I suppose that we’ve all thought about what our lives would have been like if we weren’t LDS. Actually, whether you’re LDS or of another faith, perhaps you’ve tried to imagine what it would be like to convert to a different religion.  Sometimes I wish I could just pick and choose different aspects of different religions and make them into my own, ideal religion.  So here are just some of the things that I would like to snatch up from the buffet of world religions and philosophies:

Catholicism: First of all, I’m under no illusions about my ability to be a “good” Catholic and accept all the Catholic dogma.  (Goodness knows I can’t do it with Mormon dogma either.)  But I LOVE a lot of things about Catholicism. The obvious attractions are the history, traditions, and churches.  I’ve visited countless Catholic churches and cathedrals throughout Europe and Mexico and have always felt something special inside of them. Aside from being awe-struck on a purely secular level by beautiful art and stunning architecture, it’s hard to not somehow feel closer to Deity in such an atmosphere — especially when you throw Gregorian chants into the mix. It commands reverence in a way that I probably haven’t experienced anywhere else. I felt it when I just happened to be in Notre Dame in Paris during an Easter Sunday mass a few years ago, as well as when I visited Palais des Papes in Avignon, France, or the stunning cathedral in Florence, Italy. I love the fact that many of the cathedrals are always open and you are free to walk in, light a candle, and just sit quietly and meditate in a place that is spiritually inspiring.

Another thing I love about Catholicism is intercessory prayers to patron saints and the Blessed Virgin. Many mistakingly believe that Catholics pray to Mary and the saints in order to worship them, which of course they don’t.  As Mormons, we do something similar by petitioning each other to pray on behalf of ourselves or others. We do it in temples with the prayer roll and we do it in sacrament meeting when we ask the congregation to pray for someone in the ward. Catholics, however, have the option of petitioning departed saints to plead their case before God. I love this idea and would love to think that I could pray to Mary, or Heavenly Mother, or “saints,” Mormon or non-Mormon, and have them petition the Lord on my behalf for something that I need.

I used to always imagine Catholic confession to be a horribly embarrassing practice that I was glad we didn’t have in the LDS Church. However, after reading Catholicism for Dummies, I sort of changed my mind about it. In fact, I could almost see the appeal in being able to go to a priest, who has taken an oath of confidentiality (very important factor!), tell him everything I’m feeling guilty about and then hopefully receive penance for my sins. In some ways, I think it must be very therapeutic. As Mormons, we only go to the Bishop for major sins, but Catholics confess even their lesser sins to a priest.  Pope John Paul II outlined three main reasons for confession:

1. we are renewed in fervor
2. strengthened in our resolutions
3. supported by divine encouragement

Seventh-day Adventist: I knew nothing about Seventh-day Adventists until I noticed that a vegan friend of mine had it listed as her religious views on Facebook. I was curious and did a bit of research. It has certain similarities to Mormonism, both in doctrine and policy, and Adventists do a lot of humanitarian and community work. In fact, my husband’s uncle, who suffers from extreme back pain, recently stayed at a rehabilitation centre run by Seventh-day Adventists in Norway and after a 3-week stay, he looked like a new man. Being a heavy-drinking, chain-smoking meat eater, we were skeptical about how he would like this  alcohol-free, smoke-free, meat-free environment, but he apparently enjoyed his time in the centre very much.  He is even back to work on a part time basis, instead of having to rely 100% on a disability pension.  Seeing what it did for him, I wish he could live there permanently.

What I like best about Seventh-day Adventism is its emphasis on a healthy vegetarian diet. Most avoid coffee and caffeinated drinks like Mormons, but I like the fact that they promote and practise a vegetarian lifestyle — something that very few Mormons do.  Adventists are credited with the development of certain health and vegetarian products, and according to Wikipedia, research by the US National Institute of Health found that the average Adventist in California lives 4-10 years longer than the average Californian.

