BIG, GIANT DISCLAIMER: This is very GENERAL. It is not meant to apply to everyone. Some areas may be different for an individual. I am willing to discuss where you think I might have gotten it wrong, but please realize the GENERAL nature of it all.

First a few paragraphs of explanation.

The LDS faith is a relatively young (180 years old) religion and is governed from a very centralized structure. Judaism, on the other hand, is much older (anywhere from 6000 to 3500 years, depending on who you ask and what you consider the start of Judaism).  Since the destruction of the Temple, it is very decentralized and there are only a few groups with any kind of centralized structure.

I divided the tables along the different groups of Judaism and overlaid Mormons to it. So definitions of the various groupings are in order.

Judaism

Orthodox – The strictest of the Jewish divisions. They are divided into three distinct groups:  Modern Orthodox Judaism and Haredi Judaism, and Hasidic sects. Also important in those divisions is where the Jews are Ashkenazic (mainly from Northern and Eastern Europe) or Sephardic (from Southern Europe, Africa and the Middle East). They follow different Rabbis and different interpretation of the Law. They are the most conservative of the Jewish groups and believe they follow the laws as given anciently. Women are held in a traditional role and do not openly participate in the worship services or have any role as a worship leaders. Priesthood, while largely ceremonial plays a role in worship services

Conservative – This group represents the largest group of Jews and the name can be deceiving.  It does not imply conservatism as applied to politics, but it is an effort to “conserve” Jewish tradition through modernization of its teachings and practices. Begun in Germany in the 1850s, it strives to apply modern principles but traditional in practice.  More liberal than Orthodox, it has no central leadership or specific declaration of belief. It would rather be known as Masorti or Traditional Judaism because of the confusion over the name conservative. Women have a much larger role in this movement and are allowed to be Rabbis, Cantors and perform all the rites of the faith the same as men. Priesthood, while also ceremonial, plays a role in Worship services

Reform – Traces its origins to the early 20^th century in Europe and the US. It is the most liberal wing of the faith and values autonomy, modernity and universalism. The reform movement in Judaism challenged many traditionalist Jewish doctrines, adapted or eliminated practices, and introduced its own theological and communal innovations. It was the first group to offer full participation to women in its leadership and religious worship. Priesthood usually plays no role in worship services.  Orthodox Jews do not even recognize the movement as being Jewish.

Mormonism

Conservative – Those Mormons who fully embrace the faith, its teachings, practices and traditions. They may adhere to traditions which might not have real scripture basis and have a very strict interpretation of Sabbath practices, scripture study and prayer.  They follow the words of the leaders as closely as possible. There may be little to no questioning of doctrines and practices. They try to do everything possible to lives the Gospel fully as they understand it. Very active.

Middle of the Road – Fully embraces the faith, its teachings, practices and cultural traditions. May question certain traditions as relevant in modern times and might be flexible on Sabbath adherence such as TV viewing, clothing (not wearing Sunday clothes all day). They might have a lot of questions about gospel doctrine and past practices but general manage to have a strong testimony. Active in Church and callings.

Liberal – These folks might embrace the gospel fully but with big questions about certain beliefs. They might also reject certain doctrine as being not fully explainable or in line with scripture or history. They question the words of leaders and apply those things which they understand have real value to their lives. They might reject some “advice” or teachings.  Most liberal Mormons still attend some or all Church meetings, but do not always find satisfaction in the meeting content or the lessons. The gamut ranges from active to very less active. Less sure of the one true nature of the LDS Church. Might be known as New Order, Cafeteria or Buffet Mormons.

I would like to introduce Madam Curie which many of you know her by on her replies at Mormon Matters she also has her own blog Third Wave Mormon . She has shared with us what I think is a very interesting and thought provoking article.

Is a “believing heart” really a positive attribute?

“Blessed are those that have not seen, and yet have believed.” – John 20:29

“Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” – Hebrews 11:1

Having a “faithful” or “believing” heart is greatly prized among the religious. Those who uncover less savory aspects of LDS history are frequently told to “Just have faith,” even in the face of opposing evidence. As I have pondered the question of faith, I have begun to question whether a “believing heart” is really a positive attribute, or where and when it should be applied.

From a scientist’s perspective, faith is about the worst thing you can have; the scientific method entirely depends on an ability to be objective, and to rationally and logically question what you see. This seems absolutely antithetical to the idea that we should have a “believing heart”. From the perspective of a smart shopper, you should never take a product’s claims on their word only. And in terms of internet safety, there is an army of Nigerian princes waiting for you to have “faith” in them.

Is there a requirement that the thing we have faith in be a “true” principle? For example, I can have faith that my son will one day win the Nobel Prize in Medicine, but that doesn’t not make it so. In fact, that faith may lead me to make potentially detrimental decisions in my son’s upbringing: for example, stressing science over any other talent he may have, and giving him unrealistic and unattainable goals. Goal setting is incredibly stressed in the LDS church. In the Single’s ward we were told that all we had to do was set a date for when we wanted to be married; if we had enough faith, God would provide the man.

Even if we constrain the practice of faith to the spiritual realm, it is still not entirely clear what religious teachings we should have faith in. I have heard strong, compelling testimonies of faith from Jews, Muslims, polygamous FLDS, Mormons, Catholics, and born-again Christians. Each of them had a “believing heart”. Furthermore, am I required to have faith in the doctrine alone, or must I also have faith in the leaders of these individual religions? What if I am asked to do something that is illegal, or morally wrong? (An immediate example is Joseph Smith’s commandment to enter into polygamous marriages, something that was both illegal and was considered a moral aberration). Are faith and obedience to be prized above courage and conscience?

What about when your faith in something is at the expense of another? For example, Pres. Monson told the CA Saints to give their time and money to pass Prop. 8, which overturned the ability of homosexual Californians to marry. For many of those individuals, they had faith that Pres. Monson was speaking directly for God on the matter. If they had not, they may have acted differently.

If you apply the criterion that the thing you have faith in must “enlarge your heart,” well, even that is unclear. I have found equally strong spiritual emotions in the practice of Paganism and Buddhism as I have had as a Mormon, and I find great joy in attending Catholic Mass. Does that make all of these faith traditions “true”? Yet, they contradict one another in doctrinal teachings, so how is that possible? And several of them contend to be the “only true church”.

Where is the value in faith for faith’s sake?

Much has been said in this vein by people with more wisdom and experience than me. So my point here is not to examine the psychology, convince you to stay, leave, become a cafeteria Mormon or anything of that nature. I just want to speak with you. I want to talk directly to you and tell you at least one possible route you might take. You can take my words with a grain of salt, but do yourself a favor and at least ponder them for a moment!

To those struggling in their faith:
Turn inward, not outward. Stop making your tradition the object of your worries, and worry about you. Decide that you will take responsibility for your own spirituality. Recognize that the only thing in life you get to control is you – and rightfully so. Use that power to dictate your future spirituality and stop being controlled by other influences whether historical, cultural, or familial. Use the power found in personal responsibility to elevate yourself by loving others. Recognize that people make choices and get to control themselves just like you get to control you. These two attitudes allow you to build a healthy mechanism for interacting with people. You have compassion for others, and even organizations, and give them the benefit of the doubt because you know they are imperfect.  But you also reserve your right to act in response to their actions in the way you see fit. You try to create the perfect balance of love and compassion with resolute understanding of your right to control yourself.

