and generally upon all mental exertion which was not directed to the great business of securing one's salvation, as so much labor thrown away." [Pp. 52 and 53.] In his History of English Literature, the same writer lays the charge in question upon the reformers generally, and Luther in particular, as being the originator of the fanatic movement against human learning. [P. 106] "By the regulations of the Star Chamber, in 1585, no press was allowed to be used out of London, except one at Oxford and another at Cambridge. Thus every check was imposed on literature, and it seems unreasonable to dispute that they had some efficacy in restraining its progress." [Hallam's Lit. pp. 413 and 414]
2. Fine Arts.--The effect of the Reformation on the fine arts was pernicious, not only by the destruction of existing specimens of architecture, sculpture, and painting; but by diverting art itself from its original and natural destination. The Reformation viewed as superstition the pomp of divine worship, as objects of idolatry the masterpieces of art. Its tendency was to degrade taste by repudiating its models; to introduce a dry, cold, captious formality, in lieu of the elevating, soul-inspiring service of the old Catholic cathedrals.* [When Dean, afterwards Bishop, Berkley offered an organ as a gift to the town of Berkley in Massachusetts, the selectmen of the town were not prepared to harbor so dangerous a guest; and, voting that 'an organ is an instrument of the devil for the entrapping of men's souls, they declined the offer.' Duckinck's Cyc., vol. i., p. 166.] "The Reformation favorable to the fine arts!" exclaims Archbishop Spalding, "as well might you assert that a conflagration is beneficial to a city which it consumes. Wherever the Reformation appeared, it pillaged, defaced, often burnt churches and monasteries; it broke up and destroyed statues and paintings, and it often burnt whole libraries." [History of the Reformation, vol. i., ch. 15.] In the British Parliament during the Protectorate, so deep was the fanaticism of the times, that "serious propositions were made to paint all the churches black, in order to typify the gloom and corruption that reigned within them."
3. Philosophy.--A few remarks concerning the influence of Protestantism on philosophy, are made necessary from the close relation in which that branch of learning stands to literature. The vehicle through which the results of philosophical investigation are conveyed to the people at large, is literature; and, reciprocally, the speculations of philosophy are modified by the ideas current in literature. What, then, have been the effects of the Reformation on philosophy?
The fundamental principle of the Reformation--private judgement or the rejection of authority in religious matters--sweeps away all the mysteries of the Christian faith, since, being above human reason, they cannot be comprehended by human reason. Hence Rationalism must be substituted for Christianity, and a pagan literature must be ultimately the inevitable consequence. In fact, those among Protestants who followed out their principle, were led to drive away God and the soul from their philosophy, and rush madly into the gross errors of materialism. To substantiate what we say, we need only recall the names of Lord Herbert of Cherbury, Hobbes, Blount, Toland, Shaftesbury, Woolston, and Bolingbroke. The French philosophism of the last century emanated from this school; and the French infidels, headed by Voltaire, were at first mere echoes of their English masters. It is also a fact worthy of notice that Voltaire, who cherished so intense a hatred of Christianity, has generally found great favor with Protestants. At times, indeed, reactionary movements have been set on foot to turn the tide of infidelity; but, as long as the principle remains, such movements will be failures. To-day the fatal doctrines continue to produce the self-same consequences in the skeptical, anti-Christian spirit that strives more and more to assert its supremacy, even in such quarters as the once so conservative University of Oxford. Darwin, Spencer, Tyndal, Huxley, Matthew Arnold, are the leading representatives of that spirit. The effects of such a philosophy upon literature have been to deprive it of the highest source of inspiration, the Christian spirit; to throw a cloud of doubts over the best-ascertained facts of history; and finally to replace Christian by pagan ideals and heroes. Such in fact, to a great extent, is our contemporary literature; such is it, at least, in its most popular form, the all-pervading novel.