The Black Churches: Of course, there isn’t just one “black church.”  But there is something special about the way of worship among African Americans. I’ve never personally been to a “black church,” but I’ve watched some services and sermons on TV. The minister giving the sermon is often quite animated, often backed up by an energetic choir and background music, and the congregation is lively. Mormons, by contrast, are pretty conservative in their style of worship. No standing, no clapping, no waving, no shouts of “amen.” I don’t think that either of these styles of worship are “right” or “wrong.” I see value and purpose to both and am perhaps most suited to a style of worship where I can sit quiet and do nothing, but can certainly see the appeal — and perhaps even need — for a more animated style of worship.

Jainism: I first heard of this religion because of an Indian acquaintance of mine, who is a Jain. What I like about Jainism is its respect for all life. According to Wikipedia’s page on Jainism, “(B)ecause all living beings possess a soul, great care and awareness is essential in one’s actions in the incarnate world. Jainism emphasizes the equality of all life, advocating harmlessness towards all, whether these be creatures great or small. This policy extends even to microscopic organisms.”

A devout Jain will not only refuse meat, but even root vegetables such as onions and potatoes, in order to preserve the life of the plant.  I encourage you all to read a bit about Jainism.  It really is a beautiful religion, in my opinion.

Veganism: I know, it’s not really a religion, right?  Well, no, not in the traditional sense, but I think that veganism holds, to many of its adherents, a spiritual aspect to it. I have a few friends who are vegan and although they’re not really “religious” per se, they consider veganism to be their spirituality and are probably among the most compassionate and loving people I know — towards both humans and animals. Veganism requires people to really think about how their dietary choices and actions affect animals, as well as their fellow human beings and the environment. Although I’m not vegan myself, I definitely have a bit of “vegan envy” of those who are able to avoid all animal products for ethical reasons.

Unitarian Universalist: UU’s believe in “complete but responsible freedom of speech, thought, belief, faith, and disposition.  They believe that each person is free to search for his or her own personal truth on issues, such as the existence, nature, and meaning of life, deities, creation, and afterlife.  UUs can come from any heritage, have any sexual orientation or gender identity, and hold beliefs from a variety of cultures or religions.” That statement is something that I can wholeheartedly agree with, but there is a lot more to it.  See more about what UU’s believe here.

Agnosticism: Simply put, agnosticism is “the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism, though it is not a religious declaration in itself.” (Read here for more information.)

I have my days, but for the most part I don’t really doubt that God exists. I do doubt sometimes, however, whether we can ever really “know” that God exists. Wikipedia breaks down different types of agnosticism and I would say that I strongly identify with “Agnostic theism,” also called “religious” or “spiritual agnosticism:

“– the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. Søren Kierkegaard believed that knowledge of any deity is impossible, and because of that people who want to be theists must believe: “If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.”

So what would I be if I weren’t a Mormon? In terms of style of worship, I feel very drawn to Catholicism for the reasons that I mentioned above. In terms of ethics and morality, I absolutely love the message of Jainism, particularly the reasons behind its dietary code. It adds a more religious element to veganism and that’s something that I find very appealing, even though I’m not vegan.  Although I abstain from meat for ethical reasons, I recognize my own personal hypocrisy since I still use eggs and dairy (organic when possible, but even that is no guarantee of ethical practices), as well as a bit of fish on occasion.  I think that believing in the Jain doctrine would give me the motivation needed to go that extra mile and abstain from all unethical dietary practices (although I admit that I can’t imagine ever giving up root vegetables).    Still, though, I feel drawn to Christianity because of Jesus.  But Christianity can be a maze of confusion, with all the different denominations, interpretations and disappointing feuding and hypocrisy. (Mormonism in itself can be a maze that can test one’s spiritual endurance.) Had I not been raised Mormon and found my own little niche in the Church, I think that I would have been drawn to something like Jainism, but would have perhaps still felt that something was missing. If I had found Mormonism later in life, I think I would have been drawn to the Plan of Salvation — which is my favourite part about Mormonism — but I think that I would have been scared off by certain elements of Mormonism and therefore would not have investigated it further.

