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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posing the Questions on a Personal Level

Since these two bloggers did such a nice job, I will not attempt to address his remarks directly. Rather, I am interested in discussing the address from a personal standpoint. Particularly, I’m interested in how I, jmb275, can understand and deal with his remarks since I clearly do not agree with him.

Let me be very clear here, I do not agree with Elder Hafen’s remarks, and I recognize the poor research, logical fallacies, and dogmatic approach to this issue. I understand that it seems to be a step backwards for the church, and I recognize it is not in harmony with some other messages being sent from the church on this issue (see here, here, or here). I also recognize that Elder Hafen was very bold, possibly to the point of establishing new doctrine (resurrection is, definitively, a mechanism which removes homosexual feelings?). However, none of this is what I want to deal with. What is done, is done, and his remarks have been analyzed. I’m interested in answering the following questions:

1. Is this the last straw? Should I simply leave the church?
2. If not, do I have to agree with Elder Hafen to be a member in good standing?
3. How can I categorize, or otherwise deal with Elder Hafen’s remarks?
4. What is my relationship with the church, and does my membership imply my consent for, or agreement with what has been said?

Answering the Questions For ME

• Answering #1. I am not in the business of trying to convince people to stay in the church, or to leave the church. I see great arguments on both sides. However, I have made my choice to stay, and find spiritual nourishment in my choice. There’s simply enough good, to me, in the church, and I am sufficiently attached to it psychologically, and physically (through family) to convince me to remain. If your choice is to leave, then we’re done here and you can move along. Since I choose to remain we will move on to answering the other questions (and since it wouldn’t be a very interesting blog post if I didn’t).
• Answering #2. I think there will be many who would answer “yes” to this question. I believe this is a product of our Mormon culture. Indeed, from my reading of Joseph Smith’s life, I think the very idea would strike against what Joseph said and did! The good news is that despite what many might think, there is nothing in any doctrine of which I am aware that says disagreement with one of the Brethren puts my membership in jeopardy. Certainly I can “sustain” the Brethren, and recognize their authority in the church without agreeing with everything they say!
• Answering #3. It would seem like there are some relatively straightforward answers to this question.
  • Elder Hafen is a man, so we could conclude that his remarks are “the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.” After all, I have chalked up lots of things said by prophets to this idea. There certainly is truth in this analysis since each of us “see[s] through a glass, darkly”(1 Cor 13:12).
  • Elder Hafen is not the prophet, nor does he speak for the prophet (at least he didn’t indicate that we was). Hence, we can conclude that this does not represent the position of the church collectively, and may not be God’s will.
  • Elder Hafen is using apologetics, coupled with suspect research, all as a dogmatist to draw invalid conclusions. Indeed, rather than examining the evidence and drawing conclusions (the scientific method), the dogmatist already knows the “truth” (has drawn the conclusions) and must interpret the evidence accordingly.

  These are all valid points, and possible answers. But notice that they focus on characterizing Elder Hafen himself, or his remarks. I am interested in something more. How can I understand his remarks, disagree with them, but still respect him and his position?

  For this, I feel I must turn to an attempt to understand Elder Hafen in a Christlike way. Are his intentions good? Does he believe that what he’s doing is right? Does he really seek to hurt people, or does he seek to help them overcome what he believes is a temptation to be conquered? In other words, rather than dismissing his words and analyzing their negative effect on people, I am seeking understanding as to what leads him to make such remarks in the first place. After all, most of us do what we think is best, not intentionally trying to hurt each other, although that effort may be misguided!

  What does this approach buy me? Empathy, and understanding! Not agreement, and not consent, but understanding. It seeks nuance when the tendency is to be dismissive (black), or accepting (white). It gives me the tools I need to avoid letting anger dictate my actions. And, ultimately, at the end of the day, I personally believe that this kind of understanding helps me to transcend my natural inclinations, and use a higher model of human interaction.

• Answering #4. Answering #4 is an important key, for me, in understanding my relationship with any of the organizations to which I belong – church, work, country, school, etc. For me, it is a balancing act. I must sufficiently care for the organization (since I receive benefit from it) to desire to stay a part of it, and desire that it remain intact. But in contrast, I must be sufficiently divorced from the organization in order to avoid the personal pitfalls that come with being a part of it (groupthink, mind control, defending the indefensible, etc.).How do I directly apply this balancing act to the church? I have separated my spiritual growth from the organization! Currently, I find the church a useful mechanism for me to serve, pray, introspect, and otherwise grow spiritually. Arguably, some of this may be attached to being raised LDS. That’s irrelevant to me, as the important point is that I grow spiritually in this particular environment. It also means I can look at Elder Hafen’s remarks and not feel inclined to defend that with which I do not agree. In contrast to the response to #3, this balancing act does allow me the ability to dismiss his remarks (should I feel so inclined).

