Can you solve this?

A few years ago I wondered what it means to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I wondered: is it ok if my testimony dwells down to, “I really don’t believe in all of this spiritual stuff, but from an organizational perspective, I believe that the church is great at moving and shaking…and it has moved and shaken me to be a better person”?

I concluded that was not ok. A religion isn’t just a collection of practical life advice and a church isn’t just the hub to receive and practice such advice. It is a community of faith, belief, and hope. (And when one is differently directed in the latter aspects, the organizational stuff will often wreak havoc as well.)

I realized that if I didn’t have those latter things (I don’t), then it wouldn’t make sense to do certain other things (e.g., keep pretending to have these things in order to “progress” in the priesthood, go on a mission, speak out publicly on behalf of the church, or, perhaps, even go to church.)

…Yet, I guess you’d call me one of those guys who leaves the church but can’t leave it alone.

You see, there are several unsolved puzzles that I feel I just can’t drop.

I can’t drop that the vast majority of the human race has no idea about what I’m talking, and that I have no idea about what the vast majority of the human race is talking. I can’t ignore that there is a deep difference between most of you and me.

For me, speaking about God is an academic thing. It is like analyzing a piece of fiction. Sometimes, I’m bored with the novel. I don’t get the poetry. Sometimes, it’s kinda neat and inspiring, and I like the special effects from the movie or the play.

But at the end of the day, it feels like we are talking about an artificiality distinct and separate from reality. That’s how it feels like to me.

Praying is even worse. It’s like when you send an email to a bad address, but unlike email, I don’t get a bounceback email. So I have to wonder if there was a destination, if it even reached, if the return mail is coming back, if there is any return mail. It’s not a totally productive use of time.

But…that’s not how it feels like to most other people, is it? For most other people, the reason they talk about God (even if they differ on who or what God is, what is his [or her {or its}] number, gender, or personality) is because God is real to them. In fact, God is more real than the physical world you and I live and breathe and move in. It may not be as extreme as that, but somehow, I don’t believe most people are “playing” religion.

And I don’t get that. Not even in the slightest.

I know some atheists wave this off and wave this away, but whether out of charity and respect or out of sheer necessity, I cannot. This doesn’t mean I believe in these stories and experiences any more, but that this is one puzzle that is wanting of a solution.

In a way, the reason I am involved in the Mormon community (in the tenuous, will-not-save-me I’m-cheating-myself-by-using-it-as-a-ward-substitute online bloggernacle way) is because Mormonism continues to be so unfamiliar to me, even though it is really familiar to me.

The forty-sixth section of the Doctrine and Covenants (let us call it The People) elaborates a lot about spiritual gifts. Most times, people only mention a couple:

11 For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.

12 To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby.

13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

I think it is helpful to point out that certain things like belief itself may be gifts, instead of things that we can secure for ourselves or just “choose” to have if we just try harder. But these aren’t the only gifts possible, and the two gifts discussed in verses 13 and 14 are not a binary (i.e., if you don’t have knowledge, then it isn’t necessarily true that you will be able to believe on the words of others).

So what about those for whom it all just doesn’t make sense, doesn’t appeal, doesn’t seem real? Might we not also have eternal life…or is it all predicated on continuing faithfully? And then, what is continuing faithful? Is it going to church, even if one answers all the questions about belief in the negative, following commandments with which one may or may not agree, being alienated and alone, or perhaps even being excommunicated but still with stellar activity?

The earlier part of the section addresses a little on how church services and meetings should be held. This also has something interesting.

5 And again I say unto you, ye shall not cast any out of your sacrament meetings who are earnestly seeking the kingdom—I speak this concerning those who are not of the church.

6 And again I say unto you, concerning your confirmation meetings, that if there be any that are not of the church, that are earnestly seeking after the kingdom, ye shall not cast them out.

Again, what does it mean to earnestly seek the kingdom?

I have no idea, but I need to get back to this puzzle I’ve been working on…

To take a line from Shakespeare — a pox upon both your houses. The Ex-Mos and TBMs continue to argue past each other and never the twain shall meet. While the thought of a kind, loving heavenly being comforts and then closes the ears of the believer, the list of inconsistencies, logical disconnects and “anti-Mormon” cliches assuages and then closes the ears of the non-believer.

Unless you frame your debate, it will continue to be unproductive, each side creating their own echo chamber of reinforcement until the cacophony makes it impossible for anyone to hear what is going on.

Here is where I would propose to take the discussion: How do you reconcile the conflicts? To quote this guy I once read, “By proving contraries, truth is made manifest.” Bonus points if you can tell me who said that. The discussion then moves from cliche and rote response to a value and factual discussion in an attempt to find common ground.

For example: Blacks and the priesthood. The Word of God is for all of God’s children. You are punished for your own sins, not Adam’s transgressions (or Cain’s.) Racism is a rampant cultural and historical phenomenon which prompted violent conflict between those who thought racism violated God’s law and those who believed their race was chosen by God to rule over the lesser beings (both sides used religion as the basis for their beliefs — one of those contraries Joseph was talking about.).

The argument came to a head in the spring of 1820 (bonus points if you know what else happened in the spring of 1820) in the United States with a Missouri Compromise. The Compromise held the Union together for about forty more years until war broke out, but the entire time temperatures were broiling on the race issue in the United States. Northern (upper state New York) abolitionist leaning religions moving south into Missouri and southern Illinois were not well received.

Not surprising that depending on your viewpoint the ban on blacks holding the priesthood came from:
a) false doctrine;
b) the human capacity for self-deception while striving for self-preservation;
c) individual racism of some church leaders;
d) conforming to the current societal norms; or
e) some other reason arising out of the factual scenario.

The anti- and the pro- both believe that the whole racism thing was a bad idea, they just get there different ways. Conflict resolved, sort of.

So who is right? How should we define, the capital T, “Truth”? I’m going to come clean right now — I’m in the Joseph Smith camp on this one, at least for how to determine Truth. The reason I’m in the Joseph Smith camp is that he is also in the historical philosophical tradition of the American Enlightenment and the scientific method and he made one of the first attempts to apply that philosophy to religious thought. Joseph Smith also had a strong sense of American individualism — study it out and figure it out for yourself. How he succeeded can be argued, but I love the empirical, scientific approach to religion. (To avoid numerous digressions into atheism, geology, cosmology and science, I’m only talking in this post about applying an empirical, scientific approach to internal subjective experience.)

The scientific method gives us a mechanism for creating hierarchal judgments on different hypotheses — the hypothesis that is the most consistent with all the data is the most correct, the most true hypothesis.

Another way of saying this is Truth is inclusive. If you draw lines that exclude, you don’t have the Truth, you’ve left something out.

Joseph Smith believed this and it shows in his theology, for example eternal progression and baptism for the dead. He wanted everything included and this is a huge comfort point for believers. It leads to a Mormon mother’s common belief that a non-believing child can eventually end up in the temple and end up included, despite the past. What a comfort that must be to her, based on her own world view.

So I am looking at TBM’s hypothesis which says “my view is right because it is more inclusive, God’s plan provides eternal salvation for all mankind, even Ex-Mos.”

The conflicting Ex-Mo hypothesis is “my view is right because the reality and data coming out of the religion is that the religion does exactly the opposite of include all mankind, it excludes everyone except the elect.”

So there are the two contraries, how do we manifest Truth. In the spirit of Johnathan Swift, let me make a modest proposal: Eat the children to stop the famine (sorry literary joke that I couldn’t resist).

Seriously, the TBM’s hypothesis fails because despite the efforts of the Church at inclusion theologically, the reality is countless people feel excluded and some are even forced to be excluded by a process known as excommunication. Just makes the whole “one heart, one mind” thing seem a little narrow and false.

The counter hypothesis and its proponents equally fail because it fails to include the large group who devoutly believes. This makes it equally weak and equally vulnerable to attack by those believers.

My proposed hypothesis, neither of you are correct. I’ve studied it out. Thought about it. Prayed about it. I came up with the answer that neither of you were true. (Told you I was in the Joseph Smith camp).

In the past, the sheer foreignness of these admonitions has been like a Langford basilisk to me — I can’t help but take the words in, but my mind, uncomprehending, does not deal with them. Part of this mental incomprehensibility is the voluntaristic nature of beliefs that it presents. I understand that many people think differently, but I do not imagine consciously choosing to believe or to doubt something. Rather, my beliefs and doubts seem to me the unconscious conclusions of evaluation of the data I perceive.

So, in the past, I didn’t think about what such a phrase could mean, and when I did, I concluded that the phrase was just a cheap attack.

But like the idea of Langford’s basilisk, my mind only required time and a somewhat more comprehensive, yet similar concept to recall the uncomprehended and incomprehensible and crash.

I have often thought about what it  means to “leave the church, but not leave it alone.” This is another phrase frequently flung at the faithless flock, but immediately easier to grasp. I can understand why a member would want someone who disbelieves, disagrees, and disaffiliates to disengage, disassociate, and desist (although I believe this may not capture why the person “does not leave the church alone” in the first place.) I have read other members’ dealings with “full-time” anti-Mormons (the twitter-engaged ones, at least), and I have myself dealt with accusations of being an anti-Mormon. And I have grappled with the idea of engaging with Mormonism, of loving Mormonism despite not believing and not engaging with a physical community. What can such a thing even mean?

I have at times been discouraged to write here at Mormon Matters, because sometimes I feel it could damage the site’s reputation among our brethren in the Bloggernacle. Is Mormonism a big tent or not?

In my quiet considerations, others have been quite charitable. They have expressed how I’m always welcome…how a break is a natural or a good thing. Some have gone so far to say that separating, that moving on completely, is a natural or a good thing.

And here I have come to doubt, and to doubt my doubts.

I feel like the comments from the others are an inception. An inception comes from another, but must be planted far enough in the subconscious so as to seem as if it comes from the self. And so, as others have suggested, “It’s ok to move away from Mormon blogging if you doubt your goals and purposes within both the blog and the Mormonism,” I have understood the savory sensibility of this simple statement, and I have adopted it as my own simple statement. But I have also doubted this doubt, and doubted this statement.

I have doubted my doubt that (blogging about) Mormonism can remain compelling or relevant to me.

A while back, I was reading an entry from a friend introducing his series into the Book of Mormon. He, like me, does not believe, but he stated:

I disagree with Elder Holland that the only available answer is that Joseph Smith translated an ancient American history by the power of god…But I do actually agree with Elder Holland on this point: Some critics are too quick to dismiss the Book of Mormon. And while the burden of proof rests primarily with its believers, I nonetheless think we owe the Book of Mormon more than just an indifferent shrug or rolled eyes. That’s why I’m writing this series—to grapple honestly with the Book of Mormon.

I had at the time challenged the idea that we owe more than just an indifferent shrug or rolled eyes. I’d probably still challenge the idea, because I believe that what we “owe” the Book of Mormon — or any text — is not some universal prescription inscribed in pristine marble, but is tied to our personal motivations. His prescription, I thought, reflected his motivations and desires to grapple honestly with the book.

With time, I have come to see blogging in a similar way. I know people who would say this is inferior to parking my posterior in a pew, or to diving into the doctrines of official scriptures. I know others who would say it doesn’t make sense to try to “grapple with” blogging once I’ve “burnt out.” Perhaps they are all right.

Nevertheless, I feel this, my sincere if substandard offering, is worth offering, if only for myself.

So, re-reading the Book of Mormon stayed on the to-do list for a while. But then the press became more persistent and insistent: “No, you REALLY need to re-read the Book of Mormon,” and the very persistence began to get through my blocks of rationalization. So I kept moving it up the to-do-list until it was high among the emergencies and the recurring tasks, and I began to read.

I had not gone cover-to-cover since I was in elementary school. I still have my first Book of Mormon given me as a baptism gift, and almost every verse in it is underlined: I didn’t know what went with what back then, and figured just about everything must be terribly important and interrelated. So I absorbed the story for a story important in my religion, and soaked up any theology unconsciously in the process. In the decades since, I used the Book of Mormon many times in preparing sermons; you preach a lot when you live in a denomination of mostly small congregations where priesthood is not the province of all worthy males. I taught many individual topics in classes or missionary efforts. I even had a few verbal jousts on my front steps with LDS missionaries before I learned that was fratricide that wasted everyone’s time. But the focus on the immediacy of my assigned tasks didn’t convey the global oversight of that first boyhood reading. In the later readings, I had the theology, both from the Book itself as well as from a deeper understanding of the other scriptural sources of Christian theology, but had lost track of the story as story.

From this perspective, as I began to read I began to understand overarching themes I’d missed before because they hadn’t been “on task”. Among them, I began in particular to see the books of 1^st Nephi through the Words of Mormon as sort of an “old” Old Testament concerned with the overwhelming question of the first generations of Nephites: “Is there still a place for us with God?”

After all, in 600 BC, Judea was the “church”. You didn’t think of personal salvation outside of the structure of your Jewish tribal identity, and keeping the covenant kept your identity guaranteed by the only true God. I mean, look what had happened to the Northern Kingdom. Just gone! Conceptually to the Jews then, it didn’t matter whether individuals in the 10 tribes had been obedient or disobedient, just or unjust. The Kingdom of Israel had been judged unworthy of God’s continued protection as a whole kingdom. The fate of the people as individuals simply was not a question that had any place in the mental landscape. What did God care about a just Assyrian or Egyptian compared to a Jew?

