So, my question is: what is (or was) your relationship with the church and Mormonism? (I asked this question on my blog too, and there were a few answers.) What purpose did it/does it serve…what do you look for (or what did you look for) from it?

To give an example of what I’m trying to think about, let’s take three different people, whose positions I hope I have correctly surmised. These types aren’t meant to be comprehensive…I just had three people in mind.

Person A:

Person A looked for something that spoke out to him internally. Subjective/spiritual experience and validation were principally important to him. He wasn’t concerned about historical issues or theological issues, because those weren’t what he got or was looking from Mormonism. Rather, a pursuit of personal authenticity, personal peace and joy was what he was looking for. To the extent that the church did/does not lead toward these things, this disharmony was/is a dealbreaker.

OK; that’s person A.

Person B:

Person B had a different view from Person A. The subjective experiences person B got from Mormonism weren’t necessarily all that good (no ground-shattering revelations to share for fast and testimony meeting…), but these weren’t the matter of principal importance to him. Rather, even if the church caused him a great deal of pain, he dealt with whatever personal discomfort that came by recognizing that the church is simply true, so it is “necessary,” and may actually be a “necessary” (as a result of its facticity) “evil” (as a result of the personal pain it causes). However, if the church were not true (or if Person B sufficiently doubted such), then it would not make sense to continue to bear the burden.

OK.

Person C:

Person C had a different view from both Persons A and B. For C, again, the actual truth of historical events or theologies weren’t vitally important…and neither was personal peace…so to the extent that there were uncomfortable or controversial parts in either of these, the “reason” for being Mormon woudn’t be threatened. Instead, Person C’s relationship with Mormonism was that it was his community first and foremost. As a beneficiary of that community, he owed an allegiance to the community. Person C was invested in being a Mormonism and it, in turn, was invested in him. Regardless of the nature of history or theology or experience, the Mormon community he grew up in provided him with the backbone for seeing the world, for evaluating ethics, philosophy, and so on. And so far as that backbone was flexible and adaptable to the world, he continued to pay homage to his sustaining community.

…

As I said before, these examples aren’t mean to fit everyone and everything. They aren’t meant to be comprehensive. So my question…does your relationship fit into one of these or is it different? If it is different, how would you instead describe your relationship with Mormonism?

That being said, we do know that there is a divider between the glories and the non-glories. We have that ominous concept: Outer Darkness. But what does it mean? Who is it for?

Just as I’ve always taken Mormonism’s after life to be so much more universal than other afterlife formulations, I’ve naturally wanted to stretch out this universalism. So, my understanding has always been that the three glories of heaven will be quite generously populated and that outer darkness will be sparse and lonely indeed.

Let's hope life isn't like a Sierra game

I took for granted that to qualify for this terrible anti-prize of complete separation, a person would have to try pretty hard. I didn’t think it was like a Sierra game, where you can accidentally and irreversibly render the entire game unwinnable within the first five minutes of turning on the game. Instead, you had to do specific (and unlikely) things. Like, say, come to a fulness of the gospel, have an amazing experience as consequence of your full understanding (like, I dunno, see God), and then walk away from in all with rejection. And then, only after all of this, could you win your new prize of total estrangement from their Heavenly Father.

Even then…this consequence wouldn’t be something that God sentenced someone to. Rather, it would be an individual’s choice to walk away from it all after having seen so much.

That was how I understood it. So, when I realized that I — gasp — didn’t believe in the church’s teachings, the “what if” scenario for if the church ended up being correct anyway didn’t bother me. I would accept whatever I got, but my understanding was that I wouldn’t quite qualify for outer darkness.

…But it all hinges on what it means to have the fulness of the Gospel. After all, it might not mean the amazingness of seeing God face-to-face. We often say that we have the fulness of the Gospel. In this case, would this mean that all ex-Mormons are hosed?

Let’s look at some scriptures.

31 Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power—

32 They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born;

33 For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity;

34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—

35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.

36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels—

37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power;

38 Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath.

Better off if we had never been born..?

The criteria here for receiving these scathing descriptors doesn’t seem too difficult to reach: just deny the Holy Ghost after having received it.

In the church, every member who is baptized has the laying on of hands to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. If we use that as the yardstick, then wouldn’t any apostate become one for who “it had been better for them never to have been born”?

Is this scripture one of the straightforward ones…or is it one that needs to be looked at more carefully? What do you say?

Could God evolve?

As part of a discussion group, I have been reading Robert Wright’s The Evolution of God. My group isn’t anywhere near finished (the “heart” of the book focuses on the three major Abrahamic religions — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — yet we’ve only finished through the part on Judaism that sets the stage for Christianity), but as I blogged about on my personal blog, I already have concerns about the arguments that Wright presents.

Some of my comments, however, may not necessarily apply to Mormonism. For example, Wright seems to rely on this idea of a God that can evolve. The big issue is that many believers are constrained to believing that God is constant and thus ineligible for evolution. However, Mormons — through ideas like eternal progression — may not have that reservation (depending on whether or not eternal progression is “in” or “out” of the theology du jour.)

So, what does Wright say?

This isn’t anywhere near comprehensive for Wright’s position, but one thing that reached out to me (on page 214):

What might qualify as evidence of a larger purpose at work in the world? For one thing, a moral direction in history. If history naturally carries human consciousness toward moral enlightenment, however slowly and fitfully, that would be evidence that there’s some point to it all. At least, it would be more evidence than the alternative — if history showed no discernible direction, or if history showed a downward direction: humanity as a whole getting more morally obtuse, more vengeful and bigoted.

Or, to put the point back into the context at hand: To the extent that “god” grows, that is evidence — maybe not massive evidence, but some evidence — of higher purpose.

And also, on page 221, after Wright introduces the concept of the logos as a kind of “algorithm” for the universe from God:

…Some say Philo believed a kind of direct contact with God was somehow possible; others talk about a union with “the divine” that falls short of communion with God himself.

But, however direct the connection, the first step to making it was to try to understand God and God’s will. Thus deciphering the Logos could bring enlightenment not just intellectually but spiritually. “The logos was meant to guide the human soul to the realm of the divine,” writes the scholar Thomas Tobin.

And what we also know is that “Logos” as an idea later landed in a little book testifying about a guy named Jesus…”In the beginning was Logos, and Logos was with God, and Logos was God.”

Matt Evans at Times and Seasons wrote about eternal progression as a necessity for a benevolent theodicy a long time ago.

I guess there are several possible directions to go with this. Obviously, Wright’s full position may not go in the direction we need to fit it with eternal progression, and these snippets don’t even truly grab the essence of the position. But…going with Wright, for some reason, somehow, history shows a trend of things getting better. This is indicated through a number of things — our general prosperity (despite ‘hiccups’ like financial crises and wars, we have accumulated great wealth and great scientific advancement), or our general ability to get along with each other, for example (think about Europe. Hundreds of years ago, a union would have been laughable. Now, it is a reality.)

But even more interesting is the way that our ideas of God and morality evolve as the rest of our society does. So, Wright points out that we have moved from an idea of a vengeful god to a glorious understanding of on who is benevolent in novel ways (in Mormonism, our exaltation includes eternal progression). Additionally, whereas even a hundred or two hundred years ago, rights for certain minorities would not have been on the table, today we can and do have discussions on prospects of egalitarianism (even if we don’t feel we as a society are in an ideal point, the important point is that somehow, we have started to feel that there is an ideal point).

Wright argues that this may be sign of some higher purpose.

Now, I have countered that using such an analogy doesn’t necessarily go as far as Wright needs it to. For example, in biological evolution, things appear to get “better,” but really, there isn’t a “forward” or “best.” There isn’t a “best species” that everything is moving toward. Rather, there are adaptations that are more successful to the given environments and adaptations that are less successful. Adaptation toward a better fit to the environment doesn’t necessarily show a higher purpose.

But…with eternal progression, we might avoid that. As long as there is knowledge and experience, shouldn’t our “environment” always be flexible…and if this is the case, shouldn’t we be always able to adapt to this environment? So, we don’t need to imply a “best” to recognize that progress itself, successful adaptation itself is the focus. As Ray points out on his blog, with eternal life, we yet have opportunity to progress in post-mortal life. At some point, our progress will appear so advanced (to us non-advanced peons…probably not to us when we’ve gotten there) that we will be able to do seemingly novel things (like, say…create worlds beyond numbers? — remember, we don’t have to be constrained to “ex nihilo”).

But to progress, we must discover and seek the correct principles — as Ray highlights, and which compare well to Logos — and so these principles too call for our change in order for us to grow.

Look at my name under the title. I am not Batman and don’t speak for Batman. His reasons are his own, and I’m sure plenty of people may still respectfully disagree with his decision. Rather, I would like to use this opportunity (if my fellow bloggers will let me) to take a look at a different message that, interestingly enough, also came from Ballard’s discussion, and which I find to be quite relevant to past events.