  Certainly this can be taken to the extreme, and if the church started sanctioning secret assassinations I would be the first one out the door. But I don’t see this type of evil in the LDS church (contrary to what some critics may infer). I love this church, and want it to succeed. But I maintain sufficient distance that I need not accept every piece of doctrine or opinion.

I appreciate what has been said regarding Elder Hafen’s speech by others in the bloggernacle. I make no excuse for the backward step his words seem to imply. However, I do wish to transcend his remarks and take them in stride. These words from Denise Turner in the Ensign a few years back seem particularly appropriate:

Regrettably, there are times when others’ motives are not entirely innocent. This may particularly cause pain and confusion when the offender’s actions seem to contradict the religion he or she espouses; yet even in these difficult situations we are not justified in nursing our anger or turning away from the Church. President Stephen L Richards, First Counselor to President David O. McKay, said, “Does one offense wipe out another? Does weakness in one, even one who has been given a testimony of the truth, justify transgression of the law or failure to listen to its precepts?” (“Encouragement for Repenters,” Improvement Era, June 1956, 398). Our testimonies must be based on Jesus Christ, not on imperfect and fallible individuals. (Denise Turner, “If Any Man Offend Not”, Ensign, August 1998)

Whether your testimony is literal, metaphorical, or you are TBM, non-Mormon, or a middle-way advocate, I think we can learn to understand our fellows better, and while not agreeing with them, can still respect and honor them.

So how do you plan to deal with Elder Hafen’s remarks?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what do you think? 

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

The only time I have seen Big Love is on a transatlantic flight back home to Salt Lake.  My initial thoughts were how amazing to have a church just like ours (almost) right in our back door and no one seems to know of it, as they keep it fairly discreet on the show.

From what I saw these Josephites seem to be very similar (i.e. Family Prayer, FHE, Family Council, even similar programs and auxiliaries).  They even seemed to act like Mormons I grew up with.

Since there was a split of Josephites from the Brighamites, wouldn’t most of these branches have similar temple ceremonies to ours?  If so shouldn’t they be the ones who are offended, not the Brighamites?

Big Love episode draws criticism from LDS Church

Before the first season of the HBO series Big Love aired more than two years ago, the show’s creator and HBO assured the Church that the series wouldn’t be about Mormons.

Here

Big Love Series to Show Rites from LDS Temples

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) – The HBO series “Big Love” will show its version of temple rites belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The episode is scheduled to air Sunday, March 15.

Here

‘Big Love’s’ promise to show LDS temple rituals has many crying foul

Richard Cowan, a BYU professor of church history and doctrine, said:  ”It isn’t something that we want to keep away from everyone who isn’t a member of our faith, but rather something we would like to share with those who are personally and spiritually prepared to appreciate it.”

Here

‘Big Love’ prompts LDS Church response and analysis

Certainly church members are offended when their most sacred practices are misrepresented or presented without context or understanding.  Last week some church members began e-mail chains calling for cancellations of subscriptions to AOL, which (like HBO) is owned by Time Warner.

Here

Please discuss anything and everything.

1) Say what you do.

2) Do what you say.

3) Prove it.

This process highlights for a company its internal consistency and the comprehensiveness of its formal operating procedures.  Phrased a bit differently than my summary above, it can be stated as a series of questions:

1) Are you able to articulate exactly what you do – and exactly how you do it?

2) Do you actually do what you say you do – in the way that you say you do it?

3) Can you prove to others that you actually do what you have said you do?

That job was instructive to me, as one of my central roles in the process was to systematize all of the written records into a cohesive and simple format – including the creation of operational and training manuals that could be used to evaluate and address the performance of existing employees and train new employees.  It was important that all employees be held to objective standards – and that all employees be judged and rewarded according to the same standards.  It also highlighted something that came to be central to how I view all organizations, how they compete for business and how they are viewed from the outside by both consumers and competitors.

In the area of internal oversight of operations, there have been many programs over the years that have been created to focus on and increase a company’s standing as a “quality organization” (however that is defined).  Historically, these programs can be separated into two types of emphasis: 1) quality control; and 2)  quality assurance.  They are similar in many ways, but the key difference is in the focus on who is observing the company and making the judgment – and how that affects the internal operations of the organization.

