I actually think Terryl Givens might agree with my comments in #96…

As an additional thought, the divorce rate in Utah is slightly higher than the national average. So if your premise about temple marriage is correct, then very few of our members are getting married in the temple. If they were, the divorce rate in Utah would certainly be less than the national average given that the state is predominantly LDS.

The most relevant part from that book:

“Mormon divorce rates are related to the level of religious commitment of the partners. However, when Latter-day Saints marry within their faith, they are the least likely of all Americans to divorce. Furthermore, when measuring the rate of divorce among Mormons married in the temple (the rite observed by most active, committed Mormons), the rate falls tremendously. One study indicates that for men with temple marriages, 5.4 percent have been divorced compared to 27.8 percent of nontemple men. For women, the numbers are 6.5 percent for temple marriages and 32.7 percent for the others.”

(If you want to read it yourself, it has sources cited. I only note that the “nontemple” number includes all who marry outside the temple, including both member-member unions and member-other unions.)

I’m not disputing your divorce statistics, but I would like to see the source. I’m asking because I’ve been told that temple marriages are failing at about the national average if you compare apples to apples. I also know that studies can be very bias, therefore would like to know where this is coming from. For example, the church is very slow to grant temple divorces and requires strict obedience to principles for those who find themselves looking at a second marriage in the temple. That makes most temple marriages also first time marriages for both partners. As first time marriages have the highest success rate by far, stating that temple marriages are far more likely to succeed may be a stretch.

Temple sealing’s most likely enjoy about the same success rate as any marriage performed between people who believe their marriage vows are not only a promise to each other, but also a promise to God. I’ll be the first to admit that people of faith tend to have a higher success rate than those who don’t. I don’t know that LDS nuptials enjoy a higher success rate than other religious marriages. So again, how about that source?

Thanks,

Denae, once again, I have NEVER tried to “prevent marriages outside the faith” and I have NEVER “poke(d) at (your) marriage.” In fact, I have been one of the people supporting you and your marriage – and saying that I believe God will work it out in the end in a merciful way when two people truly become one.

My only point in supplying the divorce stats was to show why the whole “marry in the temple” counsel is emotional for many. The stats really do show that it is MUCH harder to keep a marriage intact when one partner is active Mormon and the other partner
is not – and temple marriages are MUCH more likely to remain intact. In fact, those two scenarios are at the opposite ends of the spectrum for religious people in our country. That is indisputable. It is fact.

Does mentioning that somehow mean I am poking at your marriage? Good heavens, no. I can understand the facts and still support your marriage, which I have done in this very thread. I can understand the facts and still support my children if they choose to marry outside the temple, as I have said I would in this very thread. I can understand the facts and still support any and all marriages that generically have a statistically lower chance of survival, as I have stated I do in many comments across the Bloggernacle. I would have no problem whatsoever if any of my children married someone from any race or ethnicity. I would support them fully, and they know that. I want them to marry in the temple, but I will support them fully if they choose not to do so – and they know that, as well.

How is knowledge of the stats a bad thing – when that knowledge is tempered by respect for individual agency and support for all in their decisions? How does MY recitation of the facts make “my logic” lead to the banning of inter-racial marriage? I know how OTHERS can reach that conclusion, but I have NEVER said ANYTHING in all of my comments in the Bloggernacle over the last two years that would lead anyone to think that “my logic” includes banning inter-racial or non-temple marriage.

That was my point in my response. It is one thing to say, “Focusing solely on those stats, it would be easy to teach that . . .” It is quite another to say, “Using your logic . . .” There was no “logic” involved; all I did was provide stats to show that there is a reason why this is such an emotional issue for some people.

I don’t want this to be a personal battle for us. I certainly didn’t mean my comment to be directed at you, personally. I meant it only to show that concern about non-temple marriages lasting has a legitimate grounding in fact. That’s all, so please accept my apology for not being more clear in the first place and allow this particular discussion to end peacefully.

How did you go from my comment to calling it “your logic” and using it to imply that I would argue against inter-racial marriage? I don’t argue that; I never have argued that; I never will argue that. I presented stats; I never said they should determine who you marry – particularly based on race. There is absolutely NOTHING in my comments to indicate that I would make that argument. NOTHING.

