What, really, is sin? Not so much “what are some examples of sin…” because we all know there are endless ways and means TO sin. What IS it?

How do you define it?

I have often read from those who have left the church about the very idea of sin being silly. I can’t blame them, because for a long time I didn’t really know what it meant either. Missionaries trying to convince people of their sins, in order to help them see they needed a savior seemed a little strange.

My paradigm shifted when I began to think of what was most important to me in my faith (right after charity of course!): personal growth. From that point onward, “sin” became anything that thwarts, disrupts, or otherwise damages my progress.

In addition, while I believe there may be many universal “sins,” there may be some things that stunt my growth that do not harm others. We all have to figure that out on our own.

Looking at the LDS.org definition, I don’t really see a conflict with my definition either, perhaps just a different angle:

“To commit sin is to willfully disobey God’s commandments or to fail to act righteously despite a knowledge of the truth.”

God’s basic commandments? Love others. Love God. Be perfect. We are all “sinners” in the sense that we all do things that stunt our growth from time to time. That is NORMAL. We are here to learn from our mistakes, our sins, and to grow. To me, progression is the most important key, not being “worthy” vs. “unworthy.” We are all somewhere on the worthiness (read: progression) spectrum.

What does sin mean to you? How do you define it?

So far there are some good and bad sides to this. On the one hand, I am much more enthusiastic and enjoy the good parts of the meetings A LOT more. On the other hand, I’m still not sure what to do when something is happening that I think is wrong. For example, one person in my ward (not the bishop, but in a fairly prominent position) during each of the last few weeks has taught some things that I felt were false and misleading, to say the least. I’m sure this person has good intentions and doesn’t know of the error, but it is REALLY starting to concern me as I have a young son who will hear these lessons over and over again, and there is no way I’m going to be able to catch every comment about how important issues like earrings are, or how Lehi “sailed to America” or how John Taylor’s watch saved his life. During a recent lesson my wife said I “visibly scoffed” after one of these things was shared. It wasn’t intentional, but when I hear things like that I guess I can’t help it.

So what should I do? How do I keep the peace and not upset the apple cart, so to speak, while still standing up for what I believe in? We can’t let these things slide, or the truth will be the victim of the comfort-level of the crowd.

If anything, all this has taught me that the Truths of the gospel are the things that can be simplified without being twisted, distorted, or whitewashed. Love one another. Serve each other. Grow. Be kind. Reach out to those who are suffering. That is what I’m teaching my sunbeam class, and that is what I want my son to learn.

I was talking with a friend recently about addictions. Things like alcohol, caffeine, meth, and heroin (among many other substances) all seem to rob the addict of their free will to some extent. At some point in the conversation we started talking about mythology, and he mentioned how vampires could be viewed metaphorically as heroin addicts. (There is even a movie with the vampire/heroin metaphor, “The Addiction” staring Christopher Walken as a vampire who abstains from blood through fasting and meditation.)

Of course being LDS I couldn’t resist making the comparison to Twilight. I’ll spare you the plot synopsis but the “good” vampires in the story also abstain from human blood. This is incredibly difficult for some. The temptation is so great that they need a lot of social support as well as constant effort to stay on the straight and narrow. Even the sight of blood triggers their urge to the point that it is nearly uncontrollable. As they progress, they may be more in control but still feel the temptation, as Edward often does with his human girlfriend Bella. The father in the story is the most controlled of all, having abstained for decades.

Pornography seems to be the major addiction of choice in Mormon culture. Granted, there are other addictions that members face, but this one seems to stand out above everything else. Twilight is, like it or not, THE vampire mythos of choice for Mormons. Edward Cullen may as well be a metaphor for a porn addict because he wants more than anything to be with Bella, but he is constantly fighting off his urge to drink her blood, just like an addict may end up destroying, or at least ending, their family or marriage if ultimately they succumb.

This conversation led my friend to remark how unfortunate it is that someone who drinks a lot is not seen to have a problem until they’re a raging alcoholic. There is no middle ground in mainstream society for someone to “have a problem” with alcohol. They either enjoy drinking, and you wouldn’t dare say they had a problem, or they drink all the time and they have a disease.

I think that Mormon culture is on the opposite end of the spectrum, and it may serve to exacerbate the problems of addiction. A drop of alcohol, a quad shot of espresso, a glance at a porn site all spell a serious problem. Note that I am not justifying any of those actions. I DO think abstinence is the best rule to follow in those cases. However, it is often not the reality, and I think it would be more effective to view problems with addictions as being on a spectrum. The flaxen cord in the Book of Mormon illustrates this very well. One cord isn’t going to be that strong, but many will be binding. Each choice we make contributes to who we will become.

This wasn’t just any seminary teacher either. Brother Pratt was one of those teachers who made me feel important every time I talked to him. He inspired many to live good and clean lives.

Apparently there are “hundreds” of text messages between Pratt and a 16 year-old student, some of them explicit. That is all the evidence so far, but the “story” unfortunately goes MUCH further. He has not been found guilty yet, but it seems overwhelmingly like he is.

The dissonance is too much right now. I need to condemn something – blame it on Satan and the male sex drive, decide Pratt really was a wolf in sheep’s clothing, etc. Those are the easy ways out, and I really want to take one of them.

It is hard to sit and wait. Even harder to just sit with the fact that someone who has helped so many people may be guilty of something like this. Hard to resist picking up a stone.

