Chapter III: Book IV: , Lessons IV and VII and VIII

[Footnote G: In order that it may be seen that this is regarded really as doubtful by some powerful minds, and also as a question of grave importance, I quote the following presentation of it by Professor Howison, and which he prints in italics in the work from which I quote it: "Can the reality of human free-agency, of moral responsibility and universal moral aspiration, of unlimited spiritual hope for every soul,--can this be made out, can it even be held, consistently with the theory of an Immanent God? This, for a few awakened minds at least, now becomes the 'burning question.' * * * At all events, the time has come when the question whether this is not so should be raised with all emphasis, and examined to the end. For if our genuine freedom is to disappear when we accept the religion whose God is the Immanent Spirit, then the new religion is in truth a decline from the highest conceptions of the historic faith, and in this regard has no advantage over the religion of the 'Unknowable.'" ("Conceptions of God," p. 30.)]

Professor Le Conte has a valuable passage _apropos_ these questions which I consider too valuable to omit at this point, though it makes rather an extended quotation. On the great question of moral evil, its nature, its origin, its reason--a question inseparably connected with the conception of God, he says:

"In a general way I agree with his [Professor Royce's] explanation of the dark problem of evil. Evil cannot be the true meaning and real outcome of the universe; on the contrary, it means the necessary means of the highest good. * * * Our moral and religious nature is just as fundamental and essential as our scientific and rational nature. As science is not simply passionless acquisition of knowledge, but also enthusiasm for truth, so morality is not passionless rules of best conduct, but impassioned love of righteousness. And this last is what we call religion; for religion is morality touched and vivified with noble emotion. Now, the necessary postulate of science, without which scientific activity would be impossible, is a rational order of the universe; and, similarly, the necessary postulate of religion, without such religious activity would be impossible, is a moral order of the universe. As science postulates the final triumph of reason, so religion must postulate the final triumph of righteousness. Science believes in the rational order, or in law, in spite of apparent confusion; she knows that disorder is only apparent, only the result of ignorance; and her mission is, to show this by reducing all appearances, all phenomena, to law. So also religion is right in her unshakable belief in the moral order, in spite of apparent disorder or evil; she knows that evil is only apparent, the result of our ignorance and our weakness; and her mission is, to show this by helping on the triumph of moral order over disorder. We may, if we like,--as many indeed do,--reject the faith in the Infinite Goodness, and thereby paralyze our religious activity; but then, to be consistent, we must also reject the faith in the Infinite Reason, and thereby paralyze our scientific activity.

So much for a rational justification of the indestructible faith religion has in the Infinite Righteousness, even in the presence of abounding evil. It is founded on the same ground as our indestructible faith in the reign of law in the natural world, and is just as reasonable. Why is it, then, it may be asked, that every one is willing to admit the postulate of science, while so many doubt that of religion? I answer: partly because of feebleness of our moral life in comparison with our physical life; but mainly because the steady advance of science, with its progressive conquest of chaos, and its extension of the domain of order and law, is a continual verification of the postulate of science, and justification of our faith therein; while, on the contrary, the progress of morality and religion is uncertain and often unrecognized, the increase of righteousness and decrease of evil doubtful and even denied. In the presence of such uncertainty, our faith is often sorely tried. We cry out for some explanation--for some philosophy which shall show us how evil is consistent with the Infinite Goodness. We know it is, for that is a necessary postulate. But--how?"[A]

[Footnote A: The Conception of God--Le Conte's paper, pp. 70-71.]

This philosophy so earnestly asked for I trust is found in the New Dispensation of the Gospel, the light from the revelations in which, I believe, warrant the conclusions in the above paragraph of the Lesson text, and also the conclusions reached in the lessons of previous Year Books cited in note f. Then Professor Le Conte himself gives a reasonably good explanation for the existence of moral evil, which it is only just should be given here since I have quoted him up to the question of why evil exists. This is his answer: "It is that the existence or at least the possibility of a moral being like that of man [should exist]. There are some things which God himself cannot do, viz., such things as are contrary to his essential nature, and such things as are a contradiction in terms and therefore absurd and unthinkable. Such a thing would be a moral being without freedom to choose right or wrong. God could not make man eternally and of necessity sinless, for then he would not be man at all. To make him incapable of virtue, of righteousness, of holiness, for he must acquire these for himself by free choice, by struggle and conquest."[A]

[Footnote A: The Conception of God, p. 72.]