If you want to critique my comments, I have no problem with that whatsoever. Just critique what I actually write. Please.

“Sorry, the argument doesn’t work for me, but it is a good argument if you are against inter-racial marriages.”

Unfortunately, this is a typical response when one does not want to just address the issue. No one, certainly not Ray, has suggested anything against inter-racial marriage or inter-religious marriage for that matter. The studies only point to the difficulty of maintaining those relationships. It takes a lot of work and a willingness to bear the comments and looks of others who may not be so open-minded. The stats indicate that many are not up to the task. marriage can be difficult enough for many of us without the undue stress of those challenges. There was no comments about right or wrong.

A few responses that caught my attention, again, no offense intended if I didn’t get back to you.

Ray – regarding divorce rates, using your logic, I should have married someone, that is Mormon, lives in my part of the country, my race, and my political affiliation. My family reunions would be a lot less fun without my aunts and uncles that are of a different race, and the food wouldn’t be as good either. Sorry, the argument doesn’t work for me, but it is a good argument if you are against inter-racial marriages. A bishop did use that on my sister when she was dating a man of a different race.

Matt Thurston – I read Jana’s article when it came out, I loved it. I agree with her on a point you didn’t mention, but I want everyone here to note, the use of the word non-member is considered somewhat insulting by those that are not LDS.

Carl Youngblood – The issue of premarital sex was not a problem with us despite the advanced age at which my husband and I got married. Mormons do not have a corner on the market on high moral standards. Nor was coffee, alcohol, swearing, the abuse of the elderly or other moral issues. Amazing isn’t it?

N. – So am I the sheep or the goat? I think both of their merits? Both produce fine cheese. I see a problem taking the scriptures too literally, but if you want to, jump to it, I just want to know if I am the sheep or the goat. Just a warning though, that literal interpretation stuff, it might exclude some really wonderful people from your life.

Again, however, I wish examples like this were very, very rare. It doesn’t do the Church any good to publish weak arguments.

“Critics have claimed that just because LDS missionaries were teaching around 1 November 1830 that Joseph Smith had previously seen “God” personally…”

In the interest of fairness and to employ the same measuring stick with those who defend the church to those who criticize it. The “Palmyra Reflector” is quoting a third hand source from a reporter who writes for the Painesville Ohio telegraph, which didn’t find the supposed statement convincing enough to even mention it in his article of the same events. It should also be noted that the statement in contents also purports Joseph claiming that all who wouldn’t submit to his authority would shortly be destroyed, that the world would end in two or three years, and New York would be sunk.

Even anti-mormon groups wouldn’t use this quote to show JS as a false prophet for predicting the end of the world in two or three years, because unlike you, they recognize this as not worthy of even being considered a secondary source. It fits into the realm of pure hearsay with no primary or secondary sources to back up the statements Joseph is supposed to have made. In reading several of these papers, it’s obvious that the “Reflector” is very anti-mormon and see’s its mission as warning the people of Palmyra of the fraud in their mist. If you believed half of what this paper printed about JS, you would withdraw your membership from the church, but when it makes an obscure unsupportable statement from a third hand source, you make the following pronouncement:

“This states that it was mentioned during Joseph Smith’s life. A year and a half into 178 years of church history, doesn’t sound all that late to me, so you must be talking about something else.”

It’s stuff like this that LDS apologists do on a regular basis without a thought, but throw a fit when anyone quotes two or three primary sources that conflict with currently held beliefs. And you guys wonder why all this apologetics drives me nuts…

Denae, this is an area I am guessing you are not sure of its importance, and I think it good you question it. A true marriage is one that has both partners on the same playing field and where both expect the same things. If you do not expect to attain the CT from your spouse, then there will be no tension there. A good marriage, as I stated before, starts on the foundation where the man and wife are equally yolked. He is not a believer, and you pushing him would cause undo strife. What I would council Christians to do who married a non-believer is cover yourself in prayer all the time about the spouse seeing truth for what it is. Forcing your faith on him/her would be the worse thing you could do.

And I’ll highlight this again: you must be as open to his faith as you say you are. Otherwise, you are being deceptive.

