January 27th 2010 was the Holocaust Memorial Day for the UK, and with my family we attended a small service in Ilford, England at Valentines Park. Readings, prayers, poetry and experiences were shared. Moreover, the youth in our ward had their own Holocaust memorial were we discussed aspects of that tragedy and the meaning that it might have for us today. Participating in this type of memorialising has often made me feel uncomfortable; I feel that I am an outsider to a form of suffering that (part of me) wants to claim as my own.

Positioning oneself in relation to this kind of ‘tribal’ suffering is not an uncommon experience. For example, Hirsch argues that ‘Post-memory’ is a concept that can help thinkers understand the ways in which seminal experiences, specifically those that are traumatic and painful, are transmitted through subsequent generations in a way that re-creates memories in those later generations[2]. As an example Hirsch looks at Holocaust memory and how these events have been a source of mystery and pain for some survivor’s children, a prominent example of the type of literature that such experiences of post-memory produce is ‘Maus’ by Art Spieglman.

These ideas might be important for Latter-day Saints because they provide a possible way of explaining a deeply connection with many of the events of the restoration (but particularly the suffering of the Saints). These feelings can be evocked in a number of ways, they are often linked with images and/or stories. Avard Fairbank’s statue of the couple over a small grave is one such example which resonates with me. It might also explain the emphasis the Church has placed upon its pioneer heritage; for if people are able to connect with this history their conversion becomes one of community (both contemporary and historical) as well as spiritual.

The negative side to this dynamic is that once those connections are made they provide a particular emotional/spiritual relationship that is often based upon ‘truth’.  If someone finds out that the Auschwitz was really just a holiday camp then perhaps we would understand their feeling betrayed.  Is it possible therefore that this process of post-memory is a part of a wider dynamic that binds people to the Church and its heritage but which also rests upon a certain historical veracity. 

Another question this raises pertains to whether such experiences can be accessible to people outside of the blood lines of such early pioneers, is it accessible for non-Americans?

Are such experiences even common to Americans (specifically Mountain Saints)?

I sense that they are accessible, but that this is done in contradictory or conflicting ways.  A Scottish lady once described her first visit to Nauvoo to me. She vividly depicted the buildings and experiences she had seen there. This lady walked away from Nauvoo across the river toward Winter Quarters and her heart broke; she wept as she trod her way up the hill, surprised at her own emotion. Later, while discussing this with a sibling, the sister said “Of course you felt that way, These are our People!”

I am not sure why such connections happen and yet I sense that they are important in establishing our communities. However I also sense that traversing the boundaries that divide us can also create fractures in the way we relate to and negotiate these experiences.  Moreover I believe that creating these connections also means that they are able to be betrayed.  I wonder whether people struggle to connect with Latter-Day Saint history in the same way I have struggled to form a legitimate association with the Holocaust?

Notes:

1. Leonard J. Arrington & Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-day Saints, 2^nd ed. (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992) 334.

2. Marianne Hirsch “Surviving Images: Holocaust Photographs and the Work of Postmemory,” Yale Journal of Criticism (Spring 2001).

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.

First of all, the Church’s official stance on euthanasia is as follows:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life, and is therefore opposed to euthanasia. Euthanasia is defined as deliberately putting to death a person who is suffering from an incurable condition or disease. Such a deliberate act ends life immediately through, for example, so-called assisted suicide. Ending a life in such a manner is a violation of the commandments of God.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not believe that allowing a person to die from natural causes by removing a patient from artificial means of life support, as in the case of a long-term illness, falls within the definition of euthanasia. When dying from such an illness or an accident becomes inevitable, it should be seen as a blessing and a purposeful part of eternal existence. Members should not feel obligated to extend mortal life by means that are unreasonable. These judgments are best made by family members after receiving wise and competent medical advice and seeking divine guidance through fasting and prayer.

On abortion, the Church states:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.

The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:

• Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or

• A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or

• A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

I find it interesting that in regards to people suffering from a painful, terminal illness, “(e)uthanasia is defined as deliberately putting to death a person who is suffering from an incurable condition or disease” and the Church is opposed to it. And yet, when it comes to abortion, the Church states that it is acceptable when “(a) competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.”

Why is it OK to actively end the life of the baby, but not the terminally-ill cancer patient, when there is no hope of either of them surviving?  Is such an abortion not also “deliberately putting to death a person who is suffering from an incurable condition or disease… a deliberate act (that) ends life immediately?”

When it comes to the aborting the fetus, why is “(e)nding a life in such a manner” apparently NOT “a violation of the commandments of God?”

Why is the baby not obligated to be carried to term and to live for as long as it survives and endure a natural death like the cancer patient?

Discuss.

For the past two years (almost), I have been an active blogger – to say the least. (*grin*) Actually, to be more precise, I have been a VERY active blogger. OK, that is an understatement.

That has changed over the last three weeks. The internal drive simply has begun to fade, and this change has corresponded to the impending change in my employment situation. I am in the process of changing careers (to something I have wanted to do for a while), and it will take time and focus to be successful in this new stage of my life. I also will be moving with my family to an area where we will need to spend time integrating into a new community, a new ward and a new stake.

I still will maintain my personal blog (Things of My Soul), hopefully with the same focus and format as I do now. I still want to post daily there, as I find great joy and peace and meaning in doing so. I will not market it actively, but everyone is welcome to visit any time. I hope what I write will benefit someone, somehow, somewhere – and I hope sometime in the future I will be able to resume a degree of participation on the group blogs. I have enjoyed and learned from it more than I have words to express.

