Outer Lightness » Items by Steve M.

Expand blog entries with this slider:

Items by Steve M.

Within the Bubble

Inaugural Post at VSOM

Posted: September 14th, 2007, 1:31am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

If you're interested, take a look at my first VSOM post: The Church's Recent Handling of Mountain Meadows: A Step in a New Direction?
Blogging stint at VSOM

Posted: September 11th, 2007, 2:36pm EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

While this blog will probably remain fairly quiet (for now, anyway), I'll be blogging over at Various Stages of Mormondom for the next little while, so come visit! Don't forget to bookmark VSOM on your browser, and add a link on your blog!
Bushman's going to Claremont

Posted: September 6th, 2007, 8:06am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

It's official--Richard Bushman is going to fill the Mormon Studies chair at Claremont (see here).

My parents, who live in Claremont, heard about the decision to bring Bushman through the grapevine several months ago (it may have still been tentative at the time, though), but it appears that it's finally been made official.

How awesome would it bee if Bushman attended my home ward?
New Local Sunstone Communities

Posted: September 6th, 2007, 11:32pm EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Take a look at this: New local Sunstone communities.

Several have been set up so far, most of which are in the West, but there are also some Eastern and Southern communities, including Washington, D.C.; NYC; Raleigh, NC; and Atlanta, GA.

Cheers to John Dehlin and Sunstone.
Duty to inoculate?

Posted: September 4th, 2007, 11:46pm EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]
Yes, as indicated earlier, I will still blog here, albeit sporadically and infrequently. Here's a quick one.

--

After listening to the Sunstone Session on inoculation and the two follow-up Mormon Matters podcasts discussing it (here and here), I'd like to share a few thoughts about "inoculation," as it pertains to controversial church history.

In the year prior to my mission, I did a lot of studying. I read the scriptures like crazy, but I also discovered an interest in Mormon history. The first substantive book I read on the topic was Bushman's Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism. In addition to various books, articles, and websites, I also like to read apologetic material, which probably influenced my approach to troubling aspects of church history--they were problems to be explained and resolved from an orthodox perspective (as much as that was possible). Envisioning myself debating anti-Mormons and Baptist ministers in the coming months (I never saw myself serving a mission in Asia), I was more concerned with learning to defend the faith than critically examining it.

The multiple First Vision accounts didn't really bother me. Translating the Book of Mormon using a peep stone in a hat didn't, either. I wasn't even too concerned with Joseph's practice of polygamy (although, I may have only had a general awareness that he married multiple women, and no real knowledge of the details). I was somewhat troubled by Brigham Young's teachings on blood atonement, but a straightforward Institute teacher helped me learn to take a lot of Brother Brigham's teachings with a grain of salt (even though this somewhat skirts the problem of how to grapple with the implications of some of his more controversial views).

In short, I managed to be a quite orthodox member and missionary in spite of my awareness of some of the more controversial areas of church history. My knowledge may have been somewhat cursory (and perhaps tainted by apologetic bias), but it amounted to more than that of most of the missionaries I served with, and was almost entirely attributable to the personal study I had done outside of Sunday School, Seminary, and Institute.

The two points I wish to make are that:
- Controversial history is not necessarily faith-destroying, and
- Unfortunately, a (relatively small) handful of books, articles, and websites provided me with a more comprehensive understanding of church history than that provided by my "formal" ecclesiastical training, which included hundreds of hours of Sunday School lessons, Priesthood quorum meetings, early morning Seminary lessons, Institute classes, and an eleven-week stay at the Missionary Training Center.
My own journey into unorthodoxy wasn't sparked by the discovery of some well-hidden facet of church history. It began with a difficult encounter with a well-meaning but ultimately mistaken Priesthood leader, which challenged my fundamental assumptions about how the church functions. This difficult experience forced me to reevaluate and reconstruct my spirituality and world view. Of course, this prompted me to try to look at LDS history with a more objective eye (if that's even possible), which did present some challenges to my faith, but the end result was what I consider a more mature faith--one that accounts for the paradoxes of my church's origins and legacy and allows for the existence of doubts (and I've got plenty of those), but which nonetheless finds value in the symbols and teachings of my faith community (even if I don't believe in the literal truth of everything that's said).

So I don't think that the Church is "trapped" by its history, as some allege. I think that most Mormons could handle a less idealized version of history than that currently presented in official church curricula and literature. I don't think it's as threatening to faith as some tend to assume.

In my opinion, the problem of history has more to do with
- the simplistic and problematic assumptions that a "pure milk" diet fosters (e.g., that prophets are necessarily great models of morality, that prophets won't contradict one another, that the Church and the gospel are either 100% true or totally fraudulent, that the Church and the gospel are the same in every age of time); and
- the feeling of betrayal that members often feel when they discover something about church history that
Therefore, while I think our current approach to teaching history is problematic, I don't think the solution is necessarily a comprehensive "inoculation" to every controversial aspect of church history. I believe the solution has more to do with embracing the following principles and practices:
- Nurturing testimonies that allow for complexity, ambiguity, paradoxes, and even doubt.
- Encouraging members to ask questions and to seek answers to those questions.
- Producing and making available materials (both electronic and print) that deal with history from a less idealized, more objective, and more comprehensive perspective (a good example would be something like Rough Stone Rolling).
- Focusing more on principles, faith, and Christian living in our church services.
- To the extent that we do teach and incorporate history into our church training and education, presenting it in a straightforward, unambiguous manner.
- Allowing for scholarly and critical examination of history by LDS students and scholars in appropriate forums (conferences, symposiums, academic journals, and even BYU and Institute classes), without a threat of church displeasure or discipline.
In other words, while I do believe that the Church has a responsibility not to neglect or cover up certain areas of its history, and to treat history in an honest and straightforward manner inasmuch as it chooses to address the topic, I do not think that it needs to start a Controversial Episodes in Church History Sunday School class, teach Primary Children about the Adam-God doctrine, or even commission artists to paint pictures of Joseph Smith with his face in a hat. I believe it is more important to foster more mature, complex testimonies from the ground up and create a culture in which one's faith and standing in the Church is not so dependent upon an "orthodox" belief in church history, and in which members are not only encouraged to study these issues out for themselves, but also have easy access to accurate, straightforward history from a trusted source (i.e., the Church itself).

Those are my thoughts, anyway.
The Obama Movement

Posted: August 20th, 2007, 2:37am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Just making a quick plug for an upcoming book.

The Obama Movement
The Obama Movement is a compilation of 25 essays written by students across the country in support of 2008 presidential candidate and current U.S. senator Barack Obama. Each essay articulates the impact that Barack Obama has had on the author, as well as the reasons for which America needs a president like him.

The project was initiated and overseen by Joe Vogel, BYU graduate student and author of Free Speech 101, in conjunction with Barack the Youth Vote.

The Obama Movement will be published nationally in September. Keep an eye out for it, and become part of the movement!
"Who told thee that thou wast naked?"

Posted: July 26th, 2007, 11:34am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Albrecht Dürer, 1507

Peter Paul Rubens, 1597

Michelangelo, 1511

Lowell Bruce Bennett, 20th century

Does this bother anyone besides me?

Aside from my objection to the portrayal of Adam and Eve as white, Rocky Mountain Mormons in the Bennett painting (a topic that received some attention at BCC a while back), I can't help but think it is one more manifestation of the LDS cultural aversion to any and all forms of nudity. While centuries-old paintings depict Adam and Eve in the nude, modern Mormons would likely be quite uncomfortable, and perhaps even upset, to find a painting of a bare-breasted Eve at Deseret Book (let alone in a chapel or Sunday School manual). I've found that the distinction between obscenity, sexuality, and nudity in media is seldom appreciated in LDS discourse.

The ironic thing, in my opinion, is that while the Bible specifically states that Adam and Eve "were both naked,... and were not ashamed" (Genesis 2:25), we apparently are ashamed of it--or at least somewhat embarrassed.

In Genesis 3, after Adam and Eve have partaken of the forbidden fruit, God asks Adam an interesting question that is easily overlooked: "Who told thee that thou wast naked?" Before Adam has a chance to answer, God goes on to ask the arguably more important question of whether or not Adam had partaken of the forbidden fruit.

In the Genesis and Moses accounts, it doesn't appear that anybody actually told Adam and Eve that they were naked; they apparently figured it out on their own. In the version presented in the temple, however, someone actually does tell Adam and Eve that they are naked (and that they should cover it up)--Satan. They are not ashamed of their nudity until Satan tells them that they should be.

I'm by no means advocating naturalism, but I think that the Garden of Eden drama--which, even if only interpreted allegorically, seems pretty central to LDS theology--sends a pretty strong message about the natural beauty of the human body. While that beauty can certainly be exploited, I would like to see a Mormon culture less insecure about the nude figure, particularly in the arena of fine art.

But alas, the phobia doesn't seem to be going away any time soon. Just last year, in a move reminiscent of the 1997 Rodin exhibit controversy, BYU censored nude life drawings in an exhibit on illustrator Burton Silverman (which exhibit was ironically entitled "The Intimate Eye").

As one Mormon college student once put it,
Art: Good. Nudity: bad. I see little difference between pornography and nudity. A breast is a breast is a breast.