What does it do to your mental landscape, then, when God starts telling you that you are to leave your tribe, and you aren’t ever coming back? You are being further told that the tribe itself is about to be conquered and won’t be there if you do change your mind. You are amputating your culture, and you have little to replace it with, physically, mentally, emotionally, or spiritually. There is beyond the wilderness and the sea a “land of promise” to fill the physical hole, if you cling to your faith, but what replaces everything else?

Lehi and Nephi had their visions. They went, but you can see their frustration and anger at the Jews in their writings over the sheer stupidity of the disobedience of the covenant that was bringing the Babylonian disaster upon them. Laman and Lemuel turned their anger toward their father instead. Everybody was supposedly committed to going into the wilderness, but they all kept forgetting things (like wives) and finding reasons to have to go back to Jerusalem to get them. They seem to have been in shock. Stay! Go! Make up your mind!

And so the scriptures about the ultimate fate of Israel/Judea, as discussed by Isaiah or Zenos, become dominant concerns in this Book of Mormon “old” Old Testament. It is not an abstract theological debate to the Nephites; much of their personal focus and records are devoted to testifying that God has promised a reconnection of their seed (and even the seed of their rebellious Lamanite brethren) to the Israelites in a future time. Acceptance of Christ is seen as the means of this reconnection as well as the means of personal salvation. In fact, personal salvation is the newer, more revelatory concept which is increasingly emphasized as the story moves toward its historical climax. Even at the time of Christ’s appearance, this societal reconnection is on the minds of the people, and Christ takes time to reemphasize it along with his teachings about personal salvation. Indeed, “convincing of the Jew” of Christ’s divinity is as important as “convincing of the Gentiles”; the land of promise is not just a promise for the Nephites, but a means of keeping a promise by God for everyone else.

Many of those who come to this site feel either their “sense of the Spirit” or the “sense of their intellect” calling them into the “wilderness”. Whether it is because the church is not found to be as-advertised, because it changes too slowly, or because it changes too much, the shock and the anger are real and pretty much the same for all. They often no longer can support parts of the culture, but have nothing clear in their sights to replace it. They leave, miss something they left behind, go back, and try again to follow one direction or the other. Some fraction of them experience rejection by the community because they are perceived to be rejecting the norms of the community first. And sometimes they don’t know whether to be angry at others or ashamed of themselves.

They are reenacting this great dilemma of the early Nephites. How are they and their families to be connected to the purposes of God, when they have previously experienced their “tribe” as the only authorized means of connection? Yet, if the call is genuine, it will keep persisting and growing more insistent. There will be a land of promise for those who follow that call, and if the Nephite example holds, it will not just be a land of promise for those “wandering Mormons”. It will be a land of promise of those who come after them, and, in the long run, a blessing for the tribe they left behind as well. Experiencing being called into the wilderness isn’t a strange thing in Mormon history; it’s sort of what makes you one of the tribe in the first place.

For the bulk of my not-so-long life I have been in a perpetual cycle of shame with varying frequency and intensity. My worldview was shaped by my Mormon upbringing and I worked diligently to fit the mold completely. I was a good kid. No, I was a GREAT kid! Seriously, I did well in school, got my Eagle Scout, served a successful mission, never committed any egregious sins, read my scriptures nightly all through my teenage years, never touched any coffee, tea, tobacco, or alcohol, and pretty much put a checkmark in every box in the proverbial Mormon checklist!

Nevertheless, this was part of the cycle. As long as I was perfect I never had any problems. I merrily went on my way convinced my worldview was a correct interpretation of my existence, assured that my lifestyle choice would reap rewards. I will not deny that this leaked over into a self-righteous attitude which, on more than one occassion, led to my snarkiness toward those whom I perceived were not living these standards. In fact, though I’ve not been told this, I hold this attitude responsible for destroying more than one relationship in my life.

But alas, I am not perfect. I make mistakes, and when I do, I beat myself up badly over them. Keep in mind I’m not talking about major things here like murder, or chastity sins, or something, I’m talking about little things – things that really should be in the noise. It’s these times when the shame monster rears its ugly head and takes a bite out of my otherwise healthy self-esteem. This isn’t just some sort of twinge of guilt I feel, but shame, pure, and awful! And it doesn’t go away until I beat myself up emotionally to a sufficient level. Obviously the shame is further aggravated by the sure knowledge that once again I have failed to live up the expectations my worldview dictates.

It’s during these times the control freak in me is like a belligerent 5-year old, wanting to get his way, using all sorts of behavioral tricks, tantrums, pouting, all to try and restore order, control, and most importantly that self-confidence that has been shredded! During these times the result might be anger, or a bout with depression. Perhaps the object of frustration becomes those I love. In any case, until the control freak is able to restore self-esteem, things will be a bit rough.

Needless to say, such a paradigm is not healthy for me in the least!

And yet, at least one solution is as easy as allowing the control freak to dictate the terms on which I accept my involvement in my tribe. Through my faith crisis I learned this lesson very poignantly. I was in charge of my spirituality – not the church, not my bishop, not my teachers. And just as I could not blame them for my unhealthy worldview, I could also not allow them unchecked access to it either. It is me that decides what I should do and why I should do it. I get to decide the terms on which I participate in my culture. It’s true that I cannot choose the consequences, but my power of choice also allows me the possibility to insulate myself from them in my tribal context.

This empowerment was very enlightening to me during a dark period of my life in which I nearly left the church. I was able to resolve and separate concerns with leaders, history, the organization itself, etc. I could stay a member of my tribe but it would be on my terms, and it would be for my own benefit.

But it is hard to supplant a worldview. Unfortunately I find myself occassionally slipping into the old cycle. Sometimes in an ungaurded moment, the control freak forgets the conditions of my participation and leaves me vulnerable, allowing unchecked access to my healthier, but still budding worldview. The shame soon sets in as I again realize I do not measure up to the completely impossible standard my former worldview erected.

It is a perpetual struggle, one that is naturally built into my personality, but is aggravated, and made to be unhealthy, by a strict culture with high standards. Pulling myself out of the cycle is an exercise in meditation, prayer, challenging false beliefs, understanding, and above all, modifying my expectations!

Perhaps the time has come in the church to recognize that some members want to openly espouse a non historical view of the Book of Mormon?

My daughter Bethany and her friend Clare have recently gone to the Community of Christ Church. They enjoyed it and said the members were very open and friendly but the church at least here in the UK didn’t seem anything like our Brighamite version of the church.

I understand that many of their high ranking members don’t view the book of Mormon as historical. Some members feel it’s historical; some feel it’s inspired, and some would like to see it jettisoned from the canon of scripture.

I thought it was quite courageous of their leaders to consult with historians and look at the facts as they see them and to seek and follow what they felt was God’s will, doing all of this by common consent with the members in their church.

One of their members Wayne Ham did a summary report (below) called Problems in Interpreting the Book of Mormon as History! But before you read his report please take the following quiz:

[poll id="171"]

[poll id="172"]

[poll id="173"]

[poll id="174"]

[poll id="175"]

Please read if you can all of Wayne Ham’s Problems in Interpreting the Book of Mormon as History from the Community of  Christ Web Page.  Below are some selections from Ham’s paper which I highly recommend you read if you have the time:

The origin and destiny of the [so-called] “Red Man” were among the chief topics for speculation and discussion on the early nineteenth century American frontier. The presence of many Indian burial mounds in the Great Lakes region was a constant source of curiosity for the settlers in that region. In 1823 Ethan Smith, a Vermont pastor, published a book entitled View of the Hebrews: or the Ten Tribes of Israel in America.

Those who received the Book of Mormon from the hands of eager missionaries were urged not only to assent to the narrative as a historical account of the Indians’ ancestory, but also to accept the book as evidence that God had broken the silence of centuries to restore his church to the earth by means of a young prophet. Many of the early Latter Day Saint believers took an all-or-nothing approach.  If the Book of Mormon was true, the religion expounded by its author and proprietor was true also. If the book should ever prove to be false, all validity for the restoration movement would necessarily have to be disclaimed.

The book immediately attained a canonical status in the minds of the Latter Day Saints that made literal acceptance of it as the revelation of God to the ancient Americans a matter of faith. As far as church members were concerned, the book was impervious to any kind of critical investigation and judgment.

As modern historical and textual scholarship in the realm of biblical studies became increasing appreciated and influential at the grassroots level in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and thus known to some extent to Latter Day Saints, a defensive reaction set in among some church members, resulting in some stiff resistance to allowing the tools of this scholarship to be applied to the church’s understandings of the Book of Mormon. Thus Book of Mormon studies in the past have been characterized by polemics, apologetics, and amateur archaeological surveys whenever the concern has moved beyond merely exploring the intricate details of the very complex narrative of migrations, wars, and religious revivals among the Book of Mormon peoples.

Because the temper of our times is such that no movement nor institution nor book can forever remain impervious to the searchlight of scholarly inspection, out times demand that all the rudiments of religious faith be subjected to the scrutiny of reason and empirical research.

As the Book of Mormon is examined without any intention solely to amass data to support preconceived notions about it, certain problems concerning traditional understanding of the books stand out. These problems include:

1. The story of its coming forth. The actual events culminating in the publication of the book are, as of now, quite irrecoverable in that it is impossible to distill a unified account from all the primary and secondary reports.

2. Identifying the book’s narrative with a particular time and space. Extravagant claims about ancient American archaeology supporting the Book of Mormon have been made. Toltec, Mayan and even Aztec ruins, all of a comparatively late period, have been unfortunately identified with Book of Mormon peoples.

3, The book’s propensity for reflecting in detail the religious concerns of the American frontier. Alexander Campbell in 1831 pointed out that every major theological question of the frontier was covered in the Book of Mormon, including infant baptism, ordination and ministerial authority, the trinity, regeneration, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, and even the burning question of Freemasonry, republican government and the rights of man.

4. The Christological perspective of the book. To some students of theology, it would appear that there is a marked incongruity between the Christ Event of the New Testament and the Christ Event of the Book of Mormon.

5. The book’s ethical implications, when viewed as universally binding upon all men. Some Latter Day Saints, in talking of the Book of Mormon as the “fullness of the gospel” (D. & C. 17:2), believe that the book reveals the will of God more perfectly than any other resource we possess. Moreover they would assert that the transmission process involved in preserving and bringing forth the book would bypass many of the scribal errors to which the Bible was admittedly vulnerable.

6. The use of biblical scripture and ideas as sources. Several sizeable sections of the King James Version of the Bible are found in the Book of Mormon, including twenty-one chapters of Isaiah, the Sermon on the Mount, the Ten Commandments, Malachi 3 and 4, I Corinthians 12:1-11 and Acts 3:22-26. In addition to such full-fledged quotations, the Book of Mormon is replete with short biblical expressions. John Hyde counted 298 biblical snatches from the New Testament alone in the first 428 pages of the first edition of the Book of Mormon.

8. The matter of Book of Mormon anachronisms. Those who approach the Book of Mormon with the view of proving it to be essentially what it seems to claim to be–a record of the history of ancient Americans who lived between 2200 BC and AD 400–immediately find themselves having to deal with the problem of anachronisms.

9. The changes in the Book of Mormon. While the book itself confesses the possibility of errors, many claims concerning the verbal accuracy of the book have long been made by Book of Mormon adherents. Joseph Smith himself at one time state that “the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth.” Modern Microfilm Company of Salt Lake City has recently published a work documenting 3,913 changes in the Book of Mormon since its first printing.

Conclusions. None of the above problems areas “disprove” the Book of Mormon. They do, however, raise some questions about our traditional understandings concerning the book. Perhaps for some church members answers to the questions raised in this article would seem to be readily available. For others, however, quick and easy answers will not solve the dilemma. Perhaps the time has come in the church to recognize that some members want to openly espouse a non-literal view of the Book of Mormon, treating it as a non-historical treatise in much the same manner as modern critics view the books of Jonah, Ruth, Job, and Daniel in the Old Testament. Freed from some of the traditional hang-ups involved with having to accept unquestioningly the historicity of the Book of Mormon, these members could then read the book as a product of the Restoration movement in the nineteenth century, perhaps thus “enjoying” this fascinating piece of literature for the very first time.

Some of you may have played this game before…or understand how it is played. If you do, then think back to the first time you played the game (when it was as unknown to you as it is to many), and don’t spoil it for the rest.

There will be prizes. Although, they will be the nonphysical kind.

OK. So, here’s the game.

There are three doors in front of you. What I can tell you is that one of the door contains within a fabulous, yet utterly nonphysical prize. The other doors contain cureloms (…which I think is a goat. Maybe). Your job is to pick the door with the fabulous prize in order to win it.

Here are your three doors

But I’ll tell you what I’ll do. When you’ve picked a door (but before you’ve opened it!), I will open another door that has one of the cureloms in it. I will then give you the chance to stay with your door, or switch to the final, still unopened door.

…ok…so, before we get started with the game, I’ll ask you a question. After I have revealed one of the curelom-containing doors, do you think you should stay with your door, switch to the other door, or do you think it doesn’t matter?

[poll id="176"]

More after the break, folks! (Including spoilers)

If you truly haven’t heard of this scenario, then please acquaint yourself with the Monty Hall Problem. Or, as some call it, the Monty Hall Paradox.

Why should this ever be considered a paradox? The truth…it is just so simple! It is so easy to comprehend! If I — the guy running the show — picks one of doors with the cureloms in it, then I have done you a tremendous favor. I have changed the odds from 1 in 3 to 1 in 2!