You then arrive at a place where you get to decide what you believe and what you won’t believe. But you have also learned (since you’ve been there before) that you better not believe everything you think! You know you need to constantly learn from other people, cultures, ideas, science, religion, etc. If you don’t, you run the risk of reverting to the same mindset you previously had (although with a different set of ideas). You see that you’re not that interested in joining with people who simply verify what you already believe because there is no growth for you there (and that’s exactly what your old tradition gave you in your former self). You have now fully realized that the object of your disaffection was not your old tradition, but your old mindset and attitude. You have elected to take control and modify your expectations of your old tradition, people, and life in general.

You are now prepared to look to your old tradition, and when you do you find that it isn’t so bad when viewed from your new perspective – and besides you feel at home there in some sense. You are largely aloof of all the truth claims (they may or may not be true, it doesn’t really matter that much anymore), culture, and doctrinal problems but you enjoy associating with good people and you see everyone as “good people.” You occasionally feel like an “alien” because while you feel comfortable in your old tradition, you realize that you are on your own personal journey, grabbing bits of truth here and bits of truth there. You no longer feel like part of the “collective.”

You understand your purpose in the organization from the view of your new perspective. You’re not interested in making institutional changes as you view the church as your spiritual tool in the toolbox of life. You are invested enough that you want the organization to succeed, but divested enough that your world won’t end if it doesn’t.  You may not accept some callings offered to you, but welcome opportunities to make a difference on a local, more personal level in a way you are comfortable.  Once again, you are in control of your spirituality.

You look at the people in your old tradition and see them on their own journey, believing what they want, all while recognizing you can learn from them even if you don’t necessarily believe what they believe. You see most truth as relative for each person, yet admit that existence and nature are the ultimate objective truth and reality. You have arrived at a healthy balanced view of the world. But in that very moment of “arrival,” the next life event makes its way onto center stage in your mind and you’re right back to work through the new challenges trying each time anew to maintain the proper balance you developed before. But you know that with each cycle it gets better and better!

You are now in a strange paradox, feeling comfortably uncomfortable. Faithful Mormons will likely see you as apostate if they could see things from your perspective. And by the same token, apostates will see you as an apologist, caught up in ignoring reality. But you know you have embraced reality as your guiding star to help you navigate the seas of life! You have embraced the ideology that each ideology has some truth, and some falsehoods, and you accept the obvious irony in this very statement!

Good luck on your lonely journey, there are many who have come before you and will come after you to cross the same bridges.

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.

Activity in the Church is loosely defined as attending Sacrament meeting once every three months. After that you are considered “less active,” which was changed a number of years again from “inactive.”  I guess “less” is better sounding than “in” which means not.  Which is technically what those members who never attend are: “not active”  It also takes into account those members who are partially active rather than fully active.

Anyway, a number of years ago, I lead a committee of Stake Council members to determine how we in the Stake could help Strengthen Families.  We were seeing a trend of dropping Church attendance, temple going, and tithe paying among the members.

One of the conclusions we arrived at is there is a façade of activity among some  members of the Church. That is, they appear to be active in the Church but are not fully committed.  This manifests itself by:

• Lack of a current temple recommend
• Not full tithe payers
• No Family Home Evenings
• No Family Scripture Study or prayer
• Not doing home or visiting teaching
• No bearing of testimony
• Turning down callings
• Not attending all Sunday Meetings (sitting in the halls)
• No participation in classes
• No participation in service projects
• Little to no food storage

Now, before you start to complain about my list, I am not suggesting that any of these items individually constitute this façade, but a combination of items might be an indication of the level of real activity.  On the other hand, I’ve learned from the Bloggernacle there are many partial or non-believers who still attend church for one reason or another, but mostly because of family.  But perhaps they hold no temple recommend or do not attend, do not pay tithing and have no calling to speak of.  This information was not available to us at that time we were studying this issue.

I’ve heard and read statistics that as little as 25% of all church members pay tithing and less than 15% have any food storage.  I can’t prove these stats, but that is what I’ve heard.  That would tend to back up my thesis.

We have a saying in my current word that is abbreviated by the initials “STP.”  It stands for Same Ten People.  I probably don’t have to explain that to most church members.

Since the overarching objective of the Church is to help people:

“Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.  And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot. “( Moroni 10:32 – 33)

It seems that everything else is secondary to that.

So am I off base here or is it true?  Is there a façade of activity among some Church members?  And what, if anything, do we do about it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then, as opening to his conclusion:

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

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

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

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

What even works? What doesn’t work?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recently I saw Religulous here and he touched on Horus here and a few of the parallels between the story of Horus and Jesus.

Many Mormons when they start delving and  unravelling events in our history also delve into what they can find out about (possible origins)

to the bible or even if you want to say conspiracy theories. Horus is one I have heard of members in our church and Christians of all faiths looking into as they go deeper into their historical studies of the Bible. Look at some of the comparisons sited by religious tolerance

Questions

Is this whole thing grasping at straws or is it uncanny the parallels between the two stories of Horus and Jesus?

Please Discuss

Notes: Religous Tolerance

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2009/01/25/horus-bible-parallels/feed/ 21 http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/29/can-you-be-a-unitarian-and-a-mormon-at-the-same-time/ http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/29/can-you-be-a-unitarian-and-a-mormon-at-the-same-time/#comments Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:30:37 +0000 James http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3659

We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true Mormons. Joseph Smith

Are you a Unitarian without knowing it?

We believe that:

• In the spirit of civil and religious liberty, equality of respect and opportunity is for everyone
• Everyone has the right to seek truth and meaning for themselves.
• The fundamental tools for doing this are your life experience, your reflection upon it, your intuitive understanding and the promptings of your own conscience.
• The best setting for this is a community that welcomes you for who you are, complete with your beliefs, doubts and questions.

We can be called religious ‘liberals’:

• Religious because we unite to celebrate and affirm values that embrace and reflect a greater reality than self.
• Liberal because we claim no exclusive revelation or status for ourselves; because we afford respect and toleration to those who follow different paths of faith.

We are called ‘Unitarians’:

• Because of our traditional insistence on divine unity, the oneness of God.
• Because we affirm the essential unity of humankind and of creation.

A liberal approach

Unitarians find their bond of unity in shared values, such as:

• The nurture of life’s spiritual dimension.
• The use of reason and honest doubt in the search for truth.
• Mutual respect and goodwill in personal relations.
• Constructive tolerance and openness towards the sincerely-held beliefs of others.
• Peace, compassion, justice and democracy in human affairs.
• Reverence for the earth and the whole natural system of which we are part.