4. Social Order.--It cannot be denied, that peace and order, in the State, are among the essential conditions to the progress of civilization and the prosperity of literature. The best guarantee of peace and order, is found in a spirit of obedience on the part of the governed, and a spirit of justice on the part of the government. Now Protestantism stands opposed to this twofold spirit. Its very origin was a protest, a revolt against the highest authority on earth; its essential principle, a sanction to arbitrary rule and despotism; and hence its effect was gradually to undermine the basis of social order. Germany, the cradle of Protestantism, was frightfully mutilated by the devastating scourge of religious wars. The ferment of revolt, extending wherever the Reformation prevailed, was everywhere a cause of commotion and strife. During two entire centuries, Sweden, Denmark, and Holland, were writhing with anarchy. France was reduced to the verge of ruin by the same religious dissensions. For two-thirds of the sixteenth century, England groaned under religious persecutions and the most brutal despotism; and, during the greater part of the seventeenth; she was a pry to civil wars and the fanaticism of sectarians. Hallam considers that the excitement of a revolutionary spirit was a consequence of the new doctrines, and adds: "A more immediate effect of overthrowing the ancient system was the growth of fanaticism, to which, in its worst shape, the Antinomian* [Antinomian (αντι, against, and νομος, law) signifies the error which denies the obligation of the moral law, under the Christian dispensation. Luther said that we might sin a thousand times a day and not mind it, provided we had faith in Christ, i. e., faith that His merits are greater than our iniquities.] extravagances of Luther yielded too great encouragement." [Lit. of Europe, vol. i., p. 187, Harper's Edit.] "A political and spiritual despotism such as that of Henry VIII. and of Cromwell, would have been impossible but for the Reformation." [Fred. Schlegel.] It is a startling fact, that, in every Protestant kingdom of continental Europe, absolute monarchy, in its most consolidated and despotic form, dates precisely from the period of the Reformation.
5. Civil and Religious Liberty.--Those who look upon Protestantism as inseparable from public liberty, do not agree with Hallam and Guizot, neither of whom can be accused of any want of sympathy for the Reformation. According to the former, "It is one of the fallacious views of the Reformation, to fancy that it sprung from any notions of political liberty, in such a sense as we attach to the word." [Lit. of Europe, vol. i., p. 187] "In Germany," says the latter, "far from demanding political liberty, the Reformation has accepted, I should not like to say political servitude, but the absence of liberty." [Hist. Gen. de la Civil., Lect. 12.]
With regard to religious liberty, let us hear Hallam again: "The adherents of the Church of Rome have never failed to cast two reproaches on those who left them: one, that the reform was brought about by intemperate and calumnious abuse, by outrages of an excited populace, or by the tyranny of princes; the other, that after stimulating the most ignorant to reject the authority of the Church, it instantly withdrew this liberty of judgement, and devoted all who presumed to swerve from the line drawn by law, to virulent obloquy, or sometimes to bonds and death. These reproaches, it may be a shame for us to own, 'can be uttered and cannot be refuted.'" [Lit. of Europe, vol. i., p. 200.] In what age or country has religious liberty ever been more systematically, more steadily, and more thoroughly trampled upon, than it was in the case of Catholics in England, Ireland, and Scotland, from the time of Elizabeth to the Catholic Emancipation in 1829? In our own country, the early history of Virginia and New England is little more than a record of doctrinal disputations, the bitter fruits of religious intolerance.
From the facts just enumerated, the following conclusion forces itself upon us: that the Reformation was rather a retrograde than a progressive movement in the interests of civilization and science; and that, if literature had developed so extensively in modern times, it is not in consequence, but in spite of the Reformation. The various elements of modern progress, carefully gathered together for centuries, had already produced great results, and the impulse was given for still greater, when the Reformation entangled the human mind in wild controversies, and estranged it from the Church only to lead it beak gradually to paganism. This false direction given to the mind, of which we see still the unhappy consequence, belongs to the Reformation; whilst the life and brilliancy that characterize this epoch are due, as we shall show, to causes far different.
Among these causes, we place in the first rank the Catholic Church. She it was that saved the world from utter barbarism, when the hordes of the North were settling over the ruins of the old pagan civilization. She it was that converted and civilized, one after another, all the nations of Europe. It was her zeal for intellectual pursuits that led to the foundation of numerous schools, and those famous universities, which, for depth of teaching and the number of students, have never been equalled. When the new civilization was threatened by the fanaticism of Islam, it was her pontiffs that first sounded the alarm, and united in one common cause the rival claims of European princes. Indeed, from Urban II. to St. Pius V, and from St. Pius V. to Clement XI., the popes never relented their efforts till the Mahometan power was first crippled at Lepanto, and its aggressive spirit finally broken under the walls of Belgrade (1717).
The Crusades not only repelled the enemy of civilization, but proved beneficial at home, by dissolving the feudal system, ridding Europe of many a petty despot, stimulating commerce, and eliciting a spirit of industry, enterprise, and invention.
The decline of the feudal system and the abolition of slavery, by introducing a large body of men into the rank of citizens, contributed not a little to the general development of human resources. Under feudalism, the mass of the people, under the appellation of serfs, were bought and sold with the soil to which they were attached; but now their condition was gradually improved by the influence of the Church, until the system disappeared altogether from European society.