May our prayers reach out to all. May we all be free from suffering and the root of suffering.

I have recently received some “further light and knowledge” on this topic. For the past three years or so I have become very interested in attachment theory. Basically, it says that we have an evolutionary necessity to seek out closeness or security to significant others. It ensures survival as the infant seeks proximity to its caregiver. Without emotional connection and touch, infants will die despite having their other needs met.

As adults, it is more emotional than physical. Think of Tom Hanks’ character in Cast Away. Isolated from society and separated from the one he loves, he creates his friend Wilson to keep him company, even risking his life once to save Wilson. This basic attachment need is with us from the “cradle to the grave.” 1  Whether we deny it, ignore it, ramp it up and become overly anxious, or embrace it, it is there to stay–in all of us.

Infants have a hierarchy of attachment figures–usually but not always a relative. The primary attachment figure is the one whom the child usually prefers when distressed, or whom the child seeks out, monitors, or attempts to maintain proximity to. Basically, the one whom the infant prefers to be nurtured by. It seems normal to assume that the parent who is around the child more, or is the most caring would naturally be the primary attachment figure. If the father is the stay-at-home parent, wouldn’t he be the primary attachment figure, i.e the primary nurturer?

Not in most cases. This role is usually given by mother nature to mothers, regardless of how involved she is with her child.

“The fact that infants preferentially seek proximity to their mother derives from the reality that attachment is mainly a function of availability. Interestingly…even when the mother works outside the home and the father is de facto the primary parent, the mother is still strongly preferred.” 2

One of the foremost attachment researchers, Mary Main, suggests that this may be due to the infant’s prenatal experience. I wonder if there are any studies with primary attachment figures and adopted children.

This finding softened my feelings a bit. While I am certainly capable of nurturing my son, it is okay with me that he generally prefers my wife first… especially now that I understand it a little more. It also tells me that this part of the Proclamation is spot on. Mothers are the primary nurtures, AND there are cases where individual adaptation is better, or necessary.

1. John Bowlby

2. David Wallin, Attachment in Psychotherapy

This is an adaptation of a post my good friend Ron wrote. He is Catholic, so with his consent I have modified some of it to fit the audience here, as well as added some of my own thoughts. It was inspired by some of his encounters with a “rather nasty Fundamentalist Christian” who was “more interested in winning an argument, rather than learning.” These points, however, may be applied to anyone who wants to prove other people wrong rather than understand or learn.

“After spending years debating James White, I have noticed common tactics employed by people who want to win at any cost rather than seek a mutual understanding of the facts or even work toward a mutual disagreement. Ann Coulter is a good example of a political satirist who engages in this sort of rhetoric. Let’s take a close look, shall we?”

1. Make an outrageous claim. It doesn’t matter if it’s out of Mormon Doctrine, or if you take a comment out of context, or if the side you’re on is just as guilty as those you are making accusations against. The goal is not to be fair minded or even accurate; all you need to be concerned with is igniting an emotional response from the other person. Remember, you are always right and your opponent is always wrong; your job is simply to supply enough rope for your opponent to hang himself. Manipulative (e.g. “Don’t you think _____?”) and leading questions are also really effective here.

2. Rely on mocking or sarcasm to ignite passion. If you are of a conservative ilk, rely on a mocking or morally superior tone to deliver your message (Ann Coulter). If you are liberal use a lot of sarcastic humor to exalt yourself above your opponent’s attempts at presenting himself/herself as morally superior (Al Franken).

3. Do not give an inch. If your opponent happens to stumble upon a true statement, ignore, deny, or reframe the conversation! In all cases, NEVER concede even a minor point to your opponent. Also, be sure to ignore any sincere questions by your opponent. In the very least do not answer them directly. Again, the point is not to help the other person understand you, but to prove they are wrong.

4. Make Your opponent work harder. Always remember that you are right, regardless of the facts presented, and you will eventually prove it by weathering any storm that may be created due to the information your opponent happens to give you. Most importantly, put them in a place where they feel like they have to prove you wrong. If they present troubling information to you about your own position simply refuse to acknowledge it. The fact is your opponent is either a brainwashed innocent or at worst, a conniving interloper who has no right to challenge your superior position, and only appears to have the nerve to do so without merit.

5. Do not bother reading posts or listening to response from your opponent. After all, reading your opponent’s posts may ignite emotions within yourself, or take your mind off your primary goal, WINNING! Instead of reading, skim your opponent’s post for statements that can be molded to aid you in your ultimate goal. The best statements are usually the most irrelevant to your opponents point–why re-post something meaningful or relevant? Oh, and make sure you continue to apply the steady drumbeat or either mocking/moral superiority, or sarcastic humor.

6. Stay the course! Or leave! Whatever you do, just don’t engage! Eventually your opponent will either hang himself or simply tire of the interaction; in both cases, you must declare victory immediately. Like any good staring contest it is not the person that presents the best case who wins, but the person who is left standing. If it just keeps going you may want to consider eventually checking out. There are two ways to do this, either just disappear quietly until the next post comes along that you can slam, or make a big announcement about why you are not coming back. Try to make everyone reading it feel bad about your departure, and say self-deprecating stuff like “I guess I’m just not popular here”). Whatever you do, NEVER admit to any good points the other side made in their last comment, and when you come back, make sure it is only to attack again.

How can we avoid this? How can we learn together even when we disagree?

