Seminal soliloquy

Query: How contrive not to waste one’s time? Answer: By being fully aware of it all the time.

In the spirit of a truly senioritis-infected individual, I have decided to give myself the opportunity to have another chance to spend my time on something else besides homework, namely a blog. I do not expect anything ground-breaking or earth-shattering to come out of this endeavor. Instead, I am more excited to place some rambling thoughts out into that void which we call the internet with the advantage of some more depth than is afforded by our dear friend facebook. So for those of you for whatever reason find yourselves reading this, take it for what it is worth. Here we go; make sure to pack a snack, fill up your gas, and breathe (it is after all the secret of life).

In high school I had an intimate relationship with absurdist and existentialist literature. Basically existentialism focuses on the individual. They are responsible for finding meaning in life and living that life sincerely despite the difficulties like boredom, absurdity, or despair. Although it is related to existentialism, absurdism is considered a different school of thought. Absurdists essentially believe there is no meaning in life and therefore a person’s quest to find meaning is absurd and doomed to inevitable failure. So, I hung out with authors like Albert Camus, Tom Stoppard, and Samuel Beckett and was happy to do so. After all, what else could an angsty teenager find more compelling than a critique aimed at all basis of society, let alone human experience? In fact, I kept (and still do) a journal of quotes from the books I read and it was my stumbling across this notebook the other day that prompted this reflection.

To me, existentialism has no contradiction for sincere and individual Christian belief. In fact, there is even a strain of “Christian existentialism” that has influenced postmodern theologists. In my understanding the idea goes like this: If someone were to pick up a bible or book of Mormon, that book would have no authority over the individual. Therefore one would have no reason to follow the commandments of either if they were being imposed upon them by some outside force. However, once an individual decides that the ideas presented are coming from within her to guide her; she can then authorize these books to be an authority for her.

In my opinion, even Christ followed this pattern. He often taught in parables, which usually do not have an explicit meaning behind them. The point is unstated and the individual is left to discover the truth for themselves. That is probably why there are so many different interpretations of the scriptures and what they “mean.” Or why we are encouraged to read and re-read our scriptures daily, because each time they mean something different to us depending on our circumstances and position in life. Growing out of this idea is the importance of a personal relationship with God that is not imposed by anything or anyone outside of us. Here we have “testimony” begin to take shape. Take this even further and you have a complete rejection of “organized religion.”

And this is where contradiction begins to enter my thinking. If Christ embraced this existential truth of needing to discover meaning for oneself, why did he set up a church with designated authorities in prophets and apostles? How can the two lines of established authority and individually-defined meaning exist at the same time? Martin Luther called the ability of each individual to reach out to God the “priesthood of all believers.” So while these things were wandering about in my mind this week, I happened upon Elder Dallin H. Oaks talk called “Two Lines of Communication” he gave in the LDS Church’s general conference October 2010. Call it coincidence, but he addresses these very things in it.

Perhaps it is suspiciously convenient for an observer who would point out that I discovered the beginning of answer in a religion to which I already subscribe. I couldn’t answer these accusations except with an honest heart to tell them I am trying to discover the meaning for myself and have found his words to be helpful. Basically, Elder Oaks identifies two lines of communication that God has established for mankind. He calls them the “personal line” and the “priesthood line.” The argument is in favor of both forms of communication for an individual to make it back to God and provides evidence to show that God has authorized and used both lines to communicate his will. In fact, he even uses the Martin Luther quote about the “priesthood of all believers.” How cool did I feel seeing that? Very, hah. You can read the talk here if you’re still interested http://lds.org/ensign/2010/11/two-lines-of-communication?lang=eng

I think my main intent in this first rambling was to merely more clearly establish these thoughts I’ve been grappling with for a few weeks for myself. More insight is sure to come, but I think I’ve made a good start. So, to end I’ll leave off with quote from those books which first got me thinking:

“It’s all we can do, thought Vincente, to look, and invent our own stature, and see if we can measure up to it. Faith may cloud our eyes or open them; who can say?—but it’s up to us to invent our intentions, and live up to them, or fail at the duty.”