60: Matters of Integrity

I disagree, Steadie. My belief in God has little to do with the First Vision. my belief is based on personal experiences I have had. Everything I believe about God has to do with experiences I have had.

The gospel, as preached by Mormon missionaries to people of non-Christian cultures, would begin with a western concept of God, and support it with the first vision.  The sad thing about this situation is that without a testimony of Joseph Smith, or the first vision, faith in God can also slip away.  My impression of the responses you have received from Brian, Kim, and what you know of Michael, is that their belief in God has not disappeared, only the very concrete Mormon depiction of Him has.  They all seem to have adopted a more ‘fuzzy’ concept of God as a being or power who shows interest in our lives.  I have approached these differences in my own way.  I see an amalgamation of Mormonism’s ‘all things were created first in the spirit’ and Shinto’s animism to be helpful.  I don’t worship the mountain or the tree as the Shinto do, but I see that they, as creations of a loving Heavenly Father, could very well be the closest link we have to Him.  (A Father who wants the best for his children during their mortal probation.)  In the end, I think we all need to find our own way of understanding God.  (My cousin for instance, pictures God as an amalgamation of Santa Claus and a grandparent…  many find comfort in knowing that God is the unity of a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.)  I think in this way, many people who have doubts regarding orthodoxy in Mormonism, find a way to keep faith in a loving personal God.  I wish you nothing but the best. 

In the end, it was also easiest for me to reject my belief in God. I think people always support their belief by personal experiences–which is okay, most of the time, though it seems like in general people will say because of X experience or because of Y experience which isn’t (to them) rationally explainable, therefore God exist.

I’ve had plenty of experiences I haven’t been able to explain rationally. Some of them were associated with religion, and most of them were just random–things like rolling a “4″ on a die once forty-nine times in a row. I think the reality is that crazy things happen. When you add God into the picture, and really think things through, I think (at least for me) things just get more confusing.

I’ve had similar experience being fairly open with people, including with Bishops and the Stake President.  I find that irritating people quickly stop asking me questions when they know deep down they really don’t want to hear my answers.  The questions and challenges just stop.  I’m perfectly comfortable and at peace with the boogeyman that lives in their closet — doubts and controversy.

The most important thing about my being accepted, in my experience so far, is that I show up.  That’s the main thing (I live outside the Mormon corridor though).  I am comfortable with my personal views and only tend to share them when it is positive and constructive.  I am happy about being there at Church, which honestly isn’t the case for many more-believing members.  I participate.  I help out when I can.  I try to be a good part of the community.  I try not to interfere with anyone else’s faith journey unless they ask for my insight, or seem to be upset about something I might be able to help them with.

But all that works for me because, in the end, I like being there.  I find value in being a part of my ward and the LDS community.  A lot of my ability to belong and blend in would be tough if I didn’t like it so much.  It’s a calculation that everyone has to make.  Is the benefit greater than the cost?  For me it is, on my own terms.

“If a woman asks her husband if he is cheating and he decides to nuance the meaning of the question because he knows his heart is in the relationship for the long run, is he exhibiting integrity?”

I think this person might be acting out of integrity, but they are not being honest.  They might be acting consistently with their values if they lied to their wife.  They just happen to value their relationship more than honesty.  Taken to a more broad extreme: I think an evil person who acts evil is exhibiting the characteristic of integrity.

I tried to bring up some of this in the conversation — the use of words and language.  We didn’t end up spending much time on it though.  I wanted to separate Integrity, Honesty and Authenticity.

I think your criticism is valid, and a common one.  It is the way a lot of people see it.  I don’t think it’s the only way, but it is probably the most common.  Specifically in the temple recommend process, many people place a high value on answering the questions from the perspective of what they think the other person (the Bishop or SP) believes.