For while we were focusing on polygamy, whether it has been dealt with sufficiently, why it happened, why it’s still in our scriptures, etc., one commenter, Rach, said something that intrigued me. Unfortunately, since the comments are gone and I can’t find them, I have to paraphrase, but Rach pointed out that when we focus on the context of Elder Ballard’s message, he was talking about taking control of the Mormon conversation, especially with nonmember friends. So, positive and constructive quotes to focus on, I think, are:

It is easy in your conversations to think you are still knocking on doors. You’re not. If you are in a position to share what you believe, there’s no need to tread so carefully that you look like you are being evasive or anticipating criticism. The apostle Paul said, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ” (Romans 1:16). Neither should any of us be.

and (right after the part Batman had focused on):

If people ask you about polygamy, just acknowledge it was once a practice but not now, and that people shouldn’t confuse any polygamists with our Church. In ordinary conversations, don’t waste time trying to justify the practice of polygamy during the Old Testament times or speculating as to why it was practiced for a time in the 19th century. Those may be legitimate topics for historians and scholars, but I think we simply reinforce the stereotypes when we make it a primary topic of conversations about the Church.

So, it doesn’t seem to be a memo of internal silencing. Rather, it seems to be putting things in their place. We can certainly become historians and scholars (and this is actually a progressive comment, contrasted with past attitudes about historical scholarship), but in ordinary conversations, we should, and I quote Ballard again, “emphasize that Latter-day Saints follow Jesus Christ and what Jesus Christ teaches.”

If Ballard is too intimidating for you, check out this comment from Seth R in response to Kullervo’s guest post at LDS & Evangelical Conversations or at his own blog.

So, let’s try to have a constructive conversation. Maybe it won’t work as planned. Maybe even this conversation will have to be curbed. While I think that a discussion of what Mormons should say about the whys and wherefores of polygamy or other issues could be a good topic at another time, at this time, I think we just do not have enough information to do much other than speculation.

What if we talked about how to take control about the conversation on Mormonism? If I may quote from an older article of John Dehlin’s, I’d point out that we should find it very reasonable to find empathy with this option.

You might feel as though the church has a responsibility to be completely open with all of its major flaws and weaknesses, but in the real world, this is probably not very realistic. For example, do you live up to this standard in your own life? Do you tell everyone you meet, or even everyone close to you, all of your deepest, darkest secrets? While it’s true that the LDS Church claims to be God’s one and only true church, we also acknowledge that in reality, it is run by imperfect men, in less-than-perfect circumstances. Given that realization, why would we expect the church to be any different? It is unreasonable to expect complete transparency from human beings and human organizations — even ones that claim divine authority. Humans simply don’t work that way.

We are not saying it is right for anyone to withhold information about their own wrongdoing from those who depend on them. Ideally, we should all be willing to confess the things we have done wrong and try to make amends. That is the ideal for individuals and for institutions. But we all fall short of that ideal sometimes, in some areas.

If we believe that, regardless of the warts, the LDS church is a force for good in the world, then wouldn’t it behoove us to show that good? I mean, if you don’t believe that, then ignore this paragraph accordingly, but I think Elder Ballard’s statement is good marketing and good conversation.

So, how should we steer the conversation in a productive way? How can we take control of the Mormon conversation instead of just being as “windtossed waves,” subject to whatever the controversy du jour (Big Love, Prop 8, a movie about some historical event, etc.,) is?

“God knows where the money is, and he knows how to get the money to you,” preached Mrs. Copeland, dressed in a crisp pants ensemble like those worn by C.E.O.’s.

…

Stephen Biellier, a long-distance trucker from Mount Vernon, Mo., said he and his wife, Millie, came to the convention praying that this would be “the overcoming year.” They are $102,000 in debt, and the bank has cut off their credit line, Mrs. Biellier said.

They say the Copelands rescued them from financial failure 23 years ago, when they bought their first truck at 22 percent interest and had to rebuild the engine twice in a year.

Around that time, Mrs. Biellier first saw Mr. Copeland on television and began sending him 50 cents a week.

Others who bought trucks from the same dealer in Joplin that year went under, the Bielliers said, but they did not.

“We would have failed if Copeland hadn’t been praying for us every day,” Mrs. Biellier said.

Err, odd.

While the very concept of a prosperity gospel (which involves sending money to the pastor in order to…gain money back in blessings?) seems insane, it’s probably the idea that people like the Copelands seem to be making this scheme work, yet don’t seem too keen on giving back that wealth that is most interesting.

The Book of Mormon foretells this. In fact, the various “pride cycles” in the Book of Mormon can be essentially summarized as a process by which righteous living does net you economic blessings (so the Copelands and others seem to be right about that much at least) [Does this bother you? TT of Faith Promoting Rumor agreed a while back; even we kinda addressed it], but which also leads to complacency, pride, an unwillingness to freely donate to those less fortunate, and then spiritual hardheartedness (and I’m thinking we can also see this with the various prosperity gospel pastors).

What are some notable scriptures in the Book of Mormon that we can relate? Let’s look at Alma 4: 1-12. Actually, I’ll hone in even closer, on verse 8, 9, and 10.

8 For they saw and beheld with great sorrow that the people of the church began to be lifted up in the pride of their eyes, and to set their ^ahearts upon riches and upon the vain things of the world, that they began to be scornful, one towards another, and they began to persecute those that did ^bnot believe according to their own will and pleasure.

9 And thus, in this eighth year of the reign of the judges, there began to be great ^acontentions among the people of the church; yea, there were ^benvyings, and ^cstrife, and malice, and persecutions, and pride, even to exceed the pride of those who did not belong to the church of God.

10 And thus ended the eighth year of the reign of the judges; and the wickedness of the church was a great ^astumbling-block to those who did not belong to the church; and thus the church began to fail in its progress.

What’s this? So it seems that the pride that comes about from this gospel-prosperity is written to exceed the pride of those even outside the church. This pride also led believing members, who probably felt themselves assured of their righteousness, to persecute those who did not believe. As a result, this wickedness from within the church was a turnoff to those outside the church.

OK, so I actually admit…this topic may have been a ruse. I don’t know or care much about Kenneth Copeland. I do know that he is not setting a good or admirable example for nonbelievers, and as a result he is tarnishing the Christian brand.

But what I got from this scripture wasn’t about them. It was about us. It wasn’t about their megachurch. It was about our church. Tylee85 didn’t need to pull up Korihor to find a suitable example. Others have suspected it.

When I think about things that don’t invite me to continue a conversation, Alma 4 actually hits it rather well. And yet too often I see members whose prides, whether its their pride in their material possessions or their pride in the gospel they have, serve as stumbling-block. Sometimes, I think members read so much about the material kind of pride that they forget that pride can be ideological too. It can lead to persecuting those who “do not believe according to their will and pleasure.”

But how do we avoid this, whatever our wills and pleasures are? The scriptures (and reality) aren’t so promising, with an almost reliable fall into pride (remember: the scriptures really don’t end on a happy note as to the fate of the Nephites.) It’s like we can’t (or shouldn’t) handle prosperity, yet we still attract it. It’s a lesson we keep failing, after which we whiz through our remedial courses, come to this lesson and fail it again.

But there was another curious (if bold) comment he had made…he points out how he feels in certain areas he hasn’t earned his morals, and that many members aren’t “earning” their morals. If one isn’t truly “earning his morals” from following guidance like the Word of Wisdom or the Law of Chastity, then how do we avoid or move past simply practicing a modern and vain form of legalism?

The meaningful part for this discussion was:

I worry that Brigham Young’s fears may be prophetic – the LDS Church cannot stand wealth. It cannot withstand success. We have grown fat and complacent in our certainties and blessings. We have taken our moral rightness for granted. We have taken our status as chosen people for granted.We have been given a pearl of great price, and thus far, we seem content to use it as a paperweight.

That is the fundamental flaw with Mormon fundamentalism. It’s smug. It’s prideful. It’s complacent. It takes it’s own blessed status with God for granted…

The trouble with the “cultural conservative” view in Mormonism…is not that they advocate for strong morals. The problem is that they really did nothing to earn those morals.

I never slept with any woman before my wedding night. But, while I am grateful for that, I take no moral self-satisfaction from it. The truth is, I didn’t have sex with girls before then because I was raised not to. And frankly, I was too shy as a teenager to ever get to the point with a girl where sex was even a possibility. I earned no right to feel smug about my “purity” as opposed to the drunk frat boys I kept hearing about. What did I earn? What basis for pride on the issue did I ever have?

But modern Mormon culture takes exactly this position. The modern generation of Mormons rest on laurels they have not earned, tout morals that are not truly theirs, and pray to a God that they cannot know – because their preconceptions keep getting in the way.