It is the Unitarian experience that these values form a more effective foundation for true community than insistence on uniformity of belief and doctrine. Unitarians affirm that truth and humanity are best served where both the mind and the conscience are free. They maintain that no one book, institution or individual has the monopoly on truth, no matter what they may claim for themselves or their devotees may claim for them. Unitarians affirm that:

• Every person’s life involves developing a value-system by which she or he lives.
• People should enjoy individual liberty and private judgment in spiritual matters.
• Respect for integrity is preferable to the pressure to conform.
• Beliefs may change in the light of new understanding and insight.
• The final authority for your faith lies within your own conscience.

On our personal life journey we are aided and inspired by:

• The example and spiritual insights of others.
• Writings deemed ‘holy’ and ‘sacred’ by the various faith-traditions of humanity.
• Inherited traditions of critical and philosophical thought.
• The ongoing creative work of artists, musicians and writers.
• The scientist’s search for knowledge and understanding.

Here Unitarian PDF A Faith worth thinking about?

You Tube video explains it very well!  Here

Questions

As you probably know there are 5^th Generation Mormon/Masons who receive all the privileges affiliated with the church

But can you be a non-theist=non Christian Unitarian and a Mormon receive all the privileges affiliated with the church?

Even in our church there seems to be a growing number of active non-theist members?

Aren’t we encouraged to have Inter-Faith Partnerships and Dialogue associate with religions whose teachings differ from ours?

Do you disagree with some of their teachings?

Do you identify with some of their teaching and principles more than you do with some LDS teachings?

What are some of the good principles we should gather together and bring into Mormonism?

This post is actually a virtual RS/PH lesson, #23:  “How Good and How Pleasant It Is . . . to Dwell Togehter in Unity.”  See how I snuck that in there?  Here are some interesting points from the lesson:

The first part of the lesson emphasizes how temple building brought the Saints together in a common purpose.  It is interesting that the focus is on the work to build the temple, and there is no specific implication that the temple itself would create unity among the Saints, a point made more eloquently by joe spencer here.)

How Action Unites Us

The efforts of the Kirtland Saints were typical of the unity, sacrifice, and devotion that would make it possible for the Lord’s purposes to be fulfilled in the years to come. This was one of many times when the Saints would pull together, heeding the admonition of the Prophet Joseph Smith: “A long pull, a strong pull, and a pull all together.” (JS quoted by BY in 1867)

Q:  Although we are no longer typically involved in the act of building temples, how does temple construction still bring church members together?  What other action-oriented events create unity of purpose?  Consider:  lay clergy, visiting/home teaching, humanitarian/service projects, etc.

Q:  How do church members sometimes pull in different directions vs. together?  What happens when church members pull in different directions rather than together?

Q:  Does a lack of action create disharmony (as the saying goes “idle hands are the devil’s playground”–or something like that)?

A Diverse Church

“We would wish the Saints to understand that, when they come here, they must not expect perfection, or that all will be harmony, peace, and love; if they indulge these ideas, they will undoubtedly be deceived, for here there are persons, not only from different states, but from different nations, who, although they feel a great attachment to the cause of truth, have their prejudices of education, and, consequently, it requires some time before these things can be overcome. “  (1841)

Q:  Do people still expect perfection of other church members?  How do these expectations create disunity in the church?

Q:  How do cultural divides cause disunity in the church?  How can we overcome that in a global church that includes members from all personalities, political persuasions, and socio-economic divides?

Q:  What “prejudices of education” still exist in the church today?  How do we overcome these prejudices?

A Social Church

“We, all of us, have our friends, our connections, our families and associations; and we find that the ties of friendship … and brotherhood have indissolubly united us together with a thousand endearing associations; we have embraced the one common faith.  A kindred sympathy runs through the whole body, even the body of Christ, which, according to Paul’s statement, is his church; and no one part of the body can be injured without the other parts feeling the pain, for says Paul, if one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; and if one member rejoice all the rest are honored with it.” (1842)

Q:  Who should be considered part of the Saints?  All who self-identify as Mormons or just those who practice their religion?  All who sympathize with Mormons?

Q:  How do our ties to others in the church increase the church’s strength despite the many flaws we and other members have?

Q:  How do we help those who may feel like a minority in the church feel fully welcome and valued as a part of the group?  How do we keep the majority from driving out the minority?

Discuss.

I was given a tool (the church) and I used it for all kinds of things – it was a hammer, a door prop, a food masher, whatever. I loved my tool.

Suddenly, life started to demand new things from me and the tool wasn’t cutting it. I felt betrayed. This tool was supposed to last.

Then, I start looking at the tool (I don’t throw it away rashly), and I see a button. I press the button and realize that this tool is actually a flashlight. It’s been a flashlight the WHOLE time. I’d been using it inappropriately from the start .

Sure, it worked for all kinds of things, and I suppose it still could, but for the first time, I can start using it for what it really is. Can’t really blame the salesman, he probably didn’t know what it was either. And I’m glad I didn’t throw it away. Now, that is one cheese-ball analogy, I know. But it’s how I feel.

After a life change or a crisis of faith, some people would like their “old testimony” back. I remember times when I wanted that old testimony back so badly.  It’s like I wanted that world back where my tool worked for everything.  But we can’t.  As human beings we grow.  We can never have THAT testimony ever again.  Not anymore.  And as long as we’re scrambling for it, we’re not moving. The sacrament of doubt is ruthless but it’s so worth it. The scales fall from our eyes, and we can finally see the world for what it really is.

And again, I have no solutions other than time, books, people, time, patience, time, more books, a vacation, time and patience. Maybe a massage, too.  I do know, though, that it’s hard to move on until we find new purpose.

I see the church as tool, like a flashlight, that gives me more God. Its truthfulness and exclusivity are nice (like, sure, I could use my flashlight as a door prop), but it shines light on life, and that’s why I keep it.

So, what is the church to you?  Does this analogy speak to you?  Discuss.

Valoel: Hello Prairie Chuck. Thank you for spending some time to talk about your online support group. What does the name “FacesEast” mean?

Prairie Chuck: The name invokes symbolism of looking to the east: the rising sun, new hope, the dawn of a new day, our belief that Christ will come again from the east. Marriage with a differently-believing spouse may be difficult. In facing east, we are looking for new hope, inspiration and strength in Christ.

Valoel: What is the mission of the support group? .

Prairie Chuck: FacesEast.org exists as an online forum to support LDS members whose spouses are inactive, disaffected or non-LDS. Our primary goal is to sustain and strengthen these marriages. Under ideal circumstances, marriage can be stressful. Faith and religious beliefs are a fundamental part of life shared between spouses. The goal of the forum is to help each other navigate the day to day challenges of marriage, active LDS faith and family.

Valoel: Why do you spend the time and effort you do with FacesEast.org?

Prairie Chuck: Because I made so many mistakes and went so many years with no support. I saw too many marriages fall apart over church disaffection. I want to help others see it doesn’t have to be that way.

Valoel: How does being a part of the group help you personally?

Prairie Chuck: It gives me a safe place to express my doubt and frustrations, as well as be inspired and encouraged by others facing similar issues. I like to think we are all good for each other.

Valoel: Tell me about yourself. Who is Prairie Chuck, and how did she get here? What was your journey through life that brought you to being the leader of the FacesEast.org online support group?