I think the best counter argument to that, if this is a good one, is that the BP or SP is acting as a proxy or agent for God.  They are asking the question, but you are answering God (whatever you think God is).  It really doesn’t matter what the human being on the other side of the desk believes is the correct way to make meaning out of the questions.  You could even argue that you can’t know what they expect unless you first had a whole long philosophical discussion before you answer, and agree on all the definitions.

But the Church explicitly forbids that.  The interviewer is supposed to stick to the exact wording of the question, and the answer should be a simple yes or no.  That is the Church’s own rule.  I think one could argue they want to keep it ambiguous on purpose.  That is how the process is designed and implemented by the people who own the temple buildings.

Tim and Jacob. Thanks for the invitations to engage more thoroughly. Jacob, I may not be as directly responding to you in the following, but I think what I will say in response to Tim’s angles will be in the ballpark. Love the insight about hearing grief from both the TBM and ex-Mo (or thinking about becoming an ex-Mo!) sides!

Tim, I think the crux of my not coming across as clearly as I’d hoped is that we seem to be in two different thought/feeling universes. Just as I admitted up front to Jeff when he asked on this podcast how I might give acceptable consent to several of the TR questions that talked about specific claims without feeling like I was selling out my integrity (and I offered that disclaimer even more thoroughly in my interview with John Dehlin when he wanted to go specific on the content of various claims we’re supposed to assent to in these interviews), these types of queries are asking for “head” responses to factual, this-statement-sums-up-something-specific-about-the-universe/God/church and its role (and I’m willing to try those types of answers if you really force me to—and with Brian we at least got into that a bit in the podcast), while I live most of my life and meet Mormonism and my decisions to stay engaged with it in more of a “lived sense of things” space—perspectives and senses of comfort with myself as part of this universe that I’ve “lived into” rather than “thought” into. 

I totally honor my head, believe me I love ideas and would never feel comfortable if I were to hold fast to something that conflicted with what science and history and other forms of human knowledge pointed to (at their cores—obviously so much is debated in every realm of inquiry at the more surface levels), but part of that honoring of my head and brain has led me through the years to see that they are great for many things, but they don’t show equally as well as the primary tool for getting to every type of truth or knowledge. I do qualify that some in a broad way by playing in the world of neuroscience that indicates differences in the way the left brain and the right brain process stimuli (though not exclusively, of course) with the left hemisphere being the more linear, language-using/generating half and the right hemisphere being the more holistic, timeless, “feeling the gist without language” part. So, in some ways, my argument is that I feel your questions and critiques are coming from a real left-brain centered approach whereas I’ve become a lot more comfortable in the past dozen years or so with the idea of importance of moving into what might be seen as right-brain kinds of experiences than I had been comfortable doing when I first entered grad school and all my pullings apart were in the intellectual exercise, “how does this claim really fit up with science, other claims, rationality, etc.?” I can get back to this sort of stuff later (or with parentheticals in the midst of answers that deal directly in the language game your questions are wanting to engage me on), but for now let me honor your comments by addressing them in the more linear, rational way that you’ve formed them.

I don’t think the sexual infidelity, shoplifting at Wal-mart, or going into business with someone who nuances things the way I do examples are very relevant to the TR questions or honoring one’s bishop. In marriage covenants made within the LDS church (and most often worldwide, I’m sure), there is a clear expectation of and agreement about sexual fidelity. One either keeps one’s pants on around others, or one doesn’t. There’s no way to finesse if one is a cheater or not, and I’d never try to do that. Same thing with shoplifting (did I jack that sweater or not?) and business relationships (did I honor the contract behaviorally?). With the TR and with a bishop’s role as judge in Israel, there is no such exactness on what exactly one “means” in sustaining the prophet as the only one with certain priesthood keys, believing in the Restoration, this formulation of God, etc. The only letter-of-the-law, clear ones are the behavioral ones: pay tithing, live WofW, abusive to spouse or family, honest in dealings (assuming here business and other kinds of not stealing, etc.—while we are, of course, debating here a bit about whether or not living in a different head/heart/soul space than perhaps my bishop across the table from me is during the interview is “honest”), and any other behavioral ones I might be forgetting. 