With quality control, the effort is focused inward.  It is an attempt to “control” things internally so that mistakes are handled quickly and efficiently – in a way that will not derail the quality of the end product.  It is similar to “damage control”.  It is a natural fit for many companies who manufacture products – whose “business operations” are seen only as a function of the final product that is sold to consumers. In this sense, it looks for what has always worked and clings tightly to an established production system – or approaches change only in terms of how it will help produce the established product more cheaply (at a lower cost).  “Innovation” is a product of “streamlining” – determining what can be eliminated without harming the final product.

Quality assurance, on the other hand, is focused outward.  It is an attempt to “assure” consumers of the quality of something they have not purchased – and, often, that is more intangible in nature.  Companies that provide services fit this category, but so do companies whose products and services are more expensive than others in their field.  Of particular relevance are those companies that combine an expensive product with a service on which the success of that product depends – like software that requires extensive and complex training. Due to the more complex nature of the sales pitch, these companies are looking constantly for a new way to frame their company, making them less likely to rely on “tried and true” methodology and corporate philosophy and more on “innovation” and “evolving business practices” – which manifests itself in looking for things that will alter the final product in a significant way, even if that means adding cost to the production process.

Quality assurance is most relevant to companies who sell largely based on differentiated promised returns (providing either more or different results to the consumer), while quality control is perfectly fine for most simple commodities that will be used in the exact same way as those produced by competitors.  Quality assurance is important for companies making radical claims about their products and/or services; quality control is enough for those who simply are claiming to make the same finished product – and it is most effective when the company simply is selling the same product for a lower price.  (“This is cheaper, but the quality is just as good as the more expensive options.”) Quality control is much easier to manage, and much easier to implement, than quality assurance – but once you’ve seen the benefits of a personal trainer, it’s hard to go back to “just” free weights and sit-ups.

How does this relate to religions?

Within Christianity, there are two types of religions: 1) those that share a fundamental foundation and, therefore, don’t try much to distinguish “major” differences between themselves and other denominations; and 2) those that base their very identity on “major” differences.  This distinction affects how each type of denomination “views” and “markets” itself – and how each type views the purpose of its internal auditing, if you will.

The first type focuses primarily on an internal analysis of effectiveness – which translates into a firm and unyielding grasp on ideas that have worked in the past (on the unchanging and immutable).  Creedal denominations that cling tightly to the past can be viewed as commodity producers – organizations that are trying to reproduce something that has been produced for years, perhaps with a few unique bells and whistles but relatively indistinguishable from other creedal denominations.  They are focused on quality control – tightly managing the parameters of production and closed to “major change” in the process of that production, and, more importantly, to “major changes” to the product itself.  After all, if the finished product is perfect (and perfectly understood) already, why would the denomination even consider radical changes to it?

The second type, however, is based explicitly on its differences – differences that are harder to grasp and need to be introduced and explained (and justified) prior to “purchase”.  This type requires a higher level of investment (is more “expensive”) and, therefore, it must be more aware of “market trends” – be more flexible and adaptable and able to inspire a differentiating vision to justify the consumers’ investment. These religions are willing to make significant changes in how they view the end product – to produce a radically different product that will inspire potential consumers as times change.

Most interestingly, perhaps, is the relationship of these organizations historically.  Creedal religions in established areas tend to compete with other splinters for those that don’t possess the fundamental “commodity”, while non-creedal religions tend to compete for the attention of those who are not satisfied with commodities – whether or not they currently own the “commodity”.  Hence, the creedal religions tend to focus missionary outreach programs primarily on non-creedal populations, while non-creedal religions tend to focus missionary outreach programs on all – including creedal populations. This fundamental difference alone explains much of the tension when Mormonism sends missionaries door to door in areas where nearly everyone already “possesses” the fundamental commodity of Christianity.

Mormonism isn’t selling a commodity; it is selling a high-priced and unique “turn-key” system, and once a turn-key system is experienced it’s hard to go back to using a standard commodity – even if the turn-key system is discarded in search of another one.  Many people who invest great amounts of time, energy and money into a vision that is built on going beyond the common (“commodities”) aren’t satisfied anymore by the common (“commodities”), so if they can’t find an acceptable alternative turn-key system, all that is left is to obsess over the perceived deficiencies in one they left behind.

Discuss.

One says: “Are you Sister Smith?”

He goes on, “We’re from the Church. It’s been a few years since someone contacted you and we are just here to check with you.”

She says, rather emphatically, “I thought I told you people that I want nothing to do with YOUR Church! We want to be left alone.”

