If you look at most pagan religions, the pagans often have very interesting, true-ish ideas about where humans came from and where we are going, but they totally lack knowledge of the need for a Savior to get us out of our current mortal dilemma. (I use the term pagan to mean non-Christian religions, even though it more correctly means polytheistic religions, but in reality those two aspects often go together. I don’t consider Mormons polytheistic because we worship only one god, although of course we acknowledge the existence of countless gods. I’m not sure where Islam fits in this… monotheistic non-Christian?)

By the same token, if you look at Christian religions, they enjoy an abundance of understanding and faith about the Savior and his New Testament gospel, but they have lost nearly all the truth about humankind’s origins and potential—in other words, about our true nature. There’s a tunnel-vision focus in Christianity on Jesus as an end in of himself rather than as a means to an end, which in Mormonism we understand to be exaltation for God’s children who pass the test. In fact, I’d even go so far as to say that Christianity undervalues humanity and overdoes Jesus, if that’s possible.

Christianity understands the how but not the why. Paganism (or some of it, anyway) understands the why but not the how. So the masterstroke of Mormonism, to me, is that it restores these two key areas of understanding back into one belief system. We understand both the how and the why in a way that I don’t think any other religion does (correct me if I’m wrong).

I served my mission in Australia, and even the pagan Australian Aborigines have some true-ish beliefs about premortality. During what Aborigines call the Dreamtime, which could be another word for premortality, creative beings formed the land’s physical features, and some of those beings became human to safeguard the creation. Many Aborigines believe that spirit children wait at certain fertility sites for a suitable opportunity to enter a womb. In one group, spirit children are small, dark-skinned personages who have always existed. When one of them wishes to become human, it enters a camp and whispers to a sleeping man, requesting to be escorted to his wife. All this is quite breath-taking for me from a Mormon point of view.

The Greek mystics believed that the spiritual nature of man descended from the Milky Way into material existence. Socrates wrote, “Our souls must also have existed without bodies before they were in the form of man, and must have had intelligence.” Egyptian mystic Hermes Trismegistus taught, “We must not shrink from saying that a man on earth is a mortal god, and that God in heaven is an immortal man.” In a sense, the Hindus believe that humans are gods who have always existed and have forgotten who they really are.

Even some of the early Christians believed in the doctrine of premortality. The third-century Christian writer Origen of Alexandria believed that human spirits were judged for their premortal conduct before coming to earth. He wrote, “The concrete and individual human mind descended into the body from the choir of aerial souls, having lived earlier lives and bringing with it the qualities and a nature which it had acquired by its conduct.”

However, in A.D. 543 the Roman Catholic pope officially outlawed belief in premortality as too speculative, unscriptural, and pagan. So the concept was essentially lost to mainstream Christianity, and no one else has restored it like Joseph Smith finally did. Even as late as 1329, however, a monk was excommunicated for teaching that the human soul is uncreated and uncreatable.

And of course, terrestrial-kingdom-level Christianity sees Mormonism’s understanding of humankind’s godly potential as equally blasphemous. That’s why I love Mormonism as a belief system, because not only do we totally embrace the Savior but also we comprehend the celestial-kingdom-level “fullness of the father.” (At least, most of us do—I’ve been dismayed to see some Mormons drift into “mere Christianity,” even President Hinckley at times when he was doing P.R.)

This thrilling big-picture kind of stuff is one of the main reasons I stay in Mormonism even though I don’t personally much enjoy the culture or lifestyle. I’m just totally sold on the worldview. I honestly don’t know if anything I’ve said or how I’ve said it is strikingly original or not; I may have read it all or been taught it all before somewhere. All the same, any enhancements or push-backs on this outlook?

The first approach is to just ignore the scripture.  Lots of scriptures get ignored.  Who among us has liked the story of Zipporah to ourselves (Exodus 4:24ff)?  Who has read that story?

The second approach is to get as far as reading the scripture, but to just not pay attention.  Poor Zipporah.  Poor Apocrypha.

The third approach is to consider whatever the scripture is to be a random accretion, best ignored in these more enlightened times.  The Song of Solomon, Zipporah and 1 Cor. 14:34 often end up in that pile.

The fourth approach is to just put on the shelf any scripture that doesn’t fit our understanding.  We just cut and dice the scriptures to fit our predisposed mindsets, figuring it may make sense some day, but we don’t need to worry about it for now.  There are thousands of things like that.  Those who actually read Zipporah’s story tend to just leave the poor lady on the shelf to be thought about later, after other things.

The fifth approach is to proof text the verse (ahh, you can see I actually know what a proof text is).  Commonly 1 Cor. 14:34 is read that women should not gossip in church.  Almost any verse of scripture can be re-interpreted or re-read into a different meaning — different enough that it can be ignored as having no meaning that we disagree with.

The sixth way to ignore things is to treat them as superseded.  The prohibition against blended fabrics, the need for blue thread, phylacteries, the no shrimp or bacon rules, all of those were temporary and are now superseded or fulfilled.  You can easily take that approach with any scripture you disagree with.  Surely women were supposed to be quiet then, but it is perfectly alright for them to talk now.

The seventh way is to actually study the context and the history.  “Let your women keep silence in the churches for it is not permitted unto them to speak” actually turns out to be an accretion, added to Paul’s words by a later writer.  Of course the necessary documents to reliably establish that have only been available for the past twenty years or so, but if you aren’t too picky about what sources you use, you can always find a scholarly basis to alter or redact any scripture you don’t agree with.

The eighth approach is to take the scripture beyond the “proof text” view.  Any meaning you disagree with is an out of context proof text and must be thought of as having a warped meaning if it disagrees with you.  Many scriptures have dramatically different meanings when taken in context and not abused as proof texts.  Just push context far enough and any meaning is possible — eventually diluting meaning so far as to enable you to ignore what ever it is that the scripture seems to say.

The ninth approach is to let the Spirit teach us what the scripture is intended to mean to us.  D&C 91:1-6 warns us that many scriptures are meaningful only if read in that fashion.

In all of these approaches it is easy to learn that the letter of the law is seen as death, or at least inconvenient and disagreeable, the Spirit of the law as a way to live as we feel like today.  Perhaps in the right way, ignoring the proof texts is the superior way to find the scriptures, in the alternative it is merely a way to turn them into a mirror that agrees with us.

Take a look.  What scripture do you feel like ignoring today?

Open Letter to California Mormons

Jeffrey S. Nielsen

I am a member of the Mormon Church, a married heterosexual, and a supporter of marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. I am asking you to pause and give sincere thought to the letter from our religious leaders you have heard read, or will soon hear read, over our church pulpits asking you to get involved and oppose marriage equality in California. Please think deeply about this, not only as a member of a particular church, but also as a citizen of a democracy.

To press for an amendment to a civil constitution that would legalize discrimination against an entire class of people is no small matter, but of the greatest significance. When the argument, no matter how well intentioned, is based solely upon a religious proclamation; then, I believe, it is a serious contradiction of the wisdom of our founding fathers. It also does tremendous damage to the great progress in civil rights we’ve made in our country respecting the equal dignity of each person and towards a more certain legal equality for all citizens.

You should also know, not all faithful Mormons agree with our religious leaders’ encroachment into political matters. In fact, a growing number of active Mormons, who have gay friends and family members, are coming to the conclusion that our current leaders are as mistaken in promoting discrimination against gays and lesbians as was the Mormon hierarchy in the 60’s when they opposed equal rights for people of color, and our Mormon leaders in the 70’s when they opposed full legal equality for women.

Of course, religious authorities of any denomination possess the right, and may claim the legitimacy, to set the theology and policy for their religious community. When they; however, attempt to interject religious doctrine into the public spaces of a diverse democracy without reasonable justification, then members, especially faithful members, of that religious organization have the civic responsibility to express public disapproval of such dangerous and undemocratic behavior.