1. Ask sincere, open-ended questions. Look around and you’ll be surprised how little actually happens. Example, “What do you think about _____?” Amazing concept, but so often we end up trying to trip each other. Make sure your questions are not meant to lead the other person down a particular path, or that you don’t have some hidden underlying agenda.

2. If you use sarcasm or a lot of humor, be kind. Even if you don’t like emoticons, make sure others understand your intention, and don’t use it as a weapon. I know many people (myself included) like to use mocking now and then, but we must refrain.

3. Acknowledge (write in your replies) when the other person has a good point. Or, *gasp* when they say something you agree with.

4. Monitor the conversation to make sure it is not one-sided. Is there always one person on the attack and the other constantly on defense, or is it more even-handed?

5. Consider the whole comment. Don’t just pick out stuff to argue with.

6. Apologize when appropriate. Take a break when you need to, but don’t completely check out or make threats when you get upset. Come back and engage. We can all learn from each other.

7. When in doubt, ask Ray what to do. He will have the answer.

Why do you converse with others online? More specifically, why do you engage in commenting back and forth with other people on Mormon Matters? To share your views? To influence others? To learn from others?

What is your method of going about this? Debate? Crafting arguments? Sharing and working towards mutual understanding? What are the pros and cons of the different ways?

I am well aware of most of the controversial issues (Book of Abraham, DNA, Book of Mormon historicity, polyandry, etc.). Some of them occasionally bother me. Others do not. Although according to statistics I am very educated, I probably could not win an argument defending the church on any of those points. I could not support the church on Prop. 8, (if you want to specifically comment on that, please go here). I will probably never understand in this life why we are discouraged from praying to our Heavenly Mother, or why women are no longer allowed bless the sick. I am sure I could go on, and so could many of you.

I occasionally get asked or read questions like, “If Joseph Smith made claims that were false, how can you believe any of his claims?” “When you line everything up, how can you still logically believe it to be true?” For anyone questioning the faith, or those who have left the church who may be reading this, feel free to mentally insert other questions here. They are all good and valid in my opinion. I do not fault anyone for asking them, nor for being disturbed enough by them to leave the faith. Although my path is different, I wish you the best.

How do I explain my belief and activity in the church? Have I put “feelings” above reason?

I was raised by a saint of a mother and an intellectual yet very spiritual father. Church books lined the shelves: Quinn, Compton, and even Bagley’s Blood of The Prophets and Southerton’s Lost Tribe made appearances. On hunting trips my father would sometimes shoot his buffalo in the name of Allah (in Turkish) so our good Muslim friends could enjoy it with us. As bishop, he helped countless families regardless of legal status, blessed a neighbor’s sick cat, and was a safe haven for gay members to turn to. My parents left their ward a few years ago to attend a Hispanic branch, where they can do a lot more than debate in Sunday School over gospel minutiae. They taught me by word and example that serving and loving others always trumps theology.

As a priest I loved blessing the sacrament. It was probably the first time I felt a significant sense of the sacred–it was intoxicating. I loved seminary and institute, even when I was taught that Darwin was Satan’s answer to Joseph Smith (that one still makes me smile). I often felt a sense of awe watching the RMs come home. I wanted what they had. My father called it “spiritual muscle.” My mission in Japan was the right place at the right time for me, for many reasons. It was the best investment of time I had ever made (up to that point, of course!).

The Book of Mormon has a special place in my life. One experience reading King Benjamin started what became a small series of nearly indescribable subjective positive spiritual experiences, (I once tried to describe what it was like to an inquiring non-member/acquaintance and was mocked for it, so I hold close what is most sacred–let’s just say that a few of them were more than just a “tingling down the spine” or “warm feelings”). I have also felt what I interpret to be the infinite love and patience of God, for me and for all of his children. These “feelings” are as important and special to me as my “feelings” for my wife and son.

I love having a community wherever I go. I generally enjoy responsibilities at church, (currently the strengthening marriage instructor) and I have found that if I’m prepared and attentive, the meetings are usually more than worthwhile. I love General Conference, and agree with the teachings almost all of the time. Some people (both in and out of the church) seem to think that a prophet is either always right or not a prophet at all. I was not brought up that way, and have a difficult time understanding it now. Like Henry Eyring (Sr.) said, I think that prophets are wonderful because sometimes they speak for God. It is for those special moments of elevation and insight that I respect and listen to them.

Certain aspects of Mormon theology also fit me better than any religion or philosophy I know. This will have to be a later post, but marriage and personal growth are two of the most important things in life to me, and Mormonism fits those quite well, (I am definitely open to other views or ideas on this, if you have some).

I love symbolism, and enjoy the temple ordinances–I expect that they will continue to evolve, and look forward to it. I see Christ and relationships in everything in the temple. It can be different, even awkward at first, but looking deeper provides inspiration and insight that is a moving and a stabilizing force in my life. I believe in Christ. He inspires goodness. He is the answer to the question of evil and tragedy and suffering. He unconditionally loves everyone. That is a God I believe in. His revelations are in the Church, in books, in the rocks, and hopefully in my dissertation in a few years. None of those conduits are free from error.

This is not an argument for Mormonism. I am not telling others how they should approach faith, or activity in the church. This is simply how I am doing it. I could not be more logical: Some stuff bothers me, some of it really inspires me, gives meaning to my life and family, and has been the source of experiences (not always just feelings) and growth that I cannot reject. I do not have my head in the sand. I am not plugging my ears and yelling “faith! faith! faith!” at valid and logical arguments against the church’s claims.