So how can I say there is not the level of exactness on the “truth claims” portion? Let’s look at the baptismal covenants (think sacrament prayer stuff, plus add in a bit of Mosiah 18 with Alma and the others at the waters of Mormon), as well as the temple covenants (other than the chastity one, which is indeed very specific—even though I like to think it also points far beyond “measurable behavior” sexual fidelity). These covenants that we make are about desires of our hearts, remembering bigger contexts as we act in the day-to-day, obeying gospel truths, thinking inside certain framings, pledging to build up the world in positive ways, etc. Please show me where scripture privileges on the covenant altar “content in our brains” above “goodness of our hearts/purity of our intents/willingness to serve the kingdom of God (which is much bigger than just the “church”) sorts of things. Until you do that, I can’t see how I’d find your line of inquiry about rationalizing infidelity or shoplifting or acting dishonorably in a business relationship as more than just mildly parallel. And if the bishop’s and my cognitive content regarding the specific claims stuff are not exactly operating in the same way given our different life experiences, temperaments, studies, prayer or contemplative practices and how we have felt our way into our testimonies, I don’t see not going through all of that with him as any kind of lack of integrity either. The process is a worthiness one, an “are you aware of the covenants you’re about to make/reaffirm?” one, not a “brain dump” one. Except on the behavioral questions, he’s not asking me something parallel to my wife asking me if I’m cheating on her, if I stole from Wal-mart, or if I’m a good guy to do business with.

Am I obfuscating? Am I being courageous? Am I acting for my own benefit more than the church’s? Hiding my true heart under a bushel? I don’t think so. I feel I’m living my life and choosing my connections and associations according to experiences I’ve had in life and with the spirit that I have won through hard work (and continued hard work: airplane rides up and down, up and down)—both brain and spiritual work. I feel centered in the universe in a way that I never was when just living in my head, and this feeling of peace with my path is the only way I can judge such questions. Are you going to argue that “head” processes are the most important than all other types of life experience, or that they should be the exclusive way of going after “truth”? I’d welcome you to make and support that argument if you feel you can.

On the more specific issues regarding bishops, etc., I’ve shared in my interview with John and in Sunstone how I was judged unworthy to confer the Aaronic Priesthood on my son, how I felt that was the wrong choice, and how I went along with that decision even as I found a way to say my peace (and eventually actually feel my peace). On another occasion about 6 or 7 years ago, I was “fired” from a teaching calling because of a leader’s strange fixation that at the end of class I didn’t stop everything and “bear my testimony” the way he thinks all teachers must. My sense is that my entire class and the enthusiasm I was showing for the very cool ideas in the scriptures or what they revealed about the human condition, etc., is itself a form of “testifying.” He played a dirty game of getting me released without ever talking to me. When I heard through back channels what had happened, I went to him, shared my hurt and disappointment, expressed how I’d rather be dealt with upfront as I was doing with him right then and there, told him how unfair I felt his judgment was and why I think he was wrong, and left it at that. I accepted that I’d no longer be teaching that class (or probably any others as long as he had a say). I wallowed in my sorrow and indignation for a few weeks without enjoying too much at church, but I eventually managed to find joy again even with this guy in the same room. 

In short, like anyone who is trying to act out of conviction and principle, I know that my ways will not always mesh with the ways of every other person, and if one of these other persons is in some kind of position in which she or he can by some fiat negatively affect my life, I have to be willing to accept that with my body even if my spirit disagrees with what they are doing. (Not trying to say I’m even in the same neighborhood with folks like Jesus, Gandhi, Mandela, King, Kyi, or a ton of other actors of conscience who all experienced people who were wrong causing them terrible pain, but it’s the same principle. As Thoreau argues in “Civil Disobedience,” the person on the inside of a prison can still be the one who’s really the free one.) If a bishop or stake president ever decides to ask me point blank about cognitive content of my assent to certain TR questions, I’ll tell him everything I think. If that means a “no go” for a recommend, I’ll accept that. If it’s for cognitive content, I’ll let them know that I think they’re wrong for denying me access to the temple and why, but I won’t turn them into an enemy or think they deliberately aren’t acting out of their own sense of integrity in doing what they are doing. 