Of course…now that it is 50/50…it really doesn’t matter if you stay or if you switch your door. Each has an equal likelihood of containing the prize, and each has an equal likelihood of containing curelom-goat.

…wrong.

Statistically, if you switch doors, your probability of winning everything doubles from 1/3 to 2/3.

…did you see that coming? (To those of you who already saw this before, did you see the answer coming the first time you saw it?) Can you make sense of this truth? If you mosey back to the wikipedia page I linked you, you can see an explanation — several, actually — of the probabilities. In fact, there are freakin’ proofs.

I see the Monty Hall Problem as one clear instance where what is true isn’t what is immediately intuitive or easy to comprehend (for most.) Other examples? 0.999~ = 1. The plane will take off of the treadmill. All of quantum physics. (I imagine that when I’m old and dying and science has come up with new physics paradigms, I’ll be eating that last one…)

So, that brings me to my topical question: should truth be expected to be simple or easy to comprehend?

Especially in Mormonism (and especially if we’ve lost or doubted or questioned our faith), we often have a nascent belief that truth should be simple. Perhaps even easy to comprehend. At the very least, when we understand true concepts and principles, it should enlighten. Make everything understood. Make sense. Our doubts often come in the situations when we find an incongruency in these expectations — we either found out that what was easy to swallow, easy to comprehend is seeming more and more unlikely to be true, or that what we have found to definitely be true is nevertheless complex, nuanced, and extremely difficult to grasp.

And we may know people (perhaps even ourselves) who deal with such incongruencies in different ways. We have talked endlessly of “putting things on the shelf” (or, if you will, establishing cold cases.) And when we discuss such things, different sides often respond in different ways.

Why should we shelve things? Don’t our doubts say meaningful things to us? Why should we continue to believe things that seem unintuitive, unlikely, incredible (in the more mundane sense of lacking credibility), or, well, unbelievable? Shouldn’t we follow our noses?

…or is it the case that we never ought to have expected truth to be simple and easy to comprehend? And rather than live lives where our assumptions and understood storylines seem all to work without problem, we were supposed to live with — as many people have also begun discussing — with tension, paradox, uncertainty, and mystery?

…nevertheless, this also produces bad business advice. I think it is one thing to say that the truth may, in fact, not be simple or easy to comprehend. However, this does not necessarily mean we should accept things that seem to us unlikely…just because we are throwing out a sense of intuition for the likeliness of truthful things (…or the truthfulness of likely things..?). But then, how do we decide which unlikelies are keepers, despite their complexity or elusiveness to grasp?

I have recently come across a group called Reform Mormonisim. I thought their views were interesting and as I mentally answered some of their questions here I was surprised how much of it resonated with me.

What I did feel in the end after reading much of their thoughts and material is why bother!! Why not become a nontheist Unitarian. Is it worth all the effort when there must be other religions very close to the same theology? Hopefully we can get someone from their church to answer that question

I have added a poll to this and must apologize to those at Reform Mormonism and to the readers at Mormon Matters in that they are totally paraphrased and maybe (unintentionally )taken out of context. So please go here to see them on their web page.

What they believe here

Reform Mormonism is a home-based, personal philosophy. A day of rest is held wherever one is at; there are no church services. Reform Mormonism does have special temple ordinances, that are designed to aide a person throughout their life, that are conducted in dedicated temple spaces. Unlike the LDS, they do not perform any temple ordinance for the deceased.

Reformed Mormonism are  individuals who have moved away from organized religion and have found peace and satisfaction in concentrating on the important things in life. We’re just like you – parents, children, brothers, sisters, friends and partners. We’ve settled on a personal philosophy that makes sense in the 21st century. It’s personal, important, and best of all, it isn’t scary like so many churches these days.

[poll id="151"]

[poll id="152"]

[poll id="153"]

[poll id="154"]

[poll id="155"]

[poll id="156"]

[poll id="157"]

[poll id="158"]

[poll id="159"]

[poll id="160"]

[poll id="161"]

[poll id="162"]

[poll id="163"]

[poll id="164"]

[poll id="165"]

[poll id="166"]

[poll id="167"]

[poll id="168"]

[poll id="169"]

[poll id="170"]

Differences in religious belief can be the death knell to a marriage. For that reason, many organized religions strongly advocate against being “yoked with unbelievers”. This is not only a Mormon phenomenon; you see this in any faith tradition that teaches that they alone have exclusive access to God. Even before marriage, it is rare for the unmarried, devout Mormon to even consider dating (let alone marrying) a non-Mormon; most LDS women raised in the Church are taught from an early age to make a temple marriage to a returned missionary their primary goal.

Likewise, in the Catholic Church, marriage to any non-Catholic (including Protestants!) is not permitted within a Catholic church building, and is not considered to be a Sacrament. In particularly conservative Catholic cultures, it really is considered a heresy to marry someone not of the (same rite of the) Catholic Church. Consider, for example, the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding: Toula refuses to marry Protestant Ian until he joins the Greek Orthodox Church (thus leading to a humorous scene of Ian being baptized).

Similar to Mormon ‘Marriage Prep’ and ‘Temple Prep’ Sunday School courses, dating Catholic couples are required to pursue a several-month course of marriage preparations classes, known as Pre-Cana. Similar to Mormons, Catholics who have pre-marital sexual relations (usually known from the resulting offspring) cannot be married on Catholic church grounds. However, they can have their marriage “convalidated” at a later date, similar to to a family being ‘sealed’ a year after a civil marriage.

I compare these things not so much to indicate how Catholics do things so much as to show just how non-unique Mormons are in many ways with regards to their approach to interfaith marriage.

Disbelief that comes after marriage, however, is harder to deal with. Despite the admonition of Paul in the 1 Corinthians that:

[I]f any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. (1 Cor. 7:12-14)

it is really not all that uncommon to see marriages Mormon temple marriages dissolve once one member of the union loses faith. The same can also be true in Catholic culture, where one of the vows made at the altar is to raise your children Catholic.

A few examples, then, to illustrate some of what I am talking about:

A Mormon female friend of mine (who also happens to be a reader of this blog) attended a non-LDS university for college. Her Patriarchal Blessing was explicit that she was to marry an RM in the temple. When a Baptist schoolmate asked her on a date, she turned him down several times before giving him an ultimatum: She would only go on a date with him if he would read the Book of Mormon and consent to taking the missionary discussions. Confident that the Mormon church was misguided, and that he could show her the error of her ways, he consented. He joined the LDS Church and they two were married in the temple a year later. Obviously, she and the Church would consider this example to be a huge success story; his Baptist family, in contrast, at that time considered their daughter-in-law to be the devil incarnate. (I suspect that they mellowed with time).

Another friend at the same university for four years dated a non-Mormon off and on, and was fairly involved with him physically (although never so far that she needed to go to the Bishop). She loved him and he proposed to her, but since he was not interested in the Church, she said no. Several years later, she met and married a convert of 1 year, in the temple. Another Church success story.

A Jewish friend attended a Jew-friendly university, but did not find a spouse. She later moved to an area in the Midwest that was predominantly Protestant, and met and fell in love with a Protestant. They moved in together, but when her family would call or visit, she threw him out of the house for the weekend. When her parents found out that she was dating this man, they first gave her a series of lectures on being ‘married under the canopy’ and of all that her grandmother had suffered at Auschwitz. They then cut off all verbal communication with her. When the grandmother found out about the boyfriend, she literally suffered a stroke. She broke up with the boyfriend, and later married an Orthodox Jew and was welcomed back into her family.

A Muslim co-worker of my husband’s met and married a Hindi woman. The parents of the Muslim refuse to acknowledge their daughter-in-law, and the parents of the Hindu refuse to call the Muslim by his real name, instead calling him by the Hindi equivalent.

When I married my husband, we were both Mormon, however I had converted to the Church as a young adult. My mother’s side of the family (who are culturally Catholic) refused to speak with my husband at family functions and boycotted our wedding. Indeed, my own marriage might now be considered as an interfaith marriage, with each of us losing our faith in the LDS Church and taking divergent faith paths. I’ve left the LDS Church and now consider myself a post-Mormon liberal Catholic, returning to the faith of my mothers (since Catholicism in America is largely passed down matriarchally). My husband is an agnostic atheist who remains actively Mormon: regularly attending his meetings and ‘magnifying’ his calling, held in the church by the faith of his fathers. My family is urging me to do what my responsibility as a Catholic mother would be: to baptize my son Catholic and raise him in the Catholic Church.

And so it goes, and so it goes. Its remarkable how adherents of all faiths claim that God will only recognize marriage in their church.

Through it all, my husband and I have retained enormous respect for each other and our religious decisions, as well as the effect that those decisions have on our son. I think respect for each other is really the only way such marriages can survive. My husband’s loss of belief was founded in his respect for me: Trusting that my reasoning was sound, he wanted to determine for himself what validity there was in my conclusions. Obviously, we came to different end-points, but part of respect is learning to accept (and even welcome) differences of opinion and conclusion.

My questions for the readership are these:

• What are your stories?
• How can a couple who finds themselves in a Mormon interfaith marriage make the relationship work?
• Is it possible to maintain a believing Mormon/non-believer relationship?
• If so, what components are required?

1). Your blessing always implies (even if it does not say it explicitly) the agency of another. So even if there is a promise involving another person they still have their choice to go down whatever path.

2). Your blessing (and only you can interpret this) would have made these promises on certain conditions. This does not mean that you are to blame but rather these situations are never just one factor.
3). It is not over yet. You do not know when or where these blessings might be fulfilled.
4). Faith is a paradox. I believe that we see our faith, or experience our faith, when we keep doing those things that are right even when it seems impossible for us to receive the blessings. It is the strength to endure even when we see no possibility of fulfillment. It is in these moments of struggle that we are forced to draw closer to God and rely more wholly upon him because there is nothing else to rely upon.

5). Is it possible that your patriarch, seeking to promise you something that would bring you hope and happiness, made this statement eventhough it was not directly inspired from God? They are not perfect. But I should couple this with my own thoughts that you have the right to pray about your blessing and interpret what it means. Priesthood holders have a difficult repsonsibility to try and understand the spiritual impressions we receive when we give blessings and sometimes it does not always come out quite right and the listener/receiver has to interpret. This is your responsibility.

My questions are these:

Have you experienced a failed patriarchal blessing and how did you deal with it?

Are my possible explanations flawed?

Are there other explanations I may have missed?

What would have said or done in this situation?

Many of you in the bloggernacle thrive on having two opposing ideas at once in your head. I have always found that difficult. I have seen many who can’t cope with it at all and have to come to a conclusion one way or the other or their belief system will cave in and their minds will explode.

I have all the best intentions in the world to start a series on cognitive dissonance this year. To start off I have found some quotes from the brethren which seems to be in opposition to each other. I am sure some of you will figure out away in which they are not!

Don’t Think for Yourself!!

“Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the prophets, seers, revelators’ of the church, is cultivating the spirit of apostasy. One cannot speak evil of the lord’s annointed… and retain the holy spirit in his heart. This sort of game is Satan’s favorite pastime, and he has practiced it to believing souls since Adam. He {Satan} wins a great victory when he can get members of the church to speak against their leaders and to do their own thinking.”

“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s Plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of controversy, God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.”

Ward Teachers Message, Deseret News, Church Section p. 5, May 26, 1945
Also included in the Improvement Era, June 1945 (which was the official church magazine before the Ensign)

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the lord will bless you for it but you don’t need to worry. The lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.”

LDS President Marion G. Romney (of the first presidency), quoting LDS President (and prophet) Heber J. Grant “Conference Report” Oct. 1960 p. 78

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother’s arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth.”

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 289, 1862.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

“When the Prophet speaks the debate is over”.

N. Eldon Tanner, August Ensign 1979, pages 2-3

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“I sat in this tabernacle some years ago as President Joseph Fielding Smith stood at this pulpit. It was the general priesthood meeting of April 1972, the last general conference before President Smith passed away. He said: ‘There is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, or the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the lord’.”

L. Aldin Porter of the Presidency of the First Quorum of Seventies (Ensign, Nov. 1994, p. 63)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“Follow your leaders who have been duly ordained and have been publicly sustained, and you will not be led astray.”

Boyd K. Packer (General Conference, Oct. 1992; Ensign, Nov. 1992)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.”

President Wilford Woodruff (considered scripture as it is canonized at the end of the D&C)

Think for Yourself!!

President Joseph F. Smith said, “We talk of obedience, but do we require any man or woman to ignorantly obey the counsels that are given? Do the First Presidency require it? No, never.” (Journal of Discources (JD) 16:248)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Apostle Charles W. Penrose, who would later serve as counselor to President Smith, declared: “President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when ‘Thus saith the Lord’, comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill.” (Millennial Star 54:191)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God… would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves.” (Millennial Star, vol.14 #38, pp. 593-95)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Brigham Young said:

“What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.” (JD 9:150)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

“How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves.” (JD 4:368)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

“I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied…Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, ‘If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,’ this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.” (JD 3:45)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

“…Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another’s sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold sceptres of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer.” (JD 1:312)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel [see, for example, verses 9-10: 'If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing...the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him.']…said the Lord had declared by the Prophet [Ezekiel], that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church — that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls — applied it to the present state [1842] of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall — that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves…” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pp. 237-38)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

George Q. Cannon, Counselor to three Church Presidents, expressed it thus: “Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone;” (Millennial Star 53:658-59, quoted in Gospel Truth, 1:319)

Have you had experiences where you think you have genuinely had bad advice from following your leaders?