_2. Things Seen and Known but in Part:_ One may not find the complete answer to all the questions of the second paragraph of this lesson, which make up largely the sum of difficulties for the theist, who believes in God Immanent in the world; but they are somewhat lessened by remembering that here on our plane of human life we know things but in fragments--"We know in part:" We see as through a glass, darkly; not face to face; and will have to await the time of more perfect knowing and seeing before we shall comprehend things as they are in their entirety.

A fine illustration of the mistaken conclusions men form by judging of things seen only in part is to be found in the Prophet Malachi:

"Your words have been stout against me, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, What have we spoken so much against thee?

"Ye have said, It is vain to serve God: and what profit is it that we have kept his ordinance, and that we have walked mournfully before the Lord of hosts?

"And now we call the proud happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even delivered.

"Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.

"And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.

"Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not"[A]

[Footnote A: Mal. iii:13-18.]

All which tends to establish the thought that this world is the scene of struggle and trial for man, not the place of his full triumph and reward. "In this world your joy is not full [saith the Lord], but in me your joy is full. Therefore care not for the body, neither the life of the body; but care for the soul, and for the life of the soul; and seek the face of the Lord, always, that in patience ye may possess your souls, and ye shall have eternal life."[A]

[Footnote A: Doc. and Cov., Sec. ci:36-38.]

_3. Amid Broken Harmonies:_ We may be helped somewhat in our present earth-view of things, by holding in consciousness the fact that we live at present in our world amid broken harmonies, under the effects of "the fall," for a wise purpose in God; in a sphere of trial and test; in a purposely arranged department of God's great university for the instruction of the spirits of men in certain all-important matters,[M] involving also our union with earth elements, leading to a fulness of joy, and without which union men cannot receive a fulness of joy.[B] Therefore we may say that in our earth-life things are not in a normal state; but in confusion; under stress of special trial and development that shall ultimate in higher and better things--in the golden age of the earth and of humanity, predicted by sages and poets--the millennium of the seers and prophets of God, and the apostles of the Christ--these all bid us hope for higher and better things than we have known on our present plane of existence--a world where we shall no longer see as through a glass darkly, "but face to face;" when we shall no longer know only in part, but know even as we are known; when that which is in part "shall be done away," and that "which is perfect is come."[C]

[Footnote M: "Religion accounts for the existence of evil as probationary, resistence to the evil being a training of humanity to good." (Goldwin Smith in "North American Review," October, 1907. In connection with this statement see Seventy's Year Book II, Lesson III; also Lesson VIII, IX, X, which deal with "The Fall," "The Purpose of Man's Earth Life," and the "Problem of Evil.")]

[Footnote B: Doc. and Cov., Sec. xciii:32-35.]

[Footnote C: I Cor. xiii.]

There remaineth then a rest for the people of God.[A] They may look for a city "which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God."[B] The vision of St. John, in which he saw descending out of heaven the New Jerusalem, is yet to be realized in fact. Also what he heard proclaimed by "a great voice"--

[Footnote A: Heb. iv:9.]

[Footnote B: Heb. xi:10.]

"Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

"And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful."[A]

[Footnote A: Revelation xxi; also xxii.]

LESSON VI.

(Scripture Reading Exercise.)

DOCTRINE OF DIVINE IMMANENCE IN THE NEW DISPENSATION: RECONCILIATION OF DIFFICULTIES.

ANALYSIS.

I. Difficulty of Regarding the Infinite Power of the Universe as Both Immanent and Personal.

II. Revelation Represents the Infinite Power of the Universe as Personal.

III. The Nature of Man Requires the Infinite Power to be a Personal Intelligence.

IV. Reconciliation of Difficulties in Doctrine of Immanence as taught in the New Dispensation.

REFERENCES.