I simply will be cutting way back on my participation at the group blogs I have frequented so regularly for the past two years. In many ways, I will miss that participation. I will try to post here at Mormon Matters at least monthly, and I will check in as often as I can, but my participation will drop dramatically soon.

I have learned SO much in the last two years, especially about the wonderful group of people who struggle with something (sometimes many things) about the Church and/or the Gospel but continue to serve faithfully or, at least, strive to understand and remain involved despite their uncertainty and doubts. Largely due to my experience blogging, I have come to value deeply Elder Wirthlin’s amazing message in his April 2008 General Conference address, “Concern for the One”. (This talk has become my favorite of all time.) Among other things, this humble man of God said:

Some are lost because they are different. They feel as though they don’t belong. Perhaps because they are different, they find themselves slipping away from the flock. They may look, act, think, and speak differently than those around them and that sometimes causes them to assume they don’t fit in. They conclude that they are not needed.

Tied to this misconception is the erroneous belief that all members of the Church should look, talk, and be alike. The Lord did not people the earth with a vibrant orchestra of personalities only to value the piccolos of the world. Every instrument is precious and adds to the complex beauty of the symphony. All of Heavenly Father’s children are different in some degree, yet each has his own beautiful sound that adds depth and richness to the whole.

This variety of creation itself is a testament of how the Lord values all His children. He does not esteem one flesh above another, but He “inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God.”

Over the last two years, I have blogged publicly largely with these members – those who have been hurt in one way or another because they look, THINK or act differently. I have felt a connection to them and their concerns – in some ways, more deeply than I have felt almost any connection in my entire life. The one thing that has weighed the most heavily on my mind and heart about my upcoming reduction in blogging time is the accompanying cessation of my active fellowship with many of the people I have come to love so much. (even you, Doug) *grin*

So, in closing, may we do all we can, in whatever way we can, to be a force for good – to be charitable in our communications – to think before we speak and edit before we comment – to see God in those around us and with whom we communicate – to become more Christ-like in a very conscious, intentional way. May those who struggle and those with whom we are different be blessed by our acceptance, understanding and love. May they feel God’s love through us. May the world be better because of our blogging, and may God smile when he sees how we treat His children – our brothers and sisters.

May there be a road – and may we travel joyfully together along it (caring for and succoring each other) as we make our way back home.

Having said that, I need to point out that depression and issues relative to similar physiological difficulties that suppress our joy and impede our growth in this life can be an exception to that last statement. I hope NOBODY takes what I said above as a reason to feel guilty over their struggles to conquer those types of difficulties. I realize completely that there are some things for some people for which enduring to the end is the only course. That’s why medical help should NEVER be stigmatized in any way for depression or other similar challenges. If proper medication provides a degree of peace for someone, taking that medication is an act of establishing a degree of accountability that will be rewarded, imo.

I believe the whole doctrine of accountability is one of the most beautiful in Mormonism. It see it as so much more expansive than restrictive. We tend to focus on the “punitive” aspects of accountability (“You are responsible for the effects of your actions when you are accountable and will be punished for your mistakes.”), but we also should understand more fully the “merciful” aspects of that same principle. (“You are not responsible for the effects of your actions when you are not accountable and will be covered by God’s grace for those mistakes.”)

We understand and acknowledge openly the concept as it relates to the “extremes” (children and the mentally handicapped on one end; fully accountable adults on the other end), but we often overlook it when dealing with the “emotionally handicapped” and the “abused” and any others whose thoughts and actions are influenced by things they didn’t choose – things often outside their full control. We are learning more and more about how to treat these things, but I believe there are still so many manifestations of these types of issues which we haven’t even identified completely. Therefore, “Judge not” becomes an even more vital command.

Having spent much time talking with many people who struggle mightily with feelings of guilt and isolation and despair and unworthiness, I have come to believe that many of them do so largely because, to some degree, they are wired to do so (either at birth or through trauma) – that they simply can’t help those feelings of despair and guilt that arise out of unrealistic expectations. I believe strongly that those people are not “accountable” for their actions during those times of guilt and despair in quite the same way as others are without those episodes. I’m not saying that they are completely free from the responsibility to understand their condition and try to “repent” (simply meaning “change”); I believe all have the command to look inward at themselves, identify their weaknesses and strive to improve.  What I am saying is that “repentance” in these cases often is as much (if not more) about learning practical coping mechanisms (including taking medication) and proactively acquiring personal characteristics than it is about the classic “exercise of will” often associated with repentance.

If we understood more fully that accountability is the concept that allows repentance to be a positive thing (that we have been given the freedom to proactively participate in the progress of our souls – to construct a process of growth that includes almost anything that helps us become “righteous” (right / in harmony with God), I believe we could begin to tackle the “natural” guilt associated with the effects of the Fall in a much more productive and ennobling manner than we tend to do currently.  We could separate “sin” (for which we are accountable), “transgression” (for which we might or might not be accountable), “weakness” (for which we are not accountable) and “natural, mortal crap” (which just is, well, crap).

So, how do you think of accountability?  Do you see it as a positive or negative concept?  How do you think what we now call “disabilities” affect accountability?  Are there other things that you believe reduce or impact accounatbility?  What are some things that we often associate with sin and guilt that you believe should not be classified as sin and induce guilt?  How do you feel about taking medication to alter one’s natural moods and/or actions? What are any other implications of accountability that are not addressed in this post?