Ever since fig leaves were first painted over nude art, people have known the potential offensiveness of baring it all. For hundreds and hundreds years [sic] this is the case.

Someone should have told Rubens and the others about this unwritten rule.
"Temperate In All Things"

Posted: July 23rd, 2007, 7:33am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

I gave this talk at church recently. My assigned topic was "self-discipline."

"Temperate In All Things"

In the sixtieth chapter of Alma, we see a side of Captain Moroni that is somewhat at odds with his depiction elsewhere in the Book of Mormon. Moroni, who is described as a “strong and mighty man,” possessing “a perfect understanding” (Alma 48:11), writes a scathing epistle that accuses Pahoran of incompetency, “slothfulness,” pride, and corruption. He alleges that Pahoran and the Nephite government have “neglected” their brethren, and that “the blood of thousands shall come upon [their] heads for vengeance” (Alma 60:10). Moroni even goes so far as to threaten Pahoran’s life if he does not “repent of [his alleged] sins and iniquities” (Alma 60:33).

As it turns out, however, Moroni’s accusations are unfounded. Pahoran’s failure to send much-needed reinforcements to the front line is not due to negligence or unrighteousness, as Moroni assumes, but rather to an uprising by the king-men, who overthrew the government and appointed a king in its place.

Although it is written of Captain Moroni that “if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto [him], behold, the very powers of hell would [be] shaken forever [and] the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men” (Alma 48:17), it appears that “the greatness of [his] heart,” as Pahoran puts it (Alma 61:9), sometimes got the best of him. In this case, Moroni’s indignation at Pahoran’s perceived “indifference” (Alma 59:13) caused him to lash out in anger at him.

Conducting ourselves in a controlled, Christ-like manner is probably a constant struggle for even the best of us. While on the Zion’s Camp march, Joseph Smith had a disagreement with Sylvester Smith as to the best location for their campsite. The heated disagreement quickly escalated into a shouting match, during which “Joseph was said to have thrown the camp bugle at Sylvester” (Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 242). As I said, aspiring to Christ’s perfect example will be a struggle for all of us, even prophets.

Yet the scriptures make it abundantly clear that we must put off our inclinations toward anger, jealousy, impatience, and lust, and “become…a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and become…as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, [and] full of love” (Mosiah 3:19). In addressing his righteous son Shiblon, Alma encourages him to be “temperate in all things,” saying, “Use boldness, but not overbearance; and also see that ye bridle all your passions”—particularly, I believe, the passion of anger—“that ye may be filled with love” (Alma 38:10, 12). Paul likewise teaches that “every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things” (1 Corinth. 9:25).

I like Alma and Paul’s choice of words—they both say that we are to be “temperate in all things” (emphasis added). As Russell M. Nelson explains, “[t]emperance suggests sobriety and self-restraint in action…. [It] can protect each of us from the aftermath of excess” (“‘These…Were Our Examples,’” Ensign, Nov. 1991). Notice that, while Elder Nelson counsels us to act with sobriety and moderation, he does not encourage extreme scrupulousness or total self-subjugation. I fear that, all too often, phrases such as “self-discipline” and “self-restraint” are associated with negatives rather than positives. Obsessing over the suppression of unwanted thoughts, feelings, and desires is contrary to the principle of temperance; it may be unhealthy and even self-defeating. In one study, researchers found that “suppressing forbidden thoughts” and other “[s]elf-regulatory exertions are often followed by…decreases in self-regulation in other, unrelated spheres.” (Muraven et al, “Self-Control as Limited Resource: Regulatory Depletion Patterns,” Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 74(3):774-789, March 1998). In other words, when we become preoccupied with not doing a particular behavior or thinking a particular thought, it may actually hamper our self-disciplinary abilities and make us less likely to succeed in the long run. Perhaps this is what Boyd K. Packer was getting at when he said, “Preoccupation with unworthy behavior can lead to unworthy behavior” (“Little Children,” Ensign, Nov. 1986).

In light of this phenomenon, it may be helpful to consider the Daoist principle of wuwei. Wuwei, which literally means “without action,” suggests (somewhat paradoxically) that sometimes the best way to solve a problem is to not take any direct or deliberate action against it. That is to say, rather than exerting ourselves in attempts to control, subdue, or avoid certain thoughts, appetites, and tendencies, it may be more productive to direct our attention and energy elsewhere. As it says in Doctrine and Covenants, Section 58, “men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause” (v. 27), such as serving others, taking an active role in the community, expanding our spiritual and temporal education, and developing our talents. Thus, while our efforts may not be directly aimed at self-subjugation, yet as we actively pursue positive, worthy, fulfilling causes, we accomplish the self-same goal of living a temperate, productive, Christ-like life.

It is important to remember the belief that we are literally children of God, and that we are therefore heirs to divine characteristics and potential, despite our human foibles and imperfections. Brigham Young taught, “The natural man is of God. We are…the natural children of the Father of light…. Man, the noblest work of God, was in his creation designed for an endless duration; for which the love of all good was incorporated in his nature” (Journal of Discourses 9:305; emphasis added). Thus we see that, as children of God, people are inherently good, even though our mortality may subject us to certain ungodly desires, tendencies, or temptations. When we lose our temper, when we treat others unkindly, when we act without moderation, when we inappropriately indulge ourselves, we are acting contrary to our divine heritage and nature.

Perhaps one of the most difficult situations in which we must exercise self-discipline is when we encounter someone who disagrees with, challenges, or even mocks our personal beliefs or values. When it comes to these personal and sensitive subjects, there is a tendency to lash back at the apparent critic. We should certainly stand up for our beliefs, religious and otherwise, but we must beware of the temptation to do so with anger or bitterness—good desires are no excuse for self-righteousness or combativeness. Do you remember the context in which Alma counsels Shiblon to be “temperate in all things”? He is commissioning Shiblon to continue his missionary work, in the course of which his faith will not only be challenged and derided, but he will also be subject to persecution. Alma refers to their previous mission among the Zoramites, during which Shiblon was “stoned for the word’s sake,” but nevertheless reacted with “patience and…long-suffering” (Alma 38: 3, 4). Had Shiblon not “bridle[d] his passions,” and reacted in a mean, angry, or overbearing manner, he most certainly would not have been “filled with love,” as Alma teaches (Alma 38:12).

President David O. McKay’s exercise of temperance demonstrates the value of Alma’s counsel. In the 1950s, Sterling McMurrin, a prominent LDS educator at the University of Utah, came under fire for his unorthodox views. Some in the Church, including two apostles, called for his excommunication. President McKay befriended this brother, and promised him, “if they put you on trial for excommunication, I will be there as the first witness in your behalf.” McMurrin later recalled that “President McKay wasn’t even interested in raising a single question about my beliefs, but simply insisted that a man in this Church had a right to believe as he pleased” (Prince, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, 55-56). Their friendship lasted until President McKay’s passing, and McMurrin remained a member of the Church for the rest of his life. As another General Authority later said, “I’ve found in the Church, and this is what gave me great comfort with President McKay, that there is room for all [kinds of people], not just a few, not just those here or there, but the whole spectrum” (Paul H. Dunn; qtd. in Prince, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, 45). As Shiblon and President McKay’s examples demonstrate, disagreements with others over religion, values, politics, or any other subject—even within the “household of faith” (D&C 121:45)—need not impede our love or respect for them.

Doctrine and Covenants, Section 121, further outlines how the principle of temperance applies to our interpersonal relations. Although “almost all” of us may have an inclination toward impatience, anger, and unrighteous dominion, we are to act with “long-suffering,… gentleness[,]…meekness, and…love unfeigned…without hypocrisy, and without guile” (D&C 121:39, 41, 42). This perfectly describes Christ’s interactions with those around him, even his harshest persecutors. While hanging on the cross, Jesus pleaded with the Father, “forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). Perhaps the most noble exercise of self-discipline lies in the willingness to set aside our anger, hurt feelings, and pain, and forgive those who have wronged us.

Which brings us back to Captain Moroni and Pahoran. After calmly explaining why he has yet to send reinforcements to Moroni, Pahoran writes, “And now, in your epistle you have censured me, but it mattereth not; I am not angry, but do rejoice in the greatness of your heart” (Alma 61:9; emphasis added). While many of us would react with anger or indignation, Pahoran shows a tremendous amount of temperance and self-control in his readiness to forgive and forget Moroni’s accusations. In my opinion, this epitomizes what it means to be like God. As is stated in Mosiah 26:22, God promises to “freely forgive” those who believe in Him. Forgiveness is vital in our quest for godliness; as Joseph Smith taught, “Ever keep in exercise the principle of mercy, and be ready to forgive [your] brother on the first intimations of repentance, and asking forgiveness; and should we even forgive our brother, or even our enemy, before he repent or ask forgiveness, our heavenly Father would be equally as merciful unto us” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 155).

That we may learn charity and godliness through the exercise of temperance is my prayer, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Obedience for the sake of obedience

Posted: July 8th, 2007, 9:37am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Obedience is a preeminent virtue in Mormonism. It's often hailed as the "first law of heaven." From childhood on, Latter-day Saints are taught the value of obeying God and His prophets. We learn about how the paying of tithing opened the windows of heaven on a drought-stricken St. George, Utah. We sing, "Follow the prophet, don't go astray," and "I will go, I will do, the things the Lord commands." Christ is presented as the ultimate Example of perfect obedience. He was so obedient that He was baptized, even though He technically had no sins that were in need of forgiveness, just because God requires baptism of all of those desiring entrance to His kingdom. I even recall being taught that if I am instructed by a Priesthood leader to do something that I may believe is wrong, that I will be blessed for my obedience if I comply with the instruction, and any condemnation will be upon the shoulders of the leader. (I don't know the source of this last teaching, but I have heard it numerous times in my lifetime.)