Tim, you say: “Grownups recognize they have freedom and the ability to take responsibility for their thoughts, feelings and actions. They accept consequences and they deal with people in a way that respects and honors them. Dan is grownup enough to recognize there is trouble outside but not grownup enough to go outside and face it.” I’ll need help on what you mean before I can respond to this. Who am I not respecting or honoring? What trouble outside am I not facing? I think I’m honoring the processes of the TR interview and recognize that I could be turned down. I’m honoring the spiritual journeys of bishops and others who may not see things the way I do. I’m fully aware of breakdowns in church history telling, shortsighted ways of enacting policies, mismatches between ideals taught and actions acted out, etc. I feel like I’m facing them all and saying to Mormonism: you’re still my home, my people, my place that I feel called to be in. Here’s my mind, heart, spirit, body, gifts: meet me and put me to work. Or don’t. I can be at peace either way (though, of course, I root for the first!). And even if you shut me down totally, maybe I’ll still find a way to serve via a podcast or something…. (“If you have a desire to serve God, ye are called to the work.” Don’t need no stinking church to respond to that kind of call.)

Tim, you also say Joanna and I are somehow holding onto the priesthood and worship choices as security blankets, and that we are somehow acting out of integrity by trying to convince ourselves that we are acting with integrity. Again, you’ll maybe have to help me understand what you’re saying here, as well as how you feel qualified to psychoanalyze about our somehow needing church comforts as security blankets. As for a response to whatever degree I understand what you’re saying, I can let Joanna speak for herself, but for me, is it impossible to think that I may just “enjoy” the church? I expressed in many places and on many occasions about how I don’t feel the priesthood is exclusive to Mormonism, that the gospel, at best (like all religions that in their core teachings point to truths far beyond whatever they or any person can express by mouth or thought), is merely a pointer toward deeper truths (and the kind that can only be known by experiencing them—hence the whole thing is about “Hey, have this experience people! Pray, serve, contemplate. Put yourself in positions where you might experience breakthroughs!”), that I don’t view ordinances as essential for “salvation,” that I don’t even know what being “saved” means outside whether or not one naturally lives into ever deepened godly qualities (lots of lists in lots of scriptures about what those are), etc. I’m clinging to Mormonism for security? I don’t think so, though I love Mormons and hanging with them even as they sometimes frustrate me and I them. Maybe that’s a kind of security blanket, I guess. And I think I’ve already addressed how I don’t see myself really doing a lot of “trying to convince myself.” I’ve lived into perspectives that I feel are richer than black and white, brain-driven, rule-oriented. Not much “convincing myself” needed any more. I’m just looking around and this is how the universe and what’s meaningful look to me. 

Thanks, again, for the chance to engage. Sorry so long winded! Takes twice as long to speak in two different universes/language games!

Cheers!
Dan

Thanks for adding more details about the Japanese tradition of carrying a burden of knowledge for a loved one (cancer, in my analogy).  I knew I wouldn’t do this idea full justice.  It’s hard sometimes to express everything fully on the fly in a conversation with other people, and in a limited amount of time.  I think you explained my point better, and the personal example of how you are applying this to your relationship to your wife is a good one.

That to me is the dynamic nature of integrity — how each of us value things differently, and then act upon those values.  I think integrity and honesty are two words that are conflated a lot in their use.  It may be dishonest to give someone uncertain hope in the face of hopelessness.  But it might be a noble and difficult act of integrity if they value hope more than honesty.

very thought provoking Jonah.  I think we’re clearly thinking about some of the same tough questions. 