No finale can truly live up to the expectations of its fans.  Finales can be maudlin (Cheers), sentimental (M*A*S*H), or downright hostile to the loyal fans (Seinfeld).  Some finales wrap everything up in a neat bow (Bob Newhart Show), while others leave things enigmatic and open (Veronica Mars, although clearly not their fault–they got canceled).

The updated show, which just ended after 4 very full seasons this week, brought us a bleak picture of humanity, characters who discovered they were Cylons when they thought they were humans, and humans who didn’t know what they were.  It had moments of brilliance, flashes of insight, and heart-breaking humanity at times.  That brings us to the finale.  IMO, the finale, while not a total disaster, had some serious flaws:

• Navel-gazing flashbacks that didn’t move the ball forward. There are flashbacks for several of the main characters.  None of those flashbacks is useful at either new character development (it’s the finale anyway) or at moving the ball forward on the story.  Little of importance is revealed.  The flashbacks seem self-indulgent:
  • Ellen & Tigh.  They like to party, and they’re in love.  We know that.
  • Adama.  He’s full of moxy, hates authority (except his own) and is capable of getting drunk enough that he can vomit on himself without trying to clean it up.  Not big news.
  • Roslin.  Her close family was killed in an auto accident, and she slept with someone much younger than her which is why she decided to get back into politics.  So what?
  • Lee & Kara. They had yet another near-miss, although this one was certainly the most sordid of all and doesn’t reflect well on either of them.  It seems a bit out of character for both, in retrospect:  for Lee because he was so passive for the first few seasons (why he lost Kara to Anders), and for Kara because she was so in love with Zach that she barely knew Lee existed.  Continuity, people!
• Unanswered questions. There are a lot of very big, very important questions left open:
  • Who is Daniel? There’s one Cylon model missing who was boxed by a jealous Cavill, his brother Daniel.  Presumably, we’ve seen one of the Daniel models before, wandering around among the humans (otherwise, what a wasted opportunity!)  Many fans have suggested that Kara Thrace’s missing piano-playing father was Daniel (making Kara the first real half-human/half-Cylon; suck on that, Hera), but Ron Moore has denied that suggestion (hate fans much?) without offering any better one.
  • What is Kara? At the end of the series, she’s been killed, come back to life somehow, cremated herself, and then announced cryptically that she’s done with her journey; then, mid-conversation with Lee, she just disappears.  I’ll be honest, there are a lot of things they could have done with this.  The scene is reminiscent of Greek mythology, how the immortal Gods and Goddesses appear among mortals and then are suddenly gone.  But this again is just left hanging.  Answers are not likely forthcoming as Katee Sackhoff has not signed on for the fall’s BSG movie The Plan (which is a flashback anyway).  It just seems polite for someone to ‘fess up to who resurrected her, how, why, and what that makes her now.
  • What are Head Six and Head Baltar? Regardless of all that, the hallucinations/angels known to fans as Head Six and Head Baltar are walking through a modern-day version of Times Square at the end musing on how humanity always seems to end up at the same place regardless of the location:  Kobol, Caprica, the original Earth, and now the second Earth.  But no one is there hallucinating them.  What the heck are they?  Is there some mythology that is meant to explain who or what they are?  Hello?
• Gaping continuity problem OR wasted opportunity.  This is my biggest issue with the series finale.  The crew arrives at a pre-historic earth, roughly 150,000 years before an earth that is similar to our present day earth.  The crew decides that they will populate this planet, splitting up to the various land masses, live quietly and teach language to the indigenous people (alien seeding theory, to those evolutionists out there).  There are a few problems with that notion, one literary, one scientific:
  • Scientific Issue:  Humans didn’t develop written language until about 10,000 years ago, yet these guys were going to be teaching language to pre-historic humans 140,000 years before that?  I don’t think so.  That would have to move human evolution along much faster, too.  The development of language is one of the most pivotal moments in human development.
  • Literary Issue:  The characters populating earth have names that are significant to our world history, yet they have been placed there at the wrong time to have been the basis for those cultural events:
    • Galen is going to live alone in a cold island off the biggest land mass.  Perhaps his name is intended to be the basis for the Gaelic language?  Nope, sorry–you’re off by over 140,000 years.
    • There are many characters with names associated with Greece through geography (Thrace = Thracia) or through mythology (Apollo, Athena, Hera, the names of the 12 colonies).  But, that can’t be right.  They’re off by about 142,000 years!
    • Adama could be the basis for mythology about Adam, but again, unlikely given the lapse of 140,000 years between their landing date and written human history.
    • There are many religious concepts associated with the show that could have been woven into earth’s mythology, but now can’t be due to the 140,000 year gap between their landing and recorded history.  Some of the themes:  resurrection, a Sun God, Icarus, the nature of angels, the will of God (or the gods), the nature of prophets, etc.  So instead, we have to believe that earth developed all of those independently at a later point in earth’s development, despite the coincidence.

So, for those of you who are fans (and if you’re not, you were warned to skip this post), what did you think of the Series Finale?  Better than you expected?  A disappointment?  Somewhere in between?  Discuss.