The Scriptures and other works in the text of the lesson.

_SPECIAL TEXT: "I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; and though after my skin worms shall destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: whom I shall see for myself and mine eyes shall behold, and not another: though my veins be consumed within me." (Job xix:25-28.)_

DISCUSSION.

_1. Immanence and Personality--a Difficulty:_ The view here presented of the Immanence of God in the world doubtless contributes in a helpful way to the advanced thought of the modern world in striving to arrive at a knowledge of things as they are, as they have been, and as they shall be--the truth.[A]

[Footnote A: Doc. and Cov., Sec. xciii:24.]

Modern thought has forced the conclusion upon men's minds that there is a power immanent in the world--here and now, and always has been; and so far as man can see there always will be; it is eternal--"both ways"--to use a phrase of Professor Le Conte's, looking forward as well as backward, when using that word "eternal." It is the eternal cause of things, variously named "energy," "force," "spirit," or simply "power," used in some cases with the prefix "mechanical" or "infinite" or "Divine" or the "Unknowable" according to the view point of the speaker or writer; but by most philosophers recognized as "the infinite and eternal energy from which all things proceed," and "which is the same power that in ourselves wells up under the form of consciousness;"[A] and which by theists of all classes is recognized as God. But those who long to conceive and in their lives feel the need of conceiving of this universal "power" or "spirit" or "force" or "energy"--"the infinite and eternal energy from which all things proceed"--meet with the difficulty of forming the conception of a "power, infinite, and all pervasive," and at the same time personal, since it is held by philosophers of high authority--and deservedly so--that "personality and infinity are terms expressive of ideas which are mutually incompatible."[B] How then shall this difficulty be overcome? Professor Le Conte, a most conscientious man of science, and also a most devout Theist, says, "The only rational view is to accept both immanence and personality, even though we cannot reconcile them."[C] This, however, from the standpoint of modern philosophers and orthodox theologians who identify or confound the immanent power absolutely as God himself--and the only Deity with whom we have to deal--is a somewhat forcing of the human understanding--a case of "the heart breathing defiance to the intellect." "Not that the spirit cannot do this * * * but that doing it does not amount to philosophy."[D] I doubt if it amounts to religion either: for religion no less than philosophy requires harmony in things; and is necessarily a concern of the intellect as well as of the heart. Its conceptions must appeal to the understanding as well as to the emotions. As remarked by Mr. Fiske: "Our reason demands that there shall be a reasonableness in the constitution of things. This demand is a fact of our psychical [spiritual] nature as positive and irrepressible as our aceptance of geometrical axioms, and our rejection of whatever controverts such axioms. No ingenuity of argument can bring us to believe that the infinite Sustainer of the Universe will put us to permanent intellectual confusion." That is in regard of spiritual or religious matters; any more than in other matters. "Our belief," he continues, "in what we call the evidences of our senses is less strong than our faith that in the orderly sequence of events there is a meaning which our minds could fathom were they only vast enough."[E]

[Footnote A: Fiske, "Studies in Religion," p. 104; Works, Vol. IX. The parts within single quotation marks are from Spencer, and quoted by Fiske.]

[Footnote B: Fiske Cosmic Philosophy, Vol. IV, p. 227. Also Professor Le Conte says: "No one, we admit, can form a clear conception of how immanence of Deity is consistent with personality." ("Evolution and Its Relation to Religious Thought," p. 337.)]

[Footnote C: "Evolution and Its Relation to Religious Thought," 1902, p. 337. The context is also worthy of being brought into view: "No one, we admit, can form a clear conception of how immanence of Deity is consistent with personality, and yet we must accept both, because we are irresistibly led to each of these by different lines of thought. Science, following one line of thought, uncorrected by a wider philosophy, is naturally led toward the one extreme of pantheistic immanence; the devout worshiper, following the wants of his religious nature, is naturally led toward the other extreme of anthropomorphic personality. The only rational view is to accept both immanence and personality, even though we can not clearly reconcile them, i. e., immanence without pantheism, and personality without anthropomorphism."]

[Footnote D: Professor Howison in "Conception of God"--Introduction, p. 35.