No one is asking that you condone a behavior that might violate your religious faith, but we need to allow everyone the freedom to live their life as they see fit, so long as it does not physically harm another person. After all, religious values must be something an individual freely chooses, not something forced upon him or her by the state. We should never allow our constitutions, whether state or federal, to become weapons in a crusade to impose a particular religious value system upon a pluralistic democracy. Today it might be a particular religious value that we affirm, but tomorrow it might be a religious system, which would seek to legislate against our own sincere beliefs. So now is the time to take a stand and keep separate civil and religious authority.

I do not believe that people choose their sexual orientation any more than they choose their skin color or gender. So to discriminate and deny them equal protection and equal opportunity under civil law because of these natural traits; especially in this case, sexual orientation, is grossly unfair and should be rejected outright in a compassionate and just democracy. If anyone could give me a single reasonable argument against marriage equality in our civil society, which doesn’t make fallacious appeals to tradition, misplaced appeals to religious authority, or make some ridiculous claim about nonhuman animals, then I would like to hear it. So far, no one has been able to present me with even a single justifiable reason.

You should know that like you, family and marriage are very important to me. As I have become acquainted with gay and lesbian couples, I have been touched by their goodness, sincerity, and commitment. I am persuaded that allowing marriage equality would, in fact, strengthen the institutions of family and marriage in our country. Perhaps it might even make all of us a little more considerate and responsible as both marriage partners and parents. I can only hope that the citizens of California, and my fellow Mormons, will possess the wisdom and moral decency to reject the call to discriminate against our gay and lesbian coworkers, friends, neighbors, church members, and family.

aka Why We All Believe This Even if We Claim We Don’t

Overheard on the Bloggernacle, or in the office, or just about everywhere:

All religions contain overlapping ideas and in this overlap exists the real voice of God.

Or

It is arrogant for such-and-such religion to believe they are right and everyone else that disagrees with them is wrong.

Or

There is so much evil in the world due to people believing their doctrines are more true than anyone else’s. There are many ways to heaven and it’s different for everyone.

I want to give these ideas the due they deserves before I give them the critical analysis they require.

The idea that all religions are “true” is beautiful. From this idea we can easily jump off into our imagination and see a world where we all see other religions as our brother and sisters and where there is no contention between beliefs because all are equal. It is a world where Jihads and Crusades never take place and we can pick the best ideas from all religions and form a super belief system both tailored to our own needs as well as our neighbors.

I wish such an idea could ever be logically possible. But it’s a little like imagining a world where we have legislated that “winters should be mild or cookies more nourishing than vegetables.” It just can’t happen.

The Overlap of All Religions: Morality Alone

Where do all religions overlap? If we are talking about religions that believe in a higher power then there are exactly two areas where all religions overlap:

1. There is a higher power
2. We should love that higher power and our neighbor

If we include ethical atheist religions in this list then we might have to eliminate #1 in some cases, though frankly it’s pretty common for the term “atheists” to really just mean “I believe in a higher power, but not one of the ones represented by any world religion.” 

But at a minimum, the intersection of all religions is that we should all love “goodness” (be that perceived as a higher power or not) and our neighbor

I can’t over state the importance of this overlap. If it didn’t exist I think we’d have a pretty definitive proof that there is no higher power at all. And I can’t overstate the value of having people believe, like from my quotes above, that this is the single most important aspect of any religion: for most religions agree that it is one of the most if not the most important aspect of their religion.

Can All Religions Be “True” In the Intersection of Their Beliefs?

What I can’t logically accept is that the idea that all religions are “true” due to this overlap.  Nor can I accept that such an idea could ever be seen as a good thing by anyone belonging to any religion; for at its heart this idea isn’t so much saying that all religions are equally true as it is saying that all religions are equally false. There in lies the ugly side to this otherwise beautiful and well intended thought.

What a religious belief system offers unique to the world is a way to make sense of our lives and the universe. Each does this in different ways and those ways, I’m sorry to say, are mutually exclusive from each other. Consider the following points. How could both statements in column A and B ever both turn out to be true at the same time? And how could it not matter which is correct if one or the other were true?

I have to accept this reality: that there is no way column A and B can ever be fully logically reconciled. We might be able to come up with some partial reconciliations, but likely those compromises will please no one.

In saying this, I do not mean to imply that all religious beliefs are mutually exclusive from all others. Of course only some of our beliefs are mutually exclusive from others. But it’s the mutually exclusive ones that often matter the most to us.

Whatever the real truth turns out to be, someone is going to be disappointed, hurt, or at least at a disadvantage based on what they believe. There is no other possiblity.

This is why the idea of all religions being equally true via an intersection of beliefs rings equally hollow to all. It is the truth claims of the religions that make them worth believing, not the intersection of what they all have in common.

Non-Triumphalism Considered

What I find interesting is that this seems to be every bit as much true for religions that specifically try to reject Triumphalism. Triumphalism is defined by Wikipedia as “..the attitude or belief that a particular doctrine, culture, or social system is superior to and should triumph over all others”

Non-Triumphalism is a difficult concept for me to wrap my mind around because it’s a self contradiction. Now I can certainly understand how a person can have a belief system whereby there are multiple belief systems that can all lead to a good results - that is to say, multiple beliefs systems can lead to “salvation” however that is defined. But this isn’t the same thing as Non-Triumphalism per se.

In fact, Mormonism is one of the strongest examples imaginable of exactly such a belief system. There is salvation to be found in all religions in Mormonism. (There are a handful of competing religions that allow for such universal salvation for all belief systems, Mormonism being only one of them, and I will consider them later.)

But could there ever logically be a set of mutually exclusive belief systems where all are equally true? Or could there ever be one religion that is “more true” than another and yet it does not matter?

“To Each Their Own” - “Whatever Works for You”

The one situation where knowing or having the truth would not matter would be if absolute-hard-core-atheism turned out to be true. If our lives are nothing more than an accident of atoms coming together into DNA that happened to evolve a sense of consciousness and morality merely for the sake of replicating that DNA more productively, then we may indeed have a situation where what one believes does not matter at all - because the truth does not matter at all. 

Its a little like taking a happy 70 year old woman, content in her memories of her perfect life long marriage to a now dead spouse, and telling her that it’s all a crock because he cheated on her during their entire marriage. It may be the truth, but it’s not a helpful truth. In this one circumstance — when the real truth is worse than the illusion –and this one circumstance only, could we truly say “whatever works for you.” [1] Best to just let them believe what they want because it makes them happy. Under any other circumstance, truth matters, at least to some degree.

And yet, I have to wonder at the number of atheists that actively try to rid the world of all believers to make the world a better place. It would seem that even self proclaimed hard cord atheists are usually secretly Triumphalists bringing a greater spiritual truth to the world through the spread of their doctrines. If existentialists really exists at all, they are exceedingly rare.

Let’s put it a slightly different way: if there is no ultimate spiritual truth at the center of existence then the truth of our existence does not matter. But if there is an ultimate spiritual truth at the center of our existence then that truth will matter — period. And the closer you are to it, the better off you’ll be.

I think people struggle with this concept because they confuse ‘salvation’ with ‘advantage.’ Most of us grew up surrounded by a predominately Protestant Christian culture where ‘salvation’ is the only ‘advantage.’ This is why we get so easily confused over the difference. But even if believing a “truth” does not save or damn us by itself, it may yet give us an advantage or disadvantage of some sort. Indeed, a central truth about the meaning of our existence must give us an advantage or it isn’t, by definition, a truth about the meaning of our existence, now is it?

Are There Non-Triumphalists?

I believe this is why there is no such thing as a Non- Triumphalist in practice, for there will never be a person that claims to be Non-Triumphalist in their beliefs that does not also believe some or all of their beliefs really do make the world a better place. Why else hold their beliefs at all?

Indeed, the single most common form of Non-Triumphalism is to believe in Non-Triumphalism as a “doctrine, culture, or social system is superior to and should triumph over [Triumphalism.]” Thus Non-Triumphalism itself is the best proof of the logical impossibility of Non-Triumphalism.