Later prophets and apostles trump older ones. How do you think the older ones feel about that?

Have you had times where you had so much on your plate you were glad to let someone think for you and it worked out for the best?

Should we think for ourselves in the church or should we let the Brethren think for us that is the question?

I admit that I believe in God, but for the purposes of this post I want to suspend that belief.  The reason being that I want to compare it with believing in Santa Claus who I know is not real.

The article argues that although some people are against teaching our children something that is false, there is some evidence to suggest that it might serve some important functions.  Believing in Santa helps to teach the importance of reciprocity in relationships, it assists in the development of imagination and helps children cope with stressful situations.  But are these reasons sufficient to teach your child about God even if you knew it was wrong, and more importantly maintain it.

But is such belief a form of abuse, as Richard Dawkins argues.  When asked about the sexual abuse of the young by religious leaders, Dawkins replied that ‘horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up catholic [or in any other faith - my note] in the first place’ [2].  Dawkins also believes that God should be given up at the same time as Santa Claus.

I would be horrified if someone believed in Santa past the age of 16, but I am not sure I could go so far as to say it is a form of child abuse.  I have a friend with a bright child who ‘figured out’ that Santa was not real and to prove it he set up a video camera watching the tree over Christmas Eve.  Knowing what was happening, the father arranged for a member of the Ward to dress up as Santa and bring the presents around.  Now, I personally do not agree with this, but I am not sure it is abusive.  If this continues then I would fear socially for the child, but the same could be said about believing in God.

So is believing in God a form of child abuse, assuming God is not real?

Notes

1. Gail Vines, The Santa Delusion: Is it harmless fantasy or cruel deception? in New Scientist, 22/29 December 2007, pp. 36-7

2. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion [London: Bantam Press, 2006] p. 356.

A close friend of mine who wishes to remain anonymous recently saw in the shadow of the temple his story follows

In October, I was fortunate to attend the Portland, Oregon, screening of the movie, In the Shadow of the Temple. http://www.intheshadowofthetemple.com The screening was hosted by the producers, Karen Di Millia and Dennis Lavery. Prior to the screening Dennis and Karen spoke for 10 minutes and explained how they started this project. After the screening they took questions and answers for roughly 30 minutes.

Lavery and DeMillia, who are not–and never have been–LDS, originally planned to make a movie about people who had left the religion of their youth. They attended a meeting of the Portland Humanist Society, explained their project, and asked if anyone had such stories they would be willing to share. In the course of discussing the project with members of the society, they were told that who they really needed to talk to was Sue Emmett, who had left the LDS church. After talking with Sue and others with whom she put them in touch, they decided to re-focus their project on the experience of those who have left the LDS church.

They did hundreds of hours of interviews over two years and edited it down to a 55 minute film. The film is very moving–a tribute to those who shared their stories as well as DeMillia and Lavery’s videography and editing skills.

About two dozen people appear in interviews in the film. Each story is unique, but a common thread runs throughout them all. All faced a similar rejection by family, friends and community. Some of those interviewed have left the church. Others no longer believe, but remain active because of family or community pressure. The latter are filmed in shadows, to obscure their identity. The film refers to these people as “Shadow Mormons.” They define “Shadow Mormons” as those who privately do not accept the exacting doctrine of the Church, but publicly profess to be true believers. They are in shadow to protect their relationships with family, friends and employers.

Someone commented to me after the film, “That’s you. You’re a Shadow Mormon.”

Yes, I’m a Shadow Mormon. Maybe that’s why this film hit me so hard. I haven’t believed in over 20 years – most of my adult life. Yet, during that time I’ve paid my tithing, gone to the temple, served in bishoprics and high councils and done all the things that were expected of me. Why? Because I am tied to the church by family and community.

The story of “Grace” (not her real name) resonated with me because it was so similar to mine. Her pain, and anger, were born of all the energy she has given to a religion that she doesn’t believe in. Finding out that the Church was not true was like a death experience for her. Like me, she tried following the Church’s teachings to fast, pray, read the scriptures and yet never felt she received the “burning in her bosom” that is promised in the scriptures.

What of the families and communities of these people? What are their stories, their experiences with loved ones who go through a process of losing belief and leaving the church. Only one person who was a family or friend agreed to be interviewed for the film. The believing husband that was interviewed told how he still loved his wife, even though she has left the church. What about the others? Are they embarrassed to say that the Church was more important than their relationship with the person who left?

The saddest stories, to me, were of divorce caused by one spouse believing and the other not believing. Michelle (another woman interviewed in the film) said her heart was broken that her husband would choose the Church over her. He told their marriage therapist that if she had not been Mormon he never would have married her. “There was more to me than being a Mormon,” she said. “And I thought that there was more to him.”

The dictionary defines empathy as “the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.” We could all use a little more empathy for those around us. I have had several people tell me, “I can’t imagine how a person could leave the church.” Either they need a better imagination or they need more empathy. Maybe they just need to see this film.

One of the questions at the screening–one that Lavery could not answer–was, “How do we get the right people to see this film?” Sadly, many members of the church would not even consider it. (It screened in Salt Lake City in October and got almost no media coverage.) The film does not try to de-convert anyone or disparage the doctrine of the church. It doesn’t assert that someone is right because he or she believes, or that someone else is right because he or she leaves the church. This film is about accepting people regardless of what they believe, and about how we treat those who believe differently than we do. I wish every member of the church could see this film.

Film Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICbylWK-i2Q&NR=1

In the following video which lasts about 2 minutes, Jean talks about the stigma some members may feel if they choose a civil wedding ceremony. The other preseding videos last approximately 2 minutes each.

Temple Wedding Petition 3 Here

Temple Wedding Petition 1 Here

Temple Wedding Petition 2 Here

Temple Wedding Petition .org here

The actual petition is found here

I was raised in a part member family and remember when my brother was married my parents were disappointed that they weren’t able to go to the temple and see their son get married. It would have been nice for our family to have seen it. I wonder if it makes non- members, or those on the fringe, feel excluded from the church and may damper future missionary work with families. I live in England and it’s the law that there is a civil wedding which usually takes place in the chapel.

Recently a nephew was married and was schedueled to get married in the Salt Lake temple. Because much of the family couldn’t witness the wedding they decided last minute to have a civil wedding. He and his wife since their marriage enjoy going to the temple but have to wait a year now to be married in the temple.

I wonder if there is a church loophol if you want your non- member family to see your wedding you could get married in America and fly to a country where the church allows civil marriages followed by a temple marriage after?

What are your thoughts and experiences?

Just to make it very clear that there is no advocacy on the part of MM.

Recently I drove up Little Cottonwood Canyon with my brother and nephew.  This is the canyon in which many of your ancestors pulled out  the granite for the construction of the salt lake temple. As soon as we passed the granite facings on the side of the canyon my nephew played a song on his iPod by Corb Lund Brother Brigham Brother Young and it brought mental flashes into my mind of men working on the side of the mountain blasting granite out of it.    It made me think of the struggles that men and women had even back then with the faith in many ways very similar to our day. From what I have read Mr Lund isn’t LDS but has relatives that are. Im assuming one of his relatives is a historian buff? Its probably safe to presume this song will never be played in a chapel but I can’t help liking it!  You can listen to his song Here

Brother Brigham Brother Young

music and lyrics by Corb Lund

I have sinned so gravely Brother Brigham, Brother Young
I have sinned so gravely Brother Young
That only you can save me Brother Brigham, Brother Young
That only you can save me Brother Young

I have revealed the temples secrets Brother Brigham, Brother Young
The temple garments, oaths and secrets Brother Young
I have apostatized and doubted Brother Brigham, Brother Young
And borne my testimony falsely Brother Young

And I have loved a woman Brother Brigham, Brother Young
A woman in adultery Brother Young
I have also wed a negress Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My fifth wife has some color Brigham Young

I now see that you’re a prophet Brother Brigham, Brother Young
A living, breathing prophet Brother Young
And now I believe the revelations Brother Brigham, Brother Young
I now believe your revelations, every one

Even the ones beyond all reason Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Even the ones beyond all reason Brother Young
For you’re the Lord’s own earthly prophet Brother Brigham, Brother Young
And he’s simply testing in our faith o Brigham Young

My only hope for exaltation Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My only chance for exaltation Brother Young
Is to send me o’er the rim of the basin Brother Brigham, Brother Young
The rim of the Great Salt Lake Basin Brother Young

For water cannot save me Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Baptismal water cannot save me Brigham Young
My sins are just too deep a dye o Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My sins are just too deep a stain o Brother Young

So send Avenging Angels Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Won’t you send Destroying Danites Brother Young
To spill my blood upon the earth o Brother Brigham, Brother Young

So what do you think?

Do you find the song offensive?

Is it historicaly accurate of what may have happened to some of the saints in the salt lake valley?

Does it bare some similarites to what we have gone through in our day or not?

As I read the scriptures, listen to conference talks, and other materials about the Church, I get the feeling sometimes that things can be a little vague.  Human nature seems to dictate that an absolute answer is always preferred over ambiguity and vagueness.

But in the religious realm, it is not to be.  Vagueness is defined as not clear in meaning or application or, indistinctly felt, perceived, understood, or recalled; hazy.

The fact that there are so many religions and religious denominations seems to confirm this idea. For instance, if there is one God, our Heavenly Father, why does He seem to manifest Himself so differently to different people, to different cultures, and at different times?

For example, In the LDS Church, we believe that Baptism is an essential ordnance to enter the kingdom of God and to progress toward eternal life and salvation.  And there are Christian denominations that echo that same idea.  However, there are just as many, maybe more, who, reading the same scriptures, deny the necessity of Baptism for salvation.  Vagueness occurs because the scriptures are not 100% clear on that point.  Within the LDS Church, the Prophet Joseph Smith did make it clear, in the Fourth Article of Faith, that Baptism is essential.

In another, more contemporary example, many conservative Christians and Jews, for that matter, look at scriptures in Leviticus to proclaim that Homosexual activity is wrong. (Leviticus 18:22, see also Romans 1:27, 29-31, 32) However, religious organizations and individuals more sympathetic toward the Gay Movement have interpreted those scriptures very differently and say that they do not even address the issue of homosexuality.  (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm) The scriptures do not come right out and address the issue so clearly it cannot be open to interpretation. Vagueness.

In Doctrine and Covenants Section 89, the Word of Wisdom verse 9, “hot drinks are not for the body or belly.” But what is a hot drink?  Anyone’s first read of that verse would lead them to conclude it was ANY drink that was HOT  That does not seem terribly vague.

But wait, there’s more!

In 1842 Hyrum Smith, Assistant President of the Church and also the Presiding Patriarch, provided an interpretation of the Word of Wisdom’s proscription of “hot drinks”:

“And again “hot drinks are not for the body, or belly;” there are many who wonder what this can mean; whether it refers to tea, or coffee, or not. I say it does refer to tea, and coffee.  (Times and Seasons, 1842-06-01, vol. 3, p. 800.

But it does not refer to hot chocolate, hot herbal tea, hot barley drinks, etc. But, many have also speculated as to why coffee and tea?  Could it be the caffeine? If so, that means cola drinks, or anything else that might have caffeine in it.  You mean like chocolate? Wait a minute! I thought hot chocolate was ok? What about Mountain Dew, its not a cola drink?  Here is a case where something seems pretty straightforward but has been made somewhat vague.

Here are a few other topics that have been vague at one time or another:

• Tithing: Net or Gross?
• New and Everlasting  Covenant of Marriage: Plurality of Wives or just Eternal marriage ( Sealing)
• Missouri Extermination Order: Kill them or just run them out of town?
• United Order: Voluntary or the Law of Consecration?
• Blacks and the Priesthood:  Doctrine, policy or  just plain prejudice?
• Many, many more

So why would Gospel Principles be Vague?

First, maybe they are not all that vague.  Maybe, you need to find the right source of information. If the scriptures seem vague, what have the Living Prophets said?  If that is vague, what does the Lord tell you when you pray about it or what does the Spirit testify to you about it?  Still nothing?  What are you willing t o take on faith alone?

Second, We do need to develop faith. “NOW faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”  (Hebrews 11:1). Some things have no immediate answer and must be taken on faith alone until a later time.

Thirdly, we are here on earth as a test.  Ultimately, we decide for ourselves the path we walk. Like the verse at the beginning of this post, if we did not have our agency to decide for ourselves and had to be told each and every little detail, we would not progress to reach the goal of living with Our Father in Heaven and His Son throughout eternity.

Sure, things can be a bit vague and uncertain at times.  But it is part of the great Plan of happiness for us to endure to the end.

So, the question at hand is how do you deal with the vagueness and ambiguity? Perhaps you think there is none. Feel free to list your vague Gospel Principles.

Over the past couple weeks here at Mormon Matters, we’ve had two posts discussing the need to be “improvers” in the Church rather than uncritical optimists or unloving pessimists, and suggesting some practical rules that would-be improvers should follow. Fortunately, our Church leaders have not left us to re-invent the wheel when it comes to figuring out what our options are when we disagree with their statements, policies, or practices.