“Sister Smith, we want to respect your decision, but it is necessary for us to check with you every once in a while to make sure you still live here and that no contact is still your desire. Since you seem to want no contact with the Church, have you ever considered having your name removed from the records of the Church?”

“And have you excommunicate me? I haven’t done anything wrong!”

“Actually, the procedure has changed and all you need to do is write a letter that states you wish to be removed from the records and your request will be granted.” No other Church action is taken.”

“Well, I could never do that; my family in Utah would be devastated!”

And so it goes.

I have been yelled at, cursed at, threatened with the police, etc. just for showing up at a member’s door and asking about them. And yet, most do not want their name removed from the Church rolls.

Either, they have family concerns, are just too lazy to write the letter, or don’t care enough to do anything about their Church membership other than request no contact from the Church.

And so, every once in a while someone in the ward mistakenly contacts them and that person gets yelled at or told in no uncertain terms that their contact is unwelcomed. Sometimes the “no contact” members are nice about it, but often they are very hostile and nasty. We sometimes send letters to their house as a form of contact – one way contact in order to count them as home or visiting teaching. In my current ward, we have quite a list of “do not contacts.”

So, it has always intrigued me as to why these folks seem unable to completely divorce themselves from the Church. Even though they want no contact. They sometimes cite family concerns but doesn’t their family know they are not even the least bit active in the Church? Maybe the family hopes the person will one day change their mind.

What are your experiences with this situation? Maybe, you are one of those that I describe in this post. Please comment.

-Revelation Ch. 20 (vs. 12-15)

Love is a burning thing and it makes a fiery ring. Bound by wild desire, I fell into a ring of fire.

-Johnny Cash

In the LDS church, members are written into the book of life with their baptism and confirmation. For some, the love affair with the gospel can truly become a fiery passion. That passion produces its greatest defenders, but sometimes the fire consumes its lover. So the stage is set for the most intense crime of passion, the greatest act of violence… the blotting out of a name from the book of life.

Whether it is voluntary, through writing a letter of resignation, or involuntary, through excommunication, the removal of a name from membership is violence.

The voluntary resignation commits violence against the authority of the church, with the pen slashing and stabbing at the institution in the effort to eliminate its ability to exercise dominion and judgment. It challenges the veracity of the book of life itself. It comes from the place where the book has no power

The involuntary excommunication is the violence of corporal punishment. It is the parent who believes the only remaining path to teaching is to strike. The hope exists that the subject will make the correction in response to the intensity of the pain, and thus it becomes seen as an act of love. It is the great hammer of judgment and rejection that is meant to crush the pride out of them. The final and terrible weapon. It comes from the place where the book has complete power, because the veracity of the book of life is the very blade that cuts.

When a person has given up the desire to participate in the church community, technically they could go on living with at worst the inconvenience of having to explain that they aren’t interested each time they move, or when a new bishop or ward mission leader is called. They could pro-actively request to be marked as a “do not contact”, although that never completely stops the most zealous of missionaries. This path is not insufferable. So it makes me curious to know some of the reasons why someone removes their name from the records of the church. What made that necessary? Did it accomplish what you hoped?

When a church member has “qualified” for excommunication, and I am talking mostly about those who are moral people but whose philosophical positions are in opposition to the church, disfellowship basically accomplishes the most necessary functions to protect the church. The person is not able to participate in any public worship practices which would indicate endorsement or condoning of their positions, like holding callings, praying in meetings, or exercising priesthood. The only thing that excommunication does beyond that is the blotting out of their name from the book of life. It is an “eternity-level” punishment with no “temporal-level” impact above and beyond disfellowship. So why is such a measure necessary? Does this escalation produce more consistently desired results over disfellowship?

In a way, it almost seems like these acts of violence are like retaliatory interplay between rival gangs, as illustrated by this clip of Sean Connery explaining the escalating violence of “the Chicago way” from The Untouchables.

I have personally had my moments where I felt like participating at all was just no longer the path for me, and as I’ve tried to navigate the actions and causes which I feel inspired to take I have contemplated the possibility of church discipline. However, I’m just not sure I will ever see a need to resign my membership, and although I don’t really fear it, I do hope that I am never excommunicated. Its more about the gesture, than whether or not the book of life is efficacious. I don’t see the good I would accomplish in my own act of ultimate rejection, and I don’t want to look at (in the eyes of my local leaders) the church which means so much to my family and friends as it sets me aflame.

Could we live without this kind of violence? What would be the negative effect if tolerance, long-suffering, and real forgiveness were to trump whatever is the motivation to blot out our names?