Prairie Chuck: I’m a returned missionary, and I married a returned missionary in the temple in 1985. Within 2 months of our marriage, my husband began expressing doubts about the Church. By 1989, he had completely left. Those first 4 years were horrible! I didn’t handle it well. There was no one to help me. His family panicked and overreacted as much as I did. Bishops and Relief Society Presidents were not very encouraging, and sometimes they were down right detrimental.

So I floundered around for a good solid 2 years, not knowing really what to do. In spite of set backs, I started coping better with our situation over time. I accepted the path he was on, but then needed to work on healing our damaged relationship. There have been lots of challenging points over the years: when our first child was born, blessed then baptized, and also the death of his brother.  He took gradual steps that distanced himself from the Church.  He stopped attending services, stopped paying tithing, and stopped wearing garments. Those were difficult adjustments to watch.  Each one started me on the grieving process again.  They were not issues I expected to deal with, having married another returned missionary in the temple.

And then there were my own doubts. At times I despaired of ever finding peace or understanding. Each event meant a lot of soul searching, readjusting, many of them started the whole “5 steps of grieving” process all over again.

But there were also good turning points. One was a good friend of mine, my former Seminary teacher (who helped me survive the trauma and angst of teenager-hood). I called him a couple times and poured out my woes. Finally he asked me “[Prairie Chuck], why do you stay married to him?” Well, because I love him. I want an eternal marriage. I made covenants. He’s a good man. “No, WHY do you stay married to him?” He wouldn’t accept any of the pat, easy answers, nothing that came from any Young Women or Relief Society lessons.

For the first time, I took a hard look at what makes a good relationship without falling back on any of the church definitions or paradigms. By the way, ironically, this friend left the church about 10 yrs later. He is Ken Clark, who appeared on the PBS show “The Mormons.”

I needed a spiritual anchor to hold on to. About one year into my husband’s disaffection, I went to the temple fasting. While there, I prayed about what I should do. Should I stay in this marriage or should I leave? There was no “stay” or “go” answer. The Lord told me that He had blessed our marriage. It was up to me to honor that or not. He also made it clear to me that the endowment gave me all I needed to be happy in this life and the next. From that point on I began drawing on the powers of the endowment in my life, making it my anchor when I felt I was lost. It was my personal relationship with the Lord that mattered, not what someone else did or didn’t do. I had to measure up to what the Lord wanted of me, not what the church said was expected. It was the beginning of my very personal walk with the Lord.

I went through periods of doubting the church and trying to reconcile what I’d learned about the church through my husband’s studies. About 6-7 yrs ago, I was pointed in the direction of the internet and the New Order Mormon forums.

I became friends with several people online, and was heartbroken to hear of the troubles they were having in their marriages. I kind of sympathized with the believing spouses because I had acted the same way in the past. I felt bad for the pain this put all of them through. I thank God that my husband had the patience to let me work through it all, so we could learn to make our marriage work. After seeing the 3rd or 4th divorce at New Order Mormon being discussed, I decided it was time to start a support board.

My hope was to help some of the believing spouses of NOMs avoid the mistakes I had made, and find peace and happiness in their new type of marriage situation. There were a handful of NOMs who gave huge support. I would really like to thank Dathon, Jeffrett, Captain Jack, Peggy (rip), Nanna and Solistics. It is largely because of them that FacesEast.org went from a good idea to reality.

Valoel: Tell me about a moment of sorrow you had after you found out your husband no longer believed.

Prairie Chuck: The worst incident I can remember was when my husband’s father stood in front of his whole family (including our oldest son) and said “You are an apostate. There can never be any understanding between us, you will never be the son to me you could have been because you have rejected God.” There were so many other hurtful words said that day. It made me sad to see how little they understood their son, how they had let the church separate them from their child.

Valoel: Wow… that’s really tough to hear. Those kind of situations make it tough to keep your faith positive in the Church while not feeling like you betray loyalty to your husband you love so much.

Prairie Chuck: Yes. It is sometimes. It creates moments when you are almost in a no-win situation.

Valoel: Can you think of common concerns of people in the FacesEast.org support group? What are the regular topics that pop up over and over? What do members need help with and support?

Prairie Chuck: The most common concerns people have are finding compromises with their spouse regarding doctrinal practices and beliefs. How will the couple pay tithing when one spouse no longer believes in doing so? What aspects of the Word of Wisdom are negotiable in the relationship? How will they handle religious ordinances like infant blessings and baptisms? Can the believing spouse have family prayer and scripture study in the home without negative comments or ill feelings being generated? How do we also handle our own doubts, and especially questions about problems in the Church our spouse might want to discuss? These are common topics. You can’t just tell someone to pray harder until the problems disappear. People want help and solutions.

Most importantly, the believing spouses need someone to talk to – not to feel totally alone. These are topics we can’t seem to normally and openly discuss in our local congregations.

Valoel: What things would you like to hear from the Prophet, Apostles and other General Authorities of the Church about marriages involving different types or levels of belief?

Prairie Chuck: I would love to hear them talk about eternal marriage not being formulaic, as some might believe. “In my Father’s House are many mansions.” Let’s talk about the redemptive power of love. Marriage is more important than non-marriage. Let’s not have 2nd class marriages — like marriages with non-members or disbelieving LDS. Let’s honor and support ALL marriage relationships!

Valoel: How can local Church leaders support members with mixed-faith marriages? What common mistakes or misunderstanding happen between members and local leaders?

Prairie Chuck: I think the single biggest help is to acknowledge the disbelieving spouse. Don’t pretend s/he doesn’t exist or doesn’t care what happens with the family. This means the leaders have to be willing to talk to the disaffected spouse and understand their boundaries and expectations. This is especially important when the Church intrudes into family space with callings, home teaching/visiting teaching, ordinances, etc. Try to be comfortable with the member’s disbelieving spouse.

Please communicate, communicate, communicate! Don’t assume anything. Don’t act on old, second-hand information.  There can be inaccurate gossip circulating sometimes.  People make wrong assumptions, and that can be painful.

These are the three most common (and hurtful) things I hear from people’s experiences with local leaders:

1. “I could never stay in the marriage if my husband/wife left the church. I love God too much.”

This implies that anyone married to a disaffected member must not love God very much, or that the two loves are mutually exclusive. It implies that the disaffected member is so evil that having any understanding or love for that person is to hate God. My father-in-law said something similar to me “I could never talk to R. about this because I love God too much. He’d say something bad about Christ and I’d just end up decking R.” Wow! That was not helpful.

2. “S/He’s going to lead your children away from the church.”

This demeans the believing spouse and assumes family dysfunction. It implies that the spouses are working against each other, and the children will somehow have to choose one or the other. In a healthy marriage the two spouses will be working together on how to raise the children. When the child is old enough, the choice of what to believe will be based on the child’s experience with God, not which parent they love more or want to hurt less.

3. “Don’t worry, everything will be fine.  Live righteously and you’ll get a better husband/wife in the next life.”

This implies that the spouse’s disaffection is somehow the result of the believer’s unrighteousness. There’s an intense pressure to re-convert our spouse. That may never happen. If the disaffected spouse doesn’t return to the Church, it must be because the believer was not valiant and righteous enough? And just what does “everything will be fine” mean? The worst of all implications is that you will be “given” to a better husband in the next life (Men don’t have this issue to deal with—lucky you!).