So I think that if I weren’t a Mormon, I would have felt drawn to a combination of Christianity and Jainism, but would have most likely considered myself to be agnostic because I may not have been able to sincerely believe the doctrines of these other faiths in order to consider myself a true follower.  I do consider myself a true follower of Mormonism, since I do believe in most of its doctines, but I don’t proclaim to know that Mormon doctrine is true, as many Mormons do.

After doing this post, I think I’ve finally figured out what I am at this stage in my life:

I’m a practising Mormon Agnostic Theist with Jain envy.

(Perhaps I’ll have to change the name of my blog.) 

What about you?  What would you be if you weren’t a Mormon?  And are you “envious” of any other religions out there?

Mormon Matters Motto is Exploring Mormon culture in a balanced way- so bare with me on this one (excuse the pun).

Recently we have read that Utah has the highest rate of pornography per capita compared to all other states here

There has been a great deal of speculation about this on the bloggernacle. Could it be that Mormons have this penned up curiosity busting to get out (excuse the pun again). The internet has made pornography just a click away, not like in the days when you had to ask a grocery clerk to pull a magazine out from underneath the counter.

I sometimes wonder with all the emphasis on staying away from drugs, alcohol, pornography if it is causing a worse problem by bringing it to the fore front constantly to members minds.

For example don’t think of Christi Brinkley in a red dress, don’t think about hot percolated coffee, or an ice-cold beer. Could it be the more we constantly emphasize something the more good people who have been living a life of restricted behaviour all their lives start to feel they can’t do that forever without blowing up, then they cave in or take it underground?

Another view is of inoculation especially when it comes to nakedness or nudity. Christian nudist views are “Sexual decadence such as pornography and pedophilia (paedophilia) is the direct result of a lack of exposure to nudity in childhood (particularly of the same approximate age). This is most likely to occur when combined with other factors such as extreme parental attitudes (e.g. body shame) and social isolation. They believe that those that are raised their entire lives within Christian naturism should not have any temptation to engage in such behaviour “such as pornography.

Their experience and testimony is that complete nakedness does not incite individuals to lustful thoughts, unlike for example, a revealing skimpy top that exposes a good deal of a woman’s cleavage or a very short mini-skirt. When naked, all body parts are seen as equal and non-sexualised. When clothed, the focus is on the private parts that are partly revealed and thus objectified and sexualised

Everything you wanted to ask LDS Naturists but were afraid to ask?

Are there really Mormon Nudists?

How many active nudists are also active Mormons?

Where do you find other LDS members that have an interest in naturism?

Are there LDS naturist groups, clubs or organized activities that we can participate in?

How can you be a nudist and respect your Temple garments at the same time?

I know there are no scriptures or specific doctrine against it, but public nudity is just plain wrong – isn’t it?

Isn’t public nudity illegal?

Why get together with other LDS members?

Are Christian Naturists an anomalous group – acting ignorantly or in open defiance to their own doctrine against nudity?

Does “Body-Acceptance” place the flesh above the Spirit?

The church has given very clear council on modesty of dress – wouldn’t nudism be in conflict with that admonition?

Doesn’t being naked in close-company provide an excessive opportunity for temptation?

Click here for the rest of the questions and answers

A Utah Valley, Utah man writes about his first naturist experience…here

LDS Skinny Dipper Home Page here

Please leave a brief reply (sorry couldn’t help it)

We owe Hugh Nibley an enormous debt of gratitude for collecting Brigham’s teachings about the Environment and publishing them in his 1972 essay, “Brigham Young on the Environment”.  When a home teacher shared the essay with me several years ago, I was shocked to read statement after statement by Brigham Young that one would expect to hear from a radical environmentalist, and I quickly discovered my need to repent and abandon my laisseiz-faire attitude toward the Environment.  