A Real Life Example

I once had a manager that used to claim that all religions were equally true… well, except for the Catholics (his former religion) because they were a crock and just wanted your money.

I once challenged him on the illogic of his belief because he and a Hindu programmer were arguing over if one can only reincarnate seven times (as the Hindu programmer believed) or an infinite number of times (as my manager believed.) I pointed out that logically it can’t be both. It can’t be that everyone can only have seven “chances to get it right” and also have an infinite number of “chances to get it right.”

He smiled at me and pointed out that they can both be right, but for themselves. I smiled back and explained that this meant his belief system was superior to the programmers because, all things being equal, who wouldn’t prefer an infinite number of chances instead of just seven? That meant the ”seven chances” belief was hurtful or limiting compared to the managers infinite chances belief and should be discarded. In other words, knowing the “truth,” as the manager believed it to be, mattered significantly.

Later on, when I was explaining to a Baptist co-worker about one of my favorite movies, The Other Side of Heaven, my manager couldn’t hold back a snide remark about how ridiculous it was to send a missionary overseas to someone else and try to convert them from their religious beliefs. “Everyone should just believe what they believe and introspect based on that. We should never try to covert people to our personal beliefs.”

“Isn’t that what you are doing to me right now with that very comment?” I asked.

He was caught red handed.

His comment showed another inconsistency with his belief system. If he really believed religions are merely a preference, like flavors of ice cream, then the correct comment for him to make would have been “what an incredibly great thing for that missionary to bring additional options to the people of that island so that they had more options to choose from!” But he didn’t say that and he certainly didn’t feel that way either.

We had proof that he did not believe that religious beliefs were a mere preference after all.

Superset Religions - Mormonism and The Bahai

But let’s consider another logically possibility. What if the truth is a union rather than an intersection of all religions? What if all religions have a piece of the puzzle, so to speak? Well, obviously, that would mean that anyone that put the puzzle together (or more of the puzzle together) would have “more truth” and thus that person’s belief system would be “the truest” religion. Plus, as I mentioned above, all religions have some mutually exclusive beliefs, so something has to give. Logically this doesn’t really get us to our goal of all religions being “equally true” though it might get us to all religions “having truth.”

I personally believe this is the “best” approach to the problem and the best possible outcome we can hope for. All other alternatives we consider will always turn out to be less ideal than this one, I’m afraid. 

As I mentioned previously, there are a handful of religions that believe in the superset approach; Mormonism being one of the most well know, even if most people ignore those aspects of Mormonism in popular portrayal.

Another I’m familiar with is the Bahai. I used to meet regularly with a couple of sisters that were Bahia and share my beliefs with them and they shared theirs in return. The Bahai are fond of saying that they believe all religions are true.

It only took a couple of sessions with the sisters to realize that what they really meant was “all religions have important truths” or “all religions can bring you closer to God, though not in equal measures.”

I truly found much to love in the Bahai religion and if Mormonism turns out to be false, I vote for Bahai as the next best alternative. But they do not believe all religions are equally true: “Bahá’u'lláh described a greater covenant between God and mankind. He also described a lesser covenant between each Messenger and the people of the time.” (link) It is best to believe in Bahá’u'lláh. 

Superset Religions - NDE-Based Religions

Another contender to be a union or superset religion are the Near Death Experience (NDE) based religions.

NDEs do not really constitute a “religion” per say because NDEs differ as much as they are similar. But by selecting out the parts one wants to believe in, it’s possible to form a well formed religious belief system out of the tidbits from NDEs.

One of my favorite books, What Dreams May Come by Richard Matheson, is a fictional account of life after death based on his own research into NDEs. Thanks to Matheson’s introduction to the book, we know that the story represents the beliefs Matheson personally held. And it’s the best detailed attempt I’ve seen to create a religion whereby all religions are true via the idea of a union or superset of beliefs. In Matheson’s view of heaven, all heavens of all religions exist exactly as believers imagined them. This is because in Matheson’s Hinduish beliefs, thought forms into reality. Thus when you die you quickly find that your “spirit body” is physical so long as you think of it that way. Likewise by thinking of a house for yourself, you can create a house. Likewise, if you create a “heaven” through your thoughts then this “heaven” becomes your reality. You are limited by your own thoughts and nothing else.

I love this book and, like the Bahai, if Mormonism isn’t true, I sure hope something like this is instead. But make no mistake; it proved impossible for Matheson to come up with a logical way for all religions to be “equally true.”

(Interestingly, the ultimate goal in Matheson’s religion is to raise in your spirituality until, “the progressing soul becomes at one with God - formless, independent of time and substance though still aware of personal identity.” Sounds familiar?)

But I soon noticed that Matheson’s belief system favors the types of people he was friends with and considered his political allies. Our main character, Chris Nielsen, is an ethical atheist in life and does not believe in an afterlife. He is shocked when, at death, he is ushered into a place that he thought did not exist at all. Virtuous atheists have nothing to fear from the afterlife.

But then we come to realize that Matheson believes Christians, particularly conservative ones, have an inferior belief system compared to atheists. For example, Chris meets his Aunt Vera in heaven:

Aunt Vera had found the ‘heaven’ she desired and believed she would find - totally religious. She goes to church almost constantly. … ‘You see, Chris, we were right,’ Aunt Vera said to me. And, as long as she believes it, her Summerland [heaven] will be contained within the boundaries of that conviction. There’s nothing wrong with it. She’s happy. It’s just that she’s limited. To repeat: there is more. 

At least Aunt Vera is happy, because other traditional Christians aren’t so lucky:

I looked across the hall in startlement as a man began to shout. “I am a Christian and a follower of my Savior! I demand to be taken to my Lord! You have no right to keep me here! No right! … [Chris’ guide says,] “One of the many who expect to sit at the right hand of God and believe that those who fail to share their ideas are doomed to eternal torment. In many ways, these are the most backward souls of all. 

So apparently religious beliefs matter a lot after all. And people that Richard Matheson considers political allies fare better than his political adversaries. Boy, didn’t see that coming.

On the other hand, even atheists might bump into some troubles if they don’t believe “the truth.” When Chris’ wife decides to snuff herself out of existence because of her sadness over Chris’ death, she awakes in a personally created hell and must live there until the time that she was appointed to die naturally. Do you think this “truth” might be something worth knowing, even for an atheist? Again we see that knowing a truth matters and thus what you believe matters.  [2]

Conclusion

My conclusion from these examples is simple: it is not possible for all belief systems to turn out to be equal unless there is no ultimate truth at all. Then it simply doesn’t matter if you have truth or not. But of course, we all sense this is not the case, even atheists, so we all Triumphally fight for what we believe that universal spiritual truth to be and claim our beliefs to be the best and truest.

Or to put it another way, logically speaking there can be only one true (or most true) religion, at most. There is no other way possible, no matter how uncomfortable that truth might be. But then there is an upside to this belief. It means there is a purpose and reason in seeking a greater understanding of God and we can honestly hope to benefit from discovery of truth. Perhaps it’s best that we look at the positives instead of the negatives.

Footnotes: 

[1] Every time I write something like this I can, without fail, count on someone misunderstanding it and then railing against what they thought I said. So let me respond in advance to the ways I believe what I just wrote will be misunderstood.

1. If you are an atheist that believes people should not be constrained by religion or religious upbringing so that they can search out what makes them the happiest, then by definition you believe in a universal spiritual truth that all must reconcile themselves against or be at a disadvantage. So I wasn’t writing about you in this section. You are, however, the perfect example of what I am writing about: someone that believes they have the one true religion.
2. If you are an atheist that believes atheism makes you happy because you don’t have to answer to anyone and you think others might feel the same way if they just realized there is no God, then you also have a universal spiritual truth that you believe all must reconcile themselves against or be at a disadvantage. I wasn’t talking to you in this section and you also just proved my point because you believe you have the one true religion.
3. If you are an atheist that really and truly believes people should believe what they want and it doesn’t matter because when we all die we’re dead anyhow so it’s best that people find happiness any way they can while in this miserable life, then I *was* talking specifically about you. Now please don’t prove yourself  a hypocrite by arguing with me - or anyone else — ever again because the moment you do, you are no longer this type of atheist and you are now claiming to have a universal spiritual truth that all must reconcile themselves to. Arguing will also prove that you believe you have the one true religion.  In fact, if you really do fit this description you will never read this because a blog like this would matter so little to you you’d not bother with it. To each their own, right? And you certainly won’t be posting a comment because you’d, at a minimum, believe what I’m writing is “as good” as anything else out there if I believe in it. So there will be nothing to discuss.