The situation is well represented in the respective attitudes of Mr. Henry L. Mansel, a church of England minister, Dean of St. Paul's in fact, and author of the somewhat celebrated Brampton Lectures on "Limits of Religious Thought"--1875--; and Mr. Herbert Spencer, author of the Synthetic Philosophy. Mr. Mansel in his second lecture, after dealing with the difficulties attending upon finite minds dealing with questions of the "absolute," "infinite" and "first cause;" declares that there is a contradiction in the conception of the infinite as personal (pp. 84-85): and yet in the third lecture he says, "It is our duty to think of God as personal; and it is our duty to believe that he is infinite"; notwithstanding, as Mr. Mansel admits, "we cannot reconcile these two representations with each other, as our conception of personality involves attributes apparently contradictory to the notion of infinity." (p. 106):

Commenting upon this very passage Mr. Spencer says: "That this is not the conclusion here adopted (i.e., by himself) needs hardly be said. If there be any meaning in the foregoing argument, duty requires us neither to affirm nor deny personality. Our duty is to submit ourselves with all humility to the established limits of our intelligence: and not perversely to rebel against them. Let those who can, believe that there is eternal war set between our intellectual faculties and our moral obligations. I for one admit no such radical vice in the constitution of things." "First Principles" p. 111.]

[Footnote E: Studies in Religion, p. 189. Works Vol. IX.]

2. Revelation Presents a Personal Deity as the Object of Man's Faith and Worship: The Old Testament's revelation of God presents him to the world most emphatically as a personal being. "God is referred to as Almighty, All-Wise, All-Holy, the Eternal Creator, Sustainer, and Moral Governor of the universe. He is represented as entering into special relations with his highest creature, man, who is created in his image, after his likeness,[A] to be his vicegerent on earth,[B] and to increase in sympathy and fellowship with himself."[C]

[Footnote A: Gen. 1:26, 27.]

[Footnote B: Gen. 1:26-28.]

[Footnote C: "Belief in God"--Drummelow Bible Commentary, p. 49. See also The Index in both the Oxford and Cambridge Teacher's Bible Helps, under "God" and especially under the subdivision of "Attributes" in the former.]

"When we sum up the impressions and teachings about the God of the ancient Hebrews," says Professor Francis Brown, of Union Theological seminary, "the general result is very definite. We find a personal Being of great majesty, dignity and power, the Creator and Ruler of men, a being of holiness and transcendence; a being of righteousness, who promotes righteousness in others and punishes every breach of it; whose government is a moral government and from whose decisions there is no appeal; a being of kindness, tenderness and helpfulness, with gracious care for those who confide in him, whose plans are at length to be worked out and his desires realized in the unity of men under his benevolent sway amid the exhibition of the divine glories of righteousness and universal peace."[A]

[Footnote A: The passage is from "The Christian Point of View"--1902--Prof. Brown's passage represents only that view of God revealed in the Old Testament that he asserts is not inconsistent with the New. For he immediately adds to the above paragraph: "With every stroke of this drawing the New Testament picture is in accord. To this extent the spirit and teaching of Jesus Christ indorses the older revelation." (Ibid above). He then proceeds to show that some conceptions of God presented in the Old Testament, as he apprehends them, are not in harmony with the New Testament. I use the passage from Professor Brown, merely to show that other believers in the Old and New Testament revelation of God, as well as the Latter-day Saints, regard those revelations as presenting God to human consciousness as a personal being.]

If anything was lacking in the Old Testament revelation of God as a personal being, in closest relationship to man, then assuredly it would be supplied in the New Testament revelation of God through the person and character of Jesus Christ. For in the New Testament, in the most emphatic manner, the Christ is represented as "God manifested in the flesh."[A] He, under the direction of the Father, is Creator of the world; he is the brightness of the Father's glory; "and the express image" of the Father's person.[B] He so completely represented the Father that he declared that those who had seen him had seen the Father;[C] also after his resurrection he declared that all power in heaven and in earth had been given unto him, and in the full glory of that God-Power he sent forth his disciples to teach all nations and to baptize them in the name of the distinct persons of the God-head.[D] All that Jesus was and is, God is; for the Christ was God manifested in the flesh. Emphatically God is revealed as a personal being.