Some people may think that if I have concerns or disagreements I should drop the church. Others may think I should try harder to procure some answers for my questions and concerns. I have pondered the first option and tried out the second for a while. In one of the clearest insights in my life, I found that neither option is even remotely satisfying. I believe in the gospel, and I am not an apologist. So here I am, in the church, good and bad, best and worst, inspiring and awkward.

What is your story?

• How do you handle issues that are difficult or perhaps impossible to reconcile?
• What are the best parts of your experiences in the church?
• Why have you ultimately decided to stay or leave? (Please keep these in a spirit of sharing and mutual understanding.)

Do you know of any good related posts (by those who have stayed OR left–again, written with some humility, please). Next week there will be a guest post by a friend of mine who left the church a while back. Here are a few others, from various perspectives:

• Why I Am Not a Disaffected Mormon
• Not ashamed
• The atheist hiding within the Mormon
• I Have Always Been A Pagan

With his blessing, here are some “best and worst” Mormon quotes. To keep it balanced, each best and worst will come from the same person in LDS history. The intent here is not to “speak evil of the Lord’s anointed,” and I value being able to look back at our missteps with a little humor. I am sure when I review my life someday, there will be plenty of ill-advised quotes to assemble. Looking at our blunders with openness and not getting defensive about them are, in my view, attributes of godliness.

David O. McKay
Worst:
“Although, I do not care much for a negro, still I have a warm spot in my heart for those beautiful singers.”

Best:
“There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this Church that the Negroes are under a divine curse.”
“Children are more influenced by sermons you act than by sermons you preach.”

Bruce R. McConkie
Worst:

It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this ‘church which was the most abominable above all other churches’ in vision. He ’saw the devil that he was the foundation of it’ and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization.”

Best:

“I feel, and the Spirit seems to accord, that the most important doctrine I can declare, and the most powerful testimony I can bear, is of the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. His atonement is the most transcendent event that ever has or ever will occur from Creation’s dawn through all the ages of a never-ending eternity. It is the supreme act of goodness and grace that only a god could perform.”

“I believe in Christ; he stands supreme! From him I’ll gain my fondest dream;
And while I strive through grief and pain, His voice is heard: ‘Ye shall obtain.’”

Brigham Young
Worst:

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man mixes who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”

Best:

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”

Are there other quotes, best or worst, that stand out to you? If you share one, please try to keep with the dissonant nature of the post.

Why is it often looked down on to recognize our blunders? I have had a few leaders in my church life admit past mistakes or prejudices, and if anything my respect and admiration for them increased. I realize that a lot of us value the “warts and all” version of history, but some get defensive in trying to explain it or rationalize it away, or suppress it, lest it damage someone’s testimony. Debate is one thing, but defensiveness is a form of contention… and we all know what contention is.

When Edward Kimball was writing his father’s (Spencer W. Kimball) biography, he was told that “the story of a life should be told candidly, ‘warts and all.’  His concern was that there should not be unfair emphasis on the warts.” That is a challenge I think, to give weight to but not overemphasize the bad, and also not to “canonize” (i.e. hold them up as more than human) our leaders (something I once heard Elder Maxwell warn against in a fireside). In that spirit, I will put out some posts in the future regarding best and worst in history, politics, speculation, teachings, etc.

We all make mistakes, we all have a lot growing to do in some areas, and most of us occasionally say things we later regret. In that light, I think it is a healthy and non-defensive stance to recognize the flaws along with the greatness of ourselves, and our leaders. May we all work on focusing on the good, but recognizing and being non-defensive about the bad.

Exclusivist – Believe in “the only true church.” Exclusivists may see the church or the restored gospel as the only means of salvation. They may not openly try to share the gospel with everyone, everywhere, but that is their goal. The most obvious members in this category often include “I know this is the only true church” in bearing their testimony. They may appear to be intolerant of other religions practices, or be accused of having an agenda in their relationships with non-members.

Rejectionist – Basic religious concepts (such as a creator) are denied, and religion is viewed as a crutch or a psychological defense. Rejectionists like to point out that spiritual experiences are invalid because they cannot be known objectively. They may have some disdain for religion and may think that we would be better off without religion because of all the conflict it has caused in the world.

Constructivist – Believe that everyone constructs their own meaning and reality even if there may not be an absolute truth. It is the quality of the other’s perspective that matters in the sense that it must be consistent and helpful in living and coping. This group may be comfortable talking about religion from another’s perspective, but may not necessarily believe that anyone has “the Truth” or that absolute truth in terms of religion is even knowable.

Pluralist – Believe in a spiritual reality or truth, but also believe that everyone interprets it differently, which allows for differences among religions and cultures. They are open to sharing their beliefs, but also open to the idea that they may not have it all. They like to quote Paul saying, “we see through a glass darkly.” They also like the story of the blind men and the elephant.

These approaches do not necessarily dictate whether someone is a believer or not. For example, not all atheists are rejectionists.

What approach do you have to the faith of others? Please click here to participate in a quick poll. Are these categories exclusive? Do we use them even amongst fellow members? How do we react to those who approach our faith from a different perspective?

*These are adapted from Incorporating Spirituality in Counseling and Psychotherapy, by Geri Miller.