Valoel: What would you like to say to disaffected members who are married to a spouse that still believes and wants to continue participation in the LDS Church? What advice would you give?

Prairie Chuck: Please be respectful. Follow the Golden Rule. If you want your spouse’s support in your new-found disbelief, you need to support him/her in their belief. Please be gentle and slow in how you express the reasons for your disaffection in the beginning. There really is no good way to break the news, it’ll be hard no matter how you do it, but there are lots of bad ways to go about it.

Please be patient as your spouse finds his/her footing with your change in belief. There will be anger, frustration, desperation, pleading, bargaining and sadness. Let him/her work through it. Then work to find compromises you can both live with. Don’t frame any questions of belief as “my way or your way”, especially when it comes to the children. When the children choose what to believe or not believe, you don’t want them to feel like they are choosing between mom or dad, that it will alter their relationship with either parent. (This advice applies equally to the believing spouse too!)

Valoel: What could other members of the Church learn from your experience in this support group?

Prairie Chuck: I would say, first learn to separate church problems from marriage problems. Every marriage has issues of respect or differing expectations. Do not blame things that are normal human difficulties on the spouse’s disbelief.

Be aware that the believing spouse in some ways is like a widow or widower — they lack the support that comes when both spouses believe. They grieve for the loss of the “ideal LDS marriage.” They often have to be both mom and dad when it comes to teaching the gospel and managing church involvement for their children.

Unlike the widow/er who gets a funeral and everyone is aware of their loss, most people at Church seem to assume everything is fine. After all, they’re coming to church, aren’t they? They hold callings, don’t they? Too few understand the cost of coming to Church, and the impact that callings and church involvement have on the family and marriage with a disaffected (and sometimes angry) spouse.

Valoel: Tell me about a moment of joy in your marriage after your husband no longer believed. Let’s end the interview on a positive note. Tell me what has been really great for you and your family.

Prairie Chuck: There’ve been so many experiences that have drawn us closer—the births of our children, sharing our hopes and fears. Most of all is seeing how much my husband loves and supports me. It’s not because I am a good Mormon, but because I’m me. He tells our sons what a good mom I am, praises the things I do at home, at church, and in the community. He really is my support and the motivation for much of the good that I do. He thanks me for being his sounding board as he worked out his feelings about the church. I’m glad I’ve been there with him. Without the church being a shared common interest, we’ve found our happiness in other things. In some ways I feel like my horizons are broader because of it.

Valoel: Thank you Prairie Chuck for taking the time to do this interview with me.

Upon engaging unsettling historical evidence, most people will fall into one of roughly four groups:

1. The “Blind Faith” approach. Reject the evidence out of hand as “white noise” from Satan. Continue to accept the official church party line as 100% correct.  Steer clear of further information on this topic because it is apostate or unhealthy.
2. The “Have Your Cake and Eat it Too” approach. Accept one of the many apologetic explanations that attempts to reconcile the evidence while still hoping for additional information to exonerate.  In the end, the authenticity of the actual story is held more or less in tact.
3. The “Post Modern” approach. Realize that many factual and historical claims are simply unknowable and contingent on other unknowables, so it probably doesn’t matter.  What matters is what you think and do because religion is nothing more than personal/spiritual feelings about the Divine put into story, symbol, ceremony, and covenant.  All of us adopt some stories and reject others. This approach moves the focus away from Joseph Smith and onto you.  What has God told you? Do these stories resonate with you and help you become a better person?
4. The “See You Later Alligator” approach.  Accept the evidence as pretty damning and reject the church’s claims out of hand.  Likely reject Joseph as either delusional or very calculated.  Reject believers, especially those in categories 1 and 2 above, as seriously biased, or even deluded or calculated.

Obviously there are subcategories and various permutations to the above approaches.  Feel free to add categories I may have missed or to think of this as a sliding scale.  If your initial approach was to “ask of God” as Joseph Smith did, regardless of your answer (or lack thereof), you still likely fall into one of these categories.  Does that experience color where you fall on this scale?

The interesting thing is that you’ll probably use the same approach to any of Mormon issues you encounter (i.e. BOM historicity, polygamy, patriarchy, priesthood restoration, first vision, blacks and the priesthood, translation methods, etc.) and possibly to any Christian issues you encounter (i.e. creation story vs. cavemen, age of the earth, miracles, Christ’s conception, the concept of atonement when viewed as a historical event, etc.) or religious issues in general (i.e. the inability to empirically prove the existence of God, the inability to statistically prove the power of prayer to heal, etc.).

I’m not making any value judgements here. There isn’t a “correct” approach, only an approach that allows you to better engage with God.  Which do you choose?

Here are a few of the parallels between Lehi’s family and Joseph Smith’s family:

• Both had visionary fathers. In fact, according to Lucy Mack Smith’s account, both fathers had a vision that was nearly identical–the vision of the tree of life.  Is this a coincidence?  Is Lehi’s dream an archetypal religious dream that many have to illustrate the same concept (similar to dreams of your name being written in the Book of Life)?  Was Lucy Mack a little confused in attributing this dream to her husband?
• Both families were “of goodly parents.” In both cases, the mother and father were both very committed and focused on their families also.
• Both families went on a journey to fulfill a religious destiny. Both families left their personal belongings behind; they made a temporal sacrifice for a religious purpose.
• Nephi and Joseph are both middle children who inherit the prophetic mantle from their father.  Both are emotionally supported by their parents.
• Nephi and Joseph both feel deeply.  Both have low moments recorded in scripture (the “psalms of Nephi” and D&C 121).

There are some key differences:

• Joseph’s family was supportive of his prophetic calling. There was no Laman or Lemuel in the Smith family, including in Father Smith’s vision of the tree of life.
• Joseph and Nephi have very different personalities from one another.  Joseph is boisterous and laughs too much, while Nephi is basically a kill-joy.
• Lehi’s family left wealth behind in Jerusalem. Joseph’s family had always been very poor and had to work hard to earn a living.
• City slickers vs. townies. Lehi’s family were originally city dwellers, and Joseph’s family always lived in smaller agricultural communities.
• Sariah’s role is not nearly as prominent in the BOM record as Lucy Mack’s role is in the restoration.  Lucy Mack Smith is very clearly an assertive, intelligent woman who is at the helm of decision-making.  Sariah is portrayed as mostly a supporter to her husband.
• Joseph Sr. was by some accounts a broken man who had repeatedly failed to succeed economically but had the unwavering support of his family.  Is the portrait of Lehi Joseph’s attempt to repaint his father in a more idealized image?

Would the lost book of Lehi reveal more parallels or differences?  This is one of the arguments against BOM historicity put forward in An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins by Grant Palmer, although the coincidences had occurred to me independently.

Personally, I find the comparison interesting from a literary perspective (I have made more tenuous connections than this work in some of my English papers back in the day), but ultimately unconvincing to me personally due to my own spiritual experiences with the book and the equally persuasive differences.  The Book of Mormon (to quote Richard Bushman) seems to me to be “greater than the sum of its parts.”