[2] For those that have only seen the movie, this is different from the book, I’m told. Apparently the “suits” thought it would be more dramatic to have an never-ending hell whereas Matheson actually believed all souls eventually, with help from those in heaven, raise out of hell. Hell had an end even if it took a thousand years.

In a Priesthood lesson a few months ago, we were discussing “things I’ve learned in life” - everyone taking turns sharing something with everyone else. He said something that broke my heart - that I am sure I will never forget. This brilliantly humble man, whose Gospel knowledge blows us all away but who sits quietly throughout most lessons and just listens, said:

“I have learned that our deepest and most difficult trials can bring us closer to God than anything else can. I am profoundly grateful for that lesson; I just wish I had not had to learn it the way I did.”

2) In high school, I was blessed to sing for David Dahlquist, one of the most impressive musicians and directors I have ever met. (A song he wrote - “Lullaby” - took second place in the 1980 All-Church Music Contest.)

“Mr. D” had numerous opportunities to leave our little farm community school and pursue a career at the college level and beyond. He stayed, however, because he simply loved touching kids’ hearts and helping them find glory and majesty in music. The sheer joy and rapture on his face when a song “clicked” with his students was wonderful to behold. He touched more lives directly and profoundly in his 30 years as a teacher than perhaps anyone else in the history of the towns that feed into that high school. Other than my father, he probably is the one teacher who has been the greatest inspirational example in my life.

His and his wife’s story is told in the September, 2002 Ensign - (”In a Quiet House”). It illustrates Dave and Maria Elena amazingly well. What it doesn’t mention is that Mr. D served as a Bishop and as a Stake President during some of the time (the last few years) the story details. Their story will break your heart and fill your soul.

Please read it now at the link above. (This post will still be here when you are done. Really, go ahead and read it before moving on here. Don’t keep reading this; read it first.)

As difficult as it is to understand and accept experiences like these, I am inspired by our ability to rise above anything that happens in our lives by holding fast to a faith - any faith - that allows us to see the good even in the trials that break our hearts. Stephen is an inspiration to me. As he said so eloquently elsewhere, “All we can hope for is for God to bring us home.” I am grateful for that faith and that hope - and I pray that I will not have to learn the lessons my friend and Mr. D learned in the same way they did as God works to bring me home. 

(Please pardon a personal request: Mr.D retired a few years ago, and a scholarship fund was established in his name to help an exceptional student each year who sings at Payson High School pursue his or her college career. If you know of anyone who can read his story and bring this fund to a greater audience - or bring it to someone who can endow it to provide a regular scholarship off of the interest, I will be eternally grateful.)

In all seriousness, let me share with you a recent experience that has had a profound impact on the way I view the concept of Priesthood, and that has convinced me, once and for all, that I am not the sole Priesthood bearer in my family.  I believe it’s high time we recognized the service rendered by faithful LDS women as more than simply the fulfillment of a Relief Society assignment, or being a good visiting teacher.  Such efforts constitute the righteous exercise of Priesthood power. 

Over the past year or so, some of our closest friends — Lori (not her real name) and her husband — have been struggling with marital difficulties. Since we live close (and are in the same ward), Lori and my wife talk often. My wife, the daughter of a school psychiatrist, has listened to Lori and, where appropriate, offered advice. The situation, however, continued to deteriorate.

One Sunday afternoon as my family was sitting down to dinner, the phone rang. I just happened to be the one who picked it up and said, “hello.” All I heard in response was a woman’s heavy sobbing, through which I could barely discern fumbling attempts to speak. The caller was hyperventilating, so it took her a few tries to get out my name. “Sh-Shawn, can you come over here now?” It was Lori, and it was obvious she was in distress. So, I did what anyone else would do — I told my wife I would be home soon, then immediately got in the car and drove over. When I arrived, I found Lori and her children huddled together on the living room couch, all in hysterics. I soon discovered that only minutes before I got there (and only seconds before the phone call), Lori and her husband had had a particularly nasty fight that resulted in his packing up, walking out, and saying he was gone for good.

Once inside the house, it was clear that I was I out of my depth. I’m an employment lawyer, not a family counselor. Faced with a room full of crying women and girls, all of whom were suffering real emotional trauma, I had absolutely no idea what to do but give hugs and offer some mewling words of encouragement. Then my instincts kicked in — I called my wife and told her get over there on the double. Of course, she agreed to be there as soon as she could get someone to stay with our daughters.

Immediately after I hung up the phone with her, I called our Bishop. He was there in a matter of minutes (just enough time to put on a tie and drive over, I’ll bet). He’s a great Bishop and had been working with Lori, in particular, for some time on trying to keep her family together through a very rough patch. To my great surprise, however, his reaction to the situation was not much different than mine. He, too, had that “deer in the headlights” look on this face and, while his words of comfort were a bit more eloquent than mine, they didn’ t seem to be having much more impact.

Then my wife walked in and took over. Within seconds, the Bishop and I were relegated to (our rightful place at) the other end of the couch. She gave the kids a squeeze, wrapped Lori in her arms, and proceeded to offer some very wise words based on her ongoing involvement with the situation. I’m not exaggerating when I say that, over the course of the next hour, the mood noticeably changed from despair to hope. My wife identified potential lights at the end of the family’s very dark tunnel, and helped them to find the physical, spiritual and emotional strength to press forward. Before we left, Lori asked that the Bishop and I give her children blessings. We did, while my wife sat silent with her arms neatly folded.  We were stuck.

As I have pondered this experience over the past several months, it has become clear to me that my wife did much more that afternoon than simply offer sisterly counsel to a friend. She was exercising her Preisthood to serve someone desperately in need.   Using that power and her accompanying gift of discernment, she was able to able help a family in ways that I and our ecclesiastical leader simply could not. 

Before going any further, let me say that I don’t have the stomach for yet another long-winded (and assuredly acrimonious) debate about whether, and to what extent, LDS women hold the Priesthood, and whether they should be included in ecclesiastical leadership positions.  Such posts are legion on the Bloggernacle, and I have nothing new to add on the subject here.  My opinion, for better or worse, is that by virtue of their temple endowment, women receive at least some modicum of the power we refer to as Priesthood.  It is that Priesthood that my wife and other faithful LDS women exercise on a daily basis through their service. 

When we talk about Priesthood, we often place far too much emphasis on the administration of ordinances, such as the blessing of babies, the laying on of hands, etc.  Clearly in today’s Church, women do not “exercise Priesthood” by participating such rituals.  However, I believe the Priesthood to be a much broader, and at the same time a much simpler, concept.  If Priesthood is the power to act in God’s name here on this Earth, as we teach, it cannot be limited to ordinances — God certainly has much more in store for us than going around laying hands on one another.   Instead, as our leaders have instructed, Priesthood power truly manifests itself in the rendering of what Spencer W. Kimball referred to as “selfless service.”   If this is the case, then endowed women have equal claim to Priesthood as their ordained male counterparts.   Godly service is godly service, no matter the sex of the provider.