I have lived here in the UK -London for 20 years now and when friends and family come over they sometimes comment on how green we are over here. They observe that most of us dry our clothes on the  line, drive much smaller cars, live in shoe box’s compared to the average size of an American home, walk to the shops, use long life low wattage low energy bulbs, changing windows over for double glazing, doubling up on insulation, are becoming more obsessive about recycling, drive low emission high mpg diesel cars, save left over food, food portions at restaurants smaller and public transport used far more often and readily available.

It amazes some of the Brits when they go to Utah to see how big the houses are especially in many cases for so few people who live in them.  Huge Ford Explorers, steak dinners that could feed a typical family of four.  When they go for the first time they come back thinking that it’s a land of excess.

I know there have been many of the changes I have described above happening in Utah and throughout the states but there is not quite the buzz or emphasis on it that I see here at least IMO!

I also have this theory that Mormons aren’t into green issues because

1. Many believe the second coming will be coming soon (God the creator of this earth will be able to clean up the planet in a second, our efforts are pointless.
2. We have to get our priorities right – family, missionary work, ward service, temple work.  Being green is definitely not a priority now
3. If it was important the prophet and apostles would be vigorously emphasizing it during conference.
4. It would be stressed and accentuated in the manuals
5. Gas guzzling cars – God created fossil fuels for our use.  He created this earth and when we run out God will inspire man to come up with an alternative fuel – he always provides for us.
6. God made fossil fuel for our use and we are fortunate to be Americans and live in a place where fuel is cheap and are blessed to be here.
7. We have proven ourselves in the pre-existence and in this life and we deserve the just rewards for being faithful members
8. An attitude of the more physical stuff I have cars, houses, boats shows were being blessed abundantly
9. We have been hearing a lot about fuel and energy—about their high cost and limited supply, our unsafe and unpredictable dependence on their suppliers, and the need for new and sustainable sources of energy. I leave the discussion of these complicated issues to leaders of government and industry. The fuel I want to discuss is spiritual fuel. Elder L. Tom Perry

Please discuss

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2009/02/23/why-arent-mormons-green/feed/ 56 http://mormonmatters.org/2009/01/20/the-problem-with-authority/ http://mormonmatters.org/2009/01/20/the-problem-with-authority/#comments Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:24:35 +0000 Hawkgrrrl http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3823 Mormons are sometimes criticized for their unquestioning obedience to authority.  Statements like “When the prophet has spoken, the thinking is done,” and the Primary song “Follow the prophet” come to mind as well as the belief that even if leaders are mistaken, we should follow them.  Do Mormons have an unhealthy respect for authority?

In his new book, Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell shares some interesting and scary information that correlate plane crashes with a cultural respect for authority. He shares the story of a specific plane crash on Korean Air in which an analysis of the dialogue as recorded on the “black box” clearly shows (to someone who understands the language and what its built in deferential markers mean) that at least 2 of the crew members knew they were off course and in danger of crashing, but would not directly tell the pilot out of respect for his authority.  Because the pilot was exhausted and stressed out, he failed to notice their hints and instead flew the plane into the side of a mountain in foggy conditions, killing over 100 passengers & crew.

This problem is related to Power-Distance Index, or the cultural expectation of respect for hierarchy.  The PDI differs greatly from culture to culture and is ingrained into that culture, insinuated in both language & customs.  Countries with high PDI had the following characteristics:

• High reliance on leaders for decision-making. Leaders are expected to be decisive, their decisions are followed without question; leaders are consulted for more routine decisions than in low PDI countries.
• Lower expectations of non-leaders. Non-leaders are discouraged from expressing opinions or making decisions (er, “the thinking is done”).  They are subordinates in every sense of the word.
• Restrictions on how subordinates are permitted to express their needs. In the highest PDI cultures, this is restricted to very indirect “hints,” which within the context of the culture are generally understood by leaders as a way for the leader to retain authority but save face.  However, this structure relies heavily on leaders’ ability and willingness to listen and respond to these hints.
• Fear of backlash. In very high PDI countries, subordinates were sometimes physically struck when they irritated their leaders or were too direct.  Fear and intimidation clearly impacted how willing subordinates were to speak up.
• Strong reliance on rules & plans. These cultures discourage deviation from accepted procedures, even when circumstances clearly dictate that normal procedures will be ineffective.

Conversely, low PDI cultures are generally the opposite of the above:

• Subordinate or employee-focused culture. Leaders tend to be apologetic about being leaders and ultra-sensitive to subordinates.  This is the basis for the concept of “servant leadership.”  (Or as Uncle Ben tells Peter Parker:  “With great power comes great responsibility.”)
• Shared responsibility for communication.  In a low PDI culture, the speaker is expected to ensure understanding.  The receiver of the message is also expected to listen attentively.  In a high PDI culture, only leaders are considered responsible for the receiving of the message.  The speaker’s input is not considered necessary anyway.
• Equality culture. Subordinates are valued as having unique roles or expertise that give them insight and make their input critical.  Their opinions are expected and weighed based on merit; there is a free exchange of ideas regardless of level.  Speaking up, even in disagreement with a superior may be rewarded in these cultures, even if done tactlessly or aggressively.
• High innovation and creativity. These cultures are very willing to abandon established procedures and brainstorm new ideas when circumstances dictate.  They tend to be flexible and innovative.