What do you think?  Coincidence or autobiography?  Discuss.

What is a New Order Mormon?

New Order Mormons are those who no longer believe some (or much) of the dogma or doctrines of the LDS Church, but who want to maintain membership for cultural, social, or even spiritual reasons. New Order Mormons recognize both good and bad in the Church, and have determined that the Church does not have to be perfect in order to remain useful.

Questions you have always had about NOMs but were afraid to ask!

• Do you ever wonder who in the congregation are the True Believing Mormons and who are the NOMs? What percentage of your ward is NOM – is it growing? Or are some just partially NOM (say 25% of the person- like their right leg)?

• What is an NOM thinking during Sunday School when the topic is evolution, blacks and the priesthood, the one and only true church, we are led by a prophet today, etc?

• How do they get through their temple recommend interview? Have any served or are serving missions now?

• Do any hold high positions in the church, i.e, Bishop or High Councilman? How do they justify it?

• If they don’t really believe the foundation of our church- the book of Mormon being a real grade A bona-fide history, why do they stick with it?

• How can they bear testimony? Are there tell-tale signs of an NOM testimony?

• What are they hoping will eventually happen with the church? Is it worth all the hassle of doublethink they must go through?

• Are you becoming NOM ? Has your thinking become less black and white? Are you seeing things more allegorically?

• Have your views changed on the Mountain Meadows Massacre, DNA, evolution, homosexuals, Mesoamerica, and the Hill Cumorah?

• Would NOMs still come to church if they didn’t feel family or community pressure?

• Some TBM views have changed i.e., polygamy as a requirement for salvation, blacks as less valiant in the pre-mortal existence, Adam-God, Native Americans as descendants of Lamanites. Is there a threat of the church becoming too NOM?

Take this assessment and find out:

(Taken from D. Jeff Burton’s For Those Who Wonder : forthosewhowonder.com. Similar to a Correlation Department survey on Religion and Life conducted among LDS Church members in the mid-1980s)

So share if you dare, or simply sit back and contemplate the combinations and their consequences for our church!

An apologist is “a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc.”  Usually, the term is used in a religious or philosophical context.  Wikipedia adds:  Apologists are authors, writers, editors of scientific logs or academic journals, and leaders known for taking on the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that are either placed under popular scrutinies or viewed under persecutory examinations. The term comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), meaning a speaking in defense.  Apologists have been around for a long time.  The Apostle Paul was essentially a Christian apologist. Mormon apologists can be found at places like FARMS and FAIRWiki.

Why Are Apologists Reviled?

Let me illustrate with a simple joke:

• Q:  How many apologists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
• A:  Since there is light, we know that the number of apologists involved was sufficient to complete the operation of lightbulb-screwing-in to connect the lightbulb to a power source which could then create the light.  Or if there were no apologists involved in the lightbulb-screwing-in, somehow or other it got screwed in.  Look, a butterfly!
• IOW:  We don’t know how, but we know there is light.

From Wikipedia:  Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or “whitewashing” their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term often has a pejorative meaning.

Here are some common criticisms of apologists:

1. They are not objective; they approach a problem backwards, beginning with the conclusion (like reverse engineering).  IOW, their methods are not exploratory (e.g. scientific method), but are in fact merely confirming a belief already held (hmmm, sound a lot like the detractors’ arguments).  In their defense:  The detractors are generally equally biased.
2. They are defensive.  This is true in the same sense that a defense attorney is defensive.  When an idea is attacked or criticized, an apologist comes forward to answer that criticism.  So, apologists are defensive in the way an NBA team is defensive of their basket when the opposing team has the ball.  In their defense:  An offensive attack calls for a defensive response.
3. They require “mental gymnastics.” The most prevalent criticism of apologists is that their arguments are more complex and sometimes less convincing than the criticism they are refuting.  The simple fact is that this is a necessary byproduct of a defensive posture.  You are not arguing “for” something, asserting its validity; you are responding to a criticism, which means, you review its merits on the basis of all facets of the criticism.  In their defense:  Apologists don’t have the home court advantage.
4. They degenerate into bickering. When someone leaves a flaming bag of poop on your doorstep, and you respond by leaving a bigger flaming bag of poop on their doorstep, be prepared to wash your hands afterward.  And if someone leaves a flaming bag of poop on your doorstep, ignoring it might narrow the number of visitors to only the really diligent.  In their defense:  The detractors started it!
5. They are irrelevant; faith cannot be proven or disproven as it is not based on logic, but rather subjective personal spiritual experience.  So, deigning to refute the critics of faith using the tools of logic is not likely to be very convincing to those who rely on faith.  Nor is a faith-based argument likely to convince a staunch logician.  In their defense:  You can’t beat a football team with baseball skills.  Also, even if the arguments are ultimately irrelevant, someone has to respond.  Perhaps apologists and critics are like Rock-em Sock-em robots; they just engage each other in the circle of debate, but it’s really just a game.
   

Maybe apologists are like Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men (paraphrased):

Every morning I eat breakfast 400 yards from evangelical ministers, the disaffected, and anti-Mormons trained to destroy testimonies.  We live in a world that has religious beliefs, and those religious beliefs have to be guarded by men (and women) with facts and theories. Who’s gonna do it? You? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for the disaffected, and you curse the apologists. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know — that apologetics, while requiring mental gymnastics, probably saves testimonies; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves eternal lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on FAIRWiki — you need me on FAIRWiki.  We use words like “historical evidence,” “account,” and “source.” We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a person who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very religious freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said “thank you” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get on the internet and stand the post. Either way, I don’t give a $@?!# what you think you’re entitled to!

So, what do you think?  Are apologists performing a necessary service by defending the faith?  Or do you think they miss the point?  If so, what alternative do you suggest?  And where are these “places we don’t talk about at parties”?  Discuss.

This lesson tees up some interesting dichotomies.  Consider the delicate balance between the following as you prepare:

• Old doctrine vs. new revelation
• Dead prophets vs. living prophets; written revelation (scripture) vs. verbal revelation
• Personal revelation vs. doctrinal revelation for the church
• What we know vs. what we don’t know (what God knows that we don’t)

On a more personal note, consider the following:

• Desire for stability vs. willingness to change
• The tendency to validate our own opinions vs. the tendency to spiritualize things that are not revelation or are trivial (e.g. God’s favorite breakfast cereal)
• Seeking a confirmation of our own beliefs vs. being completely open to God’s viewpoint
• Our imperfect ability to receive, comprehend and communicate vs. God’s perfect communication
• The First Presidency as a council on earth vs. The Godhead as a council on the other side of the veil

Our Will vs. God’s Will

“We never can comprehend the things of God and of heaven, but by revelation. We may spiritualize and express opinions to all eternity; but that is no authority.” (1843)

Q:  How can we avoid the temptation to spiritualize things that were not inherently spiritual?

Q:  How can we avoid the temptation to limit our understanding of God to only what conforms with our own opinions?

“Revelation” Rules, “No Revelation” Drools (anyone else think that would make a great title for a GC talk?)