As regards slavery, "the spirit of the Christian religion," says Bancroft, "would, before the discovery of America, have led to the entire abolition of the slave-trade, but for the hostility between the Christian Church and the followers of Mahomet. In the twelfth century, Pope Alexander III., true to the spirit of his office, . . . had written that 'Nature having made no slaves, all men have an equal right to liberty.' It was the clergy that had broken up the Christian slave-markets at Bristol and Hamburg, at Lyons and at Rome." * [Hist. of the U. S., Vol. i., pp. 163 and 165, 1st edition.]
Another important element of human progress, also the work of the Church, were the elevation of the female character, and the restoration of women to her proper station in society. The Church, from the first, taught the barbarian to treat women not as a slave, but a companion. The mother, whose duties in the training of her children were so laborious and weighty, forgot her troubles in the joy of possessing the undivided affection of her spouse. She became the sovereign of the domestic circle, the ornament, and refiner of society.
A more immediate cause of the progress of letters in Western Europe, must be traced to the advent in Italy and elsewhere, of many learned Greeks, together with the munificent patronage held out by the Houses of Medici, of Este, of Gonzaga, and especially by the Popes. Greek manuscripts were collected at great expense, and buildings erected to preserve these treasures and the monuments of art that survived the ravages of the barbarians. As early as the middle of the fifteenth century, the Vatican Library, enriched, if not founded, by Pope Nicholas V., possessed now fewer than 5000 volumes, many of which were of the greatest value. This zeal for letters and the general revival created a galaxy of geniuses in the golden age of Leo X., very properly styled the second Augustan age of Roman literature, when
Elsewhere also, as in Spain, in Portugal, and in France, three countries where the Reformation did not succeed in implanting itself, there was a general outburst of enthusiasm for letters, which, indeed, might have been fatal to Christian ideas but for the directing hand of the Church.
Finally, what contributed most of all to the development of literature in modern times, was that wonderful invention of the art of printing, the authors of which, according to the more common opinion of learned men, were Faust, Schæffer, and Gutenberg, at Metz, about the year 1440. Printing by hand was known long before, even as far back as the tenth century, but was of little advantage, owing to the slowness of the process and the scarcity of paper. The invention of the printing press, at a time when paper had become cheaper and more common, afforded unprecedented facilities for the prosecution of literary studies. Before the close of the fifteenth century, it is said that 10,000 editions of works, of which the classics formed a considerable number, were printed in Europe. Of these works, Italy had the honor of publishing nearly one-half; while a very small number, (not exceeding one hundred and fifty), were printed in England. of the Vulgate, Hallam mentions ninety-one editions, and of Virgil, ninety-five. We find 291 editions of the writings of Cicero. These numbers, it must be remembered, relate not to single volumes; but to whole editions of the works, varying from 225 to 550 copies, or more, for each edition. If we take the latter number as the basis of our calculation, and apply it to the works of Cicero alone, the result is that above 160,000 copies of the writings of this elegant author were brought into circulation during the last quarter of the fifteenth century.
In England, the example set by William Caxton, who first introduced the press there in 1477, was eagerly followed by others. Not only the classic works of Roman and Grecian genius, but the popular writings of modern Italy and France, were translated and widely circulated. Thus a taste for general reading and information was excited and fostered in all classes of society. The language itself soon felt the benefit of the new impulse, and was enriched by a great variety of words drawn from the ancient and modern tongues. Better models of thought and style were introduced; and the quaint untutored phraseology of our earliest authors, yielded to the more correct diction and polished periods of subsequent writers. Yet this movement was considerably retarded by the religious commotions of the kingdom, during the reigns of Henry VIII. and his two successors. When the nation had become more indifferent to the old worship, and the general quiet was left undisturbed by the patient endurance of Catholics under a relentless and bloody persecution, then England was able to enjoy the golden age of her literature.
The Mistake of Attributing the Extraordinary Intellectual Development of This Period to the Protestant Reformation
What we understand by the modern English period is all that interval of time which extends from the middle of Queen Elizabeth's reign to our own day. Doubtless more books have been produced than at any preceding period, elementary knowledge has spread more extensively among the masses, physical sciences have reached a wonderful development, criticism and philology have entered a new career, the novel and the newspaper have grown to be the daily food of the million. But it is right to conclude from these facts that the so-called Protestant Reformation originated this movement, and thus opened to mankind an era of unheard of progress in civilization and science?* [Footnote: "The times which shine with the greatest splendor in literary history are not always those to which the human mind is most indebted.....The first fruits which are reaped under a bad system often spring from seed sown under a good one." Macaulay, Essay on Machiavelli] Or rather, was not the intellectual activity of Europe already aroused and even fairly started with a promise of great progress before the sixteenth century, and did not that activity receive from the religious and political commotion of the Reformation a sudden check, from which it has recovered only to grow wild, and follow, to a great extent, devious and deceitful ways? We do not mean to enter here upon a full discussion of this vast subject, but merely to throw in a few remarks, corroborated in most instances by Protestant authorities, concerning the actual influence of the Reformation upon the principal elements of human progress, as literature in general, fine arts, philosophy, social order, liberty bother civil and religious; and then briefly state what we understand to be the real causes of the wider spread of letters in modern times.