[Footnote A: I Tim. iii:16.]

[Footnote B: Hebrews i. See also Discourse by the writer, "Jesus Christ the Revelation of God," in Mormon Doctrine of Deity, Ch. IV, also chapter I, same work.]

[Footnote C: St. John, xiv:8-11.]

[Footnote D: Matt. xxviii:18-20.]

To all this may be added the account of the greatest revelation of all given to man respecting God, in which both Father and Son are revealed to be not only persons but each a separate and distinct individual --the unveiling of both God the Father and God the Son to Joseph Smith; "I saw," said he, "two personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name, and said, pointing to the other--

_"This my beloved son, hear him."_[A]

[Footnote A: Writings of Joseph Smith, Pearl of Great Price, p 85.]

Needless to say these personages in form were as men. The whole volume of revelation, the Old Testament, and the New, and all modern revelation, both in the Book of Mormon and in the Doctrine and Covenants; as well also in the discourses and conversations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, God is represented as a person--of whom Jesus Christ is the express image, and explicit manifestation; and hence believers in revelation are bound to regard God as a personal being, in whose image man was created.

_3. The Nature of Man Requires a Personal God:_ The necessity of conceiving the being whom men call God as personal, also arises from the nature of man. As it is inconceivable that God should "love gases,"[A] so, too, is it impossible for man to love, revere, or worship mere force, or energy; or regard himself as holding any moral relationship whatsoever to it, though it be proclaimed infinite and eternal. It is soul that responds to soul; like responds to like; love to love. Soul of man cries out for "soul" in the "Infinite Power" to make rational a universe which otherwise is irrational, empty and void of meaning--mechanical merely, signifying nothing. The central idea of religion, consists of certain relationships that exist between men and the power recognized as God, involving the thought of duties and of rights.[B] Man knows himself as a person--an intelligence; conscious of certain existences, of self-existence, and conscious of a great number of things not self. He is capable of many and wonderful intellectual and emotional experiences. He deliberates; he compares things, contrasts things; he measures and weighs things, he sets values upon them; he prizes one more than another. He is capable of rising from the particular to the general, from the concrete to the abstract; from the things of sense-perception to objects of thought, ideas; until at last "I think," he cries, "Therefore I am."[C]

[Footnote A: The impressive thought is Sir Robert Ball's, see Defense of the Faith and the Saints, Vol. II. p. 500.]

[Footnote B: See Seventy's Year Book IV, Lesson I. The central and real meaning of the Christian religion, in which the self-consciousness of the Wests finds its true expression, and which thus far has found no home except in the West, lies exactly in the faith that the Creator and the creature are reciprocally and equally real, not identical; that there is Fatherhood of God and brotherhood of men; that God recognizes rights in the creature and acknowledges duties toward him; and that men are accordingly both unreservedly and also indestructibly real, both free and immortal. In that religion alone, I venture to assert, is the union of this triad of faiths to be found--in God, in freedom, in immortality--faiths that, while three, are inseparably one, since neither can be stated except in terms of the other two. ("Conceptions of God"--Howison, p. 94.)]

[Footnote A: Such Descartes formula, and the strength of it as a truth, and its value as an initial point in philosophy, has not been shaken in the two and three quarters of a century since it was first published. See Descartes' Meditations. In the Universal Classics Library edition of Descartes, there is in the Introduction by Frank Sewell, A. M., a very fine and exhaustive discussion of the above principle, "The Cogito Ergo Sum--Its Nature and Meaning." Subdivision III and IV of the Introduction. The Meditations were first published in Paris 1641, A.D.]

_4. The Wonders of Man's Mind-Power:_ But not only does man think, and from consciousness of the fact deduce his own existence, but he passes judgment upon things, determining that this is a better thing, or state, or condition than that. He chooses between and among things, states, and conditions. He is conscious of a power within himself also to will this or that, and can become a true cause of certain and very many things within his experience, especially as concerns his individual movements and conduct.