Just to give you a taste, here’s how a few countries stacked up on PDI.  High PDI countries (with strong respect for authority):

1. Brazil
2. South Korea
3. Morocco
4. Mexico
5. Philippines

Low PDI countries (note the commonality created by language):

1. New Zealand
2. Australia
3. South Africa
4. Ireland
5. United States

So, based on these parameters, is Mormonism a high-PDI culture or a low-PDI culture or somewhere in between?  Does it vary by region or is it common across the entire religion, preserved in the language and customs and doctrines?  How much does it vary from person to person? What are the boundaries of respect for authority in Mormon culture (what would even the staunchest Saint refuse to do)?

Based on the above, I would have a hard time considering most Mormon culture to be high PDI (as I might have expected), yet there are some elements of both high and low PDI.  To some extent, this could be due to the fact that the concept of hierarchy is mixed:

• Quorum Leadership.  There is an “oligarchy” in that we consider all the apostles to be “prophets” and their personalities differ greatly.  Yet all are viewed as being on the same “level.”  Some of them are high PDI individuals; others are low PDI.
• Christ as the Head.  Ultimately, we consider Christ to be at the head of the church, and since our notion of Christ is something personal (everyone can have a relationship with their Savior), we have a “bat phone” to the man at the top.  That’s usually a low PDI indicator.  The fact that Christ is not physically on the earth further reduces PDI.  Everyone’s notion of Christ has somewhat equal creedence so long as it is not directly and clearly contradicted by doctrine.
• Lay Clergy.  Positions are temporary, and we are all volunteers.  No one is being paid or truly promoted, and anyone could be called to serve in any capacity at any time.  There are instances of “unrighteous dominion” (high PDI), but there are also many committees and quorums making decisions at the lowest level possible (low PDI).  Again, there’s a lot of variation based on individuals in leadership having a high or low PDI personally.

In general, I would say that the church is mixed, with both high and low PDI elements, and that it varies more from individual to individual (meaning there is not necessarily a predominant culture).  What do you think?

Discuss.

Psalms 55:22 says, in part: “Cast thy burden upon the LORD, and he shall sustain thee.”

Note that this is singular (“burden”) – not plural (“burdens”).

Ether 12:27 says: “And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.”

Note that this is singular (“weakness”) – not plural (“weaknesses”).

Matthew 11:28-30 includes the following: “Take my yoke upon you.”

Here is what I learned:

The concepts in these three verses constitute a complete solution; without the first and second, the third is impossible – and even destructive.

In simple terms, the Lord wants us to cast our “burden” at His feet and pick up the “yoke” that He knows will give us strength and bring eternal life. In a very real way, he asks us to exchange loads. Please take a moment to create that mental picture. Envision yourself removing a pack from your back or shoulders, setting it aside, then picking up a new pack to carry instead. If we fail to leave our own natural burden with Him, then all we do when we assume the responsibilities of membership in His kingdom is to pick up a second pack and increase a load we already are unable to bear alone.

That, in my mind, is the central power of the Atonement – of His grace and mercy. He will shoulder our burden, if we shoulder His. Each of us needs to figure out what this means in our own lives, with our own personalities and struggles, but, at a minimum, we need to accept His atoning grace and quit beating ourselves up over our natural weakness – that for which He has paid the price already. (See the 2nd Article of Faith.) We need to recognize and accept the forgiveness He has offered already. We need to believe Him and what He has promised us.

If you are feeling overwhelmed by guilt or inadequacy or the burdens of your life, may I suggest a simple solution – not an easy one and not one that always will happen completely and all at once, but the only one of which I know that truly will work. Find a quiet place, where you can kneel totally alone and unable to hear anything else, and pour out your soul to your Heavenly Father – able to approach Him directly because of the grace of His Son. Tell Him of your anxieties, your fears, your weakness, your pain – then ask Him to take the burden from you and help you walk away from it. Repeat that request (something like, “I gave it to you; please help me leave it at your feet.”) whenever you begin to feel overwhelmed – even if it means you have to do so sometimes in the middle of the confusion and chaos of your daily life. Take a deep breath, close your eyes if you can, and ask Him to intercede once more and keep you from picking up your natural load.

I have a deep and abiding testimony that if you cast your burdens upon the Lord, He truly will sustain you as you shoulder His yoke and begin to carry the burden He has chosen to make your weakness become strength. Although I believe in the symbolism, purity and real release that can accompany baptism, a fundamental and basic burden exchange can happen within or without any particular church structure. Anyone can cast her burden upon the Lord, take His yoke upon her and find rest to her soul.