1. Literature in General.--Erasmus, who was contemporary with the early reformers, and certainly no blind approver of the old state of things, gives his testimony that the Reformation was fatal to all wholesome intellectual progress, and he laments bitterly that wherever Lutheranism reigns, literature perishes. In one of his letters, speaking of the Evangelicals of his day, he tells us that to them is due the fact that polite letters are neglected and forgotten: "languent, fugiunt, jacent, intereunt bonae litterae." [Hallam's Lit. of Europe, vol. i, p. 189.] "The most striking effect," says Hallam, "of the first preaching of the Reformation was that it appealed to the ignorant....It is probable that both the principles of the great founder of the Reformation, and the natural tendency of so intense an application to theological controversy, checked, for a time, the progress of philological and philosophical literature on this side of the Alps." [Ibid., p. 192.] Thomas Arnold, in his work entitled Chaucer to Wordsworth, thus characterizes the English reformers: "The official reformers, if one may so call them,--Henry VIII. and his agents, and the council of Edward VI.,--did positive injury to education and literature for the time, by the rapacity which led them to destroy the monasteries for the sake of their lands. Many good monastic schools thus ceased to exist, and education throughout the country seems to have been at the lowest possible ebb about the middle of the century. The sincere reformers, who afterwards developed in the great Puritan party, were disposed to look upon human learning, as something useless, if not dangerous; upon art, as a profane waste of time; and generally upon all mental exertion which was not directed to the great business of securing one's salvation, as so much labor thrown away." [Pp. 52 and 53.] In his History of English Literature, the same writer lays the charge in question upon the reformers generally, and Luther in particular, as being the originator of the fanatic movement against human learning. [P. 106] "By the regulations of the Star Chamber, in 1585, no press was allowed to be used out of London, except one at Oxford and another at Cambridge. Thus every check was imposed on literature, and it seems unreasonable to dispute that they had some efficacy in restraining its progress." [Hallam's Lit. pp. 413 and 414]
2. Fine Arts.--The effect of the Reformation on the fine arts was pernicious, not only by the destruction of existing specimens of architecture, sculpture, and painting; but by diverting art itself from its original and natural destination. The Reformation viewed as superstition the pomp of divine worship, as objects of idolatry the masterpieces of art. Its tendency was to degrade taste by repudiating its models; to introduce a dry, cold, captious formality, in lieu of the elevating, soul-inspiring service of the old Catholic cathedrals.* [When Dean, afterwards Bishop, Berkley offered an organ as a gift to the town of Berkley in Massachusetts, the selectmen of the town were not prepared to harbor so dangerous a guest; and, voting that 'an organ is an instrument of the devil for the entrapping of men's souls, they declined the offer.' Duckinck's Cyc., vol. i., p. 166.] "The Reformation favorable to the fine arts!" exclaims Archbishop Spalding, "as well might you assert that a conflagration is beneficial to a city which it consumes. Wherever the Reformation appeared, it pillaged, defaced, often burnt churches and monasteries; it broke up and destroyed statues and paintings, and it often burnt whole libraries." [History of the Reformation, vol. i., ch. 15.] In the British Parliament during the Protectorate, so deep was the fanaticism of the times, that "serious propositions were made to paint all the churches black, in order to typify the gloom and corruption that reigned within them."
3. Philosophy.--A few remarks concerning the influence of Protestantism on philosophy, are made necessary from the close relation in which that branch of learning stands to literature. The vehicle through which the results of philosophical investigation are conveyed to the people at large, is literature; and, reciprocally, the speculations of philosophy are modified by the ideas current in literature. What, then, have been the effects of the Reformation on philosophy?