Am I the only one who feels that obedience, in and of itself, isn't all that laudable?

I don't believe that absolute obedience to authority or conformity are heavenly virtues. If God is a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and presumably independent Being, and if He wants us to be anything like Him, then it seems odd that He would expect us to become robots who instantly and perfectly obey commands without first contemplating the merits of the commands. I don't see any integrity, potential for growth, or other value in obeying an instruction simply because of the authority of its giver, be he God or your bishop. This equation leaves out the important variables of personal conscience and discretion, which I believe are necessary to morality. It also creates a situation particularly amenable to the exercise of unrighteous dominion. The scriptures say that it is the nature of "almost all men" to immediately abuse their power, so it seems unwise to facilitate such behavior by placing so much value on unquestioning deference for authority.

What I love about Jesus Christ, Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, Martin Luther King, Jr., and other prominent spiritual leaders throughout history is that they were reformers! In other words, they weren't afraid to question, to scrutinize, to stand up to authority, to do what they believed or knew to be right. For instance, Christ and His disciples were criticized for not heeding hand-washing rituals, not fasting, not keeping the Sabbath, and otherwise not conforming to the rules and traditions of the contemporary religious hierarchy. Jesus responding by chiding his critics for neglecting the fundamental principles of the gospel: mercy, love, selflessness, and the like. Despite their strict obedience to countless rules, the Pharisees had somehow missed the point of everything. Their obedience didn't seem to count for much in Christ's eyes. He spent his time with sinners, publicans, and others despised by the "righteous" and "obedient" Pharisees.

From Liberty Jail, where he was being held on questionable charges, Joseph Smith wrote his prophetic warning to both those with authority and those under authority:

Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—

That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. (D&C 121:34-44)

Similarly, from Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote:

One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.
Whatever qualms one might have with Mayor Rocky Anderson of Salt Lake City, I can't help but agree with his summation: "There's a dangerous culture of obedience throughout much of this country that's worse in Utah than anywhere." He described this culture in these words: "[it is] a culture where falling in line with authority is more important than choosing what is right, even if it is not easy, safe, or popular."

We can't be so afraid of ark-steadying. We can't be so afraid of questioning. We can't even be afraid of civilly disobeying, if circumstances and conscience so demand. We must remind ourselves that there is no virtue in undiscriminating deference for authority; there is no morality in obedience for the sake of obedience.

I am by no means advocating rebellion against any particular law, rule, commandment, or any other guideline, religious or otherwise. I do not mean to criticize those who hold religious or secular authority. I only wish to point out that obedience is not the first law of heaven, in my view. I doubt very much that it would even qualify as the second, third, or fourth law of heaven. Love, mercy, morality, and other such virtues seem like better candidates. Obedience is only of value inasmuch as the performance it demands encompasses such ideals.
Doctrine

Posted: June 25th, 2007, 3:02pm EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

In Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie writes under the entry for "Doctrine":

"Doctrines are teachings. They are classified as true or false. True doctrines come from God, the source and fountain of all truth, and are the teachings and concepts found in the gospel. False doctrines are from beneath. Their effect is to pervert, change, and alter revealed truth, so that by obeying false directions men will fall short of salvation in the celestial world....

"Gospel doctrine is synonymous with the truths of salvation." (p. 204)

In McConkie's view, doctrine is divisible into two categories: that which is true, and that which is false. The former, which is "always found in the Lord's true Church because the channel of communication between God and his people is open" (Mormon Doctrine, p. 204), is indistinct from truth itself, or more specifically, "the truths of salvation."

Until the past couple years, my view of doctrine was similar to that of McConkie. A doctrine was an eternal gospel truth, universal and unchanging--it was true, in every sense of the word. That which did not live up to this standard was not doctrine. One of the prophets' roles was to convey doctrine to the people of the earth, particularly those belonging to the Church.

From this perspective, doctrine is essentially a description of impregnable truth, or of actual temporal or spiritual reality. In common usage, however, doctrine is often equated with the truth or reality which it represents. In this view, the doctrine that God has a glorified, physical body is a direct description or representation of a spiritual reality. When Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon received the doctrine of the three degrees of glory, they were merely describing those truths which God directly revealed to them. In this case, they were actually giving a description of that they "saw." This model typically doesn't account for the fact that prophets actually perceive truth with the "eyes of [their] understandings"; that truth is transmitted to us through the imperfect filter of human understanding.

If you accept the view of doctrine promulgated by McConkie and myself (as of a couple years ago), then you run into trouble. Those prophets whom the Church trusts to communicate the mind and will of God occasionally make doctrinal pronouncements that are later contradicted, phased out, or otherwise negated. These changes sometimes affect very significant doctrines (and doctrinally-founded practices). The standard explanation for such discrepancies is that the teachings in question were never doctrine to begin with; they were more likely "personal, though well-considered, opinion[s]" (which, perplexingly, were sometimes delivered to the Saints in conjunction with the warning that their reception of such teachings would "prove their salvation or damnation").

This creates a dilemma: how do you know whether or not which teachings constitute "true doctrine"? A common remedy to this conundrum is prayer. We are taught that we may receive a personal witness of the truth or falsity of a particular teaching through prayer and personal revelation. But are we willing to grapple with the implications of personal revelation? What if I receive an answer that President Hinckley's most recent teachings at General Conference are not true? What if I receive an answer that certain long-standing teachings are not true? At present, contradicting the doctrinal stances of the Church and its presiding authorities (especially the President) is discouraged and considered heretical. Additionally, if one finds his personal beliefs in conflict with those expressed by the General Authorities, a common rule of thumb is to sustain the leaders and just accept their counsel. Practically speaking, their prophetic authority trumps personal revelation in dissecting matters of doctrine. So this solution may not be as viable as one would hope.

Some, such as BYU professor Robert Millet, have suggested certain other criteria, including the condition that it stand the test of time--that it has "sticking power." But how are we to measure new doctrines against this standard? For instance, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" (the closest thing to scripture given to the Church in nearly three decades) states that "[g]ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose"--a potential doctrine that may be consistent with the LDS scriptural canon and sphere of doctrine but is not explicitly stated therein. And what of Joseph Smith's teaching that God was once a man, which stood the test of time for 160 years or so, but which current Church President Gordon B. Hinckley has cast doubt on? Are we to accept such new teachings immediately, or shall we refrain from judgment until we have a better idea of whether or not the doctrine has "sticking power"? For how long must a doctrine be perpetuated in order for it to have "sticking power"? Will we even live long enough to be able to make this determination?

Our history also demonstrates the unreliability of the "sticking power" standard, which leads to another problem. Possibly due to our hesitancy to contradict the pronouncements of earlier authorities (an illustration of this tendency that's recently made headlines is this letter from Delbert Stapley to George Romney, in which Stapley insists that certain teachings of Joseph Smith not be contradicted) , some questionable doctrines have a way of sticking around. For instance, as just alluded to, teachings regarding the alleged "curse" on those of African lineage were perpetuated by several generations of leadership. Only recently have certain authorities undertaken to contradict (rather than simply neglect) these doctrines, but the Church has still done little in the way of expressly discounting specific teachings. Thus, the curse of Cain, premortal fence-sitting, and other unfortunate doctrines still maintain some influence in the modern Church. Not only does this demonstrate a shortcoming in the "sticking power" standard, but another unintended hang-up: the Church has no well-established means for preventing some untrue doctrines from sticking around. We don't seem at all comfortable with explicitly negating the teachings of our predecessors. In other words, our belief in doctrine as eternal, unchanging, universal truths sometimes constrains us, preventing the timely correction of human prejudice and error.

There are certainly other criteria that may be suggested for determining "true doctrine," and perhaps if used in conjunction with those explored above, one may be able to distinguish truth from error with a higher level of confidence. However, I can't help but wonder if the LDS approach to doctrine itself is flawed. Would we be better off to adopt a more flexible model?

One idea is to separate actual truth, fact, and reality from the idea of doctrine. That is, rather than equating doctrine with spiritual truth and reality, or even treating it as a direct description of that reality, perhaps we would do well to consider doctrine an approximation of it, or an expression of belief in what we consider and hope it to be. In other words, rather than treating the doctrine of the three degrees of glory as an eternal, unchanging truth, we might treat the doctrine as a belief, approximation, or hope of what will constitute heaven and eternity.

This may be offensive to many Latter-day Saints. It may undermine the authority and certainty that we guard so carefully. It introduces a level of humanness, and therefore unreliability, into a theology that we believe was communicated to us by a perfect God. But it accounts for the inevitable imperfection that arises when you have an organization that is staffed and administered by imperfect human beings (who may nonetheless be inspired or even prophetic). It allows a degree of flexibility and dynamism that we do not presently enjoy. We could more readily accept and account for new knowledge as it comes into the world, adapting our doctrine as necessity demands. We could be less fearful of new revelation, no longer feeling restricted by the lines drawn by past teachings, but open to the idea that doctrines may be altered, amended, even discarded, as more truth comes into the world. The idea would be to continually move closer and closer to the Truth (if capital-T truth can be said to exist), rather than to immediately pin-point it with absolute exactness (which seems to be beyond our ability).