What follows is my humble and feeble attempt to briefly summarize Nibley’s lengthy essay for those who haven’t come across it before:

It is staggering to consider the vastness of Brigham Young’s environmental stewardship. He had the task of settling hundreds of thousands of square miles of virtually untouched wilderness. And in the process of founding hundreds of communities in that pristine environment, he had to confront serious and delicate questions about how to care for the Earth while making it a more livable environment for mankind.

Fortunately, Brigham Young’s concept of environmental stewardship was the polar opposite of his contemporaries like Buffalo Bill, whose glorying in man’s domination and mastery over the Environment left a wake of rotting buffalo carcasses hundreds of miles long. By contrast, a New York Herald writer who observed a Pioneer Day celebration held in a canyon outside Salt Lake City in 1860 noted that after the last wagons had left the campground, one man stayed behind “to see that all the fires were extinguished”.  That man was Brigham Young.

Contrary to the beliefs held by some Christian circles, Brigham dismissed the notion that man’s degradation and pollution of the Earth was something that would be swept away as if by the wave of a magic wand upon Christ’s return: “Not many generations will pass away before the days of man will again return,” said Brigham. “But it will take generations to entirely eradicate the influences of deleterious substances. This must be done before we can attain our paradisaical state.”  Thus, Brigham placed squarely on man’s shoulders the responsibility for protecting and restoring the Earth’s natural purity, and intimated that would be a principal labor for God’s people to accomplish during the Millennium.

Brigham’s deep reverence for the Environment was rooted in four of his theological beliefs:

First, that the Earth is mankind’s eternal home, and not just a place we occupy temporarily before we’re transported to some other eternal heavenly realm: “Our business is not merely to prepare to go to another planet,” he explained. “This is our home.”  ”We are for the kingdom of God, and are not going to the moon, nor to any other planet pertaining to this solar system. . . . This earth is the home he has prepared for us, and we are to prepare ourselves and our habitations for the celestial glory in store for the faithful.”

Second, Brigham’s respect for the Environment sprang from his observation that the Earth is not only a source of food, shelter, and fuel, but also a source of joy and spiritual knowledge:

It is one of the most happifying subjects that can be named, for a person, or people, to have the privilege of gaining wisdom enough while in their mortal tabernacle . . . and understand the design of the Great Maker of this beautiful creation.

Fields and mountains, trees and flowers, and all that fly, swim or move upon the ground are lessons for study in the great school of our heavenly Father . . . .

Third, Brigham’s concern for the environment was driven by his belief that the spiritual and temporal are not separate, but are inextricably intertwined.  Accordingly, he saw spiritual and physical pollution as one and the same:

You are here commencing anew . . . . The soil, the air, the water are all pure and healthy. Do not suffer them to become polluted with wickedness. Strive to preserve the elements from being contaminated by the filthy, wicked conduct and sayings of those who pervert the intelligence God has bestowed upon the human family.

Keep your valley pure, keep your towns as pure as you possibly can, keep your hearts pure, and labour what you can consistently, but not so as to injure yourselves. Be faithful in your religion. Be full of love and kindness towards each other.

Fourth, Brigham’s views on the Environment were shaped by his belief that the Earth belongs to God, not to man, and that mankind has only a temporary stewardship over God’s creation to determine who will merit an eternal earthly inheritance in the next life: ”Not one particle of all that comprises this vast creation of God is our own,” he explained. “Everything we have has been bestowed upon us for our action, to see what we would do with it—whether we would use it for eternal life and exaltation or for eternal death and degradation.”

Brigham’s deep reverence for the Environment gave him a special understanding about what it truly means to “improve” or “develop” land.  While the terms “improvement” and “development” usually mean the realization of financial profit from a parcel of land, for Brigham, beautification was the principal goal of land improvement:

[Our work is] to beautify the whole face of the earth, until it shall become like the garden of Eden.