The cry of “all is well in Zion” has gone on long enough. I think I’d like to see some new sermons.

How can one truly earn his morals? I mean, obviously, a drunk frat boy who converts will see the clear distinction between his past and present life (and the hope is that he’ll feel he’s moved “up”)…but that’s it wouldn’t be safe to say that all of the BIC youth should be shuffled into big sin just to show them what it’s like.

Or is the point simply that we shouldn’t take moral self-satisfaction anyway? After all, if we’re all counseled to be humble, isn’t it silly to dash all that away by being proud of having the Gospel when instead one should remain humble to have it?

And relating to that legalism thing…are we fulfilling the spirit of things through our obedience to the letter of things? Or is the the case that unearned morals still obstruct our view of trying to show true charity to others?

Do you think Seth is on to something, or is he just an angry, angry man?

And translation accuracy is very important to us. After all, we have an article of faith devoted to it.

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

But even with this 8th article of faith, it doesn’t necessarily preclude the use of other translations. And it certainly doesn’t preclude any other official translations from the church.

I guess it would make sense if we pointed out that the reason we use the King James Version (or, again, a version based heavily off of it) is simply because of tradition and heritage. After all, Joseph Smith was inevitably most familiar with it. Most of the popular translations nowadays (NIV, NRSV, etc.,) weren’t even dreamed of back then.

And as the First Presidency Statement on the King James Version notes (sorry, you have to scroll down this page):

While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations. All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church.

(Emphasis added.)

Still, it seems like tradition and heritage are insufficient to keep us tied so closely to the KJV. After all, while the King James Version may have an almost lyrical quality that reminds us of Shakespeare, is it the most understandable? To the 21st century reader, no. English has changed so much since King James’s time that even though the KJV’s Jacobean English is called “modern” and is technically readable (the same as Shakespeare — none of these are “Middle” or “Old” English, which are unintelligible languages to us without having a class in them) it still takes time and energy to understand some idioms and to decipher words whose meanings have changed on us since then! Certainly, we learn that charity=love and suffer=permit or allow, but isn’t it strange that we have to learn the language to read our own scriptures in (and those aren’t the only archaisms within)?

Do we forget (or sometimes never learn) of the very humane connotation of the holy “breath,” because “spirit” and “ghost” (which are indeed faithful translations of the concept) don’t quite have those connotations in English? And what confusion must translation cause, since in some instances, words have changed to mean the opposite of what they once did?

I find it very curious what the First Presidency had said before the part I quoted:

Many versions of the Bible are available today. Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version. However, the Lord has revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter-days. The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations.

…Because personally, I would like to see different texts of the Book of Mormon as well, but I recognize we don’t have a whole lot of options here either.

It just seems strange to me…why couldn’t we take the autographs or manuscripts that we have (even if they are copies of copies) and then work on a translation from whole cloth with them? After all, the Evangelicals basically did that with the New International Version (although, that makes it problematic for any non-Evangelicals who don’t want spin). Couldn’t the church authorize a more understandable modern translation of the Bible in accordance to the 8th article of faith so that we could say this one is translated correctly? (or, if translations aren’t the problems but sources are, couldn’t we note that instead, as the First Presidency Statement notes?)

What’s good in a Bible translation? Have any of you ventured outside of the King James microcosm (so the New KJV doesn’t count!)? If you have, was it only for personal study, or did you read along with your family or use in classes? What did others think or say? What do you think when someone relates to you a verse from another translation?

See Also: Nitsav’s post on other translations at Faith-Promoting Rumor. or Jack’s post with LDS-Evangelical interfaith viewpoint.

…so I was digging through classic Mormon Matters and found Clay’s discussion asking: how much does church activity has to do with being Mormon anyway? He opened with something interesting:

Not so long ago, when I would hear about someone who didn’t go to church at all or have any interest in returning would refer to themselves as Mormon, I would be annoyed that they still identified themselves that way. I used to see being Mormon as a choice, as a religious path, and if you aren’t choosing it then you only make a bad name for the rest of us… or so I felt at that time.

I was excited…a post aimed at me! Yet later (the very next sentence), he writes:

Yet, it seems there is something deeply cultural about being Mormon, especially those raised or at least members from a young age.

Oh.

So, I thought…Most of us recognize the depth of Mormonism as a culture. (If you don’t, I’ll submit that you’re behind the times and T&S has already jumped aboard). If so, I think Clay’s next question (again, the very next sentence), is good:

How much does your activity in church determine how “Mormon” you really are?

(I promise I’m not just stealing Clay’s post. Seriously.)

The question is…what are the traits that make Mormonism endure as a culture and not simply religion? When people leave certain religions, the break is clean. Many people don’t linger for years and years as an “ex-Baptist,” for example. But with our church, we have that famous phrase about people who “leave the church but can’t leave it alone.” (And I’m under e-indictment for being an anti-Mormon, of all things, because of such a claim.) You may similarly know “lapsed Catholics” or  “secular Jews” (let’s ignore the elephant of actual ethnicity for that one).

With Mormonism in particular, we have a particularly strange phenomenon where ex-members can end up being vehemently opposed to the church, but they simply are not able to move away from their old heritage. Ignoring any possible faith-promoting answers (“ooh, that’s the Holy Ghost~!”), we can at least realize that we have a pervasive culture in our hearts. And it may be a good idea to delve deeper in how or what this culture is, so we can (try to) improve it.

From a comment a long time ago on the unlikeliest of places (Prop 8 day at LDS & Evangelical Conversations blog), Seth R. from Nine Moons remarked [I hope my comment patchwork isn't a misinterpretation]:

I’d have a much easier time renouncing US citizenship than my faith. I don’t feel that (“American” describes me a whole lot more comprehensively than “Mormon”). I felt more in common with Mormons in Japan than I do with people in my own town right now.

I was impressed with these comments, so I posted about it a while back. As a military kid, I can certainly agree that I don’t feel I have a “home” in any one location or nation, but I most certainly have a lot in common with fellow Mormons. We share a language.

But indeed, I do present a conundrum, as Clay points out. Can a nonbeliever be Mormon just because he was raised that way? Does it have anything to do with being born into the church? Hawkgrrrl wrote a comment to Clay’s post:

I think there is a difference between a convert who leaves the church and one who was BIC and leaves the church. In the former case, there would probably be less “residual Mormanity” than in the latter case. Being raised Mormon (vs. being a previously practicing Mormon).

Is that so? I talked with BHodges at Life on Gold Plates and he made an interesting point for BIC ex-mormons who relinquish their “residual Mormanity.”

Do regionalisms matter? Am I less culturally Mormon because I’ve never lived in Utah? Because I am thankful for rain, not moisture? In the past, BCC has had a Mormon culture tournament…could we make an accurate cultural literacy test from it?

Cultural Mormonism has been viewed as that weird Utah thing, something that degrades true religion. On the other hand…children with Mormon identities, as long as they are happy with this identity, indeed “never depart” from it. (If they are unhappy with it, they also never depart from it, and that produces bad consequences for all.) What say you?

If cultural Mormonism is focused in the Jello Belt, then what does that say about a religion that thrives from converts (especially converts in other nations)? While it seems intuitive to say a Utah Mormon understand culture more than a Japanese Mormon…it seems contradiction.

I have my eye on correlation. With correlation, every ward gets a similar foundation. So, the basic LDS lingo is the same everywhere. This, in combination with the church’s many activities, opportunities, standards, and practices, should “socialize” members who will attend for a critical period. So, perhaps it is that one must be active for some critical period to be socialized, and then they become culturally Mormon, regardless of future activity. This would allow for Seth to identify with the other Japanese saints, while allowing for regionalist distinctions. This will also allow for a culture that one doesn’t easily depart from, even when they want to.

And so, as a new question that has sprung about, what do you think about the pervasiveness of the culture? What does it mean for ex-members who remain? Does it possibly work against the church to create anti-Mormons? And who is anti- anyway? Is it anyone who disbelieves and speaks about it?

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

…

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

38 But if ye ^aneglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ^aground is ^bbarren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the ^atree of life.

…

So there. Let it be known that it’s untrue that we never use scriptures on Mormon Matters.

That being said, I might appear to be too critical for some, so that’s my disclaimer.

Alma 32 is a curious set of scriptures for the church. In verse 27 we have the famous (at least, famous to me) admonition that if one can only desire to believe, then they should go for it. And 28 begins a rather popular analogy of faith (BIG EDIT: the word…it even clearly says it…so I don’t know why people [and even I] turn this to faith) to a seed that can be nourished and grown.

And this set of scriptures is also clever. Clever enough that it chaps my hide. I mean, obviously, I’m biased, but have you ever thought about it?