He is equally conscious of certain emotions that pertain to himself. He fears, is awed; he experiences sorrow, hate, joy, and, best of all, love. And, certain abnormal individuals aside, man loves what he conceives to be the beautiful, the true, the good. In this, too, he is capable of rising in conception from the concrete to the abstract; from the relative to the absolute; from the finite to the infinite. He loves the truth of his experience; but he knows it is limited, relative, and he longs for the Absolute Truth. He loves the good of his experience, but again he knows the good of his experience to be relative, finite, and he longs for and could love, and love supremely, the Infinitely Good. He aspires to relationship with it, to fellowship, to union, to one-ship with it.

In order to attain to such relationship, however, it is obvious that the Infinite Power, the Infinitely Beautiful and the Infinitely Good must be some thing more than mechanical force. It must be even more than an "Unknown"; something more than a "Mystery," a mere "Incomprehensible," an "Inscruitable," if man is to stand in any sympathetic relationship to it: for the "Infinite Power" as an admittedly "Unknown," or as "Inscruitable Mystery," leaves that power as incapable of reciprocal, moral and spiritual relations with man as the "Power" conceived as mere mechanical force is.[A]

[Footnote A: These remarks are made in view of what Mr. Herbert Spencer says of the value of "A Mystery ever pressing for an interpretation," as an "ultimate religious truth of the highest possible certainty"; but which, if analyzed, will be discovered to be of no more religious value than the conception of the "Infinite Power" as mechanical force. Yet Mr. Spencer thus speaks of it: "And thus the mystery which all religions recognize, turns out to be far more transcendent mystery than any of them suspect--not a relative, but an absolute mystery. Here, then, is an ultimate religious truth of the highest possible certainty--a truth in which religions in general are at one with each other, and with a philosophy antagonistic to their special dogmas. And this truth, respecting which there is a latent agreement among all mankind from the fetish-worshiper to the most stoical critic of human creeds, must be the one we seek. If Religion and Science are to be reconciled, the basis of reconciliation must be this deepest, widest, and most certain of all facts--that the Power which the Universe manifests to us Is utterly inscrutable." "First Principles," pp. 47, 48.]

_5. The Immanence of the New Dispensation--Reconciliation of Difficulties:_ The Immanence of God, as we have seen, and as that conception is commonly held, presents a difficulty. The difficulty of regarding the Immanent Power as being at once immanent in the world and at the same time personal. But that difficulty is overcome in the theology of the New Dispensation by the fact that the Immanent God is conceived as Spirit or Spiritual Light--"the Light of Christ," for us men--which "proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space. The light which is in all things; which giveth life to all things; which is the law by which all things are governed: even the Power of God."[A] And which is, according to the testimony of St. John "the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,"[B] and according to the word of the Lord to Joseph Smith is, "the light which now shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings."[C]

[Footnote A: Doc. & Cov., Sec. lxxxviii:12,13.]

[Footnote B: St. John, i:9.]

[Footnote C: Doc. & Cov., Sec. lxxxviii:11.]

Also, as we have seen (ante-Lesson III), not only is the Immanent Spirit the Divine Power, but that spirit carries with it into the immensity of space which it pervades, at least certain attributes of the Divine Intelligence from whom it proceeds, and becomes the inspiration to intelligence in men, and the atmosphere of wisdom, holiness, truth, and of love. Also the Immanent Spirit is a means of union for man, if he desires it, if he seeks to make it so by drawing nigh unto God, that God may draw nigh unto him--a means of union with the Divine Intelligences from whom the spiritual light proceeds, and of whom the Christ is the type, and with whom man is destined, ultimately, to associate, living in the physical presence of such Intelligences as well as in their spiritual presence, on terms of intimate friendship--face to face communion; personal association in councils; personal cooperation in the divine purposes, in creation, in sustentation; in redemptive processes, and, in a word, in all the Divine activities, until man shall be satisfied to the uttermost with his fellowship and perfect union with God, finding in the free harmony of Divine Intelligences, that "City of God," that moral order, that expression of the "Absolute," that completeness, which seems necessary to a rational universe for man.