As I've studied the history of this Church and as I view it today, I see something remarkably human. I agree with Philip Barlow, that it's more productive and makes more sense to approach the Church (and its doctrines) "not from the perspective that the Church is essentially divine, marred only by the weaknesses of human administrators, but rather that the Church on earth consists entirely of human beings (with all of their limitations) who are trying to respond to the divine with which they have been touched." And I think that our model for "Mormon doctrine" would do well to conform to this view.

---

I'm sorry if this little discourse is grammatically, logically, or otherwise flawed. I recognize that it's not particularly coherent or reader-friendly. I spat it out at 2 am after doing 5 hours of homework. But enjoy.
What does "true" mean?

Posted: June 21st, 2007, 10:43am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

While sitting in church a few weeks ago, I read a section in the Book of Mormon that I hadn't read in some time: Alma 32.

It might be laziness, but I'll refrain from giving any kind of description of the chapter; I imagine that virtually everyone who reads or happens upon this blog is familiar with this chapter. I also won't be inserting links to the scripture references at LDS.org. Again, this is due to laziness.

On my mission, I thought that this sermon was much more useful in teaching someone how to develop faith than the standard Moroni 10:3-5 formula. My own testimony bore more resemblance to Alma's gradual, experiential process than Moroni's ask-and-receive method.

I didn't pick up on this on my mission, but Alma's use of the word "true" seems to differ from that of many modern Mormons. Consider verse 28, the focal passage of the chapter:

"Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me." (Emphasis added.)

Alma essentially equates "true" with "good": "if it be a true seed, or a good seed... ." Verse 28 is the last time Alma uses the word "true" in the chapter. From this point on, he exclusively speaks of goodness rather than truth, using the word "good" thrice in verse 28, and 10 more times before the end of the chapter. His use of the word closely resembles the use of "true" in other LDS scripture. For instance:

"O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?" (Alma 32:35)

"For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ." (D&C 84:45)

Is Alma really using "good" as a synonym for "true"? In what sense does he use the word "true" in verse 28 (and verse 21, for that matter)?

I have traditionally interpreted "true" to mean "literally true," rather than "good." In other words, when I tested the message of the Book of Mormon and found that it enlarged my soul, enlightened my understanding, etc., I concluded that it was not just "a good seed, or that the word [was] good," but that it was a literally true seed. I interpreted my experience studying and applying Book of Mormon teachings and principles as confirmation that the Book of Mormon was not only good, but that it was a literal history of Israelites in ancient America, translated from golden plates, and so on.

Now I'm not so sure that I was justified in this conclusion. And it doesn't seem that Alma encourages us to jump to that conclusion either. In fact, he doesn't seem so concerned with literal, historical, or scientific truth at all. He is concerned with those words or seeds that uplift and enrich our lives, minds, and spirits--those things that, because of their goodness, bear fruit in our lives and become "delicious." As I now read him, Alma is more concerned with a faith founded on principles whose truth is measured by their practical application.

And is this any less "real" (v. 35) than the "literal" truth upon which I previously based my faith?

It may be more real, on some levels. It's experiential. It's tried-and-tested. It has a practical, here-and-now application that I think faith and religion ought to have. And while "literal" truth is often so abstract, debatable, and hard to come by when it comes to religion, goodness is something that is easily identified and immediately valuable. And while I'm not sure what heaven literally entails (or even if there is such a place or state), goodness is something that I can grasp. It's something I can live my life by. It's something I can aspire to.

"O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good." (V. 35; emphasis added.)
"O My Father" and Praying to Mother in Heaven

Posted: June 17th, 2007, 6:36am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

As we sung "O My Father" in sacrament meeting today (presumably due to it being Fathers Day), a recent discussion at FMH about praying to Heavenly Mother came to mind.

The third verse of this hymn is famous for its reference to Heavenly Mother:

I had learned to call thee Father,
Thru thy Spirit from on high,
But, until the key of knowledge
Was restored, I knew not why.
In the heav’ns are parents single?
No, the thought makes reason stare!
Truth is reason; truth eternal
Tells me I’ve a mother there.

As beautiful (and bold) as this verse is, it was verse 4 that caught my attention today. It goes:

When I leave this frail existence,
When I lay this mortal by,
Father, Mother, may I meet you
In your royal courts on high?
Then, at length, when I’ve completed
All you sent me forth to do,
With your mutual approbation
Let me come and dwell with you.

Eliza R. Snow here directly addresses not only the Father, but the Mother as well. She continues to speak to both of them for the duration of the verse. (For the first three verses, she addresses God using the second person singular pronouns thee and thou; in this final verse, she employs the pronoun you, which in classical English was plural. This is analogous to the tu/vous distinction in French.) While this may be obvious to many singers of the hymn, this detail did not jump out at me until today.

The hymn portrays Heavenly Mother as playing an active role in the plan of salvation--together with the Father, She sent us to earth for a purpose; like the Father, She anticipates welcoming us into eternity on the other side of the veil. Perhaps here more than anywhere else in LDS literature, She is portrayed as an "equal partner" with Heavenly Father.

What struck me is that, in this final verse, the singer of the hymn addresses both the Father and the Mother, as if in prayer. In fact, our scriptures affirm that a hymn is a prayer (D&C 25:12). As we sing this hymn, are we essentially praying to both of our Heavenly Parents?

I don't see what is so threatening about the idea of praying to our Mother in Heaven, either individually, or, as in "O My Father," in conjunction with a prayer to the Father. While I'm not advocating that we adopt the practice of praying to Her, I do not understand reasons for discouraging it. The doctrine that "God" encompasses both a divine Male and a divine Female is certainly bold and unorthodox, but it is absolutely beautiful as well. Why do we feel the need to "protect" Her by never mentioning or speaking about Her? Is the doctrine of Heavenly Mother on the way out?

Just a thought.
Mormon Women and Education

Posted: June 6th, 2007, 6:04am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Having just begun my law school career this past week at Duke University, the subject of education has been on my mind. In my class of 39 summer starters (all of whom are joint-degree students), there are about 24 women--they make up roughly 60% of the class.

In his priesthood session talk at the October 2006 General Conference (arguably the most important talk given at each conference), President Gordon B. Hinckley made the following remarks:

In revelation the Lord has mandated that this people get all the education they can. He has been very clear about this. But there is a troubling trend taking place. Elder Rolfe Kerr, Commissioner of Church Education, advises me that in the United States nearly 73 percent of young women graduate from high school, compared to 65 percent of young men. Young men are more likely to drop out of school than young women.

Approximately 61 percent of young men enroll in college immediately following high school, compared to 72 percent for young women.

In 1950, 70 percent of those enrolled in college were males, and 30 percent were females; by 2010 projections estimate 40 percent will be males, and 60 percent will be females.

Women have earned more bachelor’s degrees than men every year since 1982 and more master’s degrees since 1986.

It is plainly evident from these statistics that young women are exceeding young men in pursuing educational programs. And so I say to you young men, rise up and discipline yourself to take advantage of educational opportunities. Do you wish to marry a girl whose education has been far superior to your own? We speak of being “equally yoked.” That applies, I think, to the matter of education.

On another occasion, in a much less public venue, President Hinckley gave counsel in a similar vein:

My dear young brothers and sisters, take advantage of every educational opportunity that you can possibly afford, and you fathers and mothers, encourage your sons and daughters to gain an education which will bless their lives. (meeting, Hermosillo, Mexico, 9 Mar. 1998; qtd. in "Inspirational Thoughts," Ensign, June 1999).

President Hinckley has spoken about education on numerous occasions, usually expressing sentiments similar to those quoted above. He is clearly concerned about the secular education of Church members, and encourages men and women alike to receive as much schooling as their circumstances permit. The Perpetual Education Fund was initiated under Hinckley's presidency.

Generally, I believe that Latter-day Saints are a people that value education. While LDS young women are usually taught that their primary marital and familial responsibilities will be in the nurturing of children and management of the home (young men are brought up to be the primary wage-earners in their future families), they are simultaneously instilled with a desire, perhaps even a duty, to earn a higher education. Even if they are never required to provide for a family, a college degree allows them to do so ("just in case"). Additionally, it better equips them to educate their own children and participate in society at large.

While the essence of President Hinckley's 2006 talk--Latter-day Saints, particularly men, are to receive an education that allows them to gain honorable employment and support a family--he made a comment that I feel is rather remarkable. He taught that husbands and wives are to be "equally yoked" in matters of education. While his remarks were addressed exclusively to men and were meant to encourage them to receive at least as much education as their female counterparts, I doubt that he did not contemplate one of the logical conclusions that may easily be drawn from them--that educational inequality between spouses is undesirable, and that presumably this goes both ways. In other words, women also should not be satisfied if their level of education is below that of their spouses.