We often speak of the “compassionate service” offered by women in the Church as something other than the Priesthood, i.e., as an auxiliary of, or support to, the Priesthood held by men. This distinction does not make sense to me.  Why does an afternoon spent by Deacons digging up Old Lady Smith’s weeds qualify as “Priesthood service,” while delivering meals to new mothers does not?  Similarly, for many men, and most certainly for up-and-coming Aaronic Priesthood holders, the very ideal of Priesthood service is honorably serving a full-time mission.  Adding up all of the baptisms, confirmations, blessings and grave dedications I performed, only a fraction of my two years in Guatemala were spent actually administering Priesthood ordinances.  By contrast, the vast majority of my time was spent serving others in all manner of ways, including formal service projects (i.e., hours spent at the hospital), informal service to those in need (i.e., visiting a sick member or investigator), and simply trying to share the Gospel with others, which arguably is the highest act of service possible.  But for the infrequent ordinances, women missionaries render these exact same types of service in exactly the same way; there is no gender differentiation.   If that is the case, why should my mission be deemed ”Priesthood service” status, if the work of valiant female missionaries is relegated to some lesser status?

All of this has opened me up to a new understanding of what it means to hold and use the Priesthood.  To believe that women can be Priesthood bearers, I need not accept the notion that women should be Bishops (that’s a different can of worms).  Rather, I recognize the efforts my wife makes as something more than mere acts of thoughtfulness.  I see them for what they are:  the proper exercise of her Priesthood power.  Put another way, the fact that my wife did not actually lay hands on Lori’s children does not mean that she is without Priesthood.  Rather, working together on an equal plane –with me administering a blessing and her comforting the family — we made a great team (a quorum of two?), using our individual abilities to achieve a common goal.   And isn’t that the ideal for an eternal family (think back to the words used in the Endowment and sealing ceremonies)?

So, with that in mind, let me proudly echo the sentiment I hear expressed in testimony meeting exclusively by wives and mothers:  I am very thankful to be married to a worthy Priesthood holder. 

Let us oft speak kind words to each other. At home or where’er we may be;
Like the warblings of birds on the heather, The tones will be welcome and free.
They’ll gladden the heart that’s repining, Give courage and hope from above,
And where the dark clouds hide the shining, Let in the bright sunlight of love.

[Chorus]
Oh, the kind words we give shall in memory live And sunshine forever impart.
Let us oft speak kind words to each other; Kind words are sweet tones of the heart.

- Joseph L. Townsend, 1849-1942

It seems to me that online conversations in the form of blogs, instant messages or emails follow slightly different rules of human discourse than face to face or even telephone conversations. Civility, it seems, is not a requirement and many contentious and confrontational exchanges happen online that would never happen in a more personal encounter. There are websites such as http://www.atra-tr.org/netetiquette.htm , http://www.albion.com/netiquette , and http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/etiquitte_1.html that address the issue of etiquette and rules of engagement on the Internet.

Elder M. Russell Ballard wrote this in the current issue of the Ensign:

“As you participate in this conversation and utilize the tools of new media, remember who you are-Latter-day Saints. Remember, as the proverb states, that “a soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger” (Proverbs 15:1). And remember that contention is of the devil (see 3 Nephi 11:29). There is no need to argue or contend with others regarding our beliefs. There is no need to become defensive or belligerent. Our position is solid; the Church is true. We simply need to have a conversation, as friends in the same room would have, always guided by the prompting of the Spirit and constantly remembering the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ, which reminds us of how precious are the children of our Father in Heaven.” Elder M. Russell Ballard, “Sharing the Gospel Using the Internet,” Ensign July 2008

So why then do we read Latter-day Saints on the blogs and on the internet in general who are not nice to one another?

Here are a few reasons I came up with. Some are typical Internet reasons and some uniquely LDS reasons.

1. Anonymity - The computer gives us a power to say or write anything we want without having to look the other person in the eye. Body language and emotions, as expressed in one’s face, have a lot to do with how we converse with one another. The blog and internet is devoid of this, except for using capital letters, smiley faces, etc. We are willing to say things that we might never say in person because we do not have to look the other person in the eye. I even notice this in phone conversations at work. Now that we have gone to a more dispersed workforce where you may work with someone you have never met in person, you tend to, if you are not careful, express yourself in much harsher ways you never would face to face. Even though some of us use our real names and do not hide behind pseudonyms, we are still anonymous to 90% of those we chat with over the internet. We will never meet them, so there is no need to be polite.

2. Written Words - Written words can be very flat emotionally and it takes a skilled writer to write in such a way that reflects the proper emotions. It is likely that the way something is written is misinterpreted by the reader in terms of how the writer feels about what he/she has written. Most of the time when a message is misinterpreted, the writer is accused of being mad or upset because of the way it is written. Sometimes they are, but usually they are not. Other times a message is just a flame and serves no other purpose than to invoke anger.

3. Anger/hostility - Much like politics, no other subject invokes emotions like religion. On the Bloggernacle, there are many that are upset/mad/hostile to the LDS Church and their messages reflect that. On the other hand, those who are strong believing members can be very intolerant of those who struggle with their testimony and how they feel about the Church itself. Each group needs to approach the other in the spirit of understanding and, as Latter-day Saints, extend the hand of fellowship, no matter what the circumstances. Having said that, those who feel wronged by the Church need to be respectful to those for whom the Church means a great deal. Insulting remarks about the church, church leaders and its history has no place among the blogs, no matter how strong the feelings.

I am constantly amazed that LDS people cannot be civil with each other on the blog. Maybe I am overly sensitive and it is not a problem. Some of the 300+ messages about SSM in California proved to me that we have a problem.

For the 146 Americans who died [in the 1991 Gulf War] it wasn’t a cheap war…but the question for the President is how many additional Americans is Saddam worth and our judgement was not very many.

Well…14 years later it seems that Cheney has changed his judgement and Saddam is now worth 4,106 American soldiers lives and about 30,000 wounded American soldiers. (We do have to mention the 600,000 to 1.23 million Iraqi deaths according to the non-partisan estimates and 5 million Iraqi Refugees) Is this how much Saddam was worth?

In my opinion, and I think obvious to anyone who really researches it, the Iraq War was not about removing a dictator established by the CIA, weapons of mass destruction or democracy promotion. (I would even argue that the UK and USA give fantastic examples in the present and over the last 50 years showing that they do not primarily care about democracy or removing dictators).

When asked why the US didn’t attack North Korea in 2003 instead of Iraq because North Korea was more of a threat, Paul Wolfowitz’s reasoning for the Iraq War is demonstrated when in 2003 he said:

“Let’s look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil.”

Using the reasoning of Cheney and Wolfowitz of trying to quantify the value of human life, I was wondering how many barrels of oil is a human life worth to myself.

Here are some topical guide references for the worth of souls to God:
Isaiah 13:12- I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the bgolden wedge of Ophir.
Psalms 49:8-(For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever:)
D&C 109:43-O Lord, we delight not in the destruction of our fellow men; their souls are precious before thee.
D&C 18:10- Remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God

My question to you is…

A barrel of oil is about $140. How many barrels of oil is a human life worth?

Acts 2:17:  “. . . your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.”

The scriptures are full of visionary dreamers.  The following come to mind:

• OT:  Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Joseph (son of Jacob), Daniel, the butler & baker of Pharaoh, Jacob/Israel, Abimelech, Solomon, Ezekiel, Balaam, Isaiah, Habakkuk, Abram/Abraham, Nathan, Ahijah, Iddo, Hezekiah, Job; plus some false prophets, too.
• NT:  The wise men, Joseph (stephfather of Jesus) a few times, Mrs. Pontius Pilate, Paul, Peter, James, John, Cornelius, Ananias, and many more. 
• BOM:  Lehi, Nephi, Omer, for starters.
• D&C:  Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery, to name a few.
• POGP:  Moses, Abraham, Joseph Smith come to mind.

I have found that many converts to the church have similar pre-conversion spiritual experiences (dreams, visions, intuition, etc.).  They seem to be the type of people who are attuned to those feelings and imbue them with personal meaning, whether they are in or out of the church.

Some anti sites dismiss claims of spiritual feeling within the church as being similar to what one might experience watching a romantic movie or a particularly touching long distance commercial.  These comparisons have nothing in common, IME, with an actual spiritual experience.  To me these dismissals sound a lot like Paul’s warning in Timothy 3:5 that in the last days people will have “a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.”  In our day, it’s much more common to dismiss spiritual experiences as hypersensitivity, superstition, PMS or emotional instability (was that redundant?).

