1. The LDS Church’s recent reaffirmation of the King James Version as is its official Bible translation and
2. The changes it has made to chapter headings in the online version of the Book of Mormon (changes that will be carried forward in future printings) that de-emphasize the idea of darker skin as a curse from God.

What is the significance of this renewed commitment to the KJV instead of switching to newer, more scholarly Bible versions based on older manuscripts, translated into more modern English, and increasingly the Bibles of choice for other Christians? What are the possible positive and negative impacts of the Church’s continued use of this translation–on missionary efforts, scriptural literacy among the rising generation, and so forth? What do the new Book of Mormon chapter headings say about the continued fading of Mormonism’s history of equating skin color with God’s blessing or cursing? What steps might be next? What steps should be next?

• I like the idea of Jesus as a lawyer for humanity.  Having a defense attorney, someone totally in your court who will fight for your cause is enormously appealing to me.
• I like the symbolism of the atonement:  olive press (Gethsemane), the name “at one” ment, the mingling of the divine and the human.
• I like the idea of Bodhisattva, a voluntary sacrifice for others.  But I like it more as one who might sacrifice than as one who would be the recipient of the sacrifice.  Similarly, I’m somewhat uncomfortable receiving gifts.  Although I’m not that comfortable giving them either.  So there you go.

What I have generally not loved about the concept of “atonement”:

• that it creates a religion of losers, appealing to the down-and-outers. Dennis Miller once observed that the prison inmates always seem to find Jesus when no one else down here will talk to them anymore.
• that it is a contrasting idea to theosis (the seeds of divinity within man), a concept which I find inherently more appealing. I’d rather focus on strengths & potential than weakness and shortcomings.  I’m just a cock-eyed optimist!  I do find sadness somewhat off-putting.
• the idea of justice and mercy that is represented feels man-made and not like something that God would be bound to follow. I don’t like the legalistic metaphors often used to explain the atonement.

Here are a few of the ways the atonement has been viewed over the centuries, each with a unique insight:

• Ransom Theory.  In this metaphor from the 4^th century, Jesus liberates mankind from slavery to Satan and thus death by giving his own life as a ransom. Victory over Satan consists of swapping the life of the perfect (Jesus), for the lives of the imperfect (mankind).  A variation of this view is known as the “Christus Victor” theory, in which Jesus defeats Satan in a spiritual battle and frees the enslaved humans from their captor.  (like an action movie with hostages being rescued).  This one sounds kind of cool in a Die Hard sort of way, but it also doesn’t ring quite true for me.  A variation of this I heard on my mission was someone buying a cage full of dirty, diseased birds with lousy attitudes.  Not my favorite perspective on humanity.
• Penal Substitution.  Another metaphor, from the 11^th century, is that man is in debt to a sovereign God who has the power to forgive debt, but also has to uphold the laws. In this metaphor, only a perfect sacrifice could satisfy the demands of the transgressed laws, and Jesus, being both God and man, was this perfect sacrifice.  A slight variation of this is the Protestant “penal substitution theory,” which sees sin as the breaking of God’s moral law, and Jesus takes the punishment in the sinner’s stead.  This is probably the most common metaphor used for the atonement, but it is very legalistic and leaves me cold.  I think we let the metaphor become the thing it symbolizes in this one.  I suspect the atonement is not entirely encompassed by this view.
• Moral Influence.  A third metaphor from the 11^th century, and speaks to the power of the image of a suffering Christ who sacrifices himself out of love for man, and mankind, moved by the extent of God’s love is transformed and healed by the power of the Holy Spirit.  I appreciated this one because I think we LDS tend to look at the crucifixion images in Catholic churches as ghoulish and morbid, but this metaphor explains their appeal to millions of worshippers in a whole new light for me.
• Theosis Metaphor.  Eastern Orthodoxy views the atonement as not a legal release, but a transformation of the human nature itself in the Son taking on human nature. The Orthodox emphasis is that Christ died to change people so that they may become more like God.  This is one I find very appealing, although it’s not one I ever recall hearing at church.  It lines up nicely with our idea that we are sons & heirs of God, with the seeds of godhood within us.

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we expand on these metaphors by recognizing and emphasizing some additional components to the atonement:

• Christ’s suffering in Gethsemane. Modern day revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants adds emphasis to the role of Gethsemane in the atonement process: “…how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not…. Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit…”  I like the focus in LDS theology on the sacrifice being deliberate on Jesus’ part, that he chose to do this of his own free will despite how hard it was.  I like the emphasis on free choice, not so much on the difficulty which feels like a major guilt trip (I suppose because it IS).
  • The name Gethsemane literally means oil press.  In Gethsemane, Jesus as the Son of God is pressed as the olives were.  Oil was and is used for all sorts of purposes: to perform priesthood ordinances, to anoint the body, and to heal the sick and restore them to health.  Metaphorically, Jesus is the ultimate healing and anointing oil.
  • In a talk on the Symbols of the Atonement in 1991, E. Russell Nelson said:  “Olive trees are special in the Holy Land. The olive branch is universally regarded as a symbol of peace. This tree provides food, light, heat, lumber, ointments, and medicine. It is now, as it was then, crucial to life in Israel. It is not a deciduous tree, but ever bearing—always green. Even if the tree is chopped down, life will spring from its roots, suggesting everlasting life.  Jesus came to the base of the Mount of Olives to affect the first component of the Atonement. This He did at the Garden of Gethsemane. The word Gethsemane comes from two Hebrew roots: gath, meaning “press,” and shemen, meaning “oil,” especially that of the olive.  There olives had been pressed under the weight of great stone wheels to squeeze precious oil from them. So the Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane was literally pressed under the weight of the sins of the world. He sweat great drops of blood—his life’s “oil”—which issued from every pore.  Jesus was accorded titles of unique significance. One was the Messiah, which in Hebrew means “anointed.” The other was the Christ, which in the Greek language means “anointed” as well. In our day, as it was in His day, the ordinance of administration to the sick includes anointing with the consecrated oil of the olive. So the next time you witness consecrated oil being anointed on the head of one to be blessed, and these sacred words are said, “I anoint you with this consecrated oil,” remember what that original consecration cost. Remember what it meant to all who had ever lived and who ever would yet live. Remember the redemptive power of healing, soothing, and ministering to those in need. Remember, just as the body of the olive, which was pressed for the oil that gave light, so the Savior was pressed. From every pore oozed the life blood of our Redeemer. And when sore trials come upon you, remember Gethsemane.”
• Empathetic purpose. Christ did not only suffer for the sins of all men, but also to experience their physical pains, illnesses, anguish from addictions, emotional turmoil and depression, “that His bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities” (Alma 7:12; compare Isaiah 53:4).  This empathy allows Jesus to be a more effective advocate and personal friend to us.  This sounds remarkable similar to the one about the image of the suffering Christ creating empathy in humanity (the reverse of this).  But I think when you put them both together, it adds some interest to the perspective.
• The relationship between justice, mercy, agency, and God’s unconditional love. We focus on the need for free agency.  Just as Jesus had the ability to choose to lay down his life, if we are truly penitent we will voluntarily come unto him to receive his grace.  We do this through the process of repentance.  I do find this idea useful – the focus on our personal choice.

I liked the idea that there are many different ways to interpret the atonement, and some of these are more appealing to me than others. How about you?  Were any of these helpful?  How do you feel about the atonement?  Discuss.

I really enjoyed studying about ritual – the ways that we use ceremony to create value and meaning – we just experienced one with our sacrament.

And I enjoyed learning about “memorates” – personal experience stories that people tell about their own encounters with the supernatural. In the church, we often call these faith-promoting stories, and that’s the way that folklorists look at them too – that these stories function to justify and validate the beliefs of the people who tell them. They create certainty in the face of uncertainty, and whether the stories themselves are true or not, this is a very valuable thing.

It was an interesting time, and I went through many shifts and changes as I looked more closely at what I believed, why I believed it, and how it fit with the beliefs of other people all over the world. It was a pretty humbling experience, to say the least. And as a result, I have developed this constant, nagging, unshakeable, internal tug-of-war between the skeptic and the believer. It is very much like the lyrics to a song:

When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful,
a miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical.
And all the birds in the trees, well they’d be singing so happily,
joyfully, playfully watching me.
But then they sent me away to teach me how to be sensible,
logical, responsible, practical.
And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable,
clinical, intellectual, cynical.

There are times when all the world’s asleep,
the questions run too deep
for such a simple man.
Won’t you please, please tell me what we’ve learned
I know it sounds absurd
but please tell me who I am.

That about sums up my graduate experience. It was kind of like worlds colliding. I had become skeptical, cynical, but I still had to exist in a believing world. What was I to do?

One thing I did was turn to the scriptures and to the counsel from general authorities and modern day prophets:
Mormon 9:27 - “Doubt not, but be believing.”  Thanks, but too late.
Bruce R. McConkie – “Doubt is an inclination to disbelieve the truths of salvation… it is a state of uncertainty… faith and belief are of God; doubt and skepticism are of the devil.”  Really? Yikes!
President Monson – “Remember that faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other. Should doubt knock at your doorway, just say to those skeptical, disturbing, rebellious thoughts: ‘I propose to stay with my faith, with the faith of my people. I know that happiness and contentment are there, and I forbid you, agnostic, doubting thoughts, to destroy the house of my faith. I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God’s word. I wasn’t with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it’.”

With these quotes, I think it is pretty clear where I ought to be when it comes to doubt and faith. But if I’m being honest, I fall far short of these ideals. I just can’t accept the premise that faith and doubt cannot co-exist in the same mind. They have to. Because they both exist in mine. And I don’t know any other way to be.

I do want to endorse President Monson’s counsel, however, that if you can dismiss doubt when it knocks on your door, from my experience, you will be much more comfortable and far less troubled — so by all means, if you can do it, do it.

But if you’re like me – if you can’t just dismiss your doubts – there must still be a way to keep those doubts from destroying the house of faith. Right? Please? Because I can’t not doubt, but I still want to hold on to my faith. So what am I to do?

Well, the simple answer is that I have had to redefine my faith to make room for my doubts and to find a value in these doubts – so I want to share with you how I have done this.

MY TOP TEN

I want to walk you through my top ten personal beliefs about faith and doubt. Disclaimer – these are just my own imperfect opinions based on my own limited experience. I could be wrong. But this is how I have found personal peace and balance in my life amidst this constant tug-of-war between the skeptic and the believer. So I share these with you because they have helped me, but I also reserve the right to change my mind at any time – it’s happened before, it can happen again.

If I really wanted to be borderline irreverent I might say that these are the philosophies of Glenn, mingled with scripture – but I don’t, so I won’t.

So here are my top ten:

1. Faith – at its most basic level – is desire.

I think this is consistent with the scriptures. Especially Alma 32. This is where Alma is preaching to the poor among the Zoramites.

You may remember that the Zoramites were condemned for their incredible pride – they would stand up on their rameumptom and show forth false humility – praising themselves for being the elect chosen of God, and condemning everyone else around them for following foolish and corrupt traditions. They cast out the poor and were very exclusive in their membership.

So Alma went among the cast out poor and taught them an allegory about faith – that it starts with desire – and that desire can be nurtured and tested and grown into a firm conviction. He compares it to a seed that is planted in fertile soil and cultivated until it grows and bears fruit and you can taste the fruit to know that the seed was, in fact, a good seed.

So faith starts with desire, but it isn’t JUST desire – you have to act upon that desire.

One of my basic desires is to be fair to people and respectful of their beliefs. And this desire has had a great influence over the mental gymnastic that you are about to see, because I also desire to hold on to my faith in spite of all of my doubts.

2. There is really no such thing as “doubt”

I guess you could say that I doubt doubt.

“Doubt” is just a word. It’s a word that we use to describe someone else’s belief that is contrary to our belief. For example, I could say, “I believe it is going to rain today.” And you could say, “No, I doubt it.” That’s really the same thing as saying, “No, I don’t believe that it will rain today.”

My point here is that “doubt” isn’t really anything but another way of saying “I don’t believe.”

3. There is really no such thing as “don’t believe”

I’m playing a game of semantics again. When you say that you “don’t believe” that it will rain, what you really mean is that you “do believe” that it will not rain. It is still an active belief.

I believe it will rain – you believe it will not rain. Your belief vs. my belief. And we may both have valid reasons for believing what we are choosing to believe.

I believe it will rain because I trust the forecast – it’s been right more than it has been wrong, and I don’t mind carrying an umbrella.

You believe it won’t rain because, despite the forecast, you just looked outside and no Japanese person in sight is carrying an umbrella, and the Japanese are never wrong about this sort of thing. Plus, you don’t want to be the only one carrying an umbrella, cuz then you’d look stupid.

So the point here is to define belief as an active thing, despite whatever words we use – whether we call it doubt or say we “don’t believe” it is all really just belief.

4. Faith and Doubt are not opposites – they are equivalents

If both faith and doubt are active beliefs, then they are really the same thing, aren’t they? They are both beliefs, just pointed in different directions.

Someone may say that faith has action but doubt has no action, but I would challenge that.

Yes, the faithful person takes an umbrella even if they are uncertain whether it will rain or not, and that is a faithful act.

But even the doubter takes action by choosing to NOT carry an umbrella and still walking outside anyway. Both are beliefs and both inspire action. Maybe this is the secret key to unlock the mystery of believing “all things” that we have been admonished to do. And then again, maybe not.

5. Faith and Doubt can co-exist

President Monson said that doubt and faith cannot exist in the same mind at the same time – and maybe I am using this quote out of context – but don’t we all doubt some things while simultaneously having faith in others?

For example, I doubt the traditional meaning behind the James 2:20 scripture mastery scripture “faith without works is dead.” I was originally taught that this was James’ response to the atonement of Christ. That we are not saved by grace alone, but must also show forth works for our eternal salvation, for faith without works is dead.

But when I went back and read all of James chapter 2, I saw that James’ message wasn’t about the atonement. It was about our own exercise of faith. It is saying that you have to put your money where your mouth is. If someone comes to you seeking food, and you say “bless you, and hunger no more” but you don’t actually give them any food, then you aren’t actually going to save them.

So I doubt the way that I was originally taught this scripture, but I still have faith that the message is a good message and that it comes from a good source. And that is a balancing act between doubt and faith.

6. Faith without doubt is dead

That is the GOT – the Glenn Ostlund Translation of James 2:20. Faith is a hope and a desire, but it is not a perfect knowledge. So there must be uncertainty, some degree of questioning or doubt, otherwise faith would be knowledge. Uncertainty in and of itself is not a bad thing in my world. And when uncertainty or doubt spurs us to positive action, it can actually be a very good thing.

7. Uncertainty is a scary thing

Without a doubt, doubt will make you more unsure about what you used to be very sure about, and this can be a scary thing. But one lesson that I learned as a kid is that anytime the scriptures say “have faith” you could interchange the phrase for “fear not” and the meaning would stay the same. So even with all of the different conflicting messages all around us in the world every day – even with all of the valid and reasonable reasons to have doubt, if we nurture our faith, we do not need to fear doubt. Doubt does not have to destroy our faith – it can bolster and lift it and lead us to new light and knowledge.

8. Our church has been built upon doubt – or at least upon the positive interaction between doubt and faith.

The First Vision would not have happened unless Joseph had experienced some questions and doubts about what he was hearing in the different revival meetings. But he also had faith that the Lord would answer his prayer. A pretty successful one-two punch, if you ask me.

And throughout the history of the church, doctrines and policies have been added or removed or amended because people have debated and doubted and questioned and reached out in faith, and received further light and knowledge. So there is a lesson to be learned here, that doubt and faith can interact together towards a good end.

9. Repentance without doubt is dead

We are constantly encouraged to evaluate and examine how we are living our lives. We are encouraged to repent when we need to repent, and I think that doubt plays a role here.

I have always found illumination in the Japanese word for repentance – kuiaratameru. If I understand it right, it literally means to remorse and to change. What causes this remorse? What leads us to a realization that we are in error? We must at some point doubt our very selves – we must doubt that our actions have been good actions. So perhaps this is another area where doubt can have a positive influence in our lives.

10. Humility is the key

Whether as individuals or as a church, regardless of what we currently believe or how strong our convictions, further light and knowledge can always reveal new truths, and our beliefs can always change.

Shouldn’t that awareness then lead to greater humility on our parts? Isn’t humility the way we learn to show Christ-like empathy and compassion and forgiveness for others, even when we disagree with them or when they disagree with us?

Isn’t that the humilty that caused the good Samaritan to stop and help the man on the side of the road, even though he probably doubted the other guys’ beliefs?

Isn’t that the compassion and empathy that caused Christ to say “forgive them father, for they know not what they do?” even as they were in the very act of doubting him to a painful and undeserved death?

Back to Alma 32 – Alma rejoiced when he saw that the poor among the Zoramites had been cast out. Why? Because they had been compelled to be humble, and that softened their hearts. No one wants to be compelled to be humble, but I think we should all have soft hearts — believers and skeptics alike. We should be open-minded, tolerant of different ideas, willing to admit our own imperfect understanding.

Doubt – for me – has compelled and pounded and softened my heart. It has lead me to a humilty in my beliefs, or at least an ability and a desire to step off of my own rameumpton and drop any pretense that I am any more elect than anyone else around me. Doubt has helped me repent of this pride.

In conclusion, I have atheist friends who are some of the most charitable, kind, Christ-like people that I know. When I ask them about God, they often say that it makes no sense to them that a loving God would put us in a no-win situation, and would punish us for living in a sinful world that God himself created.

There are many responses to this, but I want to give just one. If the story of the atonement is true – if Jesus Christ took upon himself the sins of the world and died for our sakes – then isn’t that the responsible thing for a God to do? Doesn’t that mean that he has personally erased the effects of sin and death that have come to us as a result of our following his plan and entering into this mortal probation full of death and sin? To me it is like he is saying, “don’t worry, I’ve got you covered. Have faith. Fear not. Now just go and love each other as I have loved you. “

I find great beauty and hope in this approach. And I have a firm desire for this to be true. I also have a strong faith in the principles of charity that we read about in Moroni:  “Wherefore, if a man have faith he must have hope; for without faith there cannot be any hope. And he cannot have faith and hope, save he shall be meek, and lowly of heart. Otherwise, his faith and hope is vain; and he must needs have charity; for if he have not charity he is nothing; for charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.”

This is my hope and my faith, in spite of my doubts.

How do you feel about doubt and its relationship to faith?

To me, the answer as attributed to Paul in Corinthians is crystal clear and easy advice:

1 Corinthians 7 : 12-16

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

If you accept Paul’s writings as doctrinally binding, this means you can allow an unbeliever who wants to leave to go, but you should stay with your spouse otherwise.  Paul’s counsel reminds me of E. Bednar’s personal life growing up in a house with a non-LDS father and going to church with just his mother.  Eventually, after E. Bednar was an adult, his father did choose to join the church.  I think most confusion regarding mixed belief marriages is related to this scripture in 2 Cor 6:14:

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

But this second one seems to be about whom you choose to marry or associate with, while the first one is about someone who is already married.

According to Paul’s advice, divorce of an unbeliever is only justified if that unbelieving spouse desires to leave.  Yet we hear time and again of believing spouses who consider loss of testimony a valid reason for divorce.  Why?  Here are some reasons that have been discussed around the b’nacle:

• Change.  It’s normal for spouses to fantasize about divorce when there has been a material change to the “marriage contract” as they viewed it.  For example, John McCain reevaluated his marital contract when his wife became disabled and he ditched her for the leggy blond heiress.  The fantasy may be normal and common, but actually carrying through on it is a bit unsavory.  All marriages will experience change.  Spouses will grow old, develop independent interests, get fat or skinny, change political views, have changes to sexual interest, etc.  While studies show that living in a bad marriage is detrimental to health, the negative health effects of divorce are devastating and lasting.  Being resilient and flexible enough to make marriage work through change maintains your health, both mentally and physically.
• Control.  If either spouse attempts to control the other spouse’s behavior, the marriage is on rocky ground.  Control may not degenerate to abuse, but it is in the same family of behaviors.  Marriage based on respect and mutual love does not involve controlling the choices our spouse makes.  We may wish they would choose something different, but coercing or manipulating or threatening to get what we want is another fantasy best left unindulged.  In marriages where the wife exhibits controlling behavior, husbands have a marked negative health impact that often results in an earlier death.  Maybe that’s something the controlling wife considers a benefit of her behavior.
• Opportunism.  This is one that few people will openly own, but it often sounds something like “I deserve better” or “My patriarchal blessing promised me . . . ” or “Heavenly Father wants me to have . . .” or even “My kids deserve a father who . . .”  Often what is behind those statements are two sentiments:  1) entitlement (last I checked we are still only entitled to taxes and death in this life), and 2) viewing the spouse as an obstacle to “what I want” or “what I deserve.”  Often, the believing spouse in this scenario feels entitled to a spouse who will allow him or her to maintain status in the church.  It can also be based on a fear of loss of exaltation or salvation (meaning status in the life to come).  This is the opposite of charitable love and honoring our marital vows; it is putting self ahead of the marriage.  Some will also talk of the entitlement in terms of their children (e.g. “the children deserve a mother or father who . . .”), but again, it’s not giving the children a very good example of how marriage works or of Christ-like behavior.
• Fear.  Behind a lot of failed marriages lies raw fear.  Fear of change, fear of loss of control in your life, fear of loss of status, fear of eternal consequences that are unclear in one’s changes circumstances.  Fear is something that must be faced with courage and love.  This can take time.

There is obviously justification for leaving a marriage that is abusive.  No one should be in fear of physical harm or be subject to ongoing verbal abuse, but even in cases of abuse, individuals have different definitions of what is abusive, when does disagreement become verbal abuse, etc.  Clearly, anyone can choose to leave a marriage for any reason at any time.  Marriage is voluntary.  But that doesn’t make one’s choice justifiable or healthy for personal growth.  Those who divorce are prone to make the same mistakes in future relationships (consider Emma Smith whose second husband Louis Bidamon was unfaithful).

What do you think of Paul’s counsel?  Is divorce of an unbelieving spouse who is faithful to marriage vows, loving, a good parent, and not controlling or abusive ever morally justified?  Discuss.

In C.S. Lewis’ final Narnia book The Last Battle, there is a powerful scene of an encounter between the Christ-symbolizing lion Aslan and Emeth, a noble-minded worshipper of the false Calormene demon-god Tash:

“[The Lion] touched my forehead…and said, Son, thou art welcome.  But I said, Alas Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash.  He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.  Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true…that thou and Tash are one?  The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false.  Not because he and I aer one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him.  For he and I are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him.  Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him.  And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted.”

Needless to say, a certain type of Christian evangelical is appalled by this.  I read an essay (by someone who evidently has reading-comprehension problems) arguing that by Lewis’s logic, Osama bin Laden’s diligence in pursuit of what he understands to be his religious duty must be credited as salvific worship of Christ.

And there is a danger, in seeking to be courteous to people who believe fundamentally different things from our own faith, to drift into seeming to say that there is no absolute truth — that all religious traditions are equally valid, that all religious roads lead to God, and the like.  And in fact, the varieties of religious experience are often used by folk-postmodernists to argue there is no absolute truth — that all truths are simply fronts for cultural biases, interests, or power relations.  However — although there is more of a common core of shared moral truth, across many diverse cultures, than often gets acknowledged – the truth claims of different religious traditions are often mutually exclusive.  In the case of Christianity and Islam, for example, Jesus Christ was either a prophet, or the incarnate God.  He can’t be both.  So the only way that “all religious teachings can be equally valid” is for none of them to be valid.  They obtain whatever fiction of validity they have, only from what they are given by their adherents.  Asking, like Joseph Smith, “Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together?”  (JS-H 1:10), the vernacular relativist concludes the answer must be “all wrong together.”  Otherwise, we’d have to privilege one faith claim above another — and in a pluralist society, we certainly can’t have that.  Wouldn’t be courteous.

But it does not follow, from the fact that finding the absolute truth is so difficult that different people, exercising the best of their imperfect judgment, reach different conclusions, that there is no absolute truth.  It is possible that, among all the “contests of these parties of religionists,” somebody is actually right — or more right than others.  Christians give the assent of faith to the proposition that Christ “is the way, the Truth, and the life; no man cometh to the Father except by [Him].”  (John 14:6.)  We are committed to believing that there is one absolute Truth, and that it includes the basic fact that the salvation of humanity rests on Christ crucified.

How can faith in an exclusive Truth be reconciled with religious pluralism, not to mention God’s justice, in a world where the accidents of birth are probably the greatest factor that determines what religion a person practices?

I think C.S. Lewis was on to something with his parable of Emeth — whose name is Hebrew for “Truth.”  I think of Matthew 26:32-46, where the sheep are divided from from the goats.  The scripture seems to indicate that at least some of the sheep are surprised at being sheep:  “Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee?  or thirsty, and gave thee drink?  When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?  Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?  And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

The Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, who was one of the major influences in the restatement of Catholic doctrine at the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, articulated a concept he called “Anonymous Christianity”:

“Anonymous Christianity means that a person lives in the grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted Christianity — Let us say, a Buddhist monk — who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so, if I hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an anonymous Christianity.”

The Catholic Church subsequently adopted the substance of Rahner’s thinking.  The Church’s Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium provides,

“Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”

The present Catechism now provides,

“Those who through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

The declaration Dominus Iesus (criticized by some religious liberals for, evidently, not abandoning altogether the Catholic Church’s proclamation that it is the one true church), stated,

“Nevertheless, God, who desires to call all peoples to himself in Christ and to communicate to them the fullness of his revelation and love, “does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression even when they contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and errors”. Therefore, the sacred books of other religions, which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace which they contain.”

Mormonism, of course, may have anticipated this doctrine (or a version of it) with the doctrine of proxy ordinance work for the dead.  Although there has been controversy on the point, many LDS authorities suggest that even those who have had the gospel presented to them in this life, but rejected it for good-faith reasons, may obtain to salvation.

Some consider the doctrine of “Anonymous Christianity” to be condescending:  Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists, goes this argument, don’t want to be saved as “anonymous” or honorary Christians; they should insist on being saved qua Jews, Muslims, or Buddhists.  In my view, “Anonymous Christianity” is as far as a revealed religion can possibly go and remain anything like itself.

However, “Anonymous Christianity” has a potentially startling flip side:  Just as a noble-minded Muslim, who follows the truly holy aspects of his religion, may have his inherently holy actions counted as worship of Christ, isn’t it also at least conceivably possible that I — by practicing the noble truths contained in my Mormon variety of Christianity — could be an “anonymous Buddhist?”  We tend to view even entertaining the possibility that the things to which we give the assent of faith may not be in every respect exactly as we understand them as a kind of infidelity, but is it really so?  To have effective faith in something, do we really have to know it with every fiber of our being, or say that we do?

My faith is in Christ, exercised within the framework of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I have reason to believe — or, more precisely, I choose to believe that certain experiences, whose actual import I may not be able to know with certainty, give me reason to believe — that God is pleased that I exercise faith in this way.  It may be that this is because the Gospel, as it it has been made known to me, is 100% true, to the exclusion of all contrary traditions — or it may be because my faith contains enough of the true God’s truth to suffice.

Immigration, and especially the porous border between Arizona and Mexico, is a current issue that seems to divide Mormons’ loyalties:

• Personally.  Many church members are very pro-Latino due to the large population of Hispanic members, the perceived shared family values, and the fact that so many members have served missions to Hispanic countries.
• Politically.  Church members in the U.S. are more predominantly Republican than Democrat (although neither party is directly endorsed by the Church); the political rhetoric of the right-wing lately has swung hard in the direction of anti-immigration (especially illegal immigration) and toward securing the U.S. borders as a measure of national security.

As the article states:

Pearce has repeatedly said his efforts to drive illegal immigrants out of Arizona and keep them from coming here is based on the Mormon Church’s 13 Articles of Faith, which includes obeying the law.

Nora Castañeda, 46, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Hermosillo, Mexico, who has been a member of the LDS Church for 35 years, said several colleagues confronted her after the law passed. . . She does not believe, however, that Pearce’s anti-illegal-immigrant stance is in line with the Mormon faith, which, in addition to teaching obedience to the law, teaches compassion.

The article points out that the church has no official stance on immigration policies which are clearly the province of governments:

Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the LDS headquarters in Salt Lake City, said in an e-mail that elected officials who are Mormons do not represent the position of the church. She said the church has also not taken a position on immigration, which is “clearly the province of government.”

“However, Church leaders have urged compassion and careful reflection when addressing immigration issues affecting millions of people,” she said in the e-mail.

So, what do you think about the illegal immigration law and its reflection on the church?  I’m a bit torn on the issue.  Here are my reactions:

• Generally speaking, I’m against things that are illegal, including illegal immigration.
• I’m strongly against allowing terrorists into the country through unsecured borders, although this seems to be a more likely threat via airports than people trekking across an inhospitable desert.  But there is a risk that should be addressed.  However, ejecting non-terrorists doesn’t really further that aim.
• There are many human rights issues because of illegal immigration, including dangerous human trafficking and the conditions that illegal immigrants endure.
• Given that, and the inhospitable terrain that illegal immigrants must traverse to get into the U.S., only the most dire of circumstances and personal danger could drive someone to take such a desperate action.   It’s easy to be concerned about the human rights issues in our own country, but to overlook what those desperate individuals are fleeing in search of a better situation.  My compassion is moved.
• Generally speaking, I am pro-immigration.  Unless you’re a Native American, it’s a little hypocritical not to be pro-immigration.  Immigrants come here full of ideals and dreams and they work their way through the American dream just like our own forebears.  They willingly do some of the toughest work, stuff that even laid off Wall Streeters and desk jockeys are unwilling to do.
• I am decidedly pro-Latino!  Latino cultures are family-oriented, loyal, hard-working, and manage to have a lot of fun, too.  They have proud traditions just like everyone else, and they have a lot to offer the world.  Having served a mission in Spain, I have a lot of love and respect for Hispanic culture.

My own solution to the problem is simple:  the U.S. should buy Mexico.  It’s a win-win!  But since that’s not exactly on the table, I suppose I would like to see us come up with a way to secure the borders, a more open legal immigration policy, a pathway to citizenship for those who entered the country illegally, and diplomatic means to assist in improving the circumstances for those living in Mexico.

As a member of the church, though, the article brought up some additional questions:

• Is the church accountable for the actions of members who are elected officials?  I think not, although see my answer to the next question for a caveat.
• Should elected officials who are members be given carte blanche to associate their actions with Mormonism?  For one thing, how would that ever benefit anyone who lived anywhere but Idaho, Utah, and Arizona (possibly SoCal)?  Again, I say no.  Some correction in this case seems warranted based on Pearce’s political position.  It simply doesn’t seem right to me to pin his political choices on the LDS Articles of Faith.  After all, the AoF says “we believe in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law.”  It doesn’t tack on “and in creating additional laws to punish and deport anyone who has not jumped through our nearly impossible immigration hoops.”
• Is this grounds for someone to leave the church in protest?  Here I have to say I don’t really think so.  The church has not endorsed this position officially; it’s a political matter.  But I would say that if local members are behaving in ways that make it difficult for a specific group of people to attend, it’s understandable (yet unfortunate) that they would leave.
• What does the church do about members who have illegally immigrated?  This one’s a bit of a minefield, and my guess is that we have no official stance.  Personally, I would be hesitant to link one’s illegal status to matters like TR interviews (e.g. “honest in all your dealings”) when desperation or a desire to protect your family has caused you to flee your dangerous home situation for a better life.  I would, in a cowardly manner, propose a “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy for these situations.  Let the heads of cabbage and rotten tomatoes fly!

What do you think?  Discuss!

When someone has been disappointed and broken, it affects all of his or her relationships. A broken heart could just be the cause of that cutting remark someone made to you, or even the rude gesture someone made out of a car window.  There’s a passage in the Old Testament that really comforts me when I am feeling the weight of loneliness and sorrow that sometimes comes over me.  It also comes to mind when I’m wondering how I can possibly make a difference in someone’s life who is hurting so badly.  Here’s my poetic interpretation of Isaiah 61:1-3:

He hath sent me to bind up the broken,
To cry to the captives: Behold, ye are free!
‘Tis the year of Jehovah’s good graces
Then eyes that are fettered, at last they shall see.
Day of our God’s just avenging:
All mourners in Zion shall comforted be.

I shall give to them beauty for ashes,
The oil of rejoicing in place of pain,
The garment of praise for sad spirit;
That strong trees of righteousness they might remain.
Oaks of Jehovah’s own planting,
That ever may be for His glory and gain!
(BiV’s Isaiah 61:1-3)

In the Garden of Eden narrative, we are taught that there is an opposite to everything.  Joy and sorrow are opposites, so are pleasure and pain. When Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, their eyes were opened and they were able to experience all of these things.  In the Isaiah passage above, it speaks of eyes being opened through the experiencing of some of these opposites: beauty/ashes, rejoicing/pain, praise/sadness.  These figures show us the value of living in a world where suffering exists.  A broken heart opens us to insights that we wouldn’t be able to see without it.

The Messiah figure in this passage also opens us up to embrace dependence.  I think humans have a tendency to adulate self-reliance.  With this comes pride and even solitude.  As we become more open to dependence — on Divine guidance, on a Savior and on each other, we learn love and community.  These are things which can heal the brokenness that is a part of living in a fallen world.  Isaiah 61 is a Messianic prophecy which teaches of a Savior who is sent forth by God’s spirit to replace pain with rejoicing, to give beauty for ashes.  But it also teaches us that we can go forth in the same spirit to bind up the broken.

I heard a story about a young man who proclaimed to have the most beautiful, flawless heart. As the crowd watched, he bared his chest to show a shining, golden, perfectly shaped heart.  Then an old man challenged him.  He came forward to show the crowd what his heart looked like.  It was beating strongly, but was misshapen and full of holes and scars.  It appeared that some pieces had been removed and others had been put in, but didn’t fit quite right. The old man looked at the young man, “I would never trade my heart for yours. Every scar represents a person I’ve given my love — I tear out a piece and give it to them. Sometimes they give me a piece of their broken heart, which I fit along jagged edges. When the person doesn’t return my love, a painful gouge is left. Those gouges stay open, reminding me that I love these people too. Perhaps someday they will return and fill that space.”

Over the years, my heart has come to resemble that old man’s.  What a Messiah means to me is recognizing this connectedness and interdependence.  It is knowing I am not as complete with a golden flawless heart that has never felt the great wrenchings.  It is opening myself to love and sorrow and rejection and recognizing that I can’t do it all on my own.  And then it is doing my best to give others a piece of my heart to help heal theirs.

Church History Principles

1. Continuing exploration of our history is part of identity formation. As a church we seek always to clarify our identity, message, and mission. In our faith story, we see clearly God’s Spirit giving this faith community (not a word we use in the LDS church) tools, insights, and experiences for divine purposes. A people with a shared memory of their past, and an informed understanding of its meaning, are better prepared to chart their way into the future.  (It feels like this is a little too intellectual for us, although I don’t see anything that is directly contradictory to our views.  I think it also implies a consensus-based faith tradition that differs from our authority-based tradition.  In the LDS side of the house, we take our divine instructions pretty literally, and as individuals, we don’t get a vote.)
2. History informs but does not dictate our faith and beliefs. The foundation and continuing source for our faith is God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. Studying history is not about proving or disproving mystical, spiritual, or revelatory experiences that birth or transform religious movements. (Is this a swipe at the LDS church’s truth claims?) Sound history informs faith (whereas inaccurate history misleads faith in either direction), and healthy faith leads to insights about history (ergo, unhealthy faith leads to misconceptions about history). Theology (too big a word for us – half our membership just tuned out) and faith, guided by the Holy Spirit, must play an important role in discovering the enduring meaning of such events as well as the deeper truths found in them (implying:  not just superficial truths based on an inaccurate understanding of history). Our understanding of our history affects our faith and beliefs. However, our past does not limit our faith and beliefs to what they were historically.  (This last statement holds more true to the CoC than it may to the LDS church.  The LDS church is more reliant on truth claims that are rooted in history.)
3. The church encourages honest, responsible historical scholarship. Studying history involves related fields. Historians use academic research to get as many facts as they can; then, they interpret those facts to construct as clear a picture as possible of what was going on in the past. This includes analyzing human culture to see how it affected events. Historians try to understand patterns of meaning to interpret what the past means for our future. This process should avoid “presentism,” or interpreting the past based on a current worldview and culture instead of the culture of the time.  (This bias of interpreting the past based on current worldview is at heart of a lot of negative views of history and is a worthwhile caution).
4. The study of church history is a continuing journey. If we say that a book on history is the only true telling of the story, we risk “canonizing” one version, a tendency we have shown in the past. This blocks further insights from continuing research. Good historical inquiry understands that conclusions are open to correction as new understanding and information comes from ongoing study.  (This is an excellent point that the LDS church could easily adopt).
5. Seeing both the faithfulness and human flaws in our history makes it more believable and realistic, not less. Our history has stories of great faith and courage that inspire us. Our history also includes human leaders who said and did things that can be shocking to us from our current perspective and culture. Historians try not to judge—instead, they try to understand by learning as much as possible about the context and the meaning of those words and actions at the time. The result is empathy instead of judgment. Our scriptures are consistent in pointing out that God, through grace, uses imperfect people for needed ministry and leadership.  (I love this one, and find it very useful.  However, I think this points to a generation gap that has been discussed elsewhere by the handsome Carter Hall.  There is a bias among the older generations to view flawed heroes as insufficiently heroic.  Baby boomers and onward tend to prefer flawed heroes.  Promoting “perfect” heroes results in disillusionment for these later generations, IMO).
6. The responsible study of church history involves learning, repentance, and transformation. A church with a mission focused on promoting communities of reconciliation, justice, and peace should be self-critical and honest about its history (of course, these are not the focus of the LDS church.  Instead our verbs are “perfecting, redeeming, proclaiming, and caring” – very action oriented verbs.  Hmmm.  Not a religion of reflection). It is important for us to confess when we have been less than what the gospel of Jesus Christ calls us to be. This honesty prompts us to repent, and it strengthens our integrity. (Again, this is an interesting perspective.  It takes the faults of the organization and personalizes them.  In the LDS church, the tendency is to view sin or flaws as personal failings, not organizational.  We do not internalize the flaws of the organization or personify the organization as something capable of repentance.)  Admitting past mistakes helps us avoid repeating them and frees us from the influences of past injustices and violence in our history. We must be humble and willing to repent, individually and as a community, to contribute as fully as possible to restoring God’s shalom on earth.  (I don’t think this part translates well for us.  This emphasis on communal responsibility and repentance is a bit foreign to the LDS church.  I suppose that’s a byproduct of CoC being more of a consensus / communal authority rather than authoritative/oligarchical.)
7. The church has a long-standing tradition that it does not legislate or mandate positions on matters of church history. Historians should be free to draw their own conclusions after thorough consideration of evidence. Through careful study and the Holy Spirit’s guidance, the church is learning how to accept and responsibly interpret all of its history. This includes putting new information and changing understandings into proper perspective, while emphasizing the parts of our history that continue to play a role in guiding the church’s identity and mission today.  (This one is interesting.  For one, the LDS church doesn’t really take a direct stand on historical matters.  Richard Bushman and Truman Madsen can write two very different books on the same topic, and the church does not officially endorse either.  Yet we do emphasize lessons that are based on history but only presented with the intention to edify and increase commitment.  If the history is damaging, we do not discuss it in our lessons because it would be counter-productive.  Whatever does not promote the mission of the church is correlated away).
8. We need to create a respectful culture of dialogue about matters of history. We should not limit our faith story to one perspective. Diverse viewpoints bring richness to our understanding of God’s movement in our sacred story. Of course, historians will come to different conclusions as they study. Therefore, it is important for us to create and maintain a respectful culture that allows different points of view on history. Our conversation about history should be polite and focused on trying to understand others’ views. (I do think this is an area where the LDS church could improve.  We tend to be extremely defensive when confronted with any negative interpretations of our history.  I think we could do better at being polite and focused on understanding while maintaining our own more faithful interpretation of events.  But to do that, the faithful interpretation of events needs to pass muster, which it frequently fails to do.)  Most important, we should remain focused on what matters most for the message and mission of the church in this time.
9. Our faith is grounded in God’s revelation in Jesus Christ and the continuing guidance of the Holy Spirit. We must keep our hearts and minds centered on God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. As God’s Word alive in human history, Jesus Christ was and is the foundation of our faith and the focus of the church’s mission and message.  (A great wrap up statement for both churches, IMO).

Are these principles that the LDS church should likewise espouse or are they problematic in their own right?  Would the LDS church have difficulty with some of these principles if put into practice?  Is there a better approach?  IMO, the CoC approach has some good elements we could adopt, but does not directly translate into LDS culture on the following points:

• Community vs. authority.  The LDS church doesn’t take doctrines to referendum.  Decisions are made in consensus at the Q15 level, based on prayerful consideration.  If the Q15 don’t agree, status quo prevails.  By contrast, the CoC is more egalitarian in its decision-making, making decisions “by common consent.”
• Responsibility for the past.  Because the LDS church is more of a top-down organizational church and less of a “faith community” (as evidenced by the fact that the term “faith community” sounds like some sort of PC term for a free-love hippie commune to my LDS ears) there is no group ownership for mistakes of past individuals, even generally among the leadership, but certainly not among the membership.  Passages that reflect this POV don’t resonate for that reason.
• Directness.  The LDS church definitely doesn’t favor this kind of direct approach that ties our hands.  While the CoC talks and writes about openness and change, creating collateral materials that can be reviewed time and again, the LDS church prefers to minimize collateral.  Even the collateral that exists (lds.org, Gen Conf talks, etc.) is often subtly contradictory and written from contrasting viewpoints that enable multiple interpretations, creating a patheon of doctrine.  If you search “Church History” on lds.org (go ahead, I’ll wait), there’s really not much there at all.
• Intellectual approach.  There are church leaders who favor an intellectual approach and who would find these principles appealing; yet, the style of these principles and the ideology seems like it might be inaccessible or off-putting to many lay members of the much larger LDS church.

Here are some principles or talking points that I would suggest for the LDS church (written as if I had to draft it for the church, which I don’t, thank goodness!  Because it was actually really hard to come up with these):

• All history is biased.  Historical elements in scripture are also biased by authors, cultural markers, and limited understanding.  Church history is similarly biased.  Understanding history requires a respect for the inherent biases in what we are reading, whether those biases are in favor of or against the church or an individual.  And our understanding of history is biased by our personal experiences, our views, and time in which we live.
• Understanding history can provide insight.  We can better understand patterns that influenced behavior and that tend to repeat over time within a culture.  We can empathize with our predecessors; our hearts are turned to our fathers and mothers in reviewing their experiences.  We are given countless examples that illuminate our own path, either as cautionary tales or as role models and most often as both.
• Church history is still being written.  Although divine instruction is timeless, our ability to understand it can shift over time and the relevance of different instructions can change as circumstances change.  We should be mindful of the temporal biases inherent in our human understanding as we strive to follow God’s will and comprehend our common history.
• Personal experience leads to faith.  We encourage church members to follow the spirit and to prayerfully seek instruction from Heavenly Father.  This type of humble truth-seeking can help us avoid errors in discernment and criticism of others that can lead to self-justification and sin.
• Our aim is to lead people to Christ.  While history can inform us and provide insight, ultimately it is through seeking a personal relationship with Christ and following His teachings that we grow spiritually and achieve our potential as sons and daughters of God.

What do you think the church should say regarding thorny historical issues?  Anything?  Discuss.

From the Op-Ed (you can mentally replace some of the Catholic references with “Mormon” if that helps):

there seem to be two Catholic Churches, the old boys’ club of the Vatican and the grass-roots network of humble priests, nuns and laity in places like Sudan. The Vatican certainly supports many charitable efforts, and some bishops and cardinals are exemplary, but overwhelmingly it’s at the grass roots that I find the great soul of the Catholic Church

It’s because of brave souls like these that I honor the Catholic Church. I understand why many Americans disdain a church whose leaders are linked to cover-ups and antediluvian stances on women, gays and condoms — but the Catholic Church is far larger than the Vatican.

And unless we’re willing to endure beatings alongside Father Michael, unless we’re willing to stand up to warlords with Sister Cathy, we have no right to disparage them or their true church.

Personally, I find the highs are often higher in Catholicism because of the nature of “vocation”; nuns and priests literally give their whole life to God in a way that Mormons, who consider family life central to God’s plan, simply don’t.  But the lows are also lower, due to a few things Catholicism doesn’t share with Mormonism:  an almost two-thousand year history (and its accompanying baggage), the unhealthy sexual repression of a celibate clergy, an extremely strong anti-birth control stance (that many of its adherents ignore), and the belief in Papal infallibility (a notion that some Mormons like to flirt with).

So, what do you think?  Is the church its organization and leadership or is it the people, its adherents?  Do people get lost in the criticism of the organization and forget the good done by individuals?  Discuss.

On the one hand, we teach that God is omniscient, all knowing, the smartest of the smart, prognosticator of prognosticators, etc.  OTOH, we teach the doctrine of eternal progression:  that as man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become.  We also teach that eternal progression is part of God’s plan for us, and that we are to learn and grow “line upon line, precept upon precept.”

Since “the glory of God is intelligence” (D&C 93:36) and “intelligence or the light of truth was not created nor made nor indeed can be” (D&C 93:29) and when “there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all” (Abraham 3:19) – does that mean that there are hierarchies of Gods based on intelligence or the “light of truth”?  Is intelligence something that we can’t increase?  Does that mean that eternal progression is not increasing our intelligence?

  So, what does eternal progression mean?

• Does it mean that we continue to make mistakes and learn from them?  Are we allowed to make mistakes after we die?  Does God still make mistakes?  Does he have some discarded practice earths floating around out there?  (Maybe that’s what happened to Pluto)
• Does access to knowledge constitute eternal progression (e.g. celestial Wikipedia, when the earth becomes a Urim & Thummim)?
• Does God explore strange new worlds (presumably created by other Gods), seek out new civilizations and boldly go?
• How does God become like His Father?  Is that just getting old, but no additional skills are required, kind of like going from CEO to being on the board of directors?
• Is there a God threshold?  At which point do we say “Now THAT’s Godhood.  Yesterday, that was pre-Godhood, but today you’ve arrived”?  Is that when one has atoned?  If so, are there enough atonements to go around or are there lower level God positions for those who aren’t going to go that far?
• Can stupid people become Gods?  Wouldn’t stupid Gods have stupid spiritual kids?  Do different planets have different intelligences?  What if we ARE the stupid ones?
• Wouldn’t it be boring as all get out if you were a God and there was nothing new to learn or experience?  Is God in a constant state of ennui?  Isn’t that why the Greek gods were always chasing tail and creating havoc – boredom + power?
• Isn’t lack of progress the Mormon definition of hell?  If God doesn’t progress, doesn’t that = hell?  That can’t be right.

So, take a moment to consider what your opinion is and answer the following poll:

[poll ID = "141"]

Discuss.

First, let’s differentiate between “bad” or ineffective behaviors that are commonly described and good or acceptable behaviors:

Bad behaviors or responses:

• Encouraging faithful spouses to leave apostate spouses, even when there has been no infidelity or abuse.
• Controlling behaviors.  Threats, ultimatums, and coercive actions to try to force someone back into the church.
• Being manipulative or intrusive.  This could include “love bombing” or trying to smother someone back into the church.  This can also entail crossing personal boundaries, going behind someone’s back, conspiring with local leaders, etc.
• Emotional outbursts.  Tears and tantrums designed to cast the person leaving as someone who is victimizing the parent, spouse, relative or friend through their departure from the church.
• Assuming that the departing person has committed a grave sin or simply wants to live a lifestyle free from the restrictive standards.
• Judgmental comments and other rejecting behaviors; making it clear that love is conditional on one’s being Mormon.

Good behaviors or responses:

• Listening with an open mind.
• Loving unconditionally, regardless of level of belief.  Making it clear that the person is loved as much as before.
• Sharing one’s own personal doubts that demonstrate acceptance of the person’s struggle and empathy.

Clearly, it’s easy for someone leaving the church to see these “bad behaviors” as being another flaw of the organization they have chosen to leave.  Given that there is so much variety in experience, it seems that there are three things at play:  the family’s traits, the departing individual’s traits, and to a lesser extent, the organizational culture.

Clearly, some of the drama can occur because of how the departing person handles it.  Even absent “bad behaviors” on their part (e.g. yelling, blaming, etc.) there is still some inherent tension whenever someone leaves:

• Rejection.  When someone leaves the church, they are rejecting something that those family members still embrace.  The reaction is the same whenever you choose to leave an organization or you change your views – you now have one less thing in common, and that’s got to have some impact.  If you like Mac computers, but your spouse is into PCs, that is an area of contention that will result in two separate laptops in  your household.
• Family traits. Family members often share common traits when it comes to dealing with conflict and even how they view their religion.  IOW, when a person who is leaving the church sees their family’s way of being church members, they may recognize that those are the same behaviors they had as church members and now find those traits irritating.  Criticizing your family is often criticizing yourself.
• Definition of “bad behaviors.” Some departing individuals may be too sensitive or have too high expectations for the reception their announcement will receive.  It’s probably best for both sides to cut each other more slack.  For example, some of the above “bad behaviors” clearly have some good intentions behind them.  They are just ineffective and can be offensive or lacking in empathy.  But perhaps they are the best way some people know how to respond.

So, what behaviors can be traced to the church as an organization?

• Leader counsel. There is mixed counsel from leaders when it comes to how to address family members of different faith levels.  Most recent counsel is geared toward inclusion (E. Wirthlin and E. Cook‘s recent talks are good examples of this), but some counsel seems a bit more conditional, focusing on not encouraging sin through acceptance of behavior outside the standards (E. Oaks‘ recent GC talk).  Given that the counsel is mixed, I personally see this as further evidence that parents and family members hear what they want to hear and behave the way they are predisposed to behave, feeling justified based on reinforcement from leaders, even though different leaders have approached this issue different ways.
• Culture.  Do members typically reject those who have left the church, or do they seek to understand and continue to love them even though they no longer share a faith?  My experience has been very low drama and accepting, both in my own family and in the wards I have been in.  Perhaps that is not typical of other wards or areas of the church as evidenced by these stories.  What are your experiences