The fundamental principle of the Reformation--private judgement or the rejection of authority in religious matters--sweeps away all the mysteries of the Christian faith, since, being above human reason, they cannot be comprehended by human reason. Hence Rationalism must be substituted for Christianity, and a pagan literature must be ultimately the inevitable consequence. In fact, those among Protestants who followed out their principle, were led to drive away God and the soul from their philosophy, and rush madly into the gross errors of materialism. To substantiate what we say, we need only recall the names of Lord Herbert of Cherbury, Hobbes, Blount, Toland, Shaftesbury, Woolston, and Bolingbroke. The French philosophism of the last century emanated from this school; and the French infidels, headed by Voltaire, were at first mere echoes of their English masters. It is also a fact worthy of notice that Voltaire, who cherished so intense a hatred of Christianity, has generally found great favor with Protestants. At times, indeed, reactionary movements have been set on foot to turn the tide of infidelity; but, as long as the principle remains, such movements will be failures. To-day the fatal doctrines continue to produce the self-same consequences in the skeptical, anti-Christian spirit that strives more and more to assert its supremacy, even in such quarters as the once so conservative University of Oxford. Darwin, Spencer, Tyndal, Huxley, Matthew Arnold, are the leading representatives of that spirit. The effects of such a philosophy upon literature have been to deprive it of the highest source of inspiration, the Christian spirit; to throw a cloud of doubts over the best-ascertained facts of history; and finally to replace Christian by pagan ideals and heroes. Such in fact, to a great extent, is our contemporary literature; such is it, at least, in its most popular form, the all-pervading novel.
4. Social Order.--It cannot be denied, that peace and order, in the State, are among the essential conditions to the progress of civilization and the prosperity of literature. The best guarantee of peace and order, is found in a spirit of obedience on the part of the governed, and a spirit of justice on the part of the government. Now Protestantism stands opposed to this twofold spirit. Its very origin was a protest, a revolt against the highest authority on earth; its essential principle, a sanction to arbitrary rule and despotism; and hence its effect was gradually to undermine the basis of social order. Germany, the cradle of Protestantism, was frightfully mutilated by the devastating scourge of religious wars. The ferment of revolt, extending wherever the Reformation prevailed, was everywhere a cause of commotion and strife. During two entire centuries, Sweden, Denmark, and Holland, were writhing with anarchy. France was reduced to the verge of ruin by the same religious dissensions. For two-thirds of the sixteenth century, England groaned under religious persecutions and the most brutal despotism; and, during the greater part of the seventeenth; she was a pry to civil wars and the fanaticism of sectarians. Hallam considers that the excitement of a revolutionary spirit was a consequence of the new doctrines, and adds: "A more immediate effect of overthrowing the ancient system was the growth of fanaticism, to which, in its worst shape, the Antinomian* [Antinomian (αντι, against, and νομος, law) signifies the error which denies the obligation of the moral law, under the Christian dispensation. Luther said that we might sin a thousand times a day and not mind it, provided we had faith in Christ, i. e., faith that His merits are greater than our iniquities.] extravagances of Luther yielded too great encouragement." [Lit. of Europe, vol. i., p. 187, Harper's Edit.] "A political and spiritual despotism such as that of Henry VIII. and of Cromwell, would have been impossible but for the Reformation." [Fred. Schlegel.] It is a startling fact, that, in every Protestant kingdom of continental Europe, absolute monarchy, in its most consolidated and despotic form, dates precisely from the period of the Reformation.
5. Civil and Religious Liberty.--Those who look upon Protestantism as inseparable from public liberty, do not agree with Hallam and Guizot, neither of whom can be accused of any want of sympathy for the Reformation. According to the former, "It is one of the fallacious views of the Reformation, to fancy that it sprung from any notions of political liberty, in such a sense as we attach to the word." [Lit. of Europe, vol. i., p. 187] "In Germany," says the latter, "far from demanding political liberty, the Reformation has accepted, I should not like to say political servitude, but the absence of liberty." [Hist. Gen. de la Civil., Lect. 12.]
With regard to religious liberty, let us hear Hallam again: "The adherents of the Church of Rome have never failed to cast two reproaches on those who left them: one, that the reform was brought about by intemperate and calumnious abuse, by outrages of an excited populace, or by the tyranny of princes; the other, that after stimulating the most ignorant to reject the authority of the Church, it instantly withdrew this liberty of judgement, and devoted all who presumed to swerve from the line drawn by law, to virulent obloquy, or sometimes to bonds and death. These reproaches, it may be a shame for us to own, 'can be uttered and cannot be refuted.'" [Lit. of Europe, vol. i., p. 200.] In what age or country has religious liberty ever been more systematically, more steadily, and more thoroughly trampled upon, than it was in the case of Catholics in England, Ireland, and Scotland, from the time of Elizabeth to the Catholic Emancipation in 1829? In our own country, the early history of Virginia and New England is little more than a record of doctrinal disputations, the bitter fruits of religious intolerance.