“The doctrine of revelation far transcends the doctrine of no revelation; for one truth revealed from heaven is worth all the sectarian notions in existence.” (1844)

“Salvation cannot come without revelation; it is in vain for anyone to minister without it. … No man can be a minister of Jesus Christ except he has the testimony of Jesus; and this is the spirit of prophecy.”  (1839)

Q:  How is revelation necessary to our salvation and to being a minister of Jesus?

Q:  What are the risks of a closed canon (no revelation)?  What are the risks of an open canon (ongoing revelation)?

New vs. Old

“We are differently situated from any other people that ever existed upon this earth; consequently those former revelations cannot be suited to our conditions; they were given to other people, who were before us.”  (1834)

Q:  Should we liken scriptures to our day or liken our day to scriptures (through GC talks)? How can we get the best of both ancient and modern counsel?

Q:  Do living prophets always trump dead prophets?  Why or why not?

Revelation is Key to Mormonism

Articles of Faith 1:9: “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

“The President then gave a relation of obtaining and translating the Book of Mormon, the revelation of the Priesthood of Aaron, the organization of the Church in 1830, the revelation of the High Priesthood, and the gift of the Holy Ghost poured out upon the Church, and said: ‘Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion? We have none.’ ”  (1834)

Q:  Why is revelation a key concept of the restoration?  Could there have been a restoration without revelation?  What does revelation mean to you (inspiration, spiritual channeling, divine dictation, or something else)?

Q:  What are the great and important things yet to be revealed?  Any guesses?

Organizational vs. Personal Revelation

It is contrary to the economy of God for any member of the Church, or any one, to receive instructions for those in authority, higher than themselves; therefore you will see the impropriety of giving heed to them; but if any person have a vision or a visitation from a heavenly messenger, it must be for his own benefit and instruction; for the fundamental principles, government, and doctrine of the Church are vested in the keys of the kingdom. (1833)

Q:  How does the above revelation provide order to the church?  When does our personal revelation trump organizational revelation?

Q:  Can members of the church disagree with church leaders without becoming apostate?  If so, under what circumstances?

Being Open to Revelation

There are a great many wise men and women too in our midst who are too wise to be taught; therefore they must die in their ignorance, and in the resurrection they will find their mistake. Many seal up the door of heaven by saying, So far God may reveal and I will believe.

It always has been when a man was sent of God with the priesthood and he began to preach the fullness of the gospel, that he was thrust out by his friends, who are ready to butcher him if he teach things which they imagine to be wrong; and Jesus was crucified upon this principle.  (1843)

Based on the second half of this statement, God’s teaching should be controversial and provoke us to action (or outrage, depending on your position), not be limited to what we can come up with on our own.

Q: How can we question our assumptions and avoid limiting our ability to receive personal revelation?

Q:  How do we avoid the trap of being “too wise to be taught”?

So, what are your thoughts on this provocative lesson and the questions it raises?  Are there other questions you would ask?  Discuss.

On June 7, 1831, right after the Saints had finished gathering in Ohio, Joseph announced that he had received a revelation about Zion, the gathering place for the Saints (now found in D&C 52: 2):

“The next conference … shall be held in Missouri, upon the land which I will consecrate unto my people”

To which the stunned congregation probably replied something like, “What the . . . ?!”

Then, by late 1833, they were driven out of their homes in Jackson County, Missouri (picture at right is a park in Jackson County–er, Wisconsin!  Psych!  Good catch, Raoul) and told that the establishment of Zion must “wait for a little season.”  (D&C 105: 9)  Joseph explained some reasons why this wait was necessary:

I cannot learn from any communication by the Spirit to me, that Zion has forfeited her claim to a celestial crown, notwithstanding the Lord has caused her to be thus afflicted, except it may be some individuals, who have walked in disobedience, and forsaken the new covenant; all such will be made manifest by their works in due time.  I know that Zion, in the due time of the Lord, will be redeemed; but how many will be the days of her purification, tribulation, and affliction, the Lord has kept hid from my eyes; and when I inquire concerning this subject, the voice of the Lord is: Be still, and know that I am God!  (Dec 1833)

What is Zion?

Zion is referred to 154 times in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible).  In referring repeated to Zion, JS was clearly linking the restored church with the Israelites, which gave them a sense of purpose, community and destiny.

Q:  So, what is Zion?  Is it a place?  A community?  A state of mind?

Zion as a Literal Gathering Place

Article of Faith 10, written in 1842, was still focused on a literal gathering:

We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent.

Q:  Are there any good restaurants in Missouri?  (Just seeing if you’re paying attention.  I googled it and got just a DQ and a Subway in Jackson County.  Seriously.)

Zion as a State of Mind

Joseph also made statements indicating that Zion was more conceptual than just a literal gathering-place.  Stakes of the church are also referred to as Zion.

Anyplace where the Saints gather is Zion, which every righteous man will build up for a place of safety for his children.  (1840)

There will be here and there a Stake [of Zion] for the gathering of the Saints. … There your children shall be blessed, and you in the midst of friends where you may be blessed. The Gospel net gathers of every kind. “… We ought to have the building up of Zion as our greatest object. … The time is soon coming, when no man will have any peace but in Zion and her stakes.  (1839)

Q:  How does gathering with the Saints bless us?  Do you think it’s possible to get equally close to God independently as we do within the community of the church?  If so, isn’t that a little bit like home schooling (limited in the number of teachers & perspectives)?

Q:  How should the counsel about Zion apply to our homes, our wards, our stakes, and the church at large?  How do we make the stakes of the church and our homes places of safety & peace?

Looking Forward to Christ’s Return

One purpose of Zion was to anticipate Christ’s return as the ruler of His people:

[R]ighteousness and truth will I cause to sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out mine own elect from the four quarters of the earth, unto a place which I shall prepare, a holy city, that my people may gird up their loins, and be looking forth for the time of my coming, for there shall be my tabernacle, and it shall be called Zion, a New Jerusalem’ [Moses 7:62].  from Enoch’s prophecy

Q:  Are you looking forward to Christ’s return or not thinking much about it?  Does it kind of freak you out?

Purifying the Saints

When the Saints were kicked out of Missouri, the focus was on purifying the Saints so they would become worthy to inherit Zion:

“If Zion will not purify herself, so as to be approved of in all things, in His sight, He will seek another people; for His work will go on until Israel is gathered, and they who will not hear His voice, must expect to feel His wrath. Let me say unto you, seek to purify yourselves, and also all the inhabitants of Zion, lest the Lord’s anger be kindled to fierceness. Repent, repent, is the voice of God to Zion; and strange as it may appear, yet it is true, mankind will persist in self-justification until all their iniquity is exposed, and their character past being redeemed, and that which is treasured up in their hearts be exposed to the gaze of mankind.  (1833)

“So long as unrighteous acts are suffered in the Church, it cannot be sanctified, neither can Zion be redeemed.”  (1834)

“Let every one labor to prepare himself for the vineyard, sparing a little time to comfort the mourners; to bind up the broken-hearted; to reclaim the backslider; to bring back the wanderer; to re-invite into the kingdom such as have been cut off, by encouraging them to lay to while the day lasts, and work righteousness, and, with one heart and one mind, prepare to help redeem Zion, that goodly land of promise, where the willing and the obedient shall be blessed. … [We] pray our heavenly Father that you may be very prayerful, very humble, and very charitable; working diligently, spiritually and temporally, for the redemption of Zion, that the pure in heart may return with songs of everlasting joy to build up her waste places, and meet the Lord when He comes in His glory.  (1835)

Q:  Why do individuals need to be pure before Zion will be redeemed?  By show of hands, which of you slackers are holding us back?  (Just kidding!)