So why don't we see more LDS women, particularly married LDS women, pursuing advanced degrees? While I do not believe there is any great gender disparity between male and female undergraduates, my observations seem to indicate that the majority of LDS students pursuing advanced degrees, and the vast majority of married LDS students pursuing advanced degrees, are male. According to U.S. News & World Report's 2007 statistics and rankings, BYU is tied with the University of Alabama for the fewest percentage of female students among the top 50 U.S. law schools. Only 36% of BYU law students are female (most schools in the top 50 fall in the mid-40's to low-50's; the school enrolling the highest percentage of female students is Berkeley, with 59%). While this statistic in no way tells the whole story, it's worth pondering.

I know that many LDS women have their reasons for not pursuing advanced degrees. My own wife has contemplated pursuing a master's, but for the time being would prefer to use her B.S. to work. While she knows that I fully support whatever educational pursuits she may consider, we both know that every dollar she earns is one that will not have to be paid back later (with interest) as part of a student loan repayment. In the face of the tens of thousands of dollars that we will be borrowing over the next three years (for the sake of my education), every dollar we can actually claim as our own is that much more valuable. Practically, it's better for our little family to have one spouse working while the other pursues an advanced degree.

But I still wonder--should we take President Hinckley's talk at face value? Should my wife be pursuing a graduate degree in order to avoid the educational disparity that will otherwise exist between us upon my graduation from Duke?

I don't think any such obligation should exist. I also don't think it's a sin if one spouse has a bachelor's while the other has a master's or PhD. But I do think President Hinckley's comments are worth pondering, and I personally would like to see more LDS women, married and unmarried, with advanced degrees. I have heard more than a few express a desire to receive more schooling, but then reason that it would not be "right," for whatever reason (while the reason given is sometimes financial, it frequently has to do with child-bearing, mothering, and other "wifely" duties). There seems to be this idea that if a spouse is going to receive an advanced degree, it should be the husband in almost every situation.

So, what do you think? What kind of an "obligation" do spouses have to one another in matters of education? Do Hinckley's comments really imply a duty to avoid educational disparity between spouses? Can married LDS women pursue JDs, master's degrees, MDs, and PhDs without violating their duties as women, wives, and mothers, as outlined by the Church? Should Latter-day Saint culture re-evaluate and/or change its expectations for women?

That's quite a slew of questions that I'd love to delve into more, but unfortunately time is not really permitting. At the moment, I've got to get back to my own education.
My lengthy and belated review of "The Mormons"

Posted: May 4th, 2007, 3:07am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

If you haven't had enough of "The Mormons" already, here you go.

--

This past week, I had the pleasure of viewing the PBS Frontline documentary special, “The Mormons,” a four-hour examination of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormon Church. The first half discusses the historical roots of Mormonism, including such controversial topics as polygamy and the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The second half discusses the modern Church, focusing on highlights that include Mormon family life, missionary work, and humanitarian efforts, as well as the challenges and controversies facing modern Mormonism, such as the tension between LDS authorities and intellectuals, and the status of women and homosexuals in the Church. Although four hours are definitely not enough to cover nearly 200 years of history and all the complexities of the Mormon experience, filmmaker Helen Whitney does a remarkable job presenting a concise yet rich overview that is accessible to both veteran Mormons and curious outsiders. The documentary skillfully balances input from intellectuals and ordinary people, LDS authorities and lay members, Mormons and non-Mormons, covering victory and tragedy, strength and controversy, creating an even-handed take on what it means to be Mormon.

While there are some inaccuracies in the documentary, I believe that they are neither numerous nor egregious [if there are serious errors I missed, please post them in a comment]. Many of them are in relatively minor details (for instance, the narrator reports that Christ’s American visit in the Book of Mormon takes place during the three days between his death and resurrection, when it actually takes place after the resurrection). For the most part, “The Mormons” is quite accurate. In areas where there are ambiguities (e.g., whether or not Brigham Young was directly involved with the Mountain Meadows Massacre) and when discussing topics that are subjective (e.g., whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet), Whitney is sure to give time to those representing both sides of the issue, and for the most part, leaves judgment to the viewer’s discretion.

Whitney certainly doesn’t shy away from controversy—she covers polygamy, racism, homosexuality, and the Mountain Meadows Massacre, to name a few of the prominent segments. Those hoping for a pristine depiction of Mormon roots and beliefs will most likely be disappointed. There are skeletons in our collective closet, and Whitney does not ignore them (for which I applaud her). Yet, despite some unfavorable reviews from some in the Mormon community, “The Mormons” is not nearly as negative or critical as it could have been, which may say something of Whitney’s intentions. For instance, it briefly mentions discrepancies between Joseph Smith’s multiple accounts of the First Vision, but essentially accepts the 1838 version—the one that appears in the Pearl of Great Price—as authoritative. It spends a good deal of time examining polygamy, but neglects to mention that Joseph Smith married both teenagers and women already married to other men. It discusses secret temple rituals, but does not include sensitive, sacred details (which would have been at the filmmaker’s hands with a quick Google search). Surprisingly, Whitney does not even mention the connection between Freemasonry and the temple.

Perhaps one of the major failings of the documentary is how much was left out. Certain omissions may cause some viewers to breathe a sigh of relief, but I can’t help but feel that Whitney occasionally leaves us expecting more. For example, the Nauvoo period, which marked major transitions and expansions in Church doctrine and practice, is skimmed over in a matter of minutes. The Doctrine and Covenants, the Word of Wisdom, the three degrees of glory, the Relief Society, and other pivotal components of Mormonism are either not mentioned or are only referred to but not explained. I was also surprised by the relative absence of such prominent figures in Mormon studies as Richard Bushman and D. Michael Quinn. Granted, covering such a broad topic in only four hours necessitates leaving some things out, but certain exclusions do seem glaring.

In spite of these objections, the documentary is full of gems. To name a few, it features Darius Gray talking about blacks and the priesthood, Margaret Toscano talking about Mormon Feminism, and Dallin H. Oaks talking about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Some have complained that there is an excess of “talking heads,” but in my view, these “heads” are one of the program’s greatest strengths. Whitney draws from interviews with literally dozens of Mormons, non-Mormons, ex-Mormons, scholars, and LDS General Authorities. The most prominent contributors include Utah documentarian/journalist Ken Verdoia, LDS author Terryl Givens, Church historian and seventy Marlin K. Jensen, and BYU professor Daniel Peterson. One of the complaints viewers may have is that the religious affiliation of each contributor is not explicitly shown. For some, their relationship to the Church is obvious, but for many it is ambiguous, and this can be frustrating to viewers. In a chat with Whitney posted on the Washington Post website, she responds to the concern in this manner: “I decided not to label the religious affiliation of those being interviewed…[because] I wanted people to listen carefully and respectfully to each person—and not automatically discount what people were saying because they were either LDS or not LDS.” Although occasionally frustrating, the omission of the interviewees’ religious affiliation acts as a protection against viewer bias, essentially forcing viewers to evaluate each person’s thoughts on a basis other than relationship to the Church, which forces some LDS viewers out of a well-established comfort zone.

Far more impressive than the facts, history, debates, controversies, and intellectuality are the stories of individuals and their faith. The young woman whose faith gives her the courage to face a terminal illness. The former inmate whose life was changed by the “preposterous story” of a “white boy” and some gold plates. The man whose wife died giving birth to a child they believed God wanted them to have. A Katrina victim who now considers Mormons “part of [his] family” after the Church provided humanitarian aid and man hours during his time of need. The real power of “The Mormons” is in these stories, for they illustrate the role that the Mormon faith plays in ordinary lives and put a human face on a religion that is often viewed with suspicion and distrust.

For those who are unfamiliar with Mormonism, and even for LDS whose knowledge of their own history is limited to official Church publications or who are unaware of current issues in Mormon studies, “The Mormons” is probably a good initiation into some of the paradoxes and deeper questions of the past and present. For these viewers (who likely comprise a majority of the audience), the documentary probably affords several “I didn’t know that!” moments, which is certainly one reason to view it. But it also speaks to the complexity and profundity of the Mormon religious movement and its leaders. Men like Joseph Smith cannot be reduced to such black-and-white labels as Saint or Charlatan, and the Church itself resists classification as either Perfect Kingdom or Cult. Whatever its past, Whitney drives home the point that Mormonism is a complex, vibrant, and growing faith that enriches lives and gives hope to both its adherents and the world at large. One of the biggest questions that she raises (but does not attempt to answer) is how the fate of Mormonism will pan out in the 21st century and beyond.

In spite of a few objections, I heartily recommend “The Mormons” and commend director/producer Helen Whitney for her work.
"The Uniquely True Church"

Posted: April 11th, 2007, 6:26am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Why have I been blogging so much this week? Because it's more enticing to spend 15 minutes typing up a quick blog post than to get going on my final papers and projects. So, in the name of procastination, here's another quickie.

Here are some excerpts from one of my favorite essays about Mormonism, "The Uniquely True Church," by Philip L. Barlow.

"I think it is a mistake to attempt to elevate religion by disparaging reason. I believe my mind to be more a friend than a foe to my spirit, and that God gave me my intellect in the same sense that He gave me my soul.

"My confession is to acknowledge my awareness of the many linguistic, historical, and theological difficulties that arise as one attempts to analyze such documents as the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon, and also as one tries to take account of the Mormon (or any faith's) past.... I have reconciled many of these difficulties, not reconciled others, and have suspended judgment on certain of them. Most are explicable if one approaches them not from the perspective that the Church is essentially divine, marred only by the weaknesses of human administrators, but rather that the Church on earth consists entirely of human beings (with all of their limitations) who are trying to respond to the divine with which they have been touched."