1. Service Missions
   I’m talking about Peace Corps style service work, full time. I honestly believe that if 75% of our full time missionaries were doing strictly community service, the church would see higher teaching and conversion rates… and perhaps even retention rates, too. The physical aspect of “raising the bar” would not have to be so severe as the less physically capable missionaries could do the teaching and the stronger missionaries could do the service work. Think about the impact that could have on the world.
2. Women in Priesthood
   This one might be controversial, and its definitely the least likely to happen anytime soon, but I think it would be cool. The talent pool for leadership and administered spirituality is more shallow than we realize since we can only draw from the men in the church, and we constantly hear how men are spiritually weak compared to women. I’ve seen women operate within priesthood in other churches and its very impressive.
3. Consolidated Sunday School – Relief Society – Priesthood
   For about a year, my stake had too many members for the amount of chapels available so they had to fit five wards in one building. In order to make that work, the block of meetings was reduced from 3 hours to a little over 2 hours. In this scenario, Sacrament meeting was still the same but Sunday School and the Relief Society/Priesthood meetings were each reduced to 30 minutes. The short block was fantastic, although with young children the length of Sacrament meeting is still a real issue. However, keeping separate Sunday School and RS/PH meetings ended up limiting the effectiveness of teachers in either meeting. I’d like to see a shorter block, with Sacrament meeting reduced to maybe 45-50 minutes, and then a consolidated Sunday School/RS/PH, with men and women together. The idea of men and women in separate meetings is a theory that doesn’t really bear out anymore since both are giving the same correlated lesson anyway.
4. More Musical Performance
   Without question, my favorite LDS Sacrament meetings have been the ones dominated by musical performances. A few years ago I visited a relative’s ward for Christmas and the Sacrament meeting had NO talks at all. After the Sacrament was administered, the remainder of the time was given to several musical numbers and it was my favorite church experience in a long time. I’d love to see at least 50% of Sacrament meeting time given to musical performance (aside from the usual congregational hymns), although I’d like to see a wider range of musical styles allowed (as opposed to mostly MoTab-style choir numbers and Janice Kapp Perry solos).
5. Less Administrative Meetings
   There are probably not many active LDS folks who need an elaboration here. In recent years there have been General Conference talks, letters to bishops, and programs developed to try to reduce the amount of meetings taking time away from families, but it seems to make little difference. We still have tons of meetings and many of them are way too long.

For starters, how do you know if you are 99 or a 1?

The Ninety-Nine

In most organized religions, the larger group will be the most faithful, loyal, and active-in-practice. These are the people who lead a productive and often religious life, although not necessarily a personalized spiritual life. The majority of faithful LDS (and of all organized religions) may live their whole lives without really straying too far from the 99 and find great value and happiness. Most people within the 99, whether they have ever strayed or not, view the journey of the one as being dangerous and best to be avoided as a rule.

The One

To be a 1 is most simply to become separated (physically, emotionally, OR spiritually) from the flock enough for a reunion to be a non-trivial effort. Sometimes weakness, immaturity, or rebellion might actually be a reason for straying, but it’s certainly not always the case. Even the word straying is slightly misleading, as sometimes the separation from the flock is not so clearly a choice. Often while the 1 is astray, they feel like the 99 are, well.. sheep. The 99 might be willing to accept that comparison given certain biblical parables, but another aspect of the perspective of the 1 is that the shepherd is not Jesus, as we often think, but only church leaders.

Of course, that is actually true for most Christian churches. It is a common belief that Jesus has entrusted (or called) a number of human beings with the responsibility to “feed His sheep”. When it comes to LDS, although we do have a lay ministry, which means that technically I could be called to be the bishop of my ward (or shepherd of my flock) next week… we are still more like a mega-flock which is made of smaller flocks. The mega-flock is shepherded by General Authorities, and the local shepherds are mostly just extensions of the shepherding philosophies of those above them.

For a shepherd, a successful rescue of the 1 is mostly limited to a complete return to the flock. Reconciliation to the ideas they struggled with is directly connoted with repentance, which also assumes that the separation from the flock is always either a result of poor judgment or else a lack of proper commitment (i.e. the truth has always been there and no one has to be surprised.) Some shepherds prefer to perpetuate that idea, as it helps to dissuade the 99 from wandering too far and hopefully avoiding the thorny paths. Warnings about wandering are constantly given.

“First, in the Church, we don’t criticize; we don’t discipline members for what they think. But if they teach things that are going to lead people astray and to unhappiness, then we sound the alert. We don’t discipline them for their attitudes or their tendencies. We warn people if they go on that path: there are snares there, so stay away from them. It’s just that simple.” – Boyd K. Packer, from his PBS Helen Whitney interview

The Journey Can Be a Part of Growth

Yet, some 1′s find that the journey astray becomes an integral part of their spiritual lives. This idea can sometimes be unfathomable to some of the 99. After all, wickedness never was happiness, and the condition of separation from the flock in and of itself is often directly associated with some degree of wickedness. Of course, separation is usually not happiness, but its not always related to wickedness. There are pitfalls, yes, but a major reason for the severity of those pitfalls is that there is very little support for the 1, unless/until they return to the 99. LDS leaders receive thousands of letters from 1′s and their families which illustrate vividly the pain that is out there, and perhaps that is why there seems to be little acknowledgment of any positive value in the journey itself.

“We encourage people to get all the education they can. We’re not afraid of it. [...] But if you get hung up and involved and intellectually lose your way — and some do leave — they’re questioning everything. But their questions don’t have a productive insight. The mind is the source of inspiration, but if you get wandering too far the inspiration will stop. And that’s a bad place to be in life — to be without guidance and help, to be without a conscience, in other words.” – Boyd K. Packer, from his PBS Helen Whitney interview

To be “without a conscience” is not a fair characterization, though. There are many 1′s who experience this separation as a result of following their conscience. However, to be “without guidance and help” is all too often the case, but… are the shepherds without any responsibility?

Should the Shepherd Stay or Should He Go?

It is never simple, though. If the shepherd leaves the 99, what happens to them? I think the focus on the 99 leads many 1′s to feel abandoned or rejected, and sometimes even to judge the shepherds as being too corporate in their treatment of the flock. I think this statement from Elder Packer in a 1993 talk to the correlation committee demonstrates the reasoning.

“Those who are hurting think they are not understood. They are looking for a champion, an advocate, someone with office and influence from whom they can receive comfort. They ask us to speak about their troubles in general conference, to put something in the curriculum, or to provide a special program to support them in their problems or with their activism.