Below are excerpts from Elder Dallin H. Oaks’ article entitled “Criticism,” which appeared in Ensign magazine in February of 1987. (You can read the full article here.) In this article, Elder Oaks straightforwardly informs Church members that there are two very different sets of rules when it comes to publicly disclosing the truth and criticizing leaders or their decisions: (1) the rules that apply to the political and business worlds; and (2) the rules that apply to the Church. According to Elder Oaks, it is essential for Church members to be aware of, and abide by, these two different sets of rules. As you read these excerpts, I invite to you pay particular attention to the following ideas that Elder Oaks shares:

(1) “’[T]he fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it. . . . The gist of Paul’s thought is that integrity is of no value in itself.’ . . . The critical consideration is how we use the truth. . . . A Christian who has concern for others exercises care in how he uses the truth. Such care does not denigrate the truth; it ennobles it. Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. . . .”

(2) “The use of truth should also be constrained by the principle of unity. . . However, this caution to constrain the use of truth provides no justification for lying. . . . When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood but silence for a season.”

(3) “Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. . . . A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause.”

(4) You’ll want to pay particular attention to the latter part of Elder Oaks’ article where he presents five suggestions for how to appropriately deal with situations where we find ourselves disagreeing with Church leaders.

And now, without further ado, excerpts of Elder Oaks’ Ensign article on Criticism:

I am persuaded that many do not understand the Church’s teachings about personal criticism, especially the criticism of Church leaders by Church members.

I do not refer to the kind of criticism the dictionary defines as “the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.” (Random House Dictionary, unabridged ed., s.v. “criticism.”) . . . Sports writers, reviewers of books and music, scholars, investment analysts, and those who test products and services must be free to exercise their critical faculties and to inform the public accordingly. This kind of criticism is usually directed toward issues, and it is usually constructive.

My cautions against criticism refer to another of its meanings, which the dictionary defines as “the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.” (Ibid., s.v. “criticism.”) Faultfinding is “the act of pointing out faults, especially faults of a petty nature.” (Ibid., s.v. “faultfinding.”) It is related to “backbiting,” which means “to attack the character or reputation of [a person who is not present].” (Ibid., s.v. “backbite.”) This kind of criticism is generally directed toward persons, and it is generally destructive.

Faultfinding, evil speaking, and backbiting are obviously unchristian. . . . The primary reason we are commanded to avoid criticism is to preserve our own spiritual well-being, not to protect the person whom we would criticize. . . .

Does this counsel to avoid faultfinding and personal criticism apply only to statements that are false? Doesn’t it also apply to statements that are true? In a talk I recently gave to Church Educational System teachers, I urged that “the fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it.” A letter published in the New York Times Magazine described my counsel as “contempt for the truth.” (Feb. 9, 1986, p. 86.) I disagree. I rely on the teaching in Ecclesiastes: “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.” (Eccl. 3:1.) Specifically, there is “a time to speak,” and there is also “a time to keep silence.” (Eccl. 3:7.)

The counsel to mute our criticism is like the counsel the Apostle Paul gave to the Corinthian Saints to abstain from eating meat offered as sacrifices to idols. In truth, he taught, the idol was nothing. But since some of the members were weak and might misunderstand, those who knew the truth needed to “take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.” (1 Cor. 8:9.) A Protestant theologian, Krister Stendahl, concludes: “The gist of Paul’s thought is that integrity is of no value in itself.” (See Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976, p. 61.)

The critical consideration is how we use the truth. When he treated this same subject in his letter to the Romans, Paul said, “If thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy him not with thy meat, for whom Christ died.” (Rom. 14:15.) A Christian who has concern for others exercises care in how he uses the truth. Such care does not denigrate the truth; it ennobles it.

Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. . . .

The use of truth should also be constrained by the principle of unity. One who focuses on faults, though they be true, fosters dissensions and divisions among fellow Church members in the body of Christ. . . . In this dispensation, the Lord commanded that “Every man [should] esteem his brother as himself,” and declared that “If ye are not one ye are not mine.” (D&C 38:25, 27.)

However, this caution to constrain the use of truth provides no justification for lying. The principles of love, unity, righteousness, and mercy do not condone falsehood. The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not bear false witness” (Ex. 20:16), and he has not revoked that command. When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood but silence for a season. As the scriptures say, there is “a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.” (Eccl. 3:7.)

The counsel to avoid destructive personal criticism does not mean that Latter-day Saints need to be docile or indifferent to defective policies, deficient practices, or wrongful conduct in government or in private organizations in which we have an interest. Our religious philosophy poses no obstacle to constructive criticism of such conditions. The gospel message is a continuing constructive criticism of all that is wretched or sordid in society. But Christians who are commanded to be charitable and to “[speak] the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) should avoid personal attacks and shrill denunciations. Our public communications—even those protesting against deficiencies—should be reasoned in content and positive in spirit.

Does the commandment to avoid faultfinding and evil speaking apply to Church members’ destructive personal criticism of Church leaders? Of course it does. It applies to criticism of all Church leaders—local or general, male or female. In our relations with all of our Church leaders, we should follow the Apostle Paul’s direction: “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.” (1 Tim. 5:1.) . . .

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. . . .

Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. That is part of the process of informing those who have the right and power of selection or removal. . . .

A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause. . . .

So what do we do when we feel that our Relief Society president or our bishop or another authority is transgressing or pursuing a policy of which we disapprove? Is there no remedy? Are our critics correct when they charge that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are “sheep” without remedy against the whims of a heedless or even an evil shepherd?

There are remedies, but they are not the same remedies or procedures that are used with leaders in other organizations.

Our Father in Heaven has not compelled us to think the same way on every subject or procedure. As we seek to accomplish our life’s purposes, we will inevitably have differences with those around us—including some of those we sustain as our leaders. The question is not whether we have such differences, but how we manage them. What the Lord has said on another subject is also true of the management of differences with his leaders: “It must needs be done in mine own way.” (D&C 104:16.) We should conduct ourselves in such a way that our thoughts and actions do not cause us to lose the companionship of the Spirit of the Lord.

The first principle in the gospel procedure for managing differences is to keep our personal differences private. In this we have worthy examples to follow. Every student of Church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among Church leaders since the Church was organized. Each of us has experienced such differences in our work in auxiliaries, quorums, wards, stakes, and missions of the Church. We know that such differences are discussed, but not in public. Counselors acquiesce in the decisions of their president. Teachers follow the direction of their presidency. Members are loyal to the counsel of their bishop. All of this is done quietly and loyally—even by members who would have done differently if they had been in the position of authority.

Why aren’t these differences discussed in public? Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately. There is nothing inappropriate about private communications concerning such differences, provided they are carried on in a spirit of love.

There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female.

The first—and most benign—of the procedures is to overlook the difference. President Brigham Young described his own application of this method in a circumstance in which he felt “a want of confidence” in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s financial management. After entertaining such thoughts for a short time, President Young saw that they could cause him to lose confidence in the Prophet and ultimately to question God as well. President Young concluded:

“Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults. … He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. … He was God’s servant, and not mine.” (Journal of Discourses, 4:297.) . . .

A second option is to reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference. In many instances, the actions we are tempted to criticize may be based on confidences that preclude the leader from explaining his or her actions publicly. In such instances there is wisdom in a strategy of patience and trust.

The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved. The Savior taught: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matt. 18:15.)

This course of action may be pursued in a private meeting, if possible, or it may be done through a letter or other indirect communication. How many differences could be resolved if we would only communicate privately about them! Some would disappear as they were identified as mere misunderstandings. Others would be postponed with an agreement to disagree for the present. But in many instances, private communications about differences would remove obstacles to individual growth and correction.

A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression. The Bible calls this “tell[ing] it unto the church.” (Matt. 18:17.) Modern scripture, in the revelation we call “the law of the Church,” describes this procedure:

“And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.” (D&C 42:89.)

Note the caution that this remedy is to be private—“not before the world.” This is not done in order to hide the facts, but rather to increase the chance that the correction will improve the life of a brother or sister. . . .

There is a fifth remedy. We can pray for the resolution of the problem. We should pray for the leader whom we think to be in error, asking the Lord to correct the circumstance if it needs correction. At the same time, we should pray for ourselves, asking the Lord to correct us if we are in error. . . .

All five of these are appropriate options for Church members who differ with their leaders. The preferred course depends upon the circumstances and the inspiration that guides those who prayerfully seek. . . .

Despite the commandments and counsel I have reviewed, we have some members who persistently and publicly criticize Church leaders. What about them? . . .

Just as our Church leaders’ source of authority is different from that of government and corporate leaders, so are the procedures for correcting Church leaders different from those used to correct leaders chosen by popular election. But the differences are appropriate to the way in which our Church leaders are called and released. By following approved procedures, we can keep from alienating ourselves from the Spirit of the Lord.

This counsel will be anathema to some. I invite those who are troubled by it to consider it in terms of the teachings of the scriptures rather than in terms of their personal preferences or the canons of any particular profession. Those who reject the authority of the scriptures or our latter-day prophets cannot be expected to agree with what I have said. Those who see freedom or truth as absolutely overriding principles in all human actions cannot be expected to be persuaded by the scriptures’ teaching that “knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” (1 Cor. 8:1.)

Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them.

. . . It is easy to preach freedom or truth. Praise for those subjects is usually safe and always popular. It is infinitely more difficult to preach how men and women should use freedom or truth. The preacher of that message may command respect, but he or she will not win popularity.

I conclude with a message of hope. When Isaiah condemned the critics of his day, he concluded with a prophecy. He said that in time the children of God would sanctify his name and “fear the God of Israel.” Continuing, he declared, “They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.” (Isa. 29:23–24.) In that spirit I pray for the day when all of us will know God and keep his commandments. In that day, as Isaiah foretold, the “king shall reign in righteousness,” and “the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever.” (Isa. 32:1, 17.)

General Conference must be coming this weekend.

Twice a year, I can’t help formulating hopes and expectations, or making predictions about what we might hear in the next General Conference. There are a few things that are givens. We can expect to hear spiritual messages that transcend the issues discussed most often on LDS blogs. We can expect to hear speakers relate sincere, heart-felt experiences that bring comfort to those who are struggling with loneliness, loss, sickness, guilt, or feelings of inadequacy. Those are messages I know I can expect to hear every conference.  But the anticipation that slowly builds in my mind over the couple weeks before Conference is whether we will hear anything about the issues typically discussed in the Bloggernacle by those for whom the Church is more than a religion or a lifestyle, and who make a hobby out of studying Mormonism from an academic standpoint.

Major changes in the Church have been announced at General Conferences in the past, and when the Ninth Article of Faith tells us that God “will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God,” I can’t help wondering whether any of those “great and important things” will come out this Conference.

I invite you to express your own hopes, expectations, and predictions for this coming General Conference in the comment section below. But before doing so, I’d like to share with you a few of mine.

1. Consensus and Clarity About the Nature of Revelation

I have come to believe we are a bit schizophrenic in the Church when it comes to defining and explaining what “revelation” is, particularly as it applies to revelations received by the Prophets and Apostles.  Some Church leaders and members seem to view revelation as a process whereby God transmits his exact thoughts and words directly to the Prophet, who then passes them on to us without any human interference or input, such that revelations handed down by the Prophets are completely free from any human considerations (e.g. economic, political) in their origin, and completely free from any human error in the Prophet’s perception and interpretation of what he believes God told him.  Some LDS apologists have referred to this version of revelation as reflecting a “fundamentalist” mindset, so for the sake of ease I’ll refer to this as the “Fundamentalist Version” of revelation.  The Fundamentalist Version of revelation is usually presented when Church leaders are trying to create unity and motivate members to rally around a particular program or policy and carry it out without question or challenge. The Fundamentalist Version creates compliance and squashes dissent because if we view revelation as a pure transmission of God’s will devoid of any human imperfections, then members will feel no room to question or refuse to comply, and Church leaders will feel divinely justified in reprimanding and punishing those who do.  A few examples of scriptures or quotes used to support the Fundamentalist Version of revelation are: “whether it be from my mouth or the mouth of my servants, it is the same” or “the Prophet will never lead us astray.”  And when something the Prophet says or does seems not to make sense, the scripture “[God's] ways are higher than [man's] ways” is often invoked, the implication being that if what the Prophet says or does doesn’t make sense, it must be because it is one of those “higher” divine truths, rather than because the Prophet has made a human error.  The Fundamentalist Version of revelation seems simple, clear, and provides a feeling of comfort and safety to people looking for a reliable guide to help them navigate through the perils and uncertainties of the world.  But this Fundamentalist Version of revelation also has a significant downside: it creates an image of Prophets as being men who do not err in their revelations, so when people encounter evidence that seems to overwhelmingly demonstrate that Prophets past and present have erred, this Fundamentalist Version of revelation provides no framework to reconcile those obvious human errors with the belief that so-and-so was a genuine Prophet of God.  In other words, the Fundamentalist Version of revelation creates the expectation that Prophets and their revelations are infallible, because despite the occasional acknowledgements of prophetic fallibility in theory, telling people that whatever the Prophet says is what God says creates an illusion of prophetic infallibility in practice.  As a result, when Church members who embrace the Fundamentalist Version of revelation encounter convincing proof of human error in the statements or actions of Prophets (and if the Internet provides us an accurate glimpse, there are many such people) they become disillusioned and stop believing in the concept of revelation altogether.