Barlow then offers fifteen "thoughts," and expounds upon each of them. In the interest of brevity, I'll only quote from his thoughts in part. The whole essay can be found in A Thoughtful Faith: Essays on Belief by Mormon Scholars.

1. I exist.

2. God exists.

3. The world and I have purpose.

4. But I am ignorant, and existence on earth bewilders.

5. My ignorance notwithstanding, I find that I am nevertheless equipped with tools for learning.

6. My teachers may be wiser than I, but they are also passers of the cultural torch. I inherit their culture.

7. As my life unfolds, I question things. I adjsut and restructure my reality and value systems, perhaps many times.

8. I learn universality.... I grow wary of such terms as 'chosen people.' I begin to understand that genuine truth may have many vantages.... I learn and assimilate relativism.

9. The relativism grows in direct proportion to my knowledge.

...At length a question emerges around which I must shape my faith, indeed, around which I must shape my being. The question is this: Amid the complexities of human existence, how am I to live with meaning, integration, and authenticity?

10. Among the religious philosophies of the world, I can discover no completely universal answer to my question, "How am I to live with meaning and authenticity?" However, the three responses that seem to come nearest are these: human beings are invited to love, to render service to their fellows, and to pursue the acquisition of knowledge.

...Now, through all of the conflicting claims and bewildering confusion on the planet earth, one known thing completely captures my soul and imagination as an actual, historical incarnation of "meaningful and authentic existence"--and that "thing" is Christ.

11. Given the universality of the human situation, I could choose to live more or less authentically with or without a belief in Christ. That is, Hindus and atheists lead lives of varying degrees of nobility and meaningfulness, just as Christians do. Moreover, I know of no completely satisfying solution to a difficult fact (though Mormonism suggests some): all persons do not have real access to knowledge of Christ. But the fact that I do not have all the answers has not altered my faith in Him, nor my belief that He is the fullest embodiment of an authentic response to "the human predicament," nor my belief that every person who has had the opportunity to know of Him, and thereafter chooses to follow Him, is better off with the light of His image.

12. Given my faith in Christ, I nevertheless could live more or less authentically with or without an organized church.

...It is clear that love, service, and the acquisition of knowledge are better worked out in regular contact with a community to which one feels responsible than in comfortable, unadulterated solitude.

13. Yet I could live more or less authentically in most of the churches. So which Christian church? For me, the answer to that question is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I really do believe that Joseph Smith was called of God and that the world would be blessed to hear the Mormon message. I believe the Church to be uniquely "true"--that is, that is possesses certain divinely framed resources which are singularly well suited to foster love, service, and the guided pursuit of the most important knowledge.

Nevertheless, I am aware that Latter-day Saints have no monopoly on truth and goodness.

...I have come to see that as a Latter-day Saint I can allow the term "chosen people" to have no room for an elitist tinge. The deepest meaning of this difficult term is revealed for me in the image of the Christ who washed the feet of His disciples. Perhaps we are a people chosen to serve people.

14. But why the Mormon Church?

...I have known people who have rejected the Church because they have overestimated its nature and purpose, and have grown disappointed when the Church did not satisfy the functions that they have privately imposed on it.... The Church exists...as an instrument through which together we may serve God and His children.... When Church members assemble, the idea is at least as much to give as to "get," to contribute as to be spoon fed.

...Though this leadership may occasionally insist on policies with which I take exception, sometimes firmly, I am aware that their position is delicate and difficult; I remain loyal to them and am grateful for their generous, able service.

...Mormonism has produced a set of symbols, a theology, and a practical structure that provides a wonderful mechanism through which I can respond authentically and meaningfully to mortal life, and through which I have hope of immortal life.... The Lord's influence is here; I believe the Church to be uniquely true.

15. The Lord, I imaqgine, wants teachability, oppenness, and intelligent trust--not gullibility.... I do not believe the curcial issue is finally, "Will I be sittign in the correct pew when the archangel sounds his trump? Rather, I believe God sent me to earth to respond freely, with faith, to the conditions of a sometimes dark and difficult world.... I believe my highest response to these conditions is to learn something about myself, to learn to lvoe blindly, to serve my fellow beings, to acquire a kind of wisdom that is apparently best communicated through human experiences.

...My religious tenets operate at two distinct levels: that of literal truth and that of metaphorical truth. I believe that God, Christ, and the Church are literally "true," yet I do not have direct access to these things in the ordinary sense of the term. Rather, I experience them intuitively, spiritually, "through a glass darkly." I know, however, that they are true metaphorically, for they function successfully in my everyday life. This combination of believing and knowing (both of which are relative terms) amounts to a trust that I call my faith. I readily acknowledge that my faith is a faith; it is not a perfect knowledge. Indeed, I am content that it is so. The informed trust that comes with faith can, if it is genuine and well placed, produce a strength and a goodness that could not grow from literal, absolute knowledge.
More Thoughts on Faith and Doubt

Posted: April 5th, 2007, 9:58am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

More from Paul Tillich. I'm not yet sure how much I agree with him (I just discovered his writings the other day), but he's certainly had my mind going lately.

Here's a quick passage on faith and doubt from Dynamics of Faith (p. 22):
Many Christians, as well as members of other religious groups, feel anxiety, guilt and despair about what they call "loss of faith." But serious doubt is confirmation of faith. It indicates the seriousness of the concern, its unconditional character.
Another passage on faith and doubt, this one from The Courage to Be (pp. 49-50):
Doubt is based on man's separation from the whole of reality, on his lack of universal participation, on the isolation of his individual self. So he tries to break out of this situation, to identify himself with something transindividual, to surrender his separation and self-relatedness. He flees from his freedom of asking and answering for himself to a situation in which no further questions can be asked and the answers to previous questions are imposed on him authoritatively. In order to avoid the risk of asking and doubting he surrenders the right to ask and to doubt. He surrenders himself in order to save his spiritual life. He "escapes from his freedom" (Fromm) in order to escape the anxiety of meaninglessness. Now he is no longer lonely, not in existential doubt, not in despair. He "participates" and affirms by participation the contents of his spiritual life. Meaning is saved, but the self is sacrificed. And since the conquest of doubt was a matter of sacrifice, the sacrifice of the freedom of self, it leaves a mark on the regained certitude: a fanatical self-assertiveness. Fanaticism is the correlate to spiritual self-surrender: it shows the anxiety which it was supposed to conquer, by attacking with disproportionate violence those who disagree and who demonstrate by their disagreement elements in the spiritual life of the fanatic which he must suppress in himself. Because he must suppress them in himself he must suppress them in others. His anxiety forces him to persecute dissenters. The weakness of the fanatic is that those whom he fights have a secret hold upon him; and to this weakness he and his group finally succumb.
While I may not agree with Tillich in every particular, I like this idea that doubt is not the enemy of faith. Doubt is sometimes scary to the religious person; embracing and facing doubts does not guarantee that they will be resolved, and there exists a risk that the faith upon which one relies will be sacrificed in the bout. But I don't believe that doubt should be ignored or suppressed.

In my view, facing and exploring one's doubts is evidence of a will to find truth, wherever it lie and whatever it be. It shows that one is willing to put the comforts of religious, cultural, and familial tradition on the line in an effort to achieve greater personal enlightenment. It means taking responsibility for one's personal spiritual life. Perhaps one cannot fully appreciate the hope that is found grace of Christ without exploring the possibility it is myth. Perhaps the hope is that much sweeter when it is just that--hope, which exists in spite of the presence of doubt and the absence of certitude.

Additionally, recognition of the fact that some doubts will never be resolved (at least not in this life) makes one cognizant of his or her own imperfection and inherent ignorance. It also makes whatever truth we can comprehend that much more valuable. Embracing our doubts does not mean giving up faith or hope. Rather, it makes the need for faith and the power of hope all the more evident.

As self-proclaimed doubter Levi Peterson wrote in "A Christian By Yearning":
Often when I partake of the bread and water [of the sacrament] my mood is such that I ignore the benumbing possibility that human destiny is eternal death. Instead I contemplate the egregious, absurd, astonishing, miraculous proposition that on a certain resplendent morning the graves of all history will open and the incarcerated dead, one and all, will emerge into a new and everlasting life. In such a mood I allow my imagination to construct a Christian future....

I am a Christian by yearning. Opposed to my doubt and perversity is a longing that the gospel be true. Christians are made, said the apostle Paul, of faith, hope, and charity. I have little charity and less faith, perhaps I have hope in some abundance. Often when I recognize how intensely I yearn for eternal life, I find myself elevated and encouraged. I find that my yearning has transformed itself into hope and I find myself responding to the sacrament as a ceremony of hope. On many Sundays while I participate in this solemn ritual, I ponder the possibility that Christ will one day resurrect me, and I am filled with gratitude that such a thing might come to pass....