I’m not Tim, and I don’t think I’m as black-and-white as some people are about honesty (which provides an easy copout…anyone can just say, “Well, I’m not totally black-and-white, so…”)

But here’s the deal…what you describe and what is happening are two different things. It’s not like people are going around at every moment with the desire to infodump everything that’s on their mind. It’s not like you’re having this desire to talk about everything to your bishop in an unwarranted way.

The question is this: you CHOOSE to be interviewed to get a temple recommend. You CHOOSE to go into that situation, knowing that that will come with certain questions…and knowing that your bishop likely has certain expectations. You know you don’t actually meet those expectations.

So, what do you do?

Dan et al. suggest that you should answer the question the Bishop meant to ask rather than the question he did. (Or answer without all the “baggage” that he has). Fine, fine. But this sort of behavior is usually shocking and repugnant when someone else (esp. a GA) advocates for it, or has been found to advocate for it in the past. 

I mean, you can shut up and be silent. Fine. Then, you’re not “dumping it all on the bishop.” Good for you.

But if you’re in a situation where you are talking (for example, for a worthiness interview), and you are explicitly dodging pretty simple questions just so that you don’t have to experience personal and interpersonal comfort, then just recognize that you’re being dishonest.

If you are ok with that, that’s fine. But I think the deal for many people was that we weren’t ok with that. We weren’t ok when the church did that, and we’re even less ok with playing that game back.

I’m not by any means a black/white thinker (That’s a lame way to disregard my concerns). To the contrary I absolutely affirm the positive role doubt and ambiguity can play in living out a life of faith. My objection is to calling black white when you’re quite sure it’s black.

No you should not vomit every thought you have on everyone. But you should honor them by respecting their intended meaning to questions directly posed to you.

John Dehlin recently stated that living a life of openness bears consequences. I whole heartedly agree.

Your views ring true to me, however, as one who has been deeply hurt (abused?) by my ecclesiastical leader, I feel like I need to add a layer of protection for myself .  I’m quite certain a different Bishop would respond to my doubts in a totally loving way, but I don’t know that I will ever leave myself that vulnerable again.

Thanks, Scottholley. I’m really intrigued by number 2 especially. Thanks for bringing that up. I’d respond to the rest, but I think I’ve already shared (too much!) in other responses to think you’d want another rehash here. But definitely have a great deal of sympathy with number 4, hence there is never a chance that I would interact with a bishop with simply yes or no answers who didn’t already have a long time to size me up, and who in that interaction I hope would not likely consider me a “doubter” as much as a guy who is–even if he doesn’t understand how I can view everything to be so much more powerful as myth than as literal and still want to stay connected to the church–nevertheless walking a spiritual path that he is called to by his life experiences and temperament.

You are absolutely correct.  Unfortunately, as it stands right now, orthodox Mormonism seems to value “worthiness”, or the appearance thereof, more than integrity.  It is my anecdotal experience during my 35 years of active membership that people don’t say what they really feel in church on Sunday or even when talking casually amongst other members.  Testimony meeting isn’t necessarily what people really believe, or “know”, but what they hope.  Until the ordinary member in the pews has the courage to say what they really feel I don’t think leaders will take much notice.

Thanks, Bitherwack. Fun to be reminded of that great talk! For anyone interested, a side by side comparison of the talk as delivered vs as published in the Ensign is available via the Sunstone website. Go to past issues, find issue 97 (Oct. 1990), and in the table of contents you can find it (the one starting on page 50) and download a pdf. 

I believe the core teachings of all religions point us beyond the need for the religion itself. I don’t think it means we necessarily should leave membership and association and service to others so much as we become grounded ourselves in the spiritual realities the religions point toward.  As Elder Poelman suggests, the external structures and disciplines of the institutional church naturally become replaced by our own self discipline and acting on our own initiative as directed by our own relationship with God/Spirit. Mormonism teaches all this, it just too often gets buried….