But while I personally do not believe that any sort of temple ritual marriage makes a hoot of difference, I understand you might, but I would urge you to not push it, or allow others to push it, down his throat. You are his wife, and you need to put him before the church and serve him. You must not be his slave, but his helper-suitable and encourage him to be all he can be. Most of all, pray for him.

I would encourage anyone to do the same, even one in my own church.

“Critics have claimed that just because LDS missionaries were teaching around 1 November 1830 that Joseph Smith had previously seen “God” personally…”
http://en.fairmormon.org/1830_statement_about_seeing_%22God%22

This states that it was mentioned during Joseph Smith’s life. A year and a half into 178 years of church history, doesn’t sound all that late to me, so you must be talking about something else.

“…her husband hasn’t accepted the gospel or even really been taught it, so he’s in the same boat as all the billions who lived and died without access to it.” Refusing to learn about it puts him in the same boat? I suppose that it could be possible that God will say he didn’t have access to it, though it’s probably not to the same degree as the billions mentioned above.

“She just believes that God has a way for all of them after this life.” There’s absolutely no doubt that God has a way for them after this life; however, my concern is that it might not be what she believes, and is hoping for.

I remember quite a few years ago, one of the apostles (Harold B. Lee?) when speaking in General Conference told about a young couple who’d gotten married (not in the temple) and after leaving on their honeymoon were killed in an accident. Their parents wanted to have their sealing done for them as soon as possible. The apostle said that he wondered whether they’d now changed their minds about its importance, since they hadn’t wanted it when they were alive. That doesn’t mean it was so, but it is thought-provoking.

Our disagreement seems to be primarily an issue of epistemology.

Let me first say that my view of the “forest” (not my own individual tree) is not rigid, but open-ended. It makes room for C.S. Lewis’s need to have his thirst literally quenched, not to only be told he is thirsty. It makes room for Mormons and their Book of Mormon. It makes room for Agnostics to be unsure about everything. Etc. I see them all as trees in the forest. God inspires all of us, but each of us individually are the authors of our own religion. (And even within the forest of Mormonism, there are millions of unique trees.) For C.S. Lewis to connect to God, for Jeff Spector to connect to God, each needs a complex and literal Atonement. Fine, I get that. For me to connect to God, He cannot be a respector of creeds, but instead a respector of universal values like love, faith, charity, kindness, forgiveness, etc.

Ultimately, we all find the tree that best fits our temporal and eternal worldview and we build our nest in its branches. Others hop from tree to tree every couple of years.

So yes, you are right… in my own way, I have my own “religion” or “tree”. I’ve probably confused the issue by conflating (or simultaneously talking about) my own personal tree, and my view of the forest, at the same time.

But what I need to tease out, and I’m not doing a very good job of it I guess, is NOT my own personal religion/tree, but the idea that there is no such thing as a universal religion/tree. I consider this to be an unmitigated fact, outside the realm of my personal religion. The best anyone can claim is that their religion/tree is true for them. You cannot possibly claim that your tree is true for me, because you cannot possibly know what I think, what I have experienced, what God may have said to me — in short, you cannot climb inside my head or my soul. So if it is “true” for you, but “not true” for me, then it cannot be universally true for everyone.

God only speaks through individuals; God doesn’t speak to us collectively at the same time… and even if he did, we’d all hear or interpret what he said differently.

So I see my tree, and I see your tree… and together we make a forest. My problem is with people or religions who say that their tree is true not just for them but for the rest of humanity. Isn’t that an epistemological impossibility? Unless I’m reading them wrong, Jared, Carlos, and N. seem to be saying variations of this in 61, 62, and 64.

So while I think it is good to nest in one’s own tree (Mormonism or otherwise), I think it is equally good not to lose site of the forest, of the fact that one’s worldview is limited and biased. As such, it is a good idea to visit other trees from time to time, not necessarily to proselyte, but to drink in the beauty of different branches. Otherwise, we bludgeoun each other with the branches of our own tree.

So to recap… there is your truth, and there is my truth, but superceding both of our truths is a greater truth that neither of us can know the universal truth, at least when it comes to the esoterica of most creeds (i.e. atonement, priesthood, etc.). As such, we are left with a forest.