Has anyone taught or been in this class (or any class in the church on relationships) before?

What worked? What didn’t? What was interesting? What was boring?

So far I am planning to use the 6 lessons as a framework to bring in a lot of what I have learned about couples during the last few years, and possibly show some video clips to illustrate some concepts, (on that note, is it a bad idea to show clips from non-LDS sources/movies during the block?). The biggest concern I have is not getting too intellectual (read: pedantic) and end up putting a lot of husbands to sleep. Sorry, that was sexist but in my experience husbands just generally are not as interested in learning about marriage.

The 6 lessons are:

Applying Gospel Principles
Communicating with Love
Fostering Equality and Unity
Overcoming Anger
Resolving Conflict
Enriching Marriage

Any notable omissions? There is very little on sex/intimacy in the manual, for example…

What say ye?

“So powerful is the need for congruence that when people are forced to look at disconfirming evidence, they will find a way to criticize, distort, or dismiss it so that they can maintain or even strengthen their existing belief.”                                                                                             ~Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)

The authors also cite a study in which neuroscientists found that “reasoning areas in the brain virtually shut down” when people are presented with dissonant information, and emotion circuits of the brain light up when consonance is restored. We do not rest easy until the dissonance is resolved.

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray… If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God…” [1]

In my experience, this is a statement and a belief that causes a LOT of dissonance.

We all deal with it in different ways. Some try to distort or dismiss past teachings, or even criticize the teacher (i.e. “he wasn’t speaking as a prophet,” or “it was just his opinion.”)

Obviously there have been contradictions in teachings (feel free to list some if you like, for the sake of the debate). Here is a common one: [2]  Brigham Young taught that Adam was God the Father. Spencer W. Kimball taught, “We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.” So which of these leaders is leading us astray? If you believe that a prophet cannot teach false doctrine, one of them is definitely leading us astray.

 If a doctrine (in my mind) has proven itself to be false, then I can no longer believe it. I cannot accept that “never lead us astray” means “never teach false doctrine.”

This idea is backed up by Bruce R. McConkie. When talking about the ban on blacks receiving the priesthood he said,

“We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world… We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past.”

Elder McConkie’s statement suggests that sometimes prophets have limited understanding, and even “darkness” in their views (as we ALL do). Notice McConkie did not say “sorry, but the Lord was wrong. We actually did lead you all astray.”

In sharing this with other members, a common reaction I get is “well, if you take the view that a prophet can teach something wrong, then what use is a prophet at all? How could you trust anything he said? Why would you believe any of it? Do you think a prophet is just a guy with some good ideas?”

I resolve this dissonance with the belief that God has given us prophets to guide us in our ultimate goal in life, that of progress and salvation. God will not allow a prophet to do anything that would “separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Resolving dissonance is not always bad. In fact, it often leads to pro-social action. [3] In the case of religious belief, it has spurred me to examine my beliefs and assumptions, discard what I deem to be error, and strengthen my commitment to what I believe is truth.

One final thought: Following a prophet requires a lot of faith, prayer, guidance of the Spirit, and (dare I say) use of one’s mind. May we all have the courage to use our intellect as well as our our feelings, for they are equally vital.

Notes:

[1] Woodruff, W. (1890). Excerpts from three addresses by President Wilford Woodruff regarding the manifesto. Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church.

[2] Young, B. (1852). Adam, our father and our God. Journal of Discourses 1, 46-53.

[3] Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2007). Mistakes were made (but not by me): Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts. Orlando, FL: Harcourt. From page 18: “Fortunately, dissonance theory also shows us how a person’s generous actions can create a spiral of benevolence and compassion, a “virtuous circle.” When people do a good deed, particularly when they do it on a whim or by chance, they will come to see the beneficiary of their generosity in a warmer light. Their cognition that they went out of their way to do a favor for this person is dissonant with any negative feelings they might have had about him.”

As part of my graduate program in counseling I have to write a personal theory, which includes process and goals of therapy, explanations for personality, psychopathology, etc. The first part, however, forms the basis for everything else: the nature of the person. I have been working on it for a while, trying to pin down exactly what I believe about the human race, and what is true about people across time and cultures. Here is what I have, with brief explanations: 

1-We are eternal.

The basic essence of who we are (i.e. intelligence) has always existed. We have been developing for eternity.

2-We are naturally compassionate and gentle, but seek to avoid suffering.

We are born with a predisposition to be kind and non-aggressive. However, sometimes in our pursuit of avoiding suffering we act aggressively or in negative ways towards others and ourselves.

3-We are a combination of our being, our spirit, heredity, and sociality.

Our being (intelligence) is our basic essence. We received traits of our mother and father (God) when we were given spirits, and from our earthly parents when we were born. We are also influenced by our environment. These four aspects make up who we are now.

4-We need choice, structure, and attachment to grow.

We cannot grow as much when our ability to choose is restricted. Consistent structure of some form (e.g. values, commandments, morals, etc.) is necessary to prevent chaos. We must also possess secure attachment to at least one other person. Significant disruption of any of these areas may result in neuroses, psychopathology, suffering, and essentially, damnation. This is why I believe in a Savior. One who can fix what breaks.

Are any of these points confusing or too simple? What do you think makes up a person?