However, there is another version of revelation within the Church, one which has long existed alongside this Fundamentalist Version in our scripture and in Church leaders’ statements.  And because it has become so popular with LDS Apologists, we could call it the Apologist Version of revelation.  In the Apologist Version, revelation is understood to be a collaborative process between a perfect, omniscient God and imperfect men with limited understanding who “see through a glass, darkly.” In the Apologist Version, we understand that revelation is a transmission of divine knowledge oftentimes received as somewhat vague “impressions” that can be misperceived and misinterpreted by fallible men who have cultural biases, human passions, political and economic considerations, and pride.  As a result, we hope and expect that revelations will usually reflect God’s will on at least a general level, but we recognize that sometimes those revelations will err in their specifics, or (hopefully rarely) be wrong altogether.  This version of revelation is usually presented in the context of apologetics when responding to uncomfortable evidence that seems to conclusively demonstrate that the statements or policies of past or present Prophets and Apostles have been in error.  Thus, the Apologist Version of revelation is often used to persuade someone that he should not lose his testimony of Joseph Smith as a Prophet because it allows someone like Joseph Smith to inadvertently mix human errors into his revelations and still be a Prophet. In support of this version of revelation, apologists cite the acknowledgments in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants that God’s servants “err” in ways that are eventually “made known” but that their revelations should be heeded nonetheless.  Or we find the Apologist Version of revelation in Joseph Smith’s famous quotes that “some revelations are from God, some are from man, and some are from the devil” or that “a prophet is only a prophet when he speaks as a prophet.” The overall idea presented in this version of revelation is that it sometimes contains human errors, and therefore we ought to expect to find such errors without losing our testimony of Church leaders’ prophetic callings when we do.  Of course, the drawback of the Apologist Version of revelation from the perspective a Church leader is that it causes some Church members to feel free to doubt, question, challenge, or refuse to comply with the Prophet’s purported revelations on the grounds that they reflect the will of man rather than the will of God.  And such doubting and dissent is a hindrance to administrative effectiveness in any organization.

Because I see these two different versions of revelation existing within the Church, anytime the subject of revelation comes up in a talk, either directly or indirectly, my ears always perk up and I listen closely to which version is being presented: the Fundamentalist Version or the Apologist Version.  Overall, it’s my feeling that the Fundamentalist Version of revelation is most often presented in sermons and lessons by both Church leaders and members, with a sprinkling of the Apologist Version from time to time, such as when uncomfortable situations arise where it become necessary to acknowledge prophetic error in attempt to save someone from losing his testimony altogether.  However, I think anyone who has been paying attention to FARMS, FAIR, and the Church’s media and public affairs departments have good cause to believe that the Apologist Version of revelation is becoming more popular and is being invoked more frequently, perhaps in an effort to stem the flow of folks losing their testimonies over troublesome episodes in Church history that seem to reflect human error in Church leadership.  So with the Church’s media and public affairs folks quoting apologists with seemingly increasing frequency, I am constantly curious to see whether and when the Apologist Version of revelation will become the dominant version of revelation presented by Church leaders at General Conference.

Very briefly, four more issues I’m always wondering whether will be addressed:

2. A clearly-worded, official repudiation of the statements made by past Church leaders to support the pre-1978 priesthood ban for African Americans. The policy changed in 1978, but there was never an accompanying clear, official renunciation of the many statements that past Church leaders had made to support it.  Many of those statements are still sitting on Church members’ bookshelves at home.  And when people ask the understandable question of why the ban was ever instituted in the first place, those old statements, some of which are extremely hurtful, are sometimes trotted out by misguided members.  We know a committee was formed to draft such a statement several years ago, and there were high hopes such a statement would be presented at the 20-year and 30-year anniversaries of the rescission of that ban, but it didn’t come. Will it come this Conference?

3. Will we receive messages aimed at preparing Church members to continue to generously donate their time and money to support legislation to prevent Same-Sex Marriage? Or will the negative backlash from some quarters regarding the Church’s heavy involvement in Prop. 8 result in a more moderate approach that simply “encourages” members to do so, but this time without creating a mechanism of administrative enforcement for that “encouragement”? I have heard anecdotal stories about General Authorities saying that Prop. 8 was nothing compared to what the Church will be doing in the future, so we shall see what comes out about that topic in Conference.

4. Clarification about what the “central” components of the Restored Gospel are. Recently, a notable LDS apologist who specializes in Egyptology and the Book of Abraham, Dr. John Gee, gave a talk in which he provided a list of what was “central” to the Restored Gospel.  His list included the Book of Mormon, but excluded the book of scripture that he has researched and defended for so long: the Book of Abraham.  Dr. Gee’s speech prompted discussion about the criteria for determining what the “central” components of the Restored Gospel are, and also fueled speculation about whether Dr. Gee’s exclusion of the Book of Abraham reflected a lack of scholarly confidence in Joseph Smith’s claims about that book of scripture in attempt to establish a “fall back position” where the Church can argue that academic challenges to the Book of Abraham should not undermine anyone’s testimony of Joseph Smith’s status as a Prophet on the theory that the book is “not central to the Restored Gospel.”  Was Dr. Gee’s statement a prelude to a change in the way the Church views, teaches, and uses the Book of Abraham? My guess is probably not; the Church seldom seems to move that quickly. But the Church’s relatively recent revision of the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, which was preceded by an emerging consensus among LDS scholars that the Book of Mormon action took place within a limited geography rather than upon the entire American Continent, demonstrates that these types of issues are receiving the attention of the General Authorities, and that the General Authorities are willing to adjust the Church’s claims about its books of scripture.  So perhaps something is in the works on this issue.

5.  Warnings, admonishments, and clarifications about what the General Authorities view as being appropriate and inappropriate online discussion of LDS doctrine and history. Elder Ballard’s recent encouragement to become involved in online discussions about the Church seems to have enlarged the pool of Mormons participating in the Bloggernacle and other online discussion fora.  However, it seems only a matter of time that Church leaders will recognize that Church members’ increased involvement in online discussions about Church history and doctrine will only increase the likelihood that they will come into contact with uncomfortable information that they otherwise would not have encountered.  Around 20 years ago, Elder Oaks delivered an address in which he warned Church members about participating in symposia and becoming involved with “alternate voices.”  But Elder Ballard’s encouragement to become involved in the world of online discussions seems to have departed from that approach, or to have at least created ambiguity about the degree to which faithful Church members should be involving themselves in online discussions and debates, even with the intent to defend the Church.  Will the General Authorities issue any warnings or admonishments about the “proper” way to discuss Church topics online, or the “proper” online fora to visit?  If so, it seems Elder Ballard would be the most likely Apostle to deliver that message.

Overall, I should say my expectations are not high that issue #2 will receive any mention in Conference.  While I do believe it is possible, it seems the Church prefers to make such statements more quietly in between Conferences, rather than making any sort of dramatic public announcement that will attract attention to an uncomfortable topic.  But I do think it’s very possible we will hear messages addressing issues #3 , #4, and #5.

So, what are your hopes, expectations, or predictions for this coming General Conference?

Oh God said to Abraham, “Kill me a son”
Abe says, “Man, you must be puttin’ me on”
God say, “No.” Abe say, “What?”
God say, “You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin’ you better run”
Well Abe says, “Where do you want this killin’ done?”
God says, “Out on Highway 61.” (Bob Dylan)

Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) has written about the experience of Faith.  His short book ‘Fear and Trembling’ discusses the experience of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son Isaac, and his subsequent designation as the ‘Father of Faith’.  This is probably not the place for an in-depth discussion of this book but I want to outline his views because it asks some important questions about what Faith is, how we exercise it and its fruits.

The first section of the book, is entitled, ‘Attunement’.  In this Kierkegaard explores a number of different narratives that may have occured as Abraham takes his son up the mount.  In one he characterises Abraham as scared, in another he is fearless, in another he is angry.  To me it seems that Kierkegaard is trying to help us realise that Abraham’s faith was not just in the act itself, but was exercised in every step in his journey?

Kierkegaard then poses a series of questions that the story of Abraham raises: but prior to that he outlines his view of faith as being able to give up everything and trust that you will receive it again on the strength of the absurd.  In other words, Abraham had faith because he gave up his son, but trusted he would be given back to him regardless of how absurd this hope was.  Is faith exercised in the absurd, or does it rest in the rational or logical?  I have always leaned toward the latter because I have been taught to study it out in my mind, but Kierkegaard’s challenge has made me re-think.  Is it not absurd to believe that Jesus has suffered for our sins?

The first question regards whether what is ethical can be suspended?  Can Abraham’s act to sacrifice his son (or Nephi’s act) be considered good despite it being unethical, or even contrary to God’s ‘general’ commandments?  Does faith lead us to do things that are contrary to the commandments?  If not what do we do with Abraham and Nephi, because it seems they are to be damned?

The second question asks whether there is an absolute duty to God?  In a similar way Joseph Smith said ‘whatever God requires is right’!  Is this correct?  Do you believe that God would give you as an individual a specific command that might contradict what is more widely accepted as right?

The final question asks whether it was ethically defensible to conceal from Sariah or Isaac what he was going to do?

In each case Kierkegaard does not give an answer but leaves us with an either/or.  Either the ethical can be suspended,and their is an absolute duty to God and it is ethically defensible to conceal his intent or Abraham is not the ‘Father of Faith’?  My problem then is that I am not sure I can have this kind of faith, because it asks things of me that I feel unable to do.  Moreover, I am not even sure that I would want to have this kind of faith.  This is, probably, Kierkegaard’s intent.

I remember, as a naive Missionary, discussing with someone Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy, which for me has many parallels with how Kierkegaard frames Abraham’s experience .  He argued that it was sinful.  I countered that it was practised in the Bible.  He said that it was for that time only, not now.  I asked, ‘if God asked you to practice polygamy would you do it?’   He said, ‘No’.  I smugly retorted, ‘Then that is why you are not a Prophet and Joseph Smith was’!  Unsurprisingly, he did not let us teach him.  I regret this now, not only because I was an arrogant 20 year old who was supposed to be an ambassador of Christ, but also because I see more clearly the dilemma of doing something so reprehensible to our values that it is absurd, and that this may be the real test of our faith? A test I am unsure I would pass.  But is this something God asks of us at all?  (This is not intended to be a discussion of polygamy).

So what do you think? 

1. Do you have faith in the way Abraham does? 
2. Would you do anything God asked of you? 
3. Do you believe the story of Abraham or Nephi are literal and if so how do reconcile what they did with Christian Ethics? 
4. If they are myths what is the lesson to be learned from these stories?
5. Is Kierkegaard wrong in his logic? 
6. Can faith be rational or is the irrational the foundation of faith?

[A story from Prairie_Chuck at FacesEast.org, adapted by permission]

In Sunday School last week, the lesson topic was about motivation for obedience and service to others. The teacher referred to Elder Oakes’ talk titled “Unselfish Service.” Elder Oakes discussed reasons why people serve, saying that 5 of the 6 reasons were selfish: having a desire for blessings, wanting the association with others that callings bring, and fear of condemnation to name a few. The only right reason to have a calling was because one loved God and had faith.

The teacher referred to D&C 124:119-120 where the Lord says that those who pay for stock in the Nauvoo House must believe in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s revelations, that anything less than this would result in curses rather than blessings.

In answer to the question from the teacher “Is it ever good to do something right for the wrong reasons?” everyone in the class responded “no.” You should only do callings and obey commandments if it is done for the right reason. According to Elder Oakes’ talk, faith and belief in that commandment or calling was the only proper motivation.

So I decided to play devil’s advocate. I asked “So if someone didn’t have a complete testimony of tithing, she shouldn’t pay tithing. Right? According to verse 120, anything more or less than this ‘cometh of evil.’”

Members in the class responded “No, but paying tithing leads to a testimony.” I pointed out that it was a selfish reason to pay tithing, if someone did it to gain a testimony. And what if someone never gained a testimony of a calling they have? Without complete belief in the calling or the person extending the calling, they shouldn’t take it.

Someone in the class quoted Alma 32, where it mentions having faith like a seed. Someone else referred to the story in the Book of Mormon about the Rameumptom tower, where people prayed for vain reasons (Alma 32). I understand all that, but on one side you have people who have complete faith in all church things, on the other side are those who are vain or deceitful. In the middle are most of us — we who lack perfect faith, who struggle with belief on some level. According to the lesson, as it was being presented, these people in the middle are cursed for accepting a calling to serve or obeying a commandment for less than perfect motives.

The teacher then began talking about how faith in Christ completes us, compensates where we are lacking. That should have been the focus of the lesson! Afterward, the teacher said to me “I hope I explained that well enough for you.” I agreed 100% with his final conclusion: that faith in Christ is what counts. Applying D&C 124:119-120 to everything we do in Church would put us all in impossible situations, more or less cursed for lack of belief.

It was funny because there were times when the class seemed so close to what I wanted to get at–we need faith in Christ. He will compensate where we are lacking, when we sometimes just go through the motions. Isn’t it better to do good in the world and serve our brothers and sisters, than to do nothing at all for the sake of pure motivation? I can hardly imagine that is what God has in mind.

I apologized for derailing the class. I said “I guess I’m just the defender of the unbeliever.” The direction they were headed in the lesson is one of the reasons my husband left the church — because he didn’t feel like he was permitted to believe less than 100%. He felt like what little he did believe or practiced was hypocritical according to the community standards. Even if he did the right things, it was counted a curse to him because he lacked faith. The all-or-nothing focus on the pure ideal did not uplift him, and instead pushed him away from a place that can feed and encourage the best in us.

-Brian Johnston, www.staylds.com

The third ward verses the seventh ward. Us verses them. Insiders verses outsiders. My buddies and I were third warders. We were full of ourselves. But why wouldn’t we be? Our ward display case was full of softball trophies. Our scouting program was full of Eagle scouts. Our report cards were full of A’s. And our bulletin board was full of missionary photos. By comparison, the guys in the seventh ward had few of those things. I needed those guys, but only to remind me how low they were. The lower I made them out to be, the higher I stood. Loving my neighbor didn’t apply to the seventh ward.