Alma 32:32 seems most reasonable. It seems a lot about what kinds of things we hear about in church. Test the spirits to know if they are true. If you have a good idea, you’ll get a burning in your bosom. If you have a not so good idea, you’ll get a stupor of thought. So, you can develop a rule of thumb for discerning ideas. And the role of faith seems clear — to begin the process. Surely, the seed (the word) might look like a dud to you, and common sense might suggest it’ll never work out, but common sense isn’t too common or sensical, so faith is the ability to take the first step and plant the seed anyway.

But 32:32 has a reasonable out: what doesn’t grow is discarded. When you get a stupor of thought, you don’t continue. You go back to the drawing board.

So far, so good.

I’ll compare with real world paradigms. In the real world, I might undertake something that I might think is unlikely. I might make a hypothesis and hope it’s true, but not know. This is faith for the real world. So far, so good. But in the real world, things that are true will manifest themselves as true regardless of anything else. I might be incredulous that flipping a light switch will turn on a light, but regardless of if I believe or not, the light will turn on with the switch (as long as the circuitry isn’t broken). The only faith is in getting over my possible initial incredulity to flipping the switch.

Yet what if something else happens?

What if your seed never sprouts? The word doesn’t “do it” for you. What if it never grows? In the real world, you try something else. Yet in the church we have so often a different cultural idea backed by certain other scriptures: such as D+C 14:7: “And, if you ^akeep my commandments and ^bendure to the end you shall have ^ceternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God.” This doesn’t imply any necessity of results, so what commonly is asserted is that people just need to be more patient, continue following the commandments, continue hoping, etc.,

OK, OK, so that’s fair enough. One could make an extended argument for faith with that vein. Looking at verses 16 – 19 from the Alma 32 gets us similar things.

But here’s the question…here’s the thought experiment. What if we applied this same concept to everything in life? What if, in particular, we applied this concept to other churches? Alma 32 works reasonably if we are freely able to determine when the seed is dead and bad…but if we presuppose that a seed is good (obviously, the Book of Mormon and the church presuppose the word is true), even despite the results, and just say, “Just endure…just desire to believe…just wait…just have patience,” then how are we to discern anything? We might say that the reason we are Mormon instead of Catholic or Baptist is because Mormon tenets appealed to us more, but couldn’t it be that we needed to just desire to believe in Catholicism, exercise a particle of faith and (if we still did not having any confirming experiences), endure to the end in faith, yet we negligently failed to do so?

This is why I believe instead that some part of our belief or disbelief is not chosen (and Jeff or someone else here will probably offer a rebuttal either here or in another article, so stay tuned, folks!) We don’t just in a gungho way say, “I’m going to be Catholic, have faith, and endure to the end.” Because when we set that criteria, we strip away our ability to discern between anything — why not do that with Islam? With Buddhism? With anything else?

Rather, we are already inclined in certain directions…some people are already inclined to Catholicism…and others to Mormonism…and others to other things. When people move with their inclination, then they will find that those personal and subjective seeds will grow. But this is not forced. You don’t make a Catholic seed grow if you are not inclined to believe in Catholicism. Rather, the doctrines and theology will seem disagreeable, and you’ll regret forcing it upon yourself. But the same is true for Mormonism or anything else.

Unfortunately, Liebniz was a little off the mark. We live in a good world (again, if you disagree, please just go with this one so I can have a snappy article)…but not the best of all possible worlds. So, now, we have to play a game of compromise. If you couldn’t have someone get everything and more from the church, what one thing would you want anyone to get from the church instead?

If you’ve read my posts or my blog, then you will guess that the thing I got from the church was not the theology and spirituality. That one didn’t stick after all. However, I did get a culture that remains with me still. And even now, I realize how in many ways, I’m still, as they say, in the world but not of it. So, even if I don’t affiliate with the theology of the church or assert its divinity, I would like to think that members I know can still say at the end of the day, “Even if that Andrew S guy doesn’t believe, he’s still an OK guy.” And I would like to think that my Mormon upbringing has had something (among others) to do with that.

So, for me, I would like to think that if someone gets something out of the church, it’s a way to be a better person. It’s a code for living. It’s a culture.

…but even I realize that I have arguments against that very thing, and others do too. For example, am I still completely sure that the church’s prescription is always “better”? Even though I have taken from the church a sense of not being a raving drunkard or a sex fiend, this does not necessarily mean that drinking is bad or sex is bad. So my prudeness (not to be confused with prudence), even though it makes me proud to say that I could pass the Law of Chastity or Word of Wisdom sections of a temple interview without breaking a sweat, might be seen as an undesirable thing by others, not a good thing.

And while I would hope that other members would look at my actions and way of living as the most important thing…perhaps they wouldn’t. For example, I could easily see someone saying that the one thing someone should get from the church is belief in the core principles. I know people who have committed some rather big sins and transgressions (some from personal knowledge, others just from that implied knowledge that they must have done something big to get in their position of unworthiness with priesthood and sacrament matters)…but they surely have stayed in the church, and some other members I know are more grateful for that. Because even if these guys aren’t repenting (although some are), they know what’s what when it comes to believing.

So, what do you think? If only one thing, what should someone get out of the church? You can be creative here.

I wanted to make a qualification and…perhaps…a defense…of what he lambastes as a “consumer model” of religion…especially since recently on my blog, I’ve been talking about the need to find one’s philosophical “fit” (and others have written about similar issues).

Part of me wants to summarize John’s main points. The other part (perhaps that militant atheist one) wants me to tell you all to not be lazy and read that BCC post (the first link — it’s good) [partially because I'll probably botch things up in a summary and partially because I will make this post too long if I summarize here.]I like his general framework. For some/many people, their belief is jump started by spiritual experience. I liken this to “faith,” and I, like John, think it is unchosen. We diverge, though, because I think this trait is something of an inclination — so I think it remains unchosen, but John supposes that the choice to ignore or rationalize an initial spiritual experience gives us the option to choose faith (or not) after the initial opportunity. I disagree, because I believe that faith is the inclination that reaches to the core of certain people — so the rationalization or rejection would not do much but create discomfort within a person from their denial (but, in the same way, someone with true doubt would be just as uncomfortable trying to believe when he doesn’t.)

So, continuing…the reason John has to set this apart is because he’s talking about a diarist who has beliefs that put him at odds with the church in several places. And, I guess some people questioned why the diarist would remain even though he noticeably had several ideological differences from the church. The answer seemed obvious to John and the diarist — he still had faith and religions just don’t work that way.

The answer seems obvious to me that if the guy does indeed have faith (which he does), then of course he should stay. Cool.

But John continues with an interesting analysis…he classifies a popular misunderstanding of religion as being something like shopping. You shop for things that fit you, things that you like. If a religion is inconvenient or potentially offensive, find a new one. And that, John says, is stupid. This consumer model of religion leads to people just validating their current beliefs and actions and not progressing.

Eee. So, here’s my beef. I place a premium on people discovering what resonates within themselves. I do believe in a consumer model of religion. But…I disagree in the way religions should be chosen and in the implications of this choice.

I think the criteria we all should use is not the nuts or bolts of particular religions necessarily…but rather a more holistic approach that takes into consideration our inclinations. It goes back to the idea of faith (or doubt) and of knowing yourself well enough to know what “fits.” The diarist should stay because he finds a fit between his faith and his positions. This doesn’t mean the church is for everyone, or that believing in a certain way is for everyone.

So, in this case, it appears that even with a consumer model of religion, you can have room for growth…but then again, I think that is the case everywhere. There are infinite possibilities for growth because what resonates with you — whether it is faith of some sort or a lack thereof — doesn’t automatically equate with where you currently are, so really, what we are doing is coming to grips with who we want to develop into and what our fits are. Even if you like the path you currently are on, you can still work to radically improve that position.

“What’s your point, Andrew S?” you may be asking. Meanwhile, I lost 37% of you when I said “ex-mormon atheist.” (And hopefully not more than that since then).

My point is…we need a sensible way to deal. When we confront personal challenges, which are the ones we should work through and stay with (to learn and grow), and which are ones we should avoid? It’s easy to say, “Everyone should be Mormon and should be Mormon in a very specific way,” and perhaps many truly believe that is the best policy, but I think we can each think of people who have suffer greatly because they are trying to believe in what they have heard is the “right way,” but in the process, they are running themselves into the ground by constantly denying their true feelings. However, as John noted, it may be just as easy for the other side to say, “Well, if you can’t believe everything, you should abandon everything,” but this is just as extreme and does not take into consideration that people may not want to abandon a faith they do have just because of rough spots.

So why do we keep up with it? Why do we persist?

For the past few weeks, I have been doing a lot of recruiting and networking events. I’m not even going to lie — even in such a poor economy, I’m living quite well as multiple accounting firms try to convince me to intern for their firm. So, included with that are all kinds of fringe benefits — plenty of events and activities and dinners and mixers and whatnot.