Q:  How do we reconcile reclaiming the backslider, bringing back the wanderer, and re-inviting those who have been cut off with the statement that Zion can’t be redeemed so long as there are unrighteous acts suffered in the church?

This last question is the one I find the most interesting.  To elaborate, how can we establish a united people when the church is full of individuals at various levels of understanding, righteousness and self- and social awareness?  Is Zion a pipe dream or is it to be found in the striving for it only, and more at an individual level than an aggregate level?  What’s the closest you’ve ever gotten to a Zion experience?

Discuss.

A recent article in Time discussed the differences between liberal and conservative patriotism.  The key points really resonated with me for how Mormons view loyalty to the church.

Conservatives

• Hallmarks of Loyalty:  paying tribute to the past (Pioneer Day?) even while portraying an idealized past that never existed, preserving the culture even to the exclusion of initiates (Mormon colonialism?), a tendency to grade on a curve because they take a dim view of human nature (Mormon persecution complex, Haun’s Mill?); use of symbols to portray loyalty (Mormon artifacts in our homes?).
• Signs of Disloyalty (to a Conservative):  Criticism of the cultural norms or the glorious past; the infiltration of new norms into the culture; questioning the claim of greatness.
• What they get right:  There’s something to be said for loving the church like you love your (possibly dysfunctional) family:  because it is your heritage and your home.
• Cautions:  May become “nationalist” (“one true church” mentality) or dismissive of other faiths; tend to substitute myth for history; expect unquestioned loyalty to come first and foremost; over time, symbols and artifacts may become a substitute for real faith; may become a club for the pedigreed few.
• The Big Question:  Can the church truly embrace converts (and liberal loyalists alike) with a near majority conservative loyalty worldview?

Liberals

• Hallmarks of Loyalty:  Loyalty is to the ideals and concepts rather than to the organization; loyalty is about helping the church to live up to its potential in the future; new converts improve the church through diversity combined with commitment to the ideals; like to call the church on the carpet when it fails to live up to its ideals.
• Signs of Disloyalty (to a Liberal):  Not owning up to mistakes of the past; reliance on symbols rather than the ideals; elevating the status of “insiders” regardless of merit.
• What they get right:  They keep the church (and leaders and members) honest by refocusing on the ideals (may be JS restorationists) and being willing to ask the tough questions.
• Cautions:  Believe the church must earn the loyalty of its members by living up to its ideals which will not always be possible (fallibility of leaders and lay clergy); may dismiss the pragmatic realities necessary for the church’s self-preservation (policies vs. doctrines); if loyalty is to the ideals, one can seek the ideals elsewhere (but lose the benefit of the church framework and fellowship).
• The Big Question:  When liberals leave the church is it due to actual flaws of the church or their own Quixotic idealism?

The article cautioned both sides from going too far in asserting that their own patriotism is the only brand truly loyal to our country.  Isn’t that a great caution for us as Mormons?  Can’t we come to a moderate consensus about loyalty to the church that takes the best of both into account (or am I just being a liberal idealist to think so)?

So, are you a conservative, liberal or moderate Mormon?  How do you “reach across the aisle” to others?  Did you find anything new of value in the alternate perspective, or did this just confirm your biases?

Discuss.

Now that we’ve discussed the nature of the First Vision, what did it mean?

There are many meanings, the most vital being those which each person can discover for herself or himself. Here are those we are most familiar with, because they have been written and spoken about at length in the official media of the institutional LDS Church:

1. The heavens are not closed. Revelation continues in our day.

Closely related to this meaning is:

2. God loves his children.

3. The Father and the Son are physically separate.

Closely related to this meaning is:

4. The Father and the Son are corporeal (have bodies).

5. All churches on the earth in 1820 are corrupt.

Closely related to this meaning is

6. The Restoration has begun

And/Or

7. Joseph Smith is a prophet.

Meaning 1 is quite obvious from Joseph’s account, although a minority interpretation has insisted from the First Vision that the vision itself reopened the heavens, which had been closed since the apostasy. The vision provides no evidence for this view.

Meaning 2 is not stated, but is an implied meaning deduced from 1 and fits with our other beliefs about God’s character. Meaning 3 is also fairly obvious from Joseph’s account, at least his 1838 one.

Meaning 4 I cannot defend based on the accounts Joseph has left us. I believe it is a back-reading from a section of the Doctrine and Covenants which is superimposed on our interpretations of the vision.

Meaning 5 is clear from the accounts Joseph left, especially the 1838 one.

Meanings 6 and 7 I cannot defend from the text, unless one takes Joseph’s statement that “many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time” refers to coming events like the Restoration and his role in it. I cannot defend this interpretation based on subsequent events like Joseph’s account of his 1823 vision of Moroni, wherein Joseph is apparently given his first Restoration “task” with no inkling that he was praying for anything but forgiveness from his sins.

There are other meanings which can be unpacked from Joseph’s accounts, especially when one integrates the earlier accounts with the version published in the Pearl of Great Price:

1. Prophets sin and seek forgiveness.

Closely related to this meaning is:

2. God forgives sins readily.

3. Spiritual experience confirms conclusions we have already reached.

4. Deity speaks in language familiar to the listener (King James English).

Meaning 1 is often trivialized in the LDS Church. The language of sin has fallen into disuse among us. Prophets do not sin. Instead, they have “frailties”, “weaknesses”, “shortcomings”, and make “mistakes.” The First Vision reminds us that all humankind sins.

Meaning 2 is a comforting one. Joseph’s sins are forgiven. He is not told to do works of penance, unless one takes the Lord forbidding him to join any other churches as a punishment for sin. If so, Joseph skirted this commandment, as he attended Methodist meetings in 1828!

Meaning 3 is more interesting, because here Joseph contradicts himself in the various accounts. In the 1832 account, he states that his conviction from reading the scriptures was that the true church could not be on the earth. The 1838 account ,on the other hand, makes it sound as if he believes that God just might tell him, for example, that the Universalists have it right, or that the Presbyterians are God’s church. I tend to believe that Joseph at the very least, strongly suspected that God’s church was not on the earth. He uses the conditional, “if”, to describe the question which drove him into the grove. If Christ’s church is on the earth, which one is it?

Meaning 4 is a comforting one to end on. God will speak to us in language we understand. If my primary reading matter, like Joseph’s, was the Elizabethan English of the King James Version of the Bible, and that is how I believe God speaks, God will speak to me that way. Conversely, if my thought world is informed by 21st-century American English vernacular, seasoned by occasional scientific reading, and a love of music and nature, God may speak to me through those means.

What meanings do you find in the First Vision story?