There is a great work for the Saints to do. Progress, and improve upon, and make beautiful everything around you. Cultivate the earth and cultivate your minds. Build cities, adorn your habitations, make gardens, orchards, and vineyards, and render the earth so pleasant that when you look upon your labours you may do so with pleasure, and that angels may delight to come and visit your beautiful locations.

Brigham believed the beautification of the Earth could best be accomplished, not merely by multiplying mankind’s numbers, but by planting, growing, and multiplying the vast variety of flora and fauna found upon it: “The very object of our existence here is to handle the temporal elements of this world and subdue the earth, multiplying those organisms of plants and animals God has designed shall dwell upon it.”

When it came to the question of how much land to develop, Brigham’s response was to use as little as necessary to satisfy our needs, and he had a strict definition of human need.  Speaking to a congregation, he once explained: 

[O]ur real wants are very limited. What do we absolutely need? I possess everything on the face of the earth that I need, as I appear before you on this stand. . . . I have everything that a man needs or can enjoy if he owned the whole world. If I were the king of the earth I could enjoy no more.

When you have what you wish to eat and sufficient clothing to make you comfortable you have all that you need, I have all that I need.

I do not desire to keep a particle of my property, except enough to protect me from a state of nudity.

In response to the idea that environmental degradation was a necessary sacrifice for the modern conveniences afforded by industrialization, Brigham offered a retort that bordered on contempt for the creations of man as compared to the Creator’s handiwork:

The civilized nations know how to make machinery, put up telegraph wires, &c., &c.; and in nearly all branches they are trying to cheat each other. . . . They have been cheating themselves for the golden god—the Mammon of this world.

[They think it wonderful to] dwell amid the whirl of mental and physical energies, constantly taxed to their utmost tension in the selfish, unsatisfying and frenzied quest of worldly emolument, fame, power, and maddening draughts from the syren cup of pleasure.

[Having] obtained the promise that he should be father of lives, in comparison with this, what did Abraham care about machinery, railroads, and other great mechanical productions?

Central to Brigham’s views on the Environment was his ardent belief that to waste is to sin.  He urged the Saints to be strictly conservationist in their daily living:

It is not our privilege to waste the Lord’s substance.

Never let anything go to waste. Be prudent, save everything.

Everything, also, which will fertilize our gardens and our fields should be sedulously saved and wisely husbanded, that nothing may be lost which contains the elements of food and raiment for man and sustenance for beast.

One of the more striking aspects of Brigham’s views was his unconditional reverence for the life of all God’s creations, including even those creatures whose survival comes at mankind’s expense.  While today a monument stands in Temple square expressing gratitude for the flocks of seagulls that devoured the hordes of grasshoppers that ate the Mormon settlers’ crops, Brigham had a different attitude toward those creatures that most would consider “pests”:

Last season when the grasshoppers came on my crops, I said, ‘Nibble away, I may as well feed you as to have my neighbors do it; I have sown plenty, and you have not raised any yourselves.’ And when harvest came you would not have known that there had been a grasshopper there. Pay attention to what the Lord requires of you and let the balance go.

According to present appearances, next year [1868] we may expect grasshoppers to eat up nearly all our crops. But if we have provisions enough to last us another year, we can say to the grasshoppers—these creatures of God—you are welcome. I have never yet had a feeling to drive them from one plant in my garden; but I look upon them as the armies of the Lord.

More than anything, Brigham’s love of nature grew out of his love for God, for he saw the Earth as God’s loving creation:

We should love the earth. We should love the works which God has made.

Let me love the world as He loves it, to make it beautiful, and glorify the name of my Father in heaven. It does not matter whether I or anybody else owns it, if we only work to beautify it and make it glorious, it is all right.

SOURCE:

All quotes above were taken from Hugh Nibley’s essay “Brigham Young on the Environment.”   See here to read the essay in full.