From the facts just enumerated, the following conclusion forces itself upon us: that the Reformation was rather a retrograde than a progressive movement in the interests of civilization and science; and that, if literature had developed so extensively in modern times, it is not in consequence, but in spite of the Reformation. The various elements of modern progress, carefully gathered together for centuries, had already produced great results, and the impulse was given for still greater, when the Reformation entangled the human mind in wild controversies, and estranged it from the Church only to lead it beak gradually to paganism. This false direction given to the mind, of which we see still the unhappy consequence, belongs to the Reformation; whilst the life and brilliancy that characterize this epoch are due, as we shall show, to causes far different.
Real Causes of Human Progress and Literary Improvement in the Modern Period
Among these causes, we place in the first rank the Catholic Church. She it was that saved the world from utter barbarism, when the hordes of the North were settling over the ruins of the old pagan civilization. She it was that converted and civilized, one after another, all the nations of Europe. It was her zeal for intellectual pursuits that led to the foundation of numerous schools, and those famous universities, which, for depth of teaching and the number of students, have never been equalled. When the new civilization was threatened by the fanaticism of Islam, it was her pontiffs that first sounded the alarm, and united in one common cause the rival claims of European princes. Indeed, from Urban II. to St. Pius V, and from St. Pius V. to Clement XI., the popes never relented their efforts till the Mahometan power was first crippled at Lepanto, and its aggressive spirit finally broken under the walls of Belgrade (1717).
The Crusades not only repelled the enemy of civilization, but proved beneficial at home, by dissolving the feudal system, ridding Europe of many a petty despot, stimulating commerce, and eliciting a spirit of industry, enterprise, and invention.
The decline of the feudal system and the abolition of slavery, by introducing a large body of men into the rank of citizens, contributed not a little to the general development of human resources. Under feudalism, the mass of the people, under the appellation of serfs, were bought and sold with the soil to which they were attached; but now their condition was gradually improved by the influence of the Church, until the system disappeared altogether from European society.
As regards slavery, "the spirit of the Christian religion," says Bancroft, "would, before the discovery of America, have led to the entire abolition of the slave-trade, but for the hostility between the Christian Church and the followers of Mahomet. In the twelfth century, Pope Alexander III., true to the spirit of his office, . . . had written that 'Nature having made no slaves, all men have an equal right to liberty.' It was the clergy that had broken up the Christian slave-markets at Bristol and Hamburg, at Lyons and at Rome." * [Hist. of the U. S., Vol. i., pp. 163 and 165, 1st edition.]
Another important element of human progress, also the work of the Church, were the elevation of the female character, and the restoration of women to her proper station in society. The Church, from the first, taught the barbarian to treat women not as a slave, but a companion. The mother, whose duties in the training of her children were so laborious and weighty, forgot her troubles in the joy of possessing the undivided affection of her spouse. She became the sovereign of the domestic circle, the ornament, and refiner of society.
A more immediate cause of the progress of letters in Western Europe, must be traced to the advent in Italy and elsewhere, of many learned Greeks, together with the munificent patronage held out by the Houses of Medici, of Este, of Gonzaga, and especially by the Popes. Greek manuscripts were collected at great expense, and buildings erected to preserve these treasures and the monuments of art that survived the ravages of the barbarians. As early as the middle of the fifteenth century, the Vatican Library, enriched, if not founded, by Pope Nicholas V., possessed now fewer than 5000 volumes, many of which were of the greatest value. This zeal for letters and the general revival created a galaxy of geniuses in the golden age of Leo X., very properly styled the second Augustan age of Roman literature, when
'A Raphael painted, and a Vida sung.'
Elsewhere also, as in Spain, in Portugal, and in France, three countries where the Reformation did not succeed in implanting itself, there was a general outburst of enthusiasm for letters, which, indeed, might have been fatal to Christian ideas but for the directing hand of the Church.