Matt said:

To me, you have severely limited Jesus. To me, what Jesus is saying is far greater, far grander, and far more universal. His teachings are what saves; His message of love, faith, repentance, charity, etc. are what saves. I don’t see Jesus’s message being about creeds or tribes, but more about universally loving your fellow man. One is saved by becoming like Jesus, by internalizing his message, by becoming his disciple. How one comes to internalize that message, whether via Buddhism or Mormonism or whatever, is irrelevant

For a great many of the ideas about God which are trotted out as novelties today, are simply the ones which real Theologians tried centuries ago and rejected. To believe in the popular religion of modern England is retrogression — like believing the earth is flat. For when you get down to it, is not the popular idea of Christianity simply this: that Jesus was a great moral teacher and that if only we took his advice we might be able to establish a better social order and avoid another war?

It is quite true that if we took Christ’s advice we should soon be living in a happier world. You need not even go as far as Christ. If we did all that Plato or Aristotle of Confucius told us, we should get on a great deal better than we do. And so what? We never have followed the advice of the great teachers. Why are we likely to begin now? Why are we more likely to follow Christ than any of the others? Because he is the best moral teacher? But that makes it even less likely that we shall follow him. If we cannot take the elementary lessons, it is likely we are going to take the more advanced ones? If Christianity only means one more bit of good advice, then Christianity is of no importance. There has been no lack of good advice for the last four thousand years. A bit more makes no difference.

But as soon as you look at any real Christian writings, you find that they are talking about something quite different from this popular religion. they say that Christ is the Son of God (whatever that means). they say that those who give Him their confidence can also become Sons of God (whatever that means.) They say that His death saved us from our sins (whatever that means.) (Mere Christianity, p. 137)

The main thing we learn from a serious attempt to practice the Christian virtues is that we fail. If there was any idea that God had set us a sort of exam and that we might get good marks by deserving them, that has to be wiped out. If there was any idea of a sort of bargain—any idea that we could perform our side of the contract and thus put God in our debt so that it was up to Him, in mere justice, to perform His side—that has to be wiped out.

I think every one who has some vague belief in God, until he becomes a Christian, has the idea of an exam, or of a bargain in his mind. The first result of real Christianity is to blow that idea into bits. …God has been waiting for the moment at which you discover that there is no question of earning a pass mark in this exam or putting Him in your debt. (Mere Christianity, p. 126)

Matt, these are two very different views of the same belief system. You are telling me that your religion isn’t just another tree in the forest, it’s the whole forest! C.S. Lewis, having analyzed your claims, is equally certain that your not only just another tree in the forest, but you’re one of the shorter ones.

Who is right? How would I determine it rationally or logically?

Now C.S. Lewis makes an incredibly well thought out argument here against your position. One that, as of yet, you have not addressed. Does that make his right and you wrong? Or does that just mean he’s a very clever person, who happens to also be wrong?

Again, how can I tell?

Now comes the first point I need to make, Matt. C.S. Lewis, *regardless of whether or not his religion is truer then yours or yours truer than his* has a valid point that your religion does not address.

His point could be explained through this analogy:

At some point in my life I reached a point of awful crisis about myself. I realized that I was not a good person. I realized that trying harder and knowing more wasn’t ever going to bridge that gap for me. I realized that I was thirsting and hungering to be something that I could imagine, but could never ever be.

I was very much like a man dying of thirst in a desert as far as the eye could see. The whole world was the desert and there was nothing but desert. Your view of salvation, which back in #75 I admitted was a valid view of was salvation – in a sense — ceased to be salvation for me. More perfect teachings from Jesus (or Buddha, or Mohamed, or Bahaullah, or ANYONE) wasn’t what I needed. Indeed, those teachings, that up to that point seemed to “save” me no longer “saved” me any more and never would again. In fact, the teachings of Jesus not only didn’t save me, they damned me as surely as the word damned could ever have meaning.

As this man dying in the desert, I did not need someone to tell me to imagine I wasn’t thirsty. I didn’t need someone to tell me to imagine a land of many waters. What I needed was my thirst quenched, or surely I would die.

If you understand what I am saying with this analogy, then we can now establish as fact at least one thing about your religious beliefs. They are not universal. They have no applicability at all for me and for a great many other people.