...[I]n a sense it seems a pity to take one’s immortality for granted, to expect it and count on it. It seems a pity to be so sheltered from the terror of death that one’s gratitude for the resurrection is merely dutiful and perfunctory. Perhaps truly there are religious advantages to doubt. Perhaps only a doubter can appreciate the miracle of life without end.
More later.
Faith, doubt, and certainty

Posted: April 5th, 2007, 1:48am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

For as long as I remember, I have been taught that doubt is corrosive to faith. This is not an uncommon perception in Mormonism, or perhaps in Christianity at large. Here are some quotes to this effect:

"[T]he antithesis of faith is doubt." (Russell M. Nelson, "A More Excellent Hope", Ensign Feb. 1997)

"Truly doubt and faith do not coexist in the same person at the same time." (Truman G. Madsen, "Souls Aflame: The Prayer Heritage of the Latter-day Saints", New Era July 1984)

"Faith is testimony; testimony is faith.... Our testimony is a gift from God. It should be shared, but we do not have the authority to bestow a testimony upon someone else, because a personal testimony is granted by the Holy Ghost. It can aid others in gaining knowledge for themselves—a knowledge abiding in the heart that leaves no room for doubt." (Robert D. Hales, "The Importance of Receiving a Personal Testimony", Ensign Nov. 1994; emphasis added)

"Doubt not, but be believing..." (Mormon 9:27)

"And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind" (Luke 12:29)

So I was intrigued by this post by Russell at The Cultural Hall, which quotes a message on the gate of a certain church. The message reads:
Welcome to Grace Church

Where we welcome
All who worship
All who doubt
All who long to move from fear to faith

For the opposite of faith is not doubt
The opposite of faith is certainty
In an uncertain world, your doubts are welcome in this community of faith
Others have said similar things. For instance, the theologian Paul Tillich has written, "Doubt is not the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith" (Systematic Theology, Vol. 2).
Uncertainty is an element of faith. In the Book of Mormon, Alma teaches that "faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things" (Alma 32:21). In other words, faith isn't about certainty; we must rely on faith by virtue of the fact that we don't have all the answers, we have a tendency to doubt, and the universe doesn't always make sense to us. If we were certain, then there would be no need for faith--"if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it" (Alma 32:18).
In "The Challenging and Testifying Missionary", President Alvin R. Dyer said that "The gospel of Jesus Christ is not knowledge. When people say they are glad to have a knowledge of Jesus they speak in what we call a manner of speech. The gospel is a feeling."
In other words, perhaps we sometimes overstate how much we actually "know" in the Church. Perhaps we view doubt, questioning, and uncertainty in too negative a light.

I'll likely blog more on this later. But I wanted to get this topic out there.
Is there room for doubt in faith? What is doubt's relationship with faith? And what about certainty? What's it got to do with faith?
Why every Mormon should read The Backslider

Posted: February 2nd, 2007, 12:46am EST by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Over the past week or so, I've blown through Levi S. Peterson's The Backslider, which was published just over twenty years ago. This is one of the most important books I have ever read (and I do a good deal of reading).

Orson Whitney declared that "We will yet have Miltons and Shakespeares of our own." Spencer W. Kimball likewise said, "Could there be among us embryo poets and novelists like Goethe? Have we explored as much as we should? … Goethe was not the greatest nor the last. There may be many Goethes among us even today, waiting to be discovered. Inspired Saints will write great books and novels and biographies and plays." Given such statements, I've occasionally wondered what real literature would look like in a Mormon context. Could it be edgy or critical, even controversial? Could it affect me in the same way that Hemingway does?

To be honest, I don't think we've even scratched the surface when it comes to excelling in literature and the arts. Most of the fiction on the shelves of Deseret Book is fluff, in my opinion, and so many of our popular artists seem more intent on selling calendars than producing deep, moving art. But The Backslider showed me what real Mormon literature is and can be. It showed me that there are, in fact, Mormon Goethes and Miltons out there who can write masterfully in a Mormon context.

The Backslider, which begins in 1956, tells the story of Frank Windham, a twenty-year old ranch hand from Southern Utah. As a 21st century university student who grew up in Los Angeles, I initially thought that I would have a difficult time relating to Frank. I was wrong. The more I read, the more I began to see myself in Frank. His family, neighbors, and friends began to look more and more like my own. And I don't think that's because Frank is particularly like myself; rather, Peterson endows Frank with so many traits and thought patterns common to Mormons that no matter how disconnected and obscure the world of 1950's Escalante, Utah may seem to a Mormon reader, he or she will be able to relate to and understand Frank and his struggles. Frank's story is so powerful because it reflects the experience of so many of us.

Levi S. Peterson makes generous use of all the things Mormons hate in literature, most notably profanity and sex. Sexuality pervades the novel; it's one of the primary themes addressed by Peterson. I'm sure the book has made many an unsuspecting Mormon uncomfortable, but I'm convinced that this is by design. The Backslider forces the Mormon reader to confront our cultural demons, which is another reason why this novel is so important. It doesn't just tell a story, but calls into question a number of beliefs, customs, and assumptions that are still alive in Mormonism, despite the half a century that has passed since Frank Windham's day.

Some readers will inevitably be offended by the rough-edged, cigarette-touting Cowboy Jesus. But to me, this was one of the most moving contributions of the novel. The central message of The Backslider is that Christ is kind, and that we can experience His kindness and grace in a profoundly personal way.

I can't say enough about this novel. While I believe that The Backslider really does appeal to a wide audience, it is particularly poignant and meaningful for Mormons. It's important that we read this book, and others like it. So please, go read it.

And once you're done, listen to this excellent Sunstone Lit podcast devoted to The Backslider, which includes a Sunstone session that commemorated the twentieth anniversary of the novel's publication.
Putting Faith in Doubt

Posted: October 9th, 2006, 4:27am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

A forewarning: this is going to be a long one. Cheers to anybody that sticks it out.

The October 9, 2006 edition of TIME magazine includes an interesting article by Andrew Sullivan, called, "When Not Seeing Is Believing." He discusses the hazards of religious fundamentalism and absolutism, and the necessity of embracing religious uncertainty in resolving much of the tension between the West and the Middle East. I've read the article a couple times, and I'd like to highlight and discuss a few of his points.

Sullivan starts off by describing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's appearance during his recent visit to the U.N., at which he said, "Whether we like it or not, justice, peace and virtue will sooner or later prevail in the world with the will of Almighty God." He sported a ubiquitous smile throughout the visit, appearing to be "utterly serene," as Sullivan puts it, despite domestic and international anxieties. The author attributes Ahmadinejad's serenity to an unyielding faith: "for him, the most perplexing and troubling questions we all face every day have already been answered. He has placed his trust in the arms of God. Just because it isn't the God that many of us believe in does not detract from the serenity or power of his faith."

So far, Sullivan's description of Ahmadinejad's faith doesn't make it sound so bad. The line about having answers to life's most troubling questions sounds like one of those General Authority quotes that makes it into an overpriced book of faith-promoting thoughts, which you might find lining the shelves of Deseret Book. But then he goes on to say,
It is a faith that is real, all too real--gripping billions across the Muslim world in a new wave of fervor and fanaticism.

...That concept of the beneficent, omnipotent will of God and the need to always submit to it, whether we like it or not, is not new. It has been present in varying degrees throughout history in all three great monotheisms--Judaism, Christianity and Islam--from their very origins. And with it has come the utter certainty of those who say they have seen the face of God or have surrendered themselves to his power or have achieved the complete spiritual repose promised by the Books of all three faiths: the Torah, the Gospels, the Koran. That is where the smile comes from.
But wait, isn't certainty something we want? Of course; "In today's unnerving, globalizing, sometimes terrifying world, such religious certainty is more in demand than ever." A certain faith in God's existence, in His omnipotence, and in the belief that He is on our side yields confidence, optimism, and a calming assurance that all will work for our own good. But this type of unbending faith doesn't necessarily lend itself to tolerance, understanding, dialogue, and interfaith relations. The belief that God is exclusively on your side can be downright dangerous in international relations. Ahmadinejad's confidence is not without parallel in the West. As Sullivan writes,
And religious certainty surely cannot be disentangled from George W. Bush's utter conviction that he has made no mistakes in Iraq. "My faith frees me," the President once wrote. "Frees me to make the decisions that others might not like. Frees me to do the right thing, even though it may not poll well. Frees me to enjoy life and not worry about what comes next." In every messy context, the President seeks succor in a simple certainty--good vs. evil, terror vs. freedom--without sensing that wars are also won in the folds of uncertainty and guile, of doubt and tactical adjustment that are alien to the fundamentalist psyche.
The point:
When the Presidents of the U.S. and Iran speak as much about God as diplomacy, we have entered a newly dangerous era... Imagine the fanaticism of 16th century Christians, waging religious war and burning heretics at the stake. Now give them nukes. See the problem?

I don't think many Mormons would consider themselves to be "fundamentalists." The polygamists in Colorado City proudly bear that banner. We're probably more inclined to think of ourselves as religious moderates. I mean, we don't live in sealed-off compounds in the middle of the desert, right? Our living prophet has never been on the FBI's Most Wanted list, right? Those FLDS guys are the extremists, not us.

But we bear our marks of fundamentalism too, and rather prominently and proudly, I might add.