Some quotes from members around the web:
“[Forcing] me to pay for the upkeep of another is simply the application of Satan’s plan here on earth.” (Comment from post on The Life I am Choosing…)

“Socialist policies and governments just result in greater economic extremes, i.e. greater poverty. More serious than that however, is the reduction of personal freedom and liberty… The Great Plan of Happiness is founded upon LIBERTY. Free Agency is the Lord’s plan, bondage (to any degree) is Satan’s.” (Comment from post on Welcome To My Soapbox)

“Capitalism… is the only economic model under which true charity may be performed. Any other method of government that compels its citizens to give up a portion of their money is practicing a false altruism that puts us on a slippery slope to absolute communism. Force should be shunned at all times, but especially when used as a method of supposedly helping those in need.” (Connor Boyack)

These beliefs seem to be quite common in the bloggernacle, and they often incite all kinds of vitriol. Simply put, many LDS people (don’t even get me started on Glenn Beck) are convinced that taxes used for helping the poor & needy take away our most valuable gift from God, our agency.

Elder Oaks asserted that while many laws and taxes necessarily restrict our freedoms to some extent, they can never take away our agency. Sorry about the length, it’s just really good:

The science of government is a consideration of the procedures by which and the extent to which the official representatives of one group of citizens can impose restrictions on the freedom of another group. Decisions on the extent to which government power should restrict the freedom of individuals are among the most difficult decisions we face in an organized society… How many taxes should we extract, and what compulsory functions should government perform with them? … These are all questions of freedom.

We have to accept some government limitations on freedom if we who live in communities are to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A condition of uninhibited individual freedom would allow the strong to oppress the weak. It would allow the eccentric desires of one person to restrict the freedom of many. Interferences with our freedom do not deprive us of our free agency. When Pharaoh put Joseph in prison, he restricted Joseph’s freedom, but he did not take away his free agency…

The Lord… established the Constitution of the United States to assure “that every man may act… according to the moral agency which I have given unto him” (D&C 101:78). In other words, God established our Constitution to give us the vital political freedom necessary for us to act upon our personal choices in civil government. This revelation shows the distinction between agency (the power of choice), which is God-given, and freedom, the right to act upon our choices, which is protected by the Constitution and laws of the land.

Freedom is obviously of great importance, but as these examples illustrate, freedom is always qualified in mortality. Consequently, when we oppose a government-imposed loss of freedom, it would be better if we did not conduct our debate in terms of a loss of our free agency, which is impossible under our doctrine. We ought to focus on the legality or the wisdom of the proposed restriction of our freedom.

For those of you who think socialized medicine is the plan of the devil because it takes away our agency, Dallin H. Oaks, apparently, does not agree with you.

What do you think? Do taxes that are used for social purposes or individual welfare restrict our God-given agency? Is capitalism the only system under which “true charity” can be performed? Or should we vote to restrict some of our ‘freedom of the pocketbook’ for the benefit of others?

“Marriage for all eternity is being threatened. Many male members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are married to multiple women in heaven. Even today, prominent LDS general authorities are also polygamists in heaven. I believe in the importance of eternal marriage; therefore I would like to propose a “Celestial Marriage Amendment” that would define marriage in heaven as “one man married to one woman.” This is a moral issue that certainly threatens to undermine the sanctity of heavenly unions…”

I for one would be a bit more comfortable if this matter was cleared up. Will it take a revelation to do it? After learning about the fervor with which Spencer W. Kimball sought revelation on the priesthood issue, I often wonder if we have just left polygamy alone, rather than actively seeking guidance. Normally I would agree that we don’t need to worry about these types of things right now, but we are still practicing it.There must be at least some choice involved, however, because I’ve heard people may be sealed “for time” in temples. Is that correct?

I always tell my wife that if she died young, I would find an LDS woman (or of another faith) who had lost her husband and we would get married for time only. Sure, people fall in love again, but I think I would be betraying my respect and honor for her by adding on a second. What do you think?

Perhaps our feelings about tomorrow’s letter were abreacted in last week’s multifarious and sporadically acerbic discussion. My purpose here is to highlight some of the feelings and perspective of one who is connected to many aspects of the Church’s political action regarding gay marriage. My sister Emily is a lawyer in California, and gay (also kind, witty, and sagacious, but that is beside the point). Her journey through life has had a positive and profound impact on my family and I. I have learned a lot from her, but this issue specifically has inspired me to be more thoughtful and considerate of those who are different from my straight white male middle-class American self (not that there’s anything wrong with that).

I have often contemplated on the thought that members who have gay friends or family often seem to feel differently than those who do not (or who are not aware of it). The following is from an email regarding this topic she recently sent to the rest of our family and some friends.  With her approval, I would like to share it here:

This morning someone forwarded me the letter that went out, I knew about it but hadn’t seen it yet. I don’t know why I should all of a sudden be so hurt and disappointed, maybe it feels more directly threatening than previous times this ’cause’ has been taken up by the church but I am seriously considering showing up in my ward for the first time on a testimony meeting Sunday and offering a few thoughts. I am thinking about how I could get the word out to ‘inactive’ gay Mormons all over the state to suggest a similar effort… If people spoke from their hearts, no doubt many would be made a little uncomfortable, and some probably offended, but if it made them feel even a little conflicted then it would be a success. And it’s not like a whole lot is at stake for us in terms of our standing. I’ve worked so hard to maintain a positive attitude for many years but I am very very hurt and disappointed and angry right now.