Now I do not mean to say that I think this means you should stop believing your religion. If it is working for you, you should go with it. If it takes care of your needs fully your whole life, then you should stick with it your whole life.

But what I must conclude is this: C.S. Lewis’ view of Christianity, as he just explained it, is not a tree in your forest. Your forest doesn’t even contain his tree at all. Indeed, his tree many not even be a tree.

So this leaves me with some valid questions: Is the C.S. Lewis interpretation of Christianity a strange exception to your rule? Is it the one tree that isn’t in your forest? Or could it be that your forest contains absolutely none of the world religions but only caricatures of all of them?

Now for part two. This is not yet the critical analysis, but simply making a few points for when I get there. I am going to try to be very careful how I phrase what I am about to say because you can’t hear my tone of voice and I fear that if I am not very careful what I am about to say will simply come across wrong.

Let me quote you in #65 (I said #57 in my last post, but I meant #65): “To me, you have severely limited Jesus. To me, what Jesus is saying is far greater, far grander, and far more universal. His teachings are what saves; His message of love, faith, repentance, charity, etc. are what saves. I don’t see Jesus’s message being about creeds or tribes, but more about universally loving your fellow man. One is saved by becoming like Jesus, by internalizing his message, by becoming his disciple. How one comes to internalize that message, whether via Buddhism or Mormonism or whatever, is irrelevant.”

This statement is your belief system. It is your ‘religion’ if you will.

I want to first emphasize this phrase from you: “To me, what Jesus is saying is far greater, far grander, and far more universal.”

The first thing that must be expressed is that you are being very black and white about your religious beliefs. I do not say this intending it to be at all insulting. I fear you will think I mean it as an insult because in #65 you also said: “But your comment #60, Jared’s comment #61, and Carlos’s comment #62, and N.’s comment in #64 all say the same basic thing. All express a truth claim that is very literal, very black and white. It says that your belief is true, and others are false, or not quite as true. Your symbol is real; all others are just symbols.”

You called my beliefs (of which in this thread at least I’ve said very little) black and white. Contextually it is obvious to me you intended it as a pejorative when you applied to my beliefs.

But to be black and white is not necessarily a bad thing. Yes, it *can* be a bad thing. If the thing we’re “being black and white about” is not in reality black and white, then it is bad. But if the thing “we’re being black and white about” is in reality black and white, then being black and white is and always will be good.

I could say the same thing about a good many other pejoratives. Is being closed minded bad? Is being open minded good? Should I be open minded about murder or pedophilia or closed minded? Doesn’t it entirely matter on the context? Personally, I believe it always matters on the context.

I feel bad that people have taken these terms and added positive and negative connotations to them that have reduced the usefulness of these words so that they communicate less then they should and are more likely to confuse than explain.

I say this by way of explanation: when I say that you are being very black and white, I do not intend it as an insult or a compliment. I am simply stating a fact in the same way I might say “Matt, your shirt is very blue.”

You are also saying some other things. You are saying that your religious beliefs are, to quote you: “far greater, far grander, and far more universal” then mine or the others you referred to. You are not only black and white, but you also believe your religion is the one true religion universally better for everyone. Mine (from your point of view) is inferior to yours.

Again, I do not mean this as either compliment or insult, but just a statement of fact. If your religious beliefs express something that makes the world a better place then mine, then you are correct in calling mine inferior to yours. And if your religious beliefs really do apply to everyone and mine only to a certain tribe, then you are correct to call yours “universal” and, by implication, mine not “universal.”

In other words, I’m agreeing with your sentiment back at #59: “Having said that, it is not as simple as saying all beliefs are equal, that we should let “Conservatives” or Fundamentalists savor their literalist beliefs unfettered.”

So up to this point, though you it may rankle you for me to apply the phrase “black and white” and “believing you have the one true religion” to your beliefs, these are *accurate statements of your position*.

And I do not have a concern or problem with your religious beliefs personally. If you understood my beliefs better you’d see why I simply do not see that as an issue at all. But alas, that is for another time.

Okay, that’s as far as I can go in this post. More to come.

The teachings of Jesus are of indeterminate value to us. But, if all he did was come to earth, point to the Old Testament, tell his disciples to read it and follow it and then suffered and died for us, it would have been enough.