Finally, what contributed most of all to the development of literature in modern times, was that wonderful invention of the art of printing, the authors of which, according to the more common opinion of learned men, were Faust, Schæffer, and Gutenberg, at Metz, about the year 1440. Printing by hand was known long before, even as far back as the tenth century, but was of little advantage, owing to the slowness of the process and the scarcity of paper. The invention of the printing press, at a time when paper had become cheaper and more common, afforded unprecedented facilities for the prosecution of literary studies. Before the close of the fifteenth century, it is said that 10,000 editions of works, of which the classics formed a considerable number, were printed in Europe. Of these works, Italy had the honor of publishing nearly one-half; while a very small number, (not exceeding one hundred and fifty), were printed in England. of the Vulgate, Hallam mentions ninety-one editions, and of Virgil, ninety-five. We find 291 editions of the writings of Cicero. These numbers, it must be remembered, relate not to single volumes; but to whole editions of the works, varying from 225 to 550 copies, or more, for each edition. If we take the latter number as the basis of our calculation, and apply it to the works of Cicero alone, the result is that above 160,000 copies of the writings of this elegant author were brought into circulation during the last quarter of the fifteenth century.
In England, the example set by William Caxton, who first introduced the press there in 1477, was eagerly followed by others. Not only the classic works of Roman and Grecian genius, but the popular writings of modern Italy and France, were translated and widely circulated. Thus a taste for general reading and information was excited and fostered in all classes of society. The language itself soon felt the benefit of the new impulse, and was enriched by a great variety of words drawn from the ancient and modern tongues. Better models of thought and style were introduced; and the quaint untutored phraseology of our earliest authors, yielded to the more correct diction and polished periods of subsequent writers. Yet this movement was considerably retarded by the religious commotions of the kingdom, during the reigns of Henry VIII. and his two successors. When the nation had become more indifferent to the old worship, and the general quiet was left undisturbed by the patient endurance of Catholics under a relentless and bloody persecution, then England was able to enjoy the golden age of her literature.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Glories within Glories
This post assumes a knowledge of LDS theology as I will not explain in depth the ideas behind what I am talking about.
In Joseph Smith's vision of the three degrees of glory found in D&C Section 76 he talks about the celestial, the terrestrial and telestial glories, giving a description of those who will go there and what blessings they will have. While this section is largely our only source in scripture for understanding the three degrees of glory, D&C Section 131 also has a brief statement about the "celestial glory". All it includes is four verses stating:
Today there is a common phrase in the church about "the highest level of the celestial kingdom". This phrase is common enough that most members can at least repeat it and say something about it, mainly they heard it from so-and-so that ______(fill in the blank, with appropriate reference to general authority, prophet, book, scripture, rumor, myth, mormon musical etc.).
My thought is that in the original vision seen by Joseph Smith he never mentioned anything remotely alluding to separate levels within the celestial kingdom. As a matter of fact there is language contained in section 76 that would imply that there is no sub-dividing levels within the celestial kingdom. For example verses 92-96 state:
But if we return to section 131 we have the statement in the first verse which clearly states that "In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees". This would seem to be a contradiction from the complete lack of levels within the celestial kingdom from section 76. But if we think about it we should consider the phrase "celestial glory" and how it is being used, or specifically how Joseph Smith used it. In our modern times members of the church would be picky about the use of the word celestial to only mean those things pertaining to the celestial kingdom (i.e. the highest kingdom as explained in section 76). I do not think that at the time Joseph Smith was as particular with his words as we are today. That is, he was not working with the definition that we have built up around the word "celestial". It is most likely that when he used the phrase "celestial glory" in the context of section 131 he simply meant anything that was part of our post-mortal experience.
Thus the three degrees referred to in section 131 are not referring to three previously undisclosed levels of glory within the glory of the celestial kingdom, but in fact refer to the three known kingdoms of glory, what we call the celestial, the terrestrial and the telestial. If we consider it like this then we have less contradictions to explain in the scriptures. As a final parting note, there is even a short Wikipedia stub about the separation degrees within the celestial kingdom. As the source they cite section 131 and then reference section 132 verses 16 and 17 to explain the two unexplained levels within the celestial kingdom. But if we take a look at these two verses we read:
Of course all this hinges on the fact that Joseph Smith may not have been using the phrase "celestial glory" in the same way that we are accustomed to use it now, which I think is much more likely than the contradictions that arise from assuming that there are multiple levels within the celestial kingdom, where all are "equal in power, and in might, and in dominion" and all are "gods, even the sons of God".
In Joseph Smith's vision of the three degrees of glory found in D&C Section 76 he talks about the celestial, the terrestrial and telestial glories, giving a description of those who will go there and what blessings they will have. While this section is largely our only source in scripture for understanding the three degrees of glory, D&C Section 131 also has a brief statement about the "celestial glory". All it includes is four verses stating:
1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;It is from this first verse that we get the idea that the celestial glory is further divided into three more levels or degrees. The first revelation (section 76) was received in 1832 and the second one was received in 1843, thus it is assumed that the second revelation (section 131) was received as a small addendum to the doctrine given in 1832. In other words, the fact that there were three levels within the celestial kingdom was something that was missed by Joseph Smith in the original vision that was added on later (in about 1843) to flesh-out our understanding of the celestial kingdom. At least that was the conventional wisdom being taught in seminary.