So, if God speaks to people through dreams and visions, how can we derive meaning from our dream life?  There are several key obstacles:

• Remembering dreams is often difficult.
• We work out problems in our sleep, so the source of inspiration is often our own subconscious vs. divine intervention.
• Dream language and meaning differs from waking life and is often more symbolic with parallel meanings about one’s emotional life.
• It’s personal and may not have significance for anyone but ourselves.

But here are a few terms that are helpful to understanding dreams (there are many sites on dream interpretation, but IMO only you can truly understand the significance of a dream you have had; it’s happening in your head after all):

• Recurring dreams.  There are certain themes that are common to many people that can help you understand your stresses and feelings and work through them:
  • Physical constraints - walking uphill and the hill gets steeper and steeper until you are going to fall over backwards, trying to crawl through a space that’s too tight, being too tired to move at a normal speed.  These generally deal with the stress of being exhausted or overwhelmed.  Time to get a massage.
  • Path in life - inability to reach a desired destination, being in a car that can only drive backwards, being driven by someone else, the road beneath you disappearing or being difficult to navigate.  These generally deal with frustration at achieving one’s goals in life or the direction one’s life is heading.  Time to get back on track.
  • Tested - sitting for a test without being prepared, returning to one’s earlier school days and not knowing where to go, forgetting one’s locker combination.  These generally deal with the stress of being found inadequate.  Time to get over it.
  • Exposure - needing to go to the bathroom but not finding a suitable location, being naked in front of people, losing something you consider essential (like your teeth).  These generally deal with stress about loss of composure or how others view you.  Or maybe you should be sure to brush your teeth and go to the bathroom before bed.  Just a thought.
  • Discovery - inheriting a house or property that you find is much larger or grander than expected, finding lost treasure or something of sentimental value, etc.  These dreams relate to personal growth:  discovering a gift or quality within yourself.  These are my favorites!
  • Danger - being attacked by a vicious person or animal, being lost in a place that fills you with fear, trying to protect a child or animal from danger.  These can relate to fear and anger within us.  Time to chill-ax (as my 13-year old would say).
• Emotional parallels.  Most dreams, recurring or not, can be understood if you listen to them for parallels to emotional life.  People usually represent facets of your own personality, sometimes archetypes, and occasionally those people themselves.  Ask yourself:  what is the significance of this person to me?  How am I like this person?  How do I feel about this person?
• Lucid dreaming.  A lucid dream is when you realize you are dreaming while you are in the dream.  Sounds a lot like a vision to me, although most lucid dreams quickly become silly.  There are a few easy ways to tell you are dreaming:  look at an analog watch or clock (you can’t make it work right in a dream), try to read a book (the words will either swim on the page or the pages will be blank, flying (remembering, oh yeah, I can fly), or a really easy one is to just take off your clothes (that almost never happens in real life, but somehow passes without comment in dreams).  Some people like to go crazy with this stuff and live a whole different life in dream-landia, free of the restraints of superego.  To them I say:  don’t ask, don’t tell.
• Sleep paralysis - this is when you become aware that you are sleeping, but you are so deeply asleep that you can’t move.  You may imagine you are lying in your bed and someone is in the house, but you can’t move.  I sometimes imagine that a cat just walked on the piano keys downstairs (which is weird since we don’t have a cat).  Theories exist that this is the basis for alien abduction experiences (vs. actual alien abduction) or the basis for medieval demon encounters.  It just reminds me that I’m glad we don’t have an actual cat.

So, are dreams the same as visions?  When do dreams have religious significance?  Some pre-conversion dreams I have heard of over the years:

• I went to a minister who said he had my name in his book, but it wasn’t there.  I knew it wasn’t true, even though he was insistent.
• I was walking through a wasteland and then I found something of great value (a treasure, something I lost, a tree with fruit).  (even JS Sr. had this one)
• I met a dead relative who told me something important was going to happen to me soon.

So, are converts more susceptible to spiritual dreams and/or visions?  Are all members of the church?  Does this extend to other spiritual gifts?  Have you heard of these types of experiences?  Are they common or rare?  Are they hereditary gifts or are they skills one can develop?  Are dreams the same thing as visions?  Do the same rules apply?  And is it inspiration or just head games for one?  Discuss.

I intended to craft a thoughtful post elaborating on the message it gives to those who enter the chapel, but I just couldn’t get it started. I literally was drawing a blank. As I struggled to find the words I wanted to share, the corresponding hymn came to mind, instead, so I have linked it to the message itself. The link provides the option to play the hymn in various ways, so feel free to experiment and enjoy.

Above the doors to that chapel, the plaque simply reads:

“Peace - Be Still.”

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:

Feel free to share experiences of friend and family as well.

The first and most obvious thing is the corporeal depiction of God.  The ethereal and bodiless nature of God had long since been accepted as true Catholic Doctrine since the council of Nicaea, yet Michelangelo shows us a physical bearded man surrounded by children.  While Mormon doctrine does suggest divine attributes that transcend the bounds of physical and biological scopes, a fundamental tenant of the faith is that God possesses a physical and resurrected body.  Also, in the “Creation of Adam” panel, we see a woman under God’s left arm, who we very well may assume is Eve, “on deck” to be created herself.  The way this is presented strongly implies the concept of a pre-existence; that Eve existed in a non-earthly state before her physical creation.

Several scholars have noted that the shape of the cloth behind God and his entourage is a very accurate silhouette of the human brain.  Mormons might easily draw the connection, “the Glory of God is Intelligence (D&C 93: 36),” an idea that certainly would not fare well with the Catholic church of the era. (Galileo?)

Going backwards one panel, we can examine the creation of the universe.  God the Father is prominently featured commanding the elements to organize, perhaps in a “Let there be light” moment.  Joining him on his right is a young child, who is very likely a depiction of the antemortal Christ.  If this is true, then Michelangelo is telling us that Christ had a collaborative role in the creation.  This idea finds support in Mormon teachings (as well as Biblical support) but does not jive well with many doctrinal proposals of Catholicism and Protestant Christianity, who conjecture that spirits are created at conception, and have no premortal existence.

If we look closely at the face depicted between God and Christ, it seems that the painting job is not finished.  There seems to be no top of the head, and facial detail is in large part lacking.  It has however, been suggested that this face is the same face as Adam’s:

If this is true, most temple going Mormons should immediately catch the significance of having God, Jesus and Adam, a.k.a. Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael, jointly involved in the creative process.

If we look at the wall, where the magnificent “Last Judgment” scene is, we see a depiction of the bodily resurrection:

Mormons would typically be comfortable with the way the resurrection is shown here, but I can image that a few Catholics and evangelicals might be squeamish.

I suppose this doesn’t prove anything, really.  Michelangelo never made any prophetic claims, so no corroborative conclusions could be made if his version of these events match up with those of prophets who were informed through revelation.  However, it does make one wonder, if Michelangelo was really a product of his time and culture, where did he get these ideas from?  It would seem quite unlikely that he got them from the Pope, but who knows, the Pope may have been more independently inspired than we give him credit for!  Or perhaps Michelangelo himself was tuned in to a spiritual frequency that gave him some kind of inspiration  and enlightenment.

To be fair, there is much depicted in the Sistine Chapel that is completely at odds with Mormon teachings, like angels with wings, etc.  In fact, Michelangelo felt compelled to use his last ceiling panel to feature “The Drunkenness of Noah,” a very unflattering and embarrassing episode in a prophet’s life, the likes of which most Mormons would rather just keep buried in the dusty unread pages of the Old Testament.

No matter what, most people will agree that the art of the Sistine Chapel has untold cultural and historical value.  It stands at a testament to the strength of the European Church of the time, and illustrates the power and timeless nature of the Biblical narrative.  And given the way that many of the stories are portrayed, Mormons should be able to get added enjoyment from it.