Dan arrived in town and moved into the seventh ward when he and I were about thirteen years old. He was a nice enough kid, but ward boundaries made him an outsider. I had my third ward friends. He just wasn’t one of them.

One day in a junior high school science class, Dan sat down on the tip of pencil I happened to be holding. I felt bad for doing it, but not bad enough to have kept me from doing it in the first place.

Dan and I attended the same schools, same dances, same seminary, and had our missionary farewells and homecomings in the same building. But our paths seldom crossed. As adults, we went our separate ways. In my early thirties, my young family and I moved into Dan’s ward. I was called to be his home teacher, and got to know him for the first time.

Dan worked as an Electronics Technician, and had made a career as a civilian working for the Goverment. He was skilled with circuit boards and other electrical doodads that would undoubtedly boggle my mind. As a fix-it man, he’d take stuff that didn’t work and turn it into stuff that did work.

I became a Licensed Professional Counselor. As such, I had developed the capacity to feel empathy for virtually all my clients, to enter their world in a sense, and validate them for their good and encourage them to do better. Multiple forces created them and multiple course corrections lay within their grasp. They often chose paths I wouldn’t have taken, but that was okay. I honored their right to exercise their agency, and believed any attempt to manipulate or coerce them violated the principle we all stood for in a distant veiled time and place.

Dan had grown into an outgoing, friendly, and respected man, both at work and in his ward. He cultivated rich and lasting friendships, and generously included me in his circle of friends. His generosity stung my adult conscience. Dan and his wife,  hosted parties and barbeques, and opened up their swimming pool—possibly the only one in the whole town—to our families.

Dan, the conversationalist, and I, the professional listener, served each other well. He shared many stories from his childhood, and I began to see that, even though we had attended church in the same building, we had outrageously different experiences. While my buddies and I were studying chemistry together, many of the boys in his neighborhood were practicing the art of “better living through chemicals.” While our priest quorum advisor taught us to respect women, his advisor had the boys make an oath of secrecy before introducing them to his pornography stash. “You can’t tell anyone,” the advisor advised. “People won’t understand.” When our Sunday school teacher taught us the sacred value of chastity, his told the kids that it was all a big lie, that he and his girlfriend were having sex, that there was nothing wrong with it, and then he encouraged his students to share how far they’d gone. And while I taught the gospel and encouraged people to join the church as a young missionary, Dan’s mission president manipulated, coerced, and intimidated the missionaries into implementing a teaching program based on manipulation, coercion, and intimidation.

I wondered how I would have responded to a priest quorum advisor who used Play Boy and Hustler as lesson manuals. How would I have responded to a coercive mission program, especially after learning late in my mission that the program originated with the presiding general authority and my mission president despised the program as much as I did?

Dan seemed none the worse for wear. He had become a high priest and served where called, including positions of leadership. He even sat in judgment with other leaders and occasionally joined with them to turn insiders into outsiders.

I added his stories to hundreds of others I’d heard over the years and placed them on a shelf in my personal library. Other prominent stories in my library came from my work with victims of domestic violence. I had learned through their remarkably similar stories that trauma is usually the result of violated expectations. When a priesthood-bearing husband violates his wife’s expectation of respect, then she quite naturally loses respect for him. Her respect for “the priesthood,” however, usually remains intact. If, however, when she seeks help from “the Church,” and finds “the priesthood” aligning with her husband, then often the violation is too great to bear. She learns that not only is she married to an abuser, but that she is a member of an abusive church. The Church ceases to be “true” for her because her expectations have been violated at a foundational level. Sometimes she loses her faith in God, or perhaps worse, that if God exists, He’s the lead despot in a kingdom of aspiring despots.

After living in Dan’s ward for some six years, Sarah and I decided for the second time in our marriage to move far from our home communities—this time to a small town on an island in the pacific. I kept occasional contact with Dan for the next several years. He was fine. New home, new ward, new community. Promotions, raises, and professional success. Then last winter Dan called and told me he’d been reading about DNA and Book of Mormon archeology. “Did you know about that?” he asked.

“Yes, I’ve read a bit,” I said.

“And that book by Ferguson? My dad bases his testimony on that book. Did you know the author left the church?”

“Yes, I remember reading that.”

“How come you never told me?”

“What would I have said?”

“You know,” he said, “I used to tell my investigators that archeologists used the Book of Mormon to help them know where to dig.”

Dan found a listening ear with me—something not always easy to do when discussing the darker aspects of LDS history. He became consumed with discovering the truth. Every Google search result dripped burning acid on his foundational church circuit board. The Kinderhook Plates, the Book of Abraham, The Nauvoo Expositor, Adam/God, scriptural revisions and reversals, first vision accounts, peep stones, the Masons and the temple endowment, and the ugly details surrounding polygamy; standard fare for anti-Mormons. Each new discovery produced a new violation of his expectations until his expectations changed, and then each new discovery confirmed his new expectations. Always a man of deep integrity and still a conversationalist, Dan shared his findings with his wife, his neighbors, and his friends. Some would tell him, “Dan, I’ve learned to put those questions on the shelf for now.”

“You’ve got a mighty big shelf,” Dan would reply.

I spoke to him as a counselor would speak to a client, disclosing little of my own doubts and fears. We discussed Fowler’s stages of change, the process of grief, personality theory, our own family of origin issues, and the relativity of agency. One day he said, “What I did to those people on my mission was wrong. We actually lured people to the church to watch a movie, and then we’d take them in little classrooms and block the door until they got the right answer. I had women in tears. I hated it at first, but after a while I felt proud at how good I was at overcoming objections. I’d apologize if I could.”

We discussed the fact that his was not the only mission where such tactics were used.

“It didn’t start with us, ” he said, “and others have done far worse. I didn’t isolate young girls and women, some of them already married, and tell them they’d go to hell if they didn’t marry me.”

“You know, Dan. Some people consider those words to be blasphemy.”

“But if it’s true, isn’t is blasphemy not to speak them?”

Silence.

“I don’t get it. The general authority who forced us to force people into the church gets up in general conference and bears his testimony. But if I dare mention the truth, then I’m at risk of excommunication.”

“We’re not very good at loving our enemies,” I said.

“Mountain Meadows?”

“A little dramatic, but the same concept.”

“But I’m not bragging about killing the prophet.”

“No, but you’re slam dunking our image of the prophet.”

Silence.

“Move slowly, Dan. You’re not the first to walk this path.”

“No, but it’s my first time.”

“Some come out stronger for it.”

“I’ve got bishops taking me out for lunch, and family and friends praying for my apostate soul.”

“I believe an apostate is someone who fails to honor his own conscience. Some people who stay in the church are apostates, and some people who leave are saints.”

“Now that’s apostate,” Dan said. “And I couldn’t agree more.”

Dan scares me. As a boy and young missionary, he survived a fair number of church related violated expectations. Now, as a middle-aged adult, his new beliefs separate him from the mainstream church. He’s become an outsider—one of them. Of course, the new Dan places tremendous stress on the key people in his life—his wife, family, and friends—and they are dealing with their own violated expectations. What makes a guy like Dan respond to church history the way he does? What keeps more of us from joining him? Why do we love those who investigate themselves into the church and despise those who investigate themselves out? Why is it okay for our leaders to declare they’re not perfect, but it’s not acceptable for members to actually discuss their mistakes and declare them to be so? And if we can’t discuss their mistakes, don’t we increase our chances of repeating them—just as Dan and thousands of other missionaries were coerced to do in their formative years? Is it courage or foolishness that motivates Dan to share his findings? Is it prudence or cowardice that keeps my mouth shut? Am I apostate for staying, apostate for holding back, or apostate for leaving “Zion” and hiding out in my isolated little town?

I don’t know for sure. Maybe I’m just the lukewarm water that God is going to spew out at the last day. But I do know that I’ve seen too much good to leave and too much bad to fully join in. At any rate, Dan’s right. I keep a mighty big shelf in my library. Sometimes I peruse a few pages, sometimes I speed read, and occasionally I concentrate enough to imprint violating images upon my mind. I squirm in the presence of my shelf. But it’s only one shelf in an entire library. I’m not willing to forget all the other shelves and the books and stories I keep on those shelves that have nourished me over the years.

Recently the Southwesterly winds stirred up the seas. I hiked with a friend to a stunning place named Pucker Point. Granite cliffs, some fifty feet high, defiantly jut into the incoming surge as if to say, “Bring it on. I can take it.”  Towering seawater walls exploded on the rocks, shooting tons of foaming water into the air, just out of our reach, and sometimes blocking our view of the sepia toned sky. I watched the waves roil and roll forward along each side of the point, until they rose up on land and then crashed back into themselves. I positioned myself on the edge of the cliff to maximize my terror. I imagined myself sitting in a kayak in a small section of relatively calm waters. And then my stomach tightened as the next wall buried my imaginary self.

Waves like these waves have been crashing against the edge of the earth for millions, if not billions of years. I am both repulsed and drawn to them. I sense that for now at least, I’ll continue to search them out and experience them, just close enough to quake in their presence but far enough to remain on solid rock.

Sometimes I wish for a safer world, a world without military bases, domestic violence therapists, large shelves, and mangled circuit boards. Our scriptures suggest such a world has existed, but as inspiring as it sounds, it makes for poor reading. Stories are born of conflict, contradiction, paradox, good and evil, and overwhelming need. When those things are gone, stories end. As long as human nature remains unchanged, there will always exist one ward verses another, us verses them, and insiders verses outsiders. And good people like Dan will continue to seek out truth, and be violated in the process. Like the churning seas, Dan’s stories and the stories of so many others both repulse and draw me closer. I want to mourn with those who find themselves on the outside—bruised and hurting, but I fear the consequences of retelling their stories and honoring their choices. “Perfect love casteth out fear.” I wouldn’t know. I realize now that fear has been a major motivator all my life. When I was kid, I didn’t win those softball trophies and I dropped out of scouts as a tenderfoot. I huddled close to my third ward friends partially because I was afraid I didn’t measure up, and I might find myself on the outside. And, as much as I hate to admit it, all these years later, fear continues to motivate me. Who would I be without it? How would my life be different if I enjoyed perfect love? Perhaps it’s ironic that I’m afraid to consider those questions too deeply.

I don’t know much for certain. But I know that the seas of the world are crashing against ancient rocks this very moment, and I would guess they’ll continue to do so long after my shelf and Dan ‘s circuit boards are lost and forgotten. As a kid, loving outsiders like Dan didn’t really matter to me—it wasn’t safe. More and more I’m coming to believe that loving Dan and everyone else is just about the only thing that really does matter—safe or not.

We’d like to thank our friend from Sunstone for submitting the above post

Please discuss

One evening when my wife and I had the opportunity to reflect on the timeless story of Adam and Eve, it struck me that their different responses to God’s commandments, and to Lucifer’s “temptation”, perfectly exemplified the different mindsets of TBMs and NOMs, and symbolically portrayed the age-old struggle between Orthodox and Liberal in any faith. And as I meditated on their dramatic dialog with Lucifer, with each other, and with God, it donned on me that Adam and Eve were the perfect TBM-NOM couple.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the TBM and NOM labels, allow me to briefly explain. Generally speaking, the mantra of TBMs is “follow the Prophet” while the mantra of NOMs is “follow your conscience.” This is not to say that TBMs don’t believe in following their conscience, nor that NOMs don’t believe in following the Prophet. Rather, the main difference between TBMs and NOMs relates to who they believe holds the “trump card” in situations where their personal views differ from Church leaders’ views. In such cases, TBMs typically believe they must yield to the authority and judgment of Church leaders, while NOMs typically believe they must follow their conscience even at the expense of disobeying Church leaders. This deference to authority by TBMs, and deference to personal conviction by NOMs, is typically an outgrowth of their divergent views about Church history. TBMs truly believe the Church’s official historical narrative (which supports Church leaders’ exclusive claim to priesthood authority and their special status as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators), while NOMs disbelieve or seriously doubt the Church’s official history (and therefore seek a new order or approach that gleans all the goodness Mormonism has to offer while pruning away the doctrines and practices that don’t bear fruit for them). These divergent views about Church history are usually accompanied by differing views about the nature of prophets and apostles. TBMs typically view prophets and apostles as authoritative guides who “will never lead us astray” in spiritual, temporal, and even political affairs, while NOMs believe that even prophets and apostles unavoidably “see through a glass darkly” when it comes to discerning God’s will, and may therefore occasionally lead us astray despite their best and most sincere intentions — hence NOMs’ inclination to rely ultimately on their own convictions.

Because TBMs typically view Church history and prophetic accuracy as clear-cut, black-and-white matters, they typically view obedience to Church leaders as a simple choice between good and evil. By contrast, NOMs’ murky view of Church history and prophetic discernment causes them to view obedience to authority as a complicated challenge where one must constantly navigate through innumerable “gray areas” of inconsistency and ambiguity, continually confronting the dilemma of choosing between the lesser of two evils, or the greater of two goods.

With that generalized description of TBMs and NOMs in mind, let’s examine how Adam and Eve exemplified these two different approaches.