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.
Today there is a common phrase in the church about "the highest level of the celestial kingdom". This phrase is common enough that most members can at least repeat it and say something about it, mainly they heard it from so-and-so that ______(fill in the blank, with appropriate reference to general authority, prophet, book, scripture, rumor, myth, mormon musical etc.).
My thought is that in the original vision seen by Joseph Smith he never mentioned anything remotely alluding to separate levels within the celestial kingdom. As a matter of fact there is language contained in section 76 that would imply that there is no sub-dividing levels within the celestial kingdom. For example verses 92-96 state:
92 And thus we saw the glory of the celestial, which excels in all things—where God, even the Father, reigns upon his throne forever and ever;As we read in verse 95, those who partake of celestial glory are "equal in power, and in might, and in dominion". It seems to me that that would preclude there being any levels or distinctions between people in the celestial kingdom. If we look at what is said about the other kingdoms the only place we find subdivisions or distinctions within the kingdom is in the telestial kingdom where, "as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world" (v. 98). This difference is distinctly absent from the other kingdoms. So if it is the case that the people in the celestial kingdom are "equal in power, and in might, and in dominion" then it would be illogical for there to be three levels or degrees within the celestial kingdom.
93 Before whose throne all things bow in humble reverence, and give him glory forever and ever.
94 They who dwell in his presence are the church of the Firstborn; and they see as they are seen, and know as they are known, having received of his fulness and of his grace;
95 And he makes them equal in power, and in might, and in dominion.
96 And the glory of the celestial is one, even as the glory of the sun is one.
But if we return to section 131 we have the statement in the first verse which clearly states that "In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees". This would seem to be a contradiction from the complete lack of levels within the celestial kingdom from section 76. But if we think about it we should consider the phrase "celestial glory" and how it is being used, or specifically how Joseph Smith used it. In our modern times members of the church would be picky about the use of the word celestial to only mean those things pertaining to the celestial kingdom (i.e. the highest kingdom as explained in section 76). I do not think that at the time Joseph Smith was as particular with his words as we are today. That is, he was not working with the definition that we have built up around the word "celestial". It is most likely that when he used the phrase "celestial glory" in the context of section 131 he simply meant anything that was part of our post-mortal experience.
Thus the three degrees referred to in section 131 are not referring to three previously undisclosed levels of glory within the glory of the celestial kingdom, but in fact refer to the three known kingdoms of glory, what we call the celestial, the terrestrial and the telestial. If we consider it like this then we have less contradictions to explain in the scriptures. As a final parting note, there is even a short Wikipedia stub about the separation degrees within the celestial kingdom. As the source they cite section 131 and then reference section 132 verses 16 and 17 to explain the two unexplained levels within the celestial kingdom. But if we take a look at these two verses we read:
16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.These verses are used as support for the subdivisions inside the celestial kingdom in order to explain what happens to the people in the other two levels, i.e. those not exalted to the highest level. They are made "ministering servants" to those who are exalted to "the highest level", but they are still part of the celestial kingdom, according to this interpretation. The problem with this is that in verse 17 it specifically states that these "ministering servants" "are not gods", which again goes directly contrary to what we find in section 76 which states (verse 58), "Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God" referring to those who receive celestial glory. Thus we have another contradiction between sections 132 and 76, but only if we assume that the "ministering servants" referred to in 132 are part of the celestial kingdom and make up the two lower levels of the celestial kingdom. But if we take the idea that there are no levels within the celestial kingdom and that the only distinctions come from the three main degrees of glory then we no longer have this contradiction and the "ministering servants" are clearly members of a different or lower kingdom and do not partake of the fullness given to those of celestial glory.
17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.
Of course all this hinges on the fact that Joseph Smith may not have been using the phrase "celestial glory" in the same way that we are accustomed to use it now, which I think is much more likely than the contradictions that arise from assuming that there are multiple levels within the celestial kingdom, where all are "equal in power, and in might, and in dominion" and all are "gods, even the sons of God".
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
First Snowfall of Winter
This past weekend we had our first snowfall of the winter. It was light, about 1 inch, but for North Carolina (at least the piedmont region) this is a lot of snow. It basically shut down the city because here people don't know how to drive when it snows. I got a few good pictures of the snow before it all melted. On a side note, we finally had to turn on our heater for the first time this season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)