And I dunno…maybe it’s a Texas thing…but many times at these various events, they’ll only have two drinks available — tea and water. And even at one, they only had one drink available: tea. I don’t know what happened to the water.

So, I guess this is no big deal for everyone else and I’m putting a magnifying glass on something that is really quite trivial to everyone else, but occasionally, I have been asked why I won’t touch my glass.

I don’t drink tea.

Well, ok…but why not? This is Texas, after all! (I’ve had someone say that).

In many ways, it would be so easy to say, “Because of my religion.” But, I realize this is a copout answer (and not even a true copout answer for me, since I’m living on the dark side of the moon now). I mean, certainly people would understand if it was against your religion…but seriously, is that it?

Personally, I had tea once…it was disgusting. But that’s also a copout answer (because there are many things I have not tried [which coincidentally also fit in the word of wisdom], so I couldn’t necessarily use that excuse).

But it seems to me…and maybe this is dark-side-of-the-moon thinking…that we should be acting not because our religion restrains us (which is what the answer, “Because of my religion” so often sounds like), but because we personally are motivated not to do certain things and are motivated to do other things. I can say…I am not motivated to drink, so I do not. I’ve seen others succumb to the peer pressure, but maybe I’m a robot and immune to it. Whatever the case is, if I don’t want to do something, I’m not going to do it*. (Unfortunately for my bishop and parents, I suppose, this also applies to the church or parental requests.) *But perhaps the whole point of peer pressure is that group pressure can change your very wants.

So, what’s been more interesting of a question to me is…how do we want to do certain things, and learn to want to not do other things? It’s easy to realize that “we act because we are motivated to act in certain ways.” And it’s also easy to recognize that, with free will, we can choose to act against our natural motivations (although the jury is out on whether this is a net positive in all cases). But this just backs the question up one step, and now we have to wonder about what motivates us and how we can change these motivations.

My question is this…who should go to church and what should we expect of the people who go to church? Recently over at T&S (and I guess it’s spilled over in some comments in this latest article), there has been a tone that suggests that Cafeteria, Middle-of-the-way, or New Order Mormons are (or should be) a concern to the church. As Bookslinger comments,

I think the drift within the LDS church is also illustrated in the bloggernacle, not just those who’ve formally left the church, but also new order Mormons and middle-way Mormons. There are also those who claim to be solidly in the Mormon camp, but still attenuate some core beliefs. In addition to the cafeteria style “I’ll take a full serving of this, and some of this, but none of that,” people now seem to be nuancing, or adding shades of grey to, things that I had previously thought of as black-and-white, go-or-no-go.

Rather than admitting that one can’t or won’t comply with requirement “X” of the gospel (or of church policy), some people nuance away or diminish “X” as non-essential, or even as an incorrect element.

Rather than figuratively beating one’s breast and admitting a lack of faith/shortcoming/sin, the item is just dismissed or nuanced away.

Ouch. Somehow I feel as if he had some people in mind with some of these thoughts. Regardless, what it got me thinking about was…what should be the goal?

I’ve seen a lot of John Dehlin’s works about staying LDS, and regardless of whether this is still representative (I’m not totally sure, so I’m not sure if I’m completely misrepresenting his views), it seems to me that it distinctly disagrees with someone like Bookslinger’s view. Bookslinger’s comment seems to suggest (maybe it’s just my imagination) that there is an ideal belief system and all members should be striving to move to acceptance to that belief system. If they do not, they should understand clearly that they are not “nuanced” or in “gray areas,” but they are unorthordox, faithless, wrong, or sinful.

If that indeed is the position that Bookslinger (or anyone else) takes, then I suppose that’s not a bad position to take, if one will take it. However, the side effect that it produces is that it creates this incredible barrier to entry that can actually serve to push people on the margins (whether inside or outside the church) away.

This is contrasted, however, with those who would suggest that the number of “core beliefs” is more limited, so there is actually a wide range of flexibility in the church. People should not feel pressured to have to believe a certain way or leave, but instead should make the church work for them.

I see advantages and disadvantages to both. The hardline stance seems just a touch more appealing (because sometimes, you need to strong understanding of what is acceptable or what is not), but on the other hand, the hardline stance also makes it quite easy to look at it all and say no. The flexible stance makes staying in the church more appealing, but it may shy down on providing the tough love needed to provide transformational change.

If the goal is to have people go to church and keep going, then it seems like one might want to consider more flexibility. However, if the goal is to have a more committed community (even if that community is smaller), then perhaps one should worry about quality over quantity and stick with potentially unpopular, unyielding ideas.

I couldn't resist one of these

And while I ranted on my blog about how offensive I found various parts of one recently received email…I realized too that I found a strange comfort in realizing that it was just a generic Christian chain mail. This served to be one of the times when I was deeply thankful that we Mormons are a peculiar people — I realized that some of the ‘pop’ doctrines espoused in this email would be uncharacteristic for an LDS email. So, I wondered…what if we could deconstruct Christian chain mail and come up with LDS orthodox counterpoints?

So, the email, and some points to lead our discussion after the break!

A man from Norfolk , VA called a local radio station to share this on Sept 11th, 2003, TWO YEARS AFTER THE TRAGEDIES OF 9/11/2001. His name was Robert Matthews. These are his words:

A few weeks before Sept. 11th, my wife and I found out we were going to have our first child.. She planned a trip out to California to visit her sister.  On our way to the airport, we prayed that God would grant my wife a safe trip and be with her. Shortly after I said ‘amen,’ we both heard a loud pop and the car shook violently. We had blown out a tire. I replaced the tire as quickly as I could, but we still missed her flight. both very upset, we drove home..

I received a call from my father who was retired NYFD. He asked what my wife’s flight number was, but I explained that we missed the flight.

My father informed me that her flight was the one that crashed into the southern tower. I was too shocked to speak. My father also had more news for me; he was going to help. ‘This is not something I can’t just sit by for; I have to do something.’

I was concerned for his safety, of course, but more because he had never given his life to Christ. After a brief debate, I knew his mind was made up.  Before he got off of the phone, he said, ‘take good care of my grandchild.  Those were the last words I ever heard my father say; he died while helping in the rescue effort.

My joy that my prayer of safety for my wife had been answered quickly became anger. I was angry at God, at my father, and at  myself. I had gone for nearly two years blaming God for taking my father away. My son would never know his grandfather, my father had never accepted Christ, and I never got to say good-bye.

Then something happened. About two months ago, I was sitting at home with my wife and my son, when there was a knock on the  door. I looked at my wife, but I could tell she wasn’t expecting anyone. I opened the door to a couple with a small child.

The man looked at me and asked if my father’s name was Jake Matthews. I told him it was. He quickly grabbed my hand and said, ‘I never got the chance to meet your father, but it is an honor to meet his son.’

He explained to me that his wife had worked in the World Trade Center and had been caught inside after the attack. She was pregnant and had been caught under debris. He then explained that my father had been the one to find his wife and free her.  My eyes welled up with tears as I thought of my father giving his life for people like this. He then said, ‘there is something else you need to know.’

His wife then told me that as my father worked to free her, she talked to him and led him to Christ. I began sobbing at the news.

Now I know that when I get to Heaven, my father will be standing beside Jesus to welcome me, and that this family would be able to thank him themselves .

…This story should help us to realize this: God is always in control.

We may not see the reason behind things, and we may never know this side of heaven, but God is ALWAYS in control.

Please take time to share this amazing story.  You may never know the impact it may have on someone.. God doesn’t call the qualified, He qualifies the called.

Give thanks to the Lord for He is good.  His love endures Forever.  Psalm 136:1
May God bless you, and your family,

So, some of my possible points of discussion:

• What would be official answers about the disturbing implications of predistination in such situations. How does free will play a role, and how would miracles or other intervening acts play out?
• How would LDS doctrines about baptisms by proxy and the nature of the afterlife play into our concerns about the mortal states of our relatives’ salvations?
• What does it mean that “God is in control” if it is a different interpretation than this email’s?
• The line: “God doesn’t call the qualified; God qualifies the called” — how does it mesh with LDS teachings about fore-ordination, or the process of ordination and setting apart?

I’m sure there are several writers on site who are busily searching through intellectual copyright law as I speak, so I must speak quickly before I get shut down (not to mention before the Bearded, Blue-Shirt-Wearing African Americans and Women who love Pr0n nab me for libel).

The other day, John C at BCC made another Monday Morning Theological Poll and asked: “True or False: If someone wishes to leave the church, it is because they have some grave, unconfessed sin?”