When members are hurting, it is so easy to convince ourselves that we are justified, even duty bound, to use the influence of our appointment or our calling to somehow represent them. We then become their advocates — sympathize with their complaints against the Church, and perhaps even soften the commandments to comfort them. Unwittingly we may turn about and face the wrong way.
[...]
If we are not very careful, we will think we are giving comfort to those few who are justified and actually we will be giving license to the many who are not.“

The gist of that statement is that the church is essentially made for the 99. In ironic consolation, it does at least acknowledge that the 1 is sometimes justified, but what will the shepherd do for them? The oft-overlooked intention comes later in that talk:

“The comfort they need is better, for the most part, administered individually.”

Here he places the task of going after the 1 at the feet of local shepherds. It makes sense that they know their flock more intimately, and would be better qualified to help. Why then are there so many 1′s who still feel like there is no shepherd looking for them? The shepherds call out for them to come home, but not many go out to meet them where they are. What if the declaration that those who stray are without guidance and help has become self-fulfilling prophecy?

Hurricane season is here, with the most recent tropical storm Dolly leaving hundreds of thousands of people in South Texas without power.  An estimated 236,000 people were left without food, power, or other services for several days.  Retired Lt. General Russel L. Honore, who was leader of Joint Task Force Katrina before retiring, is now urging Americans to develop a culture of preparedness.  Since I was in Texas for tropical storm Allison, I saw firsthand how LDS wards reacted in an emergency.  One of the most impressive experiences I had during that disaster was the chance to use and share food storage items.  So I was taken aback this week when a member of the Church advocated using firearms to protect our stash, stating: “That’s why the Church tells us to keep a gun with our food storage!”

To be fair, we were discussing the events of the Last Days, and some of the recent apocalyptic fiction which pictures anarchy in the days leading up to the Second Coming.  Do you think Mormons are being trained to help and to share during times of disaster so that we will have these skills in case of a larger emergency?   Why do some members still retain a hoarding mentality and attribute it to directives of the Church?

Among all Americans, Mormons are perhaps the best prepared and the best equipped to survive a disaster. But what is our responsibility toward those who are not prepared?  Of course, we never know how we will react in times of stress.  But I like to think that I would share what I had with those in need, even if it meant less for my family.  I believe that principles of a Christian religion would teach that we do not take the lives of others, even to save our own.  That’s why I would never place a gun with my food storage.

Alma 1:26

And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned… And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church.

Unlike local leaders, who maintain their normal vocations while serving in church assignments, General Authorities set aside their careers to devote their full time to the ministry of their office.  The living allowance given General Authorities rarely if ever equals the earnings they sacrifice to serve full-time in the Church.

Marvin K. Gardner, “General Authorities,” p. 539, Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Discuss, my friends:

I wonder how much they get out of it. Early-morning seminary students pretty much snooze through class. I did, and my boys tell me things haven’t changed much. In fact, if there’s any change, I would imagine high school students are more tired than they’ve ever been before. They’re more over-extended. They have more homework. Their classes are harder and there’s more pressure to take higher-level classes and get better grades. Adding seminary to the mix is tough and I admire kids who do it.

Why do they do it? Do they have a sincere desire to study the gospel and learn more about the scriptures? Do they want to please their parents? Do they want to impress the hot girl who sits next to them? Or do they do it because it’s on the checklist of things every good Mormon kid does?

As much as I admire kids who go to seminary – and their parents – I only have one word to express the feeling of finishing up the early-morning seminary stage of my life as a parent. Hallelujuh!

Did you go to early-morning seminary? Did you learn anything? How about your kids?

Before John Dehlin, there was Jeff Burton.

Jeff, a mechanical engineer by profession who was once an LDS Social Services counselor, has helped countless Mormons stay in the Church and stay active after experiencing crises of faith. His book and website, For Those Who Wonder, (where you can download his book for free!) continue to minister to the needs of those who are looking for ways to reconcile their changed religious understandings with their love for, and desire to remain involved with, the LDS Church. He helped me see that I could “remodel” my Mormon “house” to suit my needs in a way that was compatible with the expectations of others who live in it.

After purchasing his book at the BYU bookstore, I began to correspond with him about serving a mission, a decision which weighed heavily on my mind. In these pre-”raised bar” days, he helped me see that my doubts about parts of the Joseph Smith narrative need not prevent me from serving. I could witness to the things which I did strongly believe, like the mission of Jesus Christ and His teachings, in improving people’s lives. I cannot overestimate the impact that his honest and refreshing advice had on an 18 year old who thought he was alone in the Church. Others had gone through the same struggles!

Unfortunately, in the MTC I sometimes pretended to “know” things I doubted. I resented the social pressure to constantly testify. Jeff sent me another letter in the MTC which gave me some good advice about honesty. I determined to be more honest in my convictions and to let the force of what I DID believe in overshadow the doubts I harbored about aspects of the Restoration, especially in my conversations with missionaries and investigators.

Interestingly, Jeff’s advice to be honest helped me with many members of the Church in Germany, who had similar doubts as mine. I became friends with a few souls who entrusted parts of their faith journey to me. We encouraged each other to hold on to the gospel of Jesus Christ, while letting go of the parts of the Restoration narrative that didn’t work for us. (As an aside, Germany is a great place to go to test your religious convictions! Between the ravages of World War II, the Holocaust, and the dominance of Euro-secularism, you are hard pressed to find fellow theists).