Adam’s “TBM Response” to Lucifer’s Suggestion to Eat the Forbidden Fruit

Adam’s response to Lucifer when he suggests that Adam eat the forbidden fruit reflects a typical TBM mindset. When Lucifer suggests that Adam eat the forbidden fruit, Adam’s has an instant, knee-jerk rejection. With almost child-like disbelief that Lucifer would even dare suggest that Adam break the rules, Adam responds to Lucifer that because God told him not to eat the fruit, he would not eat it.

Adam’s response to Lucifer exemplifies the typical TBM mindset where all proposed actions are screened to determine whether they would conflict with any pronouncement by Authority, and if so, they are immediately rejected. Adam’s almost-automated thought process resembles that of a computer that refuses to do X simply because it was pre-programmed not to do X. Adam’s response to Lucifer demonstrates that he does not condition his obedience on his understanding or agreeing with God’s rationale for forbidding him from eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge; the mere fact that God has forbidden it is enough to persuade Adam not to do it.

Of equal significance is what Adam does not do when Lucifer suggests he eat the forbidden fruit. He does not carefully ponder Lucifer’s proposal before deciding to reject it; he does not weigh the pro’s and con’s of eating the forbidden fruit or consider how doing so might fit into God’s larger plan. Nor does Adam even consider the possibility that eating the forbidden fruit might actually be necessary to fulfill God’s other commandments. In addition, Adam does not engage in any dialog with Lucifer before deciding to quickly brush aside his suggestion to eat the forbidden fruit; Adam is clearly not interested in learning the rationale behind Lucifer’s suggestion. The mere fact that Lucifer is suggesting he do something that would violate one of God’s commandments is enough to cause Adam to completely distrust and discount Lucifer’s proposal.

In addition, it is interesting to note that when Lucifer tempted Adam to eat the forbidden fruit, he did so with the enticement that it would make Adam “wise”. Adam’s instant rejection of Lucifer’s offer to become wise through unapproved means demonstrates Adam’s absolute trust in Authority; it displays Adam’s confidence that if there is something important to know, God will reveal it to him in due time, and that he therefore need not go behind God’s back and obtain wisdom from alternative sources.

Although Adam’s TBM approach is admirable for the absolute trust and loyalty to God that it displays, it is sobering to recognize that Adam’s unquestioning and absolute obedience –if not tempered by Eve– would have ultimately prevented their spiritual development and unwittingly foiled God’s plan for all mankind. But to be fair to Adam and his like-minded TBMs, we can’t really blame them for taking God and his Prophets seriously when they speak. Just as nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, nobody expects God to tell us, whether personally or through his authorized representatives, not to do something that is actually necessary for our eternal progression.

Eve’s “NOM Response” to Lucifer’s Suggestion to Eat the Forbidden Fruit

Eve’s response to Lucifer’s suggestion to eat the forbidden fruit is the polar opposite of Adam’s. Rather than immediately rebuffing Satan, she actually engages in dialog with the enemy of righteousness. The notable fact that Eve does not immediately dismiss Lucifer’s suggestion to break God’s commandment seems to indicate that: (1) Eve’s mind is at least open to the possibility that God’s commandments must sometimes be broken; and (2) she must rely on her own judgment to determine whether, when, and how she should obey, rather than absolutely and unquestioningly obeying all commandments at all times.

When Lucifer suggests that Eve eat the forbidden fruit for the purpose of gaining knowledge, Eve apparently sees some merit in his unorthodox proposal. Apparently recognizing that knowledge of good and evil is a necessary part of her eternal progression, Eve considers Lucifer’s proposal further by asking whether disobeying God and eating the forbidden fruit is the only way to obtain that knowledge. It seems here that, unlike Adam, Eve intuits the concept of “necessary evil” — situations where we must break one of God’s laws in order to obey a higher law or accomplish a greater purpose. In such cases, technical disobedience to lesser laws enables obedience to higher laws — although the Adams of the Church (TBMs) may interpret such measured disobedience as just plain rebellion at worst, or a lukewarm commitment to God at best.

When Lucifer assures Eve there is no other way to obtain knowledge than by disobeying God’s commandment and partaking of the forbidden fruit, Eve believes Lucifer and partakes. Of course, Eve’s decision to eat the forbidden fruit could be seen as incredibly gullible and foolish. After all, how could she trust that Lucifer was telling her the truth when he said there was no other way to obtain knowledge? And how could she use Lucifer’s assurance as a basis to disregard God’s clear and direct command not to eat the forbidden fruit? Accordingly, Mother Eve’s act of disobedience has been viewed by many as the Original Sin for which she and all mankind have been deservedly punished.

But LDS leaders have taught that Mother Eve should be lauded and revered as a heroine of mankind for her decision to disobey God, not chastised and vilified as a disobedient rebel. As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained:

When Adam and Eve received the first commandment, they were in a transitional state, no longer in the spirit world but with physical bodies not yet subject to death and not yet capable of procreation. . . .

For reasons that have not been revealed, this transition, or “fall,” could not happen without a transgression—an exercise of moral agency amounting to a willful breaking of a law (see Moses 6:59). This would be a planned offense, a formality to serve an eternal purpose. . . .

It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. . . .

Some Christians condemn Eve for her act, concluding that she and her daughters are somehow flawed by it. Not the Latter-day Saints! Informed by revelation, we celebrate Eve’s act and honor her wisdom and courage in the great episode called the Fall. (Dallin H. Oaks, “‘The Great Plan of Happiness’,” Ensign, Nov 1993, 72.)

Is it possible that one of the reasons God required a “willful breaking of a law” in Eden was to teach mankind the paradoxical principle that we sometimes need to disobey ecclesiastical authority and break “the rules” to fulfill God’s greater purposes for our existence? When I consider Brigham Young’s words: “I am fearful they [Church members] settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation,” I wonder, specifically what “purposes of God in [our] salvation” are “thwart[ed]” by “a reckless confidence” in our Church leaders? In light of the LDS doctrine that God’s purpose is to help us become like him, does Brigham Young’s statement mean that it is actually un-Godlike to give unquestioning, absolute Adam-like obedience to our ecclesiastical authorities? Was he advocating a more examined, Eve-like approach to decision-making that recognizes sometimes disobedience is paradoxically necessary to accomplish God’s greater purposes?

Adam’s Redeeming Love

Regardless of what people may think of Adam’s initial failure to recognize the wisdom of eating the forbidden fruit, his loving response to Eve when she informs him of her disobedience and inevitable expulsion from Eden more than redeems him. When Eve informs Adam of her disobedience to God, his choice is a stark one: become separated from Eve and remain innocent and uncompromisingly obedient in a sheltered paradise, or stay with Eve by joining in her disobedience and expulsion. Adam’s willingness to endure disapproval, chastisement, and exile to remain with Eve demonstrated that his love for her exceeded his concern for his own comfort, safety, and approval. By recognizing that the greatest good was to stay together with Eve, and that the greatest evil was to be separated from her, Adam demonstrated he ultimately understood what the Gospel is truly all about.

Adam the Head and Eve the Neck: Both Members of the Body of Christ

When I shared these thoughts with my wife after separately reflecting on the Adam and Eve story, she responded: “Those are interesting observations, but there’s one big problem with your theory: even though it was Eve who made the right decision, Adam was given stewardship over her.” And my wife was right. God’s decision to give Adam stewardship over Eve is another puzzle in an ancient story already filled with paradox. After all, if it was Eve whose “wisdom and courage” made humankind’s existence possible as Elder Oaks has explained, and if it was Adam who was too slow to figure out something as quickly as Eve, then why not just put Eve in charge?

My response to my wife’s valid observation was along the following lines:

You’re right that it seems unfair that Adam was put in charge when it was Eve’s wisdom and courage that led to the right decision and the right result, but that’s exactly how it works in the Church today too. Although the Adams of the Church are put in charge, it’s the Eve’s of the Church that ultimately set the Church’s course. Just about every major change in Church policy and practice has been preceded by a chorus of Eves pleading with the Adams in charge to implement a change of course. For example, Lowell Bennion publicly disagreed with the Church’s priesthood ban long before 1978 and was fired from his CES job as a result of his “rebellious” views. But when the Church abandoned the priesthood ban in 1978, Elder McConkie acknowledged to a conference of CES instructors that he and other prophets and apostles had previously spoken with “limited understanding” when they had supported the priesthood ban. So in effect, there you had an Adam of the Church acknowledging that the Eves of the Church had been right all along. So it’s like the mother said in My Big Fat Greek Wedding: the man may be the head of the family, but the woman is the neck, and she turns the head in whatever direction she wants.

In light of the lessons we learn from Adam and Eve’s divergent approaches to deferring to authority versus relying on personal judgment, perhaps TBMs and NOMs can show greater appreciation for one another. As the Apostle Paul said, we are all “the body of Christ, and members in particular.” (Cor. 12:27) Hopefully, none of us will ever be guilty of saying to another member of the body of Christ: “I have no need of thee.” (Cor. 12:21.) Hopefully, the Adams of the Church (TBM’s) can recognize the valuable role that the Eve’s in the Church (NOM’s) play in moving us all closer to a correct understanding of God’s will, even if occasionally it appears their calls for change seem to be rebellion, disobedience, or disrespect for authority. As the Apostle Paul taught, we must show proper respect to all members of the body of Christ, and particularly those members that seem less honorable: “those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour.” (Cor. 12:23.)

Likewise, hopefully the Eves of the Church can be patient and take hope in the understanding that the Adams of the Church have good motives: they want to obey God, they want to do what is right, and they want to protect and preserve the truths God has given us in times past. Although their role as guardians of truth causes them to view any proposed change of course with great suspicion, they do ultimately come to recognize the wisdom of the course changes proposed by the Eves of the Church, and on a timetable that, although not swift enough for some, hopefully occurs before large numbers of members of the body of Christ decide to amputate one another.

So here’s to Father Adam and Mother Eve’s opposing but complementary approaches to learning, to life, and to love.

The ICM poll of 10,000 people in the USA, UK, Israel, India, South Korea, Indonesia, Nigeria, Russia, Mexico and Lebanon was carried out for the BBC

It reveals that only 46% of respondents in the UK said they have always believed in God – 27% less than the average. Only Russia (42%) and South Korea (28%) were lower. Furthermore just 52% of UK respondents believed God (or a Higher Power) created the universe, compared to 85% in the USA, 83% in Mexico, 99% in Indonesia and 96% in Lebanon.The highest levels of belief are found in the poorer nations of Nigeria (98%), India (92%) and Indonesia (97%).However, the USA – the richest nation polled – has a very high level of belief. Only 13% of those polled in America said they found it hard to believe in God (a Higher power) when there was so much suffering in the world.Yet this compares to more than half (52%) of those polled in the UK – the highest of all the countries – and more than twice the average. The figures for Lebanon were 2% and Nigeria 12%.

The survey found that Only 19% of those in the UK said they would die for their God/beliefs. This compares to 37% in Israel, 90% of those polled in Indonesia and Nigeria, and 71% in the USA and Lebanon.

A staggering 78% of those polled in the USA claimed to have studied religious texts, by far the largest figure, followed by 51% in Nigeria and 42% in the UK. This    compares to an average of 33%.

The poll also looked at the place of religion in the world. Almost a third (29%) of people in the UK believe that the world would be a more peaceful place without beliefs in God but very few people in other countries agreed. Just 6% of those polled in America agreed with this view, 11% in Israel and 9% in India. The average across all ten countries was 10%.Only 15% of those polled in America blamed people of other religions for much of the trouble in the world compared with more than a third (37%) in the UK and 33% in Israel.This figure fell to 8% of those polled in Indonesia, 24% in Lebanon and 17% in India.

The poll also looked at levels of attendance at organised religious services in the UK compared to the rest of the world. Across the ten countries, an average of 46% regularly attend a religious service but the figure was 21% in the UK, the second lowest behind Russia (7%). The highest figure was 91% for Nigerians, with 54% in the USA.

Furthermore just 29% of UK respondents said they had been encouraged to believe in God by someone outside their family, compared with 57% in the USA.

With regards to prayer, a total of 95% of Nigerians polled said they prayed regularly as did 67% of those polled in the USA with further numbers praying occasionally at times of crisis. 28% in the UK said they prayed regularly and 41% in Israel. However 25% of people in the UK and 29% of people in Israel said they never prayed.

The poll did reveal however that nearly 30% of all atheists polled admitted they prayed sometimes.

Asked whether a belief in a God/higher power makes for a better human being, well over 80% of people in most countries agreed, but by far the lowest figure was in the UK with just 56%.

Furthermore, just 42% of UK respondents believed God (or a higher power) judges their actions and the way they lived their lives compared to 76% in America, 72% in Israel, 81% in Nigeria and an average of 70%.

Exploring the issue of tolerance of different religions the poll found that more than 90% of all respondents in Nigeria, Indonesia and Lebanon believed their God was the only true God.This compares to 70% in Israel and just 31% in the UK.

The majority of those polled when asked if they believed death was the end disagreed. This was the case for more than half of the UK respondents (51%), 79% of those polled in Nigeria, 75% in Lebanon and 74% in the USA.

Looking at how attitudes change across different religions, the poll found that while 85% of Hindus and 83% of Muslims said they prayed regularly, only 65% of Christians did and barely a third (38%) of Jews.

When asked if their God was the only true God, 95% of Muslims said yes, compared with 68% of Christians and 66% of Jews.

But when asked if other religions were to blame for the troubles in the world, 34% of Jews agreed, while only 24% of Christians, 18% of Hindus and 14% of Muslims agreed.

What do you think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is your story?

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

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

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