…I don’t know how representative BCC is of Mormondom as a whole, but if we can but abuse statistics for this one time, we can come to the conclusion that, overwhelmingly, Mormons do not believe such a claim. Just looking at the stats, more Mormons percentage-wise say “no” to such a claim than Facebookers hate the new Facebook design (drat, that’s a lie: Facebook’s current 93% hate [with millions of votes] tops the 91% of BCCers that say false. But if Obama’s 53% of the popular vote can be a landslide and Prop 8’s 52% can just be a “narrow victory,” then I’m game for anything statistic-wise.) I’ll add Obama supporters to the list of people coming after me.

Anyway, this post isn’t about that. That has nothing to do with B, B-S-W A-As (in particular, didn’t Obama say he can’t even grow a good beard?). or those W-w-l-P. In fact, what piqued my attention was a comment further down the page:

Actually, it has been conclusively shown that people who leave the Church are those who believe that people leave the Church because they have some grave, unconfessed sin.

I was thinking about this…and I realized I had to approach it delicately.

I guess I’m not going to speak so much about depression so much, because while I speak in jest, I don’t mean to jest about people who suffer from this condition. But I know as well that there are those who seem to attract this kind of…I dunno…sour attitude about things. Oh, the Church can’t do this right. And the church can’t do that right. How dare the Church support this but say little about that?

I’m sure that all of these things are of the utmost importance and people have to stick by their principles, but could it be that sometimes, people just take things too seriously? I mean, in the end, people need to decide if they will take something or if they will not, and if they will not, they need to start the process of trying to move past and move away.

I mean, if you’re going to be bearded and blue-shirt-wearing, for example, recognize that you’ll face some flak. If that’s too much for you, say bye (because really, if you don’t want, you don’t have to take it), but be secure in your decision. But don’t think you’ll be off the hook. You will face stigma no matter where you go or what you do, so you might as well pick something that you are comfortable with and then go forward with that.

See, while I was already interested in the paper because he tried to analyze the Ex-Mormon exit narrative (I’m just a sucker for that…even if someone gets it wrong [it happens more often than I'd care to admit], but fortunately Seth had a reasonable analysis, I think) what I didn’t expect was in this shift that Seth took. Rather than speaking about how flawed and petty and prideful Ex-Mormons must be or whatever, he notes:

…the narratives themselves seem to be driven by an estrangement process both doctrinal and social. I believe that we, as liberal and intellectual Mormons are partially to blame for perpetuating these feelings of estrangement.

I discussed this a bit on my blog, but I wanted to discuss this again because I hadn’t really quite seen something like it. He continues:

For too long we have been marginal to Mormon culture and have conceived of ourselves as “the other.” In many cases, we have defined ourselves by what we are not and by what we do not believe, rather than as what we are and by what truths we have found. Rather than positively affirm our faith, we have often sought identity through the discovery and adoption of heterodox views. The irony of course, is that the whole notion of orthodoxy is anathema to Mormonism. There is no orthodoxy, but merely the perception thereof.

Regardless of any particular truth claim or its so-called validity, there is one observable and tangible, yet amazingly silent reality. In our midst there are those who struggle and suffer with their faith. There are those who feel alone and isolated and whose world-views are shattering regardless of how much they fast, pray, hold family home evening, or read the Book of Mormon. These saints often feel as if they are alone.

At first glance, Mormonism may give off the appearance of a homogeny of culture and belief, yet, there is a strong undercurrent of lively discussion, debate, belief, and conversation involving a wide-range of Latter-day Saints who may or may not accept all of modern Mormonism’s unique truth claims. I believe that we, who are engaged in this conversation are called to make our faith manifest to kindred spirits – to validate their struggle, to share our experiences, our doubts, and our love. Recently, one first-time attendee of Sunstone West commented on his blog: “Sunstone attendees treated me exactly the way we hope and ask ward members to treat all newcomers.” Let us extend that experience beyond the walls of this symposium. Let us, in our unique and individual way, seek out those who need and want to hear our perspective and our testimony

And then, as opening to his conclusion:

In conclusion, may I suggest that those of us who consider ourselves Mormon liberals or intellectuals come “out of the shadows”, as it were, and assume a pastoral role for those who may become ex-Mormon. By existing and behaving as a sub-culture, rather than as an integral part of the larger Mormon tapestry of experience, we contribute to the myth of Mormon orthodoxy. By this I mean that every Latter-day Saint struggles with their faith, prefers some doctrines over others, and ultimately forms a unique world-view informed, but not strictly defined by LDS theology. Certainly, some of our brothers and sisters will find that they are more comfortable outside the Church. We will miss them. However, many who struggle are seeking a reason to stay; to retain their heritage and develop a faith which is informed by their Mormon roots.

I was reminded by another post or comment somewhere on the bloggernacle: I don’t know if it was here or BCC or wherever else, but someone was lamenting on this unfortunate trend that they saw. They might see one lone black family in their ward, but after a while, the family would leave, feeling they were alone and misunderstood. Soon, there might be another black family in the ward, but since the first had left, they too might feel they were alone in their experience and leave. And the cycle would continue.

I don’t know how many members who would consider themselves “liberal” go here, but from what I’ve seen, I wouldn’t think that MM is opposed to this message of coming out. And while I’m not saying that it would convert me to the gospel or anything, I would say that if church were more like MM or Sunstone, that would be a lot more comfortable to many members.

So, are we all out of the closet? Two separate causes, but the analogy, I think, is apt.

What even works? What doesn’t work?

As my coach relates this story, she points out the reasoning of fencing moms: if their kid is doing well, it’s because their kid is the greatest thing ever in the world and will become an Olympic fencer. If their kid isn’t doing well, it’s because the coach is terrible and the kid needs to go to a better club. It couldn’t be the case that the fencer is doing poorly because he won’t follow instructions, practice often, keep his arm up, extend first, etc., Nope, it must be the coach.

This is just a specific case of a phenomenon where people take ownership of things that are good and abdicate things that are bad. It is the basis of the self-serving bias.

In the church, things can get a little bit different…sometimes, both good things and bad things are abdicated — after all, it was a “blessing of the Lord,” or it might have just been a “trial.”

But we also learn about our role in the process, especially with agency and free will. So, we point out that faith without works is dead…Some like to say we are saved ‘after all we can do’ (but, what we can do is not that much, since we are rather imperfect). We point out that those who are unrighteous (as an exercise of will) face negative consequences.

I’ve never liked this dichotomy. What is the bottom line? Are we free or are we buffeted by outside forces? How are we supposed to live under two conflicting ideals? A poem by Maya Angelou highlighting grace above action (and in a way giving some sense of disdain, I think, to action) annoyed me and I wrote about it on my blog a while back.

I don’t necessarily think that people are responsible for everything that comes their way. But I don’t think that in the vast majority of cases, we can just attribute things to the mysteries of the spirit or of the adversary. We can admit that we don’t know and what we think, but it seems to easy to fall into a trap of surety about things. It seems too much of a cop-out to say, “Well, I’m not perfect, but I have faith, so everything will be well” which is the vibe I get from the Angelou poem (even though I know that’s misrepresenting what Ms. Angelou was going for.)

…but how does that relate to the church? After all, that generally is a position not taken by LDS people, who recognize accountability and works in the interplay of faith.

Well, there are still some areas where members of the church will push off responsibility, so to speak. In the depression topic earlier here at MM, people were discussing what might be at play. And one comment by Jen set off my dark-side-of-the-moon alarm.

What about LDS people being targeted in a more “front line” approach by the adversary and his followers? Could this be a possibility? Is it possible that those who are striving to live in a “righteous” manner are also targeted more because of the light and knowledge they have?

This kind of thought rubs me the wrong way because it shifts everything away from things we might possibly work at fixing to something that is uncontrolled and uncontrollable. For example, Jen’s original comment might be applied to depression rates in Utah or porn consumption in Utah (both ideas were flying around)…so with both of these issues, it’s easy to think of *material, physical* variables that could be tested. It might not be the case, but we could test for stressful lifestyles…we could test for availability of “social medication” or of whatever factors. We might be way off in our hypothesizing, but at least with tangible variables, we can test things. Even if it’s genetic (something that appears to be something we can’t change), we can still *see* genes and theoretically come to a point where we can change those.

But with the adversary and his temptation, it’s like we give up. If we accept a real adversary that tempts people, then this is a constant of the universe. It’s not something we can work at eliminating (like we could for other factors). It’s not something we can work on improving on, because by default, as we get more “righteous,” the belief is that he works harder to stop us. So what can we do? Apparently, nothing that will be effective.

So, regardless of whether or not the adversary is out to get to us, it seems to me that this is not the place we should be going to for blame. It certainly could be that that little kid has an incapable coach and he needs to go to a different club, but he (and his satellite fencing mom) should look at his own practice and dedication first. He should look at tangible factors around him before attributing to the uncontrolled and uncontrollable.