One of my BYU professors, in whom I confided before I left there, said “there will be a lot of Mormons who won’t love you but you don’t have to turn your back on your faith.” I have often reflected on that. I don’t know if I would be able to go through with the testimony meeting address or not, but if I did I would want to do my best to have a spirit of love about it. Though it is deeply offensive that a religious, or any, private institution (and many of its constituents) feel completely justified in a effort to dictate my, and my friends’ civil, secular, and / or individual rights, but would probably not at all welcome the opposite in the form of a gay intrusion into their worship services, and part of me wishes I could get up and tell them that. I just don’t think it would be very helpful toward winning hearts and minds. I know how fearfully people react to anyone they perceive as a ‘hostile’ disaffected or ex-Mormon because that’s how I used to react, and fear is already big part of the problem.

I’m sorry if this is troubling to any of you but I am grateful that I’m now able to express these feelings, whereas even a year ago I don’t think I could have. A lot of that is due to your expressions of love and increased invitations for communication even when it’s challenging…

…In response to…why is it that gay people seem to make such a big deal about being gay, the point was…that if you’re not gay / lesbian you never really have to give it a second thought. If you’re holding hands on the street with your opposite-sex partner, you can be confident wherever you go that nobody will notice or care (other than maybe thinking how sweet it is to be in love). But if you’re gay, you have to decide if you feel safe or not just to express this simple little affection in public, because people might take it as some kind of ’statement.’

Thanks for listening,

Emily

Obviously, it does not literally mean, ALL we can do. That would doom us all. How many of us have not done all we can do? I have already slacked off enough to be sent straight to the Telestial Kingdom on this logic. I have not done ALL I could do, and don’t plan on doing it all in the future.  It’s just not possible.  How many months have you missed Home/Visiting teaching? Well, I guess you didn’t do ALL you could do then. Sorry about that.

If “all we can do” does not really mean “all we can do,” what does it mean? Some have suggested that it means we do all we can to repent. But can we really do this either? I do not think it is possible. Not to steady the ark, but perhaps the scripture should say, “We can do “all we can do” WITH grace, and be saved.” I recently watched Schindler’s List, and a scene towards the end exemplifies what “all we can do” may mean. Schindler, who by no means was a perfect man (member of the Nazi party, had a few mistresses, etc.) realizes that he could have saved more Jews if he had of sold his car or his gold pin. He realizes, with some despair, that he HAD NOT done all he could do. This entire clip is about 10 minutes, but skip ahead to the 6:50 mark for the relevant scene (stop it around 8:50).

I believe a man like this is saved, not because of his works (which were amazing), but because he was converted. To me, that is all we can do: be converted, i.e. have a change of heart. Is that not the ultimate purpose of Christian religion, regardless of dogma? So why an emphasis on works in LDS theology? What are they for? I believe they are meant specifically to aid us in our conversion, in our change of heart:

“Now they did not suppose that salvation came by the law of Moses their works; but the law of Moses their works did serve to strengthen their faith in Christ; and thus they did retain a hope through faith, unto eternal salvation, relying upon the spirit of prophecy, which spake of those things to come.” ~Alma 25:16

In the movie, Oskar Schindler’s works brought him to a place in his life where a change of heart was possible. Salvation does not come by the law (works) but by faith in Christ. The purpose of the commandments is to strengthen our faith in Christ. All we can do is to have a change of heart.

I have heard enough slams of Mormon theology on this issue, as well as plenty bashing the idea of the Trinity in Mormon circles. Unfortunately, I have to admit I have scoffed at the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in the past. I was amazed (to say the least) when I first read the Anathasian creed – unsure at how people could, or would even want to, believe in “The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.” However, what does one’s belief about the substance or shape of God have to do with the purpose of religion?

I also do not think “appealing to the Bible” is useful in settling the matter of the nature of God and humankind. While I may quote a scripture like Psalms 82:6: “We shall be even gods, if we shall deserve to be among those of whom He declared, ‘I have said, Ye are gods.” Someone might retort, “that is misinterpreting the scripture, it actually means ______.” Then they may quote from Deuteronomy: “To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord Himself is God; there is none other besides Him.” Debate over which belief is Biblical will not achieve much in the way understanding or respect.

If one believes in the Trinity, derives motivation from that doctrine to live his religion more fully, and if I get the same from believing in a Mormon concept of God as I do, why does it matter that we do not agree? Does one of the many Christian conceptualizations of God inspire more visits “to the fatherless and widows in their affliction,” or keep one “unspotted from the world?”

I think one of the keys to this is giving up on the idea of debating for the purpose of trying to win. Understanding each other is much more important, especially on a site like this. There is a lot we can learn from each other, and through my association with a Catholic friend I have come to respect and understand better Christians who believe differently about God than I do.

In the spirit of understanding and inquiry:

• What do you believe about God?
• Where does your belief come from?
• What scripture(s) or teachings best describe you belief?
• In what ways are your beliefs about God manifested in your life?
• Which is more important: the personal characteristics of God, or what God looks like?