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2008/06/29/michelangelo-and-mormonism/feed/ http://mormonmatters.org/2008/06/29/god-is-a-what-parts-three-and-four/ http://mormonmatters.org/2008/06/29/god-is-a-what-parts-three-and-four/#comments Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:12:46 +0000 Stephen Marsh http://mormonmatters.org/?p=594 The view of God’s godliness ranges from God as a Bonewits Parasite to God as the ex nilho creator who controls everything down to the direction and location of sub atomic particles.  Those views of omniscience and omnipotence as to God and just what that means inside and outside of time were to be Part Three.

The LDS views overcome the problems of both extremes.  From the negative view of God as either a psychic or meme parasite (who would want such a god) to the problems of a God who is the source of all evil, creating billions for the sole purpose of punishing them with damnation as unworthy vessels, LDS theology posits a God who is within pre-existing rules, but powerful and knowing enough to heal and save us.

But why?  But how?  What does that really mean to us?  Those questions are part four of my series (using the same format as the posts on affliction or The Church is a What? or The Scriptures are a What?).

I would suggest that in connection with the things I have written about before, as to God:

1. We should seek to know who God is, rather than as we think God to be.
2. That what God is, and why God is God to us, is something we learn from experiencing God and learning to be a channel for God’s love and will.
3. That God is to us, eventually and in a significant part, what we are to others.

Which is what is important.  Doing what god wants us to do, being where God wants us to be, seeking God’s will, not seeking to impose our will on God.  Which is what will bring us to know God, rather than just blinding ourselves with our own shadow in a mirror.

Which answers the real question:  what do we do to be a part of what God is?

Perhaps our feelings about tomorrow’s letter were abreacted in last week’s multifarious and sporadically acerbic discussion. My purpose here is to highlight some of the feelings and perspective of one who is connected to many aspects of the Church’s political action regarding gay marriage. My sister Emily is a lawyer in California, and gay (also kind, witty, and sagacious, but that is beside the point). Her journey through life has had a positive and profound impact on my family and I. I have learned a lot from her, but this issue specifically has inspired me to be more thoughtful and considerate of those who are different from my straight white male middle-class American self (not that there’s anything wrong with that).

I have often contemplated on the thought that members who have gay friends or family often seem to feel differently than those who do not (or who are not aware of it). The following is from an email regarding this topic she recently sent to the rest of our family and some friends.  With her approval, I would like to share it here:

This morning someone forwarded me the letter that went out, I knew about it but hadn’t seen it yet. I don’t know why I should all of a sudden be so hurt and disappointed, maybe it feels more directly threatening than previous times this ’cause’ has been taken up by the church but I am seriously considering showing up in my ward for the first time on a testimony meeting Sunday and offering a few thoughts. I am thinking about how I could get the word out to ‘inactive’ gay Mormons all over the state to suggest a similar effort… If people spoke from their hearts, no doubt many would be made a little uncomfortable, and some probably offended, but if it made them feel even a little conflicted then it would be a success. And it’s not like a whole lot is at stake for us in terms of our standing. I’ve worked so hard to maintain a positive attitude for many years but I am very very hurt and disappointed and angry right now.

One of my BYU professors, in whom I confided before I left there, said “there will be a lot of Mormons who won’t love you but you don’t have to turn your back on your faith.” I have often reflected on that. I don’t know if I would be able to go through with the testimony meeting address or not, but if I did I would want to do my best to have a spirit of love about it. Though it is deeply offensive that a religious, or any, private institution (and many of its constituents) feel completely justified in a effort to dictate my, and my friends’ civil, secular, and / or individual rights, but would probably not at all welcome the opposite in the form of a gay intrusion into their worship services, and part of me wishes I could get up and tell them that. I just don’t think it would be very helpful toward winning hearts and minds. I know how fearfully people react to anyone they perceive as a ‘hostile’ disaffected or ex-Mormon because that’s how I used to react, and fear is already big part of the problem.

I’m sorry if this is troubling to any of you but I am grateful that I’m now able to express these feelings, whereas even a year ago I don’t think I could have. A lot of that is due to your expressions of love and increased invitations for communication even when it’s challenging…

…In response to…why is it that gay people seem to make such a big deal about being gay, the point was…that if you’re not gay / lesbian you never really have to give it a second thought. If you’re holding hands on the street with your opposite-sex partner, you can be confident wherever you go that nobody will notice or care (other than maybe thinking how sweet it is to be in love). But if you’re gay, you have to decide if you feel safe or not just to express this simple little affection in public, because people might take it as some kind of ’statement.’

Thanks for listening,

Emily

What other things that everyone seems to be taking seriously can you think of spoofing?

Borrowing from Grits for Breakfast:

” here’s some recent coverage that may interest Grits readers:”

• Fort Worth Star Telegram: Polygamist sect fights back by emerging from isolation
• London Times: What next for polygamists?
• Salt Lake Tribune: Was FBI probe in 1980s lost chance to curbe FLDS leaders?
• Salt Lake Tribune: Jeffs daughter wants to ditch her attorney
• San Angelo Standard Times: CPS, judge threatened American foundation
• AP: Cost of raid tops $14 million
• The Spoof: Polygamists to replace same sex couples in Ikea ads (satire)
• The Common Room: FLDS June 22

Several weeks ago, during the third-hour meeting on a Ward Conference Sunday, a former counselor in my Stake Presidency spoke to all Elders and High Priests about fatherhood.  He framed his message around an anecdote concerning his own five children, all of whom are out of the house, are active in the Church, and range in age from marrieds with children to a recently returned missionary.  He had asked each of them (for some unexplained reason):  ”Do you think it is more important to me that you be ‘happy’ or that you be ‘good’?”  He did not provide any definition for the operative terms.  Four of the five automatically answered “good,” which apparently was the right answer and pleased the father very much.  The fifth child answered “happy,” which troubled the father, who questioned whether he had done enough to impress upon this boy the importance of the Gospel.  A few days later, much to the father’s relief, the son called back, and said he wanted to change his answer to “good.”  Familial harmony was achieved.  The lesson to we congregants was, teach your children to be “good,” not just “happy.”

As I have mentioned in other posts, I am the father of three (mostly) wonderful daughters, ages 7, 5 and 2, so parenting issues are always on my mind.  This talk, in particular, has been rattling around in my brain for several weeks.  I didn’t think much about it on first listen; I agree with the abiding principle that we fathers need to pull our weight in rearing our children in the Gospel (in other words, quit depending on our wives to prepare FHE lessons all the time).   But something about the question the speaker posed to his children didn’t sit right with me, although I could not quite put my finger on why.  A couple of days later, as I was driving home from work, I heard a story on NPR (read it here) that helped bring things into focus for me.

The story profiled two families here in the US raising young children who are experiencing issues with gender identity confusion.  In each family, a son, under the age of 6 or so, had started exhibiting markedly “feminine” behaviors as early as age two:  they wanted to be called girls, they wanted to be referred to by a girl’s name, they played exclusively with “girl” toys (i.e., Barbies; all of their stuffed animals were girls), they dressed up in their mothers’ clothes to the point of obsession, etc.  Neither of the familiies had any experience with such issues, and hence felt overwhelmed by the situation.  To deal with it, they took contrary paths. 

Family #1 decided to raise their son as their daughter; in their words, they had ”come to accept” that their child, unfortunately, had been born into the wrong body.  They acceded to their chid’s requests by, among other things, referring to the child using feminine pronouns, giving “her” a girl’s name, buying “her” little girl clothes, and so on.  The mother spoke passionately about the fear and guilt she felt during her first trip to Target to buy the dress her child had been requesting for weeks.  She kept asking herself, “am I doing the right thing?”   This child’s joy upon receiving the dress (she wore it for weeks until it literally fell of her body) was reassuring.   So, the conclusion they came to was that, if being a girl is what makes this child happy, then they would do everything they could to ensure that happiness, regardless of how odd or strange it may seem to them.  At the same time, these parents were no Pollyannas; they recognized that their decision will have long-term consequences for their child, many of which likely will result in great unhappiness, such as potential social ostracization.  Nevertheless, they were committed to allowing their child to seek “her” own path. 