…But then again, the opposite end (of attributing everything to our actions) gets kinda depressing too. (Your depression is your unrighteousness.)

I was reading a comment in another article here, and what Doug had said intrigued me:

This board started out as a place for middle-way thinking people to discuss problematic issues with doctrine and history. It would now appear that anyone with an opinion different then the “current LDS view” is attacked as I and many others have been. On several other discussion boards, mormon matters is considered a pro LDS blog. Gentlemen, just say the word and I’ll find another place to try and help those who don’t see the church the way you do understand that they’re not alone. I guess it’s true; there is in reality no room for a NOM in the church.

I don’t know if I have ever thought of MM as anything other than a pro-LDS blog. But I *have* always recognized that this site is of a different caliber, of course, than M* or T&S and others. So I guess, I’ll try to shake things up and offer a different perspective and hope that I don’t get chased out on a rail.The other day, out of all people, *I* had a missionary experience. I’ve written about it on my blog, but here’s the executive summary: over the course of conversation, I revealed to someone that I was raised Mormon. Over more conversation, I revealed further that I’m not a believing Mormon (and with that, I’ve probably lost half my MM readership right there, if Doug’s comment is to be believed) and so they shouldn’t expect me to have the most faith-promoting answers.

However, despite that, I still was the go-to guy for tough Mormon questions. Questions such as, “Isn’t this the church where blacks can’t go to heaven?” (these guys have learned well from the Huckabee school of interrogation) or “Are women banned from celestial glory because they do not have the priesthood?”

It was at this time, of course, that I realized that I was, in ways, a representative of the church (despite my pointing out that I’m not the faithful go-to guy). And so I realized that I had to take a delicate path.

I guess that for faithful members, there are standard, correlated answers for these questions. So it’s easy enough to answer that the policy was that blacks could not get the priesthood, but now with new revelation, blacks do have the priesthood and things are resolved. It’s then easy enough to segue that into an explanation of different levels of heaven (exaltation? how’s that different from salvation? Celestial Kingdom? Priesthood ordinances?) And then jete to the restoration of the gospel and isn’t that nice and won’t you come? I bet within a week you can get the missionaries a referral if you’re good enough.

But…if you haven’t realized it…for ex-Mormons, former Mormons (who I guess form the “dark side” in many members’ minds), liberal Mormons, New Order Mormons, and anyone similar, the standard correlated answers don’t work. They make us feel uneasy or deceptive. And that’s in part how we get to our position — by distancing ourselves from the church, we detach from stinging correlated answers. So, we can relate the Joseph Smith story, but we don’t necessarily feel obligated to believe the correlated telling. Or do the same for whatever issue.

Now, I will say that there are some who will go far with this — there are those who will leave the church bitter, angry, and anti. But I would suppose that most ex- and former Mormons don’t want to appear like antis. Anti-Mormons sometimes embarrass me. I’d like to think that people can look at reasonably truthful, accurate information, and then decide based on that (there’s enough gray to allow people to go either way without bringing up inaccuracies, falsehoods, sickly sweet faith-promoting stories and sickly venomous faith-destroying ones.)

But I am still put in this strange position…where I become the liaison for the church and for the LDS doctrine. And then I realize that because I am viewed as a somewhat reputable source despite my warnings otherwise, even as an exmember, I still am a missionary of sorts.

This post sounds kinda spastic because this is the third time I’ve written about it (the second time was to get perspectives from the other Dark Side of the Mooners) …but I wanted to ask people from a faithful perspective…what would you expect from ex- and former Mormons? What would you hope that they would say in response to questions about the gospel? Would it impress you to see an ex-Mormon dispelling blatant untruths from anti-Mormons? Would that all be dashed to bits if they followed up their trouncing of inaccuracies with unflattering church history or doctrine?

I mean, sure, we’ve already heard from reliable sources that Mormons like professions, but what is the deal?

What Mormons Like often spins off aspects of note in Mormon culture in a lighthearted way, but the scary thing is that I usually understand where the guy is coming from — for the vast majority of his posts, when I read them, I think, “I can definitely see that.”

And so, as he notes that Dentistry seems to be the true calling of Mormons, I can’t help but agree. My home ward is a military ward, and generally, we can count on having four or five dentists moving in or moving out at any time of the year (and I guess that’s not even counting the permanent dentists and the dentists in the other ward in the area).

Really, I can only ask, what is the deal?

I guess it probably isn’t just the easy access to medicine. But it does seem spot on that the careers that seem to be popular in the church 1) have big bucks (or big buck potential, 2) a useful skill, and 3) some entrepreneurialism. I can understand that dentistry is a useful skill…but still. Really?

The source of power?

Could it be that LDS culture has such a premium on that standardized cleancut missionary look (complete with perfect smile) that makes dentistry seem more appealing? It seems kinda silly to conjecture on that alone.

I guess the question really should be to ask if this isn’t just my imagination. In your anecdotal evidence, do there seem to be a disproportionate number of dentists? What are other careers that seem to stick out in your mind? Are there any official statistics about popular jobs for church members?

If you are a dentist and LDS, can you say that the church had anything to do with it? Why dentistry? This isn’t necessarily 20 questions, but it certainly appears to be an odd social phenomenon.

The church has had a lot to say about sex and sexuality. It’s been on a winding path, but over time it has developed a rather comprehensive universe-view to back its positions. I like to think, even if some people vehemently disagree with the church position, or think that the church has become bland on certain doctrinal points in relationship to its past, LDS doctrines concerning the family have been consistently unique, fresh, and vitalic (even though that’s not a word, no other word sounds right to me…so hush up!)

Even when we see the church seeming to move with other groups on matters of sex and sexuality (for example, that most controversial proposition 8 issue), what becomes clear in one way or another is that many of the church reasons will be rather unique. It’s not as if most (if any) other groups who supported prop 8 had a proclamation on the family, theology on the eternal nature of true gender or of the unique role that marriage and the family play in the eternities. Some of the prop 8 allies might not even acknowledge that gender or marriage even exist in the hereafter. Oh well; politics makes strange bedfellows (and that sells nearly as well as sex, if the post-proposition fallout has been any indication).

Prop 8 obviously was a controversial issue, so this is not where this post lies. But I think it shows, to an extent, that sex and sexuality are particularly serious business for the LDS church. I’ve had some non-member friends call the church a “sex cult,” and although I’d disagree with them strongly on many accounts concerning those words (cult? sex? sex cult?! no matter how you spin those words it just doesn’t sound like the well-meaning, wholesome [or at least wholesome-seeking] group *I* grew up in), I can at least rephrase these misunderstanding and negative words to suggest that the church, which understandably has vested interests in the family, cares about what can strengthen or weaken the family and its umbrella’d functions (which includes, yes, procreation and sex).

It seems that, whether doctrinal or cultural, in this viewpoint, we’ve gotten the idea that some people “should” be celibate in this life. We (used generally) might say, “Well, it is unfortunate that people with same-sex attraction [for example] are that way, and we don’t necessarily know why it is, because science is still out on that, and we don’t necessarily condone them just getting married to a woman to “fix” it, and it might be that they don’t “fix” it in this life…but for now, we’ll just have to ask them to hold on for this short, short life without engaging in those attractions.”

And some people object: “Isn’t that horrible?!”

But we’ve got answers. “Well, it’s unfortunate, but there are those of other circumstances who will face a burden of celibacy in this life too. That’s just the way things are.” or “Well, everyone has their thorn to deal with. Some people are predisposed to alcohol, but they have to abstain too.” And we’ve got complex issues (although I suppose these aren’t set in stone) for why this is one issue that cannot change and that cannot be abided.

And so on. No need to “judge,” but I really just wanted to pose a few questions:

• Do you think lifelong celibacy is what some people (not just any groups I may have alluded to; think broadly) “should” do to keep with the gospel?
• What do you think the role of sex in a relationship is? Is it “essential” for a “good” relationship?
• What would you think of a committed, unwed opposite-sex couple who were celibate (by mutual choice) for life?
• What would you think of a committed, unwed same-sex couple who were celibate (by mutual choice) for life?
• What would you think of a committed, married couple who were celibate (by mutual choice) for life?
• (Touchy question from a silly immature no-life-having blogger; don’t need to answer publicly): If somehow, you were pressured to be celibate for an extensive period of time by outside forces (ex: your significant other wasn’t attuned to your desires; society or the church frowned upon your sexual activity, etc.,), would you “give up” the prospect of sex?

I hope this isn’t too risque for MM. If it is, I’ll just have to get a disguise and go to FMH or something.

Miller is a member of the church. He magnifies all of his callings, does all of the so-called “standard primary answers” (reads the scriptures, prays, attends his meetings, fasts, etc.,) He is seen around his ward as a beacon for what youth should be doing. Sure, he might have a few rough edges; no one’s perfect and certainly not Miller. But it might seem, to the unseeing eye, that Miller is generally on the “right track.”