I followed Jeff’s trail to the Sunstone Symposium in Salt Lake when I returned to BYU post-mission. He was presenting on inactivity rates in different areas of the Church which was quite interesting.

Most recently, I shared my appreciation for his help in staying in a Church which has continued to bring me joy and fulfillment. If not for Jeff, who knows, I might have ended up Episcopalian!

Have any of you benefitted from counselors like Jeff?

Nearly all these feelings focus on my career situation. I’m ten years into a wonderful second marriage, so that’s not affected. But I sense the crisis spilling over somewhat into my religion/faith. For this post, I thought I would do a bit of self-inventory in the spirit of “I’ll show you mine if you’ll show me yours.”
To begin, let me tell you two ways in which this midlife crisis is NOT affecting my religion/faith, so you’ll understand more where I’m coming from:

1) Although I’m aware of some aberrations, inconsistencies, and other unresolved areas in Mormon history and doctrine, these areas honestly do not trouble me much. I find that the solid aspects of the faith far outweigh the unresolved areas, and I’m content to wait and see on those areas, which I feel confident will eventually be explained to my satisfaction. Certainly I can’t imagine any other lens through which to understand life and negotiate my way through it than Mormonism.

2) I don’t find myself facing significant doubts or problems related to the temple-recommend questions. Only three questions give me any pause: A) When asked if I affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church, because I have inactive and nonmember friends and I participate in several alternative LDS forums. B) When asked if I earnestly strive to do my duty in the Church, because I tend to do the minimum. C) When asked if I keep all the covenants that I made in the temple, because I’m sure I could always do MUCH more with sacrifice, consecration, etc. Other than that, I’m totally on board.

So where is my midlife crisis spilling over into my religion/faith? It mainly has to do with what I would term the Mormon lifestyle. Here’s the essence of my midlife Mormon questioning: Must the Mormon lifestyle be quite so programmed, regimented, and one-size-fits-all standardized, or is it OK to do some customizing and setting of one’s own quotas and benchmarks for good works? I’m not talking about rationalizing paying 5% tithing or drinking beer only once a month; I’m talking about those aspects of the Mormon lifestyle that are not explicitly required to maintain a temple recommend, instead functioning as what I would call sub-commandments:

Home teaching: I can see the value of home teaching for socially bonding together a ward and, rarely in my experience, helping families who really need it. However, with my personal and family time under increased pressure and each month passing by so quickly, once a month just feels way too frequent for both visiting and being visited. My midlife self asks, Why can’t it be acceptable for me to set my own quota of quarterly, which I could do willingly and happily? I’m close to making this preference known, but it’s hard because it would offend others.

Daily scripture study: I’m grateful for the scriptures and recognize that they help establish the foundation of our church. However, I personally think they’re a bit overhyped as to how much we can keep getting out of them by rereading them over and over. I’m a passionate reader, and I have tried to do daily scripture study at different times in my life, but it always ends up feeling overall tedious, with the occasional smidgeon of new insight. Rather than not study scriptures at all, I’ve recently given my midlife self permission to read one random chapter from the Book of Mormon each Sunday and call it good.

Temple attendance: The expectation is once a month, but I’ve dwindled to once a year or less, so I’ve set my midlife goal to attend every six months. Again, I personally find the spiritual benefits of temple attendance to be overhyped, and I don’t get what people mean when they say, “I learn something new every time.” Yes, a big component of temple attendance is serving others—so I ask you, do the dead somehow view the movie through our eyes? If not, I hope the church eventually starts offering a streamlined ordinance-only option. Think how much more work would get done! And I’d go more often if the session were an hour-plus shorter.

Dress code: I’ve personally come to reject the Mormon priesthood dress code, disliking it on both the symbolic and practical levels. I think it’s cultural, not doctrinal. So here in my midlife, I don’t always wear a tie to church, never a white shirt, don’t even own a suit, sometimes wear nice leather sandals to church without socks in summer, and often wear a pair of newer black Levi’s to church. I choose to wear a groomed beard and would never shave it off just because some church leader asked. (Frankly, I’ve been a little disappointed that no one’s yet given me the opportunity to stand up for myself on this issue.)

Odds and ends: I’ve found that I’m willing to fast every other month. We hit family home evening every second or third week. I get to skip priesthood and Sunday school once a month. During church, I can read church magazines (Ensign, Sunstone, and Dialogue). I never sing hymns, but I open the hymnal for the sacrament hymn and mentally follow along.

I guess over the years all the religious busywork has just become too much and too often for me, but if I can set my own pace, it helps me feel more in control and more willing to get the most out of what I’m able and willing to do, instead of resenting it or secretly just not doing it at all and feeling guilty. I’ve seen many people fall into all-or-nothing or slippery-slope modes of thinking when it comes to practicing the Mormon religion, but I don’t think it always has to be that way, especially on this sub-commandment level.

Maybe all this is obvious to some of you already, but for me it’s been a midlife awakening to figure out how I can continue enduring to the end without just getting sick of it all and slipping into coasting mode, like I did halfway through my mission. Maybe I come across as a self-indulgent wimp, but at least I’m still holding onto the iron rod.

What about you? Have you had or do you anticipate having a distinctively Mormon midlife crisis? And what’s your take on dealing with the day-to-day benchmarks and quotas on all this sub-commandment stuff?

–
Check out some provocative, unconventional, yet ultimately faith-affirming Mormon books and/or my personal blog.