~Truman Madsen

 I always find myself in a little conundrum  when I’m teaching about the mysterious pre-mortal life (from the approved materials, of course!), and how we were all born spiritually.  Spiritual birth discussions always lead to the Abraham scripture about intelligences, and everything gets stuck there.  Who can really say what “intelligence(s)” is?  Some have taken a stab at it:

 “Intelligence or light and truth, is also used as a synonym for spirit element. Scriptures using both terms speak of the self-existent nature of the substance involved…  intelligences were organized intelligence or in other words the spirit bodies were born from spirit element.” – Bruce R. McConkie

 “The spirits of men “are begotten sons and daughters unto God.”  Through that birth process, self-existing intelligence was organized into individual spirit beings.” – Marion G. Romney

 Joseph Smith:

“The spirit [intelligence] of man is not a created being; it existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be eternal…” “The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is coequal with God himself.” “Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit [entity] from age to age, and there is no creation about it.” “The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end.” “Intelligence or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.”

It seems these quotes are saying that our spirits were formed from some sort of mass intelligence (like The Borg?).  Obviously, we do not know exactly what “intelligence” literally consists of, but what do you think of the idea that we all came from the same substance?  In this sense, it seems we have not always existed—rather, the stuff our spirits were made of is what is eternal.

 Some questions:

1. Is this an important doctrine, or is it just interesting speculation, of no pertinence to salvation?  If not, do note that it is still being taught (currently in the Joseph Smith manual).
2. Is the idea of a “forever backwards” more baffling than a “forever forwards?”
3. This idea (at least the idea of a pre-mortal life) has been used to justify everything from suffering, skin color, priesthood ordination, poverty, and even mental retardation.  I do not think the idea of reward here based on our prior life is an offensive one.  What is offensive to me is when doctrinal speculation is used as justification for inequality. Does the belief in a pre-mortal life still have influence on Mormon culture?
4. Is there any Biblical support for this doctrine? Is it unique to Mormonism?

Some other “Restorationists” are Jehovah’s Witnesses, Quakers, and Churches of Christ.

I know the church is true. I love the church. They are disaffected with the church. We go to church.  I discovered that the church was not what it said it was. What exactly, does ‘church’ mean? Where is ‘the church”? Who does it belong to? What does “church” mean? Is it a place, a set of beliefs? Is it an organization? A corporation? 

Bruce recently said that Mormons often use ‘church’ and ‘religion’ interchangeably.  When you think of “the church,” are you actually thinking “religion”?  Is it the leadership?  When a General Authority, Bishop or Relief Society President does something a member does not like, is it accurate or is it misplaced for a member be upset with the whole church?

Where exactly, is “the church”:  James E. Faust gave a great talk on this a few years ago. He rejected the idea of the church being in the buildings, because buildings “will get no one into the kingdom of God,” and the “temple buildings alone do not bless.”  He said families are a better answer, but still only part of the church.  The best answer, although not necessarily a tangible one, is that the church is in our hearts: “for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”  We go to a church building or a temple, but ultimately, the “church” is something we take with us.

Whose church is it?  The short answer here is, “duh, it’s the Church of Jesus Christ.”  But more pragmatically, it is also the church of Latter-day Saints, i.e. we the members.  It is my church just as much as it is any apostle’s or rank and file member’s.  To illustrate this, my mission president once told us how he was asked by man on temple square, “if the prophet committed adultery, would you leave the church?”  Many would, for sure.  But he said that it would not make a difference in regards to his membership.  It is not the President’s church.  I believe it is the church of Jesus Christ, as well as our own, and it will be what we make of it.

I like to think of the church as a vehicle for our progress.  Whether the church is true compared to other churches does not matter to me.  What matters is, if being an active member will help my family and I progress.  Which, I assert, is and has been true for me.  

The Family Guidebook (LDS.org) says, “Parents should teach their children to thank God for their food and ask Him to bless it before they eat. Each person, including young children, should be given a turn to ask God to bless the food.” Okay, so we should bless the food, but it does not say why… Some possibly related scriptures: “And ye shall serve the LORD your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee, (Exodus 23:25).”  “Then he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed them, and brake, and gave to the disciples to set before the multitude, (Luke 9:16).” Still, not very clear.  A lot of things happen in the Bible that we do not practice.

 A discussion at Splendid Sun delved into this issue a few years back: “I have come to drop the customary blessing on the food, since I don’t know what it does and I can’t find any evidence that it does anything or is commanded or even recommended by God.” – steve h. “Before I gave up blessing the food, I started getting rid of the strengthen and nourish thing. – John.  “What about opening our mouths if we accidentally take a bite first so that the blessing can get down there?” – S. Hancock.

BYU law professor John Welch said this in a devotional speech: “May you pray over your books, as you would bless food for thought.” Why don’t we bless things besides food? (Maybe some do, but I never have.) What about this scripture: “…ye must not perform any thing unto the Lord save in the first place ye shall pray unto the Father in the name of Christ, that he will consecrate thy performance unto thee, that thy performance may be for the welfare of thy soul, (2 Nephi 32:9).”  Perhaps we should ask a blessing on everything we do that relates to the welfare of our soul.

I think many of us have become ritualistically obsessed with the word “bless” (as it relates to food) to the point that it has lost its meaning. We need to figure out what “bless the food” means to us, or our prayers around the table may lack meaning. And while I’m thinking about this, I’m going to consider blessing my copy of The Complete Adult Psychotherapy Treatment Planner.

A few more questions:

• Where/when did the blessing on the food originate? 
• Is asking for a blessing on the food more important than asking for one on any other object? 
• What is significant of food? 
• If we don’t bless the food, what are we missing out on? 
• Why the repetition–What is the purpose of blessing every meal?