Andrew Sullivan doesn't mention anything about Mormons, but he does discuss Pope Benedict XVI's recently criticized speech, which discussion seems very relevant to Mormonism. Sullivan doesn't focus on Benedict's remarks about Islam, but rather on a portion of his speech that has received little to no media attention: his message to Westerners.
The bulk of his message was directed at the West, at its disavowal of religious authority and its embrace of what Benedict called "the subjective 'conscience.'" For Benedict, if your conscience tells you something that differs from his teaching, it is a false conscience, a sign not of personal integrity but of sin. And so he has silenced conscientious dissent within the church and insisted on absolutism in matters like abortion, end-of-life decisions, priestly celibacy, the role of women, homosexuality and interfaith dialogue.
Sound familiar?

As Sullivan continues, "Domestically, the resurgence of religious certainty has deepened our cultural divisions. And so our political discourse gets more polarized, and our global discourse gets close to impossible." For absolutists and fundamentalists, there is no such thing as rational dialogue. There is no such thing as compromise. There is One Right Way, and everybody else is in error (or at least they don't have a "fulness of truth"). This attitude is in no way conducive to a harmonious and peaceful society. Unfortunately, I fear that us Mormons all too often slip into fundamentalism without even realizing it.

"But we are right! We do have the most truth!" we respond. And we totally overlook a basic principle of religious faith that the humble of all faiths should be able to confess:
If God really is God, then God must, by definition, surpass our human understanding. Not entirely. We have Scripture; we have reason; we have religious authority; we have our own spiritual experiences of the divine. But there is still something we will never grasp, something we can never know--because God is beyond our human categories. And if God is beyond our categories, then God cannot be captured for certain. We cannot know with the kind of surety that allows us to proclaim truth with a capital T. There will always be something that eludes us. If there weren't, it would not be God.

Paul wrote, "For now we see through a glass, darkly" (1 Corinth. 13:12). We do not and cannot comprehend all there is to comprehend about God. Even with scripture, even with prophets, even with the Holy Ghost, even with whatever else we claim, we cannot humbly or honestly say that we have a monopoly on truth or exclusive access to the divine. I don't even think we can say that our interests are a higher priority in the mind of God than are those of other religious peoples.

And this is why we must come to embrace the unknown and the uncertain. This is why we must come to recognize that doubt is not always the antithesis or the destroyer of faith. I believe that the secret to interfaith dialogue, the key to tolerance and understanding, and the ability to accept and accomodate the believing dissenter all lie in those foggy regions of uncertainty. And only when we are willing to drop our barriers of extremity, exclusivism, and fundamentalism will we be able to perceive things in an open, honest, and objective manner. Only then can we really be said to be open to and willing to embrace any and all truth.
Fundamentalism is not the only valid form of faith, and to say it is, is the great lie of our time.

...There is the faith that treats the Bible as a moral fable as well as history and tries to live its truths in the light of contemporary knowledge, history, science and insight. There is a faith that draws important distinctions between core beliefs and less vital ones--that picks and chooses between doctrines under the guidance of individual conscience.

There is the faith that sees the message of Jesus or Muhammad as a broad indicator of how we should treat others, of what profound holiness requires, and not as an account literally true in all respects that includes an elaborate theology that explains everything...

...From a humble faith comes toleration of other faiths.

I think it's time to start moving away from fundamentalism. I'm not saying that Mormons should abandon their roots or compromise their beliefs. But I think we can move in the direction of dialogue; in the direction of true tolerance, acceptance, and validation of other peoples and faiths (which, in my opinion, means abandoning the back-of-the-mind notion that, in the end, they'll know we were right all along); in the direction of moderation; and in the direction of making Christ's core teachings and practice the hallmark of our religion.

If we are unwilling to take these steps, I don't think it can be said that we are living up to the title of Latter-day Saints.
Mormonism as a jingshen jituo

Posted: September 10th, 2006, 5:29am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

On my mission in Hong Kong, one of the obstacles we faced was an insistance that religion is nothing more than a 精神寄托, or jingshen jituo. I've struggled to find an English translation that fits; as with many Chinese expressions, it's difficult to come up with a concise English translation that adequately communicates the term's original meaning. As a rather typically self-righteous missionary, I tended to translate it as an "emotional crutch," but that's not quite right. Basically, a jingshen jituo describes something in which we place our emotional or spiritual trust, upon which we rely for peace and well-being. When people used this term to describe religion, it frequently carried with it an implication that the spiritual realities presented in religions don't necessarily exist.

Naturally, as hyper-sensitive missionaries intent on conveying the literal truth of what we taught, these comments drove us nuts. I recall one Sunday, when a particularly curious investigator attended church with us. During Sunday school, he began asking the members of the branch, nearly all of whom were members of only a few years or less, why they believed in and joined the Church. We wanted them to say something like, "Because Joseph Smith is a prophet" or, "Because the Spirit told me that it's true," but instead they began listing off the benefits they enjoyed as members of the Church: friendship, peace, courage, etc. Eventually, this investigator concluded, "So religion is a jingshen jituo, then?" The members responded in unison with an enthusiastic "Dui!" ("Correct!"), to the dismay of the missionaries.

After reading Johnny's last post on the Mormon Left, I kind of got to thinking about why I'm a Mormon, or rather, why I'm still a Mormon. I may be making myself vulnerable to criticism or judgment by saying this, but I can't say that my any of my primary reasons necessarily had to do with the pursuit of eternal life or a conviction that the LDS Church is God's kingdom on earth.

I first thought about my family heritage. Although I don't feel any particularly close bonds to those with whom I worship, and I frequently feel out of place among Mormons, I can't help but admit that they are my people, and Mormonism is my heritage. My mom's side of the family is pure pioneer stock, and even though my dad is a convert, his roots go back to Palmyra (we're related to Dr. Alexander McIntyre, the Smith family doctor). This may be perceived as a weakness in me, but even in times when I've felt bitter toward the Church, I have never seriously considered leaving it, primarily because I don't know how I'd deal with the familial repercussions that would follow. I wouldn't just be leaving a church, I'd be leaving something that has sustained my family for generations and which is very much responsible for making me who I am today (for better and for worse).

I then thought about my marriage and future family. Honestly, neither my wife nor I particularly love going to church on Sunday. But we want our future kids to grow up in the Church. I believe that (for the most part) the values and views espoused by the Church do help individuals and families. While we don't intend to raise a cookie-cutter Mormon family, we do want our children to be aware of their familial heritage and appreciate those church teachings that promote unity and love within the home.

In pondering, I also thought of the opportunities for service and fulfillment within the Church. Mormonism promotes Christlike living and concern for one's neighbor. I'm a huge fan of sincere home teaching, LDS humanitarian efforts, and the Perpetual Education Fund. These are efforts I want to be a part of.

Don't get me wrong, I do consider Mormon theology to be beautiful. The idea that each human is eternal and divine in nature, the emphasis on learning and progression, the rejection of conventional perceptions of hell and eternal punishment, the chance for postmortal salvation, and the awarding of glory to all but a very few--these things speak of God's mercy and love for His children. But to be frank, I'm not 100% sure what's going to happen when I die. If there's a postmortal existence, I hope it's something like how I've grown up imagining it. But for now, I can honestly say I'm more concerned with religion's function in my day-to-day life. I believe that there has got to be some here-and-now benefit to religion. I have a hard time going to church, accepting callings, keeping the commandments, or going to the temple purely because "we're supposed to" or because "it's vital for salvation." In my mind, there must be more to it than that. There must be something that uplifts, that soothes, and enlightens, that comforts, that helps us get by from day to day (and I don't think this expectation goes contrary to the scriptures). There's got to be something that draws us to church on Sunday, that makes us want to live by the scriptures, that makes us want to participate in an organized religion. And in my mind, that something needs to be more than guilt or mere obligation.

If someone isn't finding these things in a religion, then I don't think we can blame them for leaving. I think they deserve to look for it elsewhere.

I can't say that Mormonism always uplifts or excites me, particularly as it is manifested in the regular function of the LDS Church. But there is enough to keep me here for now. Despite the pain and anxiety it sometimes causes me, it also provides me with a measure of personal identity, hope, and purpose that helps me to deal with life.

In other words, I'm currently contented to stay not because I believe Mormonism is the absolute source of all truth or because it's the one and only road to salvation, but rather, because Mormonism is a jingshen jituo.

Those Chinese members knew what they were talking about.

Outer Lightness » Items by Steve M.

Feeds

Items by Steve M.

Posted: September 14th, 2007, 1:31am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Posted: September 11th, 2007, 2:36pm EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Posted: September 6th, 2007, 8:06am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Posted: September 6th, 2007, 11:32pm EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Posted: September 4th, 2007, 11:46pm EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Posted: August 20th, 2007, 2:37am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Posted: July 26th, 2007, 11:34am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Posted: July 23rd, 2007, 7:33am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Posted: July 8th, 2007, 9:37am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Posted: June 25th, 2007, 3:02pm EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Posted: June 21st, 2007, 10:43am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Posted: June 17th, 2007, 6:36am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Posted: June 6th, 2007, 6:04am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Posted: May 4th, 2007, 3:07am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Posted: April 11th, 2007, 6:26am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Posted: April 5th, 2007, 9:58am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Posted: April 5th, 2007, 1:48am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Posted: February 2nd, 2007, 12:46am EST by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Posted: October 9th, 2006, 4:27am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]

Posted: September 10th, 2006, 5:29am EDT by Steve M.

Tags: [edit]