Miller has a problem, though. He’s utterly miserable. Throughout all of his searching and reading and fasting and praying, he’s learned the scriptures up and down and can preach them to anyone, but they haven’t pierced — for whatever reason — to one person that also matters: himself. He is perpetually unhappy, but he endures to the end. He has faith that one day, even if it’s the day of a death that he has driven himself to, his desire to believe and his endurance will be well recognized. The emptiness and darkness in his life that he has manually filled at the pain of his being with righteousness and the tiny bit of faith he can muster…he hopes that that emptiness will be permanently filled.

The members of his ward who know his struggle, people like his Bishop and his Stake President, commend him for his tremendous struggle, but also commend him for his impressive resolve and obedience — which selflessly ignores all the cries within to give up to do what he can intellectually assent is correct. In truth, they are somewhat baffled that someone who has had such experiences can at the same time be so spiritually unfulfilled.

Del Kante is also a member of the church. Del Kante is a strong believer; his life has been touched through many spiritual experiences; he can say he knows the church is true, that Jesus is the Christ, that the Prophet speaks to God and that the revelations he receives are genuine. Unofficially, he is inspirational at preaching the gospel, because he can speak from the heart. Those who hear his words can feel some of the spirit too.

Del Kante has a problem, though.

While he does speak to others about the glories of God and the good that the church has done for him and shares the gospel with others, he does so in an unofficial capacity because he has severe worthiness issues that prevent him from meeting the standards for missionwork. Beyond severe sexual indiscretions, which are enough on their own, he is furthermore unrepentant. He’s enjoying his life way too much, Lord and all, to come to repentance. He has been disciplined several times and perhaps might come the big one.

Those in his ward who know his struggle, people like his Bishop and his Stake President, have called him to repent of his tremendous struggles, to commend him for his experiences of Christ and the Gospel but to call on him to act upon what should be a true conversion — to reconcile his spiritual experiences with actual changes in his lifestyle to magnify and uplift those spiritual experiences. In truth, they are someone baffled that someone who has had such experiences can at the same time not be humbled to repent.

OK, so here’s the fun part. I guess you don’t have to call it “judging” if you don’t want to think of it like that, but…

• What should Miller and Del Kante do? What might you suggest?
• How should each go about doing what need be done?
• Can you think of anyone like these individuals (obviously, these are caricatures, so de-exaggerate as necessary)?
• What do you find most tragic about Miller’s case and Del Kante’s case?

Now, I’m not going to be the one to say that the church and its members members shouldn’t be criticized for obedience, because hey, I’m definitely not the little advocate that could. But, I’d like to think I can see clearly enough (even if I may be looking through a glass, darkly [every time I try to refer to that scripture I nearly write "A Scanner Darkly" -- a movie (novel) I have actually never seen (read) and don't even know what it's about...but oh well]) to recognize that a considerable amount of people value obedience, and that it seems to work and provide benefit for many. It’s not something that can be rationalized away as merely “brainwashing” or whatever else people might use.

Hawkgrrrl had brought out big guns like the Power-Distance Index, and while that seems intriguing enough to me, one thing I had been writing about on my blog is Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory.

I think this meshes quite well with the PDI that Hawkgrrrl spoke of…after all, the “cultural expectation of respect for hierarchy” matches very well with Haidt’s own idea about respect/authority being a foundation of morality. Haidt proposes (and of course, his work is still in progress) that whereas liberal thinkers might emphasis 2-foundation moralities centered on care/harm and fairness/reciprocity (see: Hawkgrrrl’s description of low-PDI individuals or nations), conservative and religious thinkers emphasize three more foundations as well: respect/authority, ingroup/loyalty, and purity/sanctity. (This isn’t to say that ‘liberal’ or ’secular’ thinkers don’t value these things…as you can still see liberal or secular “ingroups”…or reworked senses of purity and sanctity based instead on health diet or environmentalism.)

So if this kind of theory is on the right track (and several are suggesting that it might be incomplete), then it would explain why, for example, faithful groups and secular groups, liberal and conservative, traditional and revolutionary, etc., don’t get along. Their emphasized moral foundations are at odds with each other. Even worse, why one group so often can’t possibly imagine seeing the other eye to eye. If one evaluates situations in terms of care and fairness, then some actions that emphasize loyalty to authority at the expense of these things are not going to be justifiable.

I guess I probably skimped out on the explanation and detailing of Haidt’s actual theory and what each foundation entails (but then again, I’ve broken this down twice before now and am lazy…) The bold question is…could you see this being the case? Can such a time-tested difference in personalities, nearly automatic emotional analyses, and personal moralities really be on the verge of being broken down into emphases on different values (with partial blindness to the other values?)

And if such a scenario were true, then what would that say about the church’s efforts? Should the church go full speed ahead with emphasis (whether scriptural or merely cultural exaggeration) on obedience, “fitting with” the ingroup, being pure and staying strong with traditional values (even when these things might sometimes come into conflict with other values and alienate some members and nonmembers)…after all, perhaps it could be that these parts of the church are worth keeping no matter if some people are turned off by it. Or should the church consider emphasizing different ways to believe as being more legitimate so as to draw more in? For truly, there are so-called liberal religions — they just downplay certain parts and reemphasize other parts to make the same books and doctrines that the conservatives use appeal to different crowds. And in fact, the church itself has enough scripture and doctrine in its own repertoire that, if it wanted, it could appeal to both sides.

Missions just never seemed for me. At first I was apathetic to the concept, and then I was doubtful. Then, I became opposed to the concept. Why should I derail my life? (The answer of: “Because it’s what the Lord wants you to do” or “Because righteous people should want to be obedient” fell flat against me.) What good could a mission really do for me? Why should I try to convince people who already have religions and ways of life that they are wrong?

As someone who grew up in the church, I’ve never been able to understand converts’ perspective. I’ve never been able to understand how someone can listen to two clean-cut 19-year-olds and go from there to testimony. I’ve just never had to do it (but when I’ve seen the missionaries at work, or I’ve heard the lessons, it’s been wholly unconvincing. So much for feeling the spirit.)

Eventually, I started seeing some people go on missions. People who I knew weren’t really the most worthy people (not that I’m judging). I didn’t pay too much attention to it…I assumed they had cleaned up whatever their indiscretions were. So when these people started coming back much more mature, I was amazed. They had clearly been transformed on their missions and now they were back wiser. (I guess I’ve had the luck of never seeing a missionary faith disaster case.) I began to respect the missionary ideal…even if I was not quite sure if it was for me.

I remember…it was around Easter a few years ago…it had to be before Easter, because I remember Easter was the day of my epiphany. Anyway, some time before Easter a few years ago, my father had been my young men’s adviser, and I remember asking him about how people get testimonies. I remember arguing something to the effect that I couldn’t have a testimony being raised in such comfort. I’d need to be subjected to all of the worst things in the world and then be forcibly humbled. It was pretty deep, I thought. My father didn’t agree. He said something about how Christ suffered for us so that we didn’t necessarily have to suffer all that stuff if we’d follow by faith. Why stick your finger into an electrical socket when you can just accept by faith that it’s not a good idea? Sure, the former will give you a physical experience that you won’t soon forget…but it could destroy you first.

Still, I thought I needed some thing that would shake my foundation so hard that it forced me to need Christ.

Then came Easter. I don’t think there was anything in any particular lessons about it (so I guess this is the point where I’m supposed to say the Lord has great sense of timing for personal revelation — yeah, right), but I came to realize that all a mission was is a controlled way for people to reach the humble rock bottoms of their lives.

I apologize if this is a naive and warped view of a missionary experience.

When I read about missionary experiences, they don’t sound particularly enjoyable. Or rather, the enjoyable ones are rare. But it seems that most missionaries either don’t focus on the unenjoyable aspects, or when they do, they miss the point. However, I was looking for a fiery field to walk in, and a white (hot) field was ready to harvest.

Back then, I thought that even though I’d hate the experience and I’d hate myself for it, in the end, I’d have a thicker testimony. So, it was with that that I had that kind of LDS-ism…if you can only desire to believe, after all…

So, I have a period of time in my journal where I tell myself that I must tell the Bishop, my father, etc., to make me go on a mission no matter what. That I cannot be allowed to back out of this.

…As you can see, I haven’t gone on my mission, and even though I have a few years, I don’t see it in my future. In the end, I have to accept that even though I recognize such an experience would change me, I would hate such a change. Perhaps it’s pride or whatever, but I don’t want to come to look at my life as something I despise. Yet that’s what I feel the mission experience, and a full-out commitment to the church would bring.

I look at so many people who have ended up wrecking themselves because of some church expectation or requirement…twisting themselves in emotional or financial or spiritual knots…and for what?