Family #2, on the other hand, took a very different approach.  Working with a therapist, they sought to curb, and ultimately squelch, their child’s feminine nature.  For example, they replaced the “girl” toys with “boy” toys, they declined requests for girl clothes and feminine haircuts, and they continued to refer to the child using masculine pronouns.  These parents, too, spoke with passion about the pain they felt as they took away their child’s favorite doll, and their feelings of inadequacy as they tried to explain what was happening to their son.  Put away your prejudices — these people were not religious zealots who talked about the issue in terms of sin.  Rather, they felt that gender was fixed by nature, and hence, the best way to raise their child was in the “right” way, as a boy, even if that means denying him things he desires.  The hope is that, while this decision may cause some pain now, it will lead to future happiness through the elimination of gender confusion.  The equated the issues to an African-American child who wanted to be a white.  Allowing the child to “be white” was the wrong answer.

Listening to this story, my heart went out to both sets of parents.  It was obvious from hearing them speak that they both love their sons very much, are not passing judgment on them for their femininity, and are honestly seeking to do make the right choice for their family.  Not being an expert on this issue and having never faced it personally, I am no position to criticize either approach.  Indeed, I think there are equal numbers of advantages and disadvantages to either strategy.  

These parents, and their differing viewpoints helped me see what made me unconfortable about the stake presidency member’s question.  It is premised on the dual notions that (i) true “happiness” can only be achieved through righteousness; put another way, it does not allow for possibility that a person may find joy somewhere outside of the Church and its teachings, and (ii) that “goodness” can be reduced down to full activity in the Church.  Employing these definitions, I understand the speaker’s underlying message to be, so as long as a child is “good,” whether that “goodness” actually brings him or her “happiness” is beside the point.  In the NPR story, I see Family #2, with its emphasis on making the “right” choice in the hope that it will eventually bring “happiness,” as following that model of parenting.  By contrast, Family #1 followed a different model, whereby the child’s “happiness” was the foremost concern, regardless of any relationship to “goodness.” 

All of these muddled thoughts lead me back to the question of what is more important to me, my children’s “goodness” or their “happiness”?  Thankfully, my girls have no interest yet in boys, ditching school or really tough theological questions.  But that time is right around the corner.  Just like every parent, I ask myself how I would react if one of sweet girls came home and told me that (a) she didn’t believe in the Church any more, (b) she was a lesbian, or (c) she and her husband had decided not to have their children baptized.  Of course I would still love her unconditionally, but would I be able to accept these not ”good” choices on the ground that they made by daughter happy?  

This is not an easy question, and my personal experiences lead me all over the map in trying to answer it.    I have several siblings who, over the years, have left the Church for various reasons.  Watching their personal trajectories since then, it is very clear that as they were less “good,” they were markedly less “happy.”  In that same vein, I have watched my new sister-in- law join the Church and drag my backsliding brother into the Church, decisions which have brought them much happiness.  These experience tends to validate my stake presidency member — “goodness” should the utmost priority.  On the other side of the coin, I also know folks who appear to be very happy and fulfilled people outside the Church.  One of my sisters, who left the Church after years of ridicule by her fellow Young Women, has finally reached a state of happiness, but has no intention of returning to the Church.  In this instance, “happiness” wins out over “goodness.”  For me, then, I want my daughters to be “good” — I want to see them married in the Temple and making choices that I agree with, etc.  At the same time, I think it is more imporatnt that they love themselves and find true “happiness.”  If I have a problem with their future choices, I’ll just have to live with it, I guess.

So, I ask you, fellow readers, what matters most to you and your significant other, your child’s “goodness” or his/her “happiness”?  And, if we were to ask your children about your priorities, what would they say?

This fine gent has asked me to shake some trees and see what topics Mormons would like to see given this kind of treatment, whether historical, cultural, or whatever. He prints ‘em cheap in China and stacks ‘em deep in places like Costco and Barnes & Noble.

So take a moment to sit down on your sofa and stare down at your coffee table and try to picture what kind of Mormon-themed coffee-table book you’d like to see there, something that hasn’t already been done (or, if it has been done in some form, hasn’t received the glossy full-color illustrated treatment it deserves yet).

Thanks in advance for any suggestions! (And I’m sure none of them will be tongue-in-cheek…)

Homosexuality is a complicated topic - especially because so many people, particularly in religious discussions, over-simplify it. I want to focus narrowly today on what is “sin”, “transgression”, “moral” or “immoral” - or a combination thereof. I have heard enough “expert” opinion over the years that is contradictory to see the prior assumptions that form the basis of almost everything I have read. Therefore, I stopped reading most academic treatises on the subject quite a few years ago and, instead, focused on talking with and listening to gay people I admire and respect. I decided this was one of those “quit asking evangelicals to explain Mormonism” issues. [I should add that I attended college as part of the organization for off-campus students. I arrived as a married freshman, direct from my mission. I was the token married, conservative Mormon; many of my closest friends were homosexual.]

First, I draw a distinction between “sin” and “morality” - and it’s an important one for me. Sin is a religious word. To me, it means “acting in opposition to the will of God” or “anything that keeps someone from becoming like God.” That is a very different (much broader) definition than, “Breaking the commandments” - or some other similar construct. “Breaking the commandments” can be sin, but it also can be termed transgression (simply the violation of a law or standard). From that perspective, “sin” is absolute in its being tied to the will of God, but “transgression” (particularly in ignorance) can be a completely separate category that does not mean necessarily a rejection of God. I don’t believe one can sin in ignorance; that is transgression. Under that definition, “homosexuality” (the inclination) is NOT a sin or transgression, since its existence alone does not impact automatically one’s actions, but homosexual activity can be either sin or transgression - just as heterosexual activity can be either.

“Morality”, otoh, is not fundamentally a religious term - and that is a critical point. My favorite definition of morality is, “The standards commonly upheld in a society as being what the people in that society believe to be proper.” With this definition, polygamy is and always has been immoral in the United States - and Mormons who practiced it long ago (as well as others who practice it now) were guilty of immoral conduct. Those who practiced it in the 1800’s weren’t sinning; those who do so now are. Ironically, homosexual activity now is less “immoral” in our society than polygamy, since it is more accepted generally than polygamy - which means (again, using the “purest” of definitions) that a gay or lesbian member is living a more “moral” life in this age than my polygamous ancestors were in their day. According to official Church standards, that gay or lesbian member is “sinning” and my ancestors were not, but their actions are more in line with the accepted norms of our current society than my ancestors’ actions were with their social norms. Sometimes irony really is fascinating.

With that foundation in place:

Sexuality is a condition - a “natural” inclination that varies in strength greatly among people. Focusing on homosexuality, some people are born with strong homosexual attraction as their primary sexual attraction; some are born with a more ambiguous balance; some are born with a very weak homosexual attraction. Unfortunately, the label of “homosexuality” is often applied when, in reality, the primary urge is heterosexual or bisexual. Iow, society has tended to label anyone who exhibits even weak homosexual tendencies as homosexual - rather than categorize them by primacy of urge, if you will.

So, setting “morality” aside for a moment, this general idea (that most people can feel sexual / physical attraction to and sexual stimulation from both men and women and the real difference is in the power and exclusivity of the urge) leads to some fascinating theological questions - particularly those that deal with transgression versus sin. To address this adequately, I start with the 2nd Article of Faith:

“We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.”

I read this as saying that we are **punished** for those things we **choose** to do that keep us from becoming like God - those things that we **could** do differently but do anyway. I also read this as saying that we won’t be punished for those things that we didn’t choose as a result of the Fall - those natural man inclinations that we inherited simply as a result of our birth (of Adam’s transgression). Even if we never overcome them, simply as a result of having “confessed Christ as our Lord and Savior” in the pre-mortal world, we will be **rewarded** with the granting of a degree of glory - and that degree will be proportionate to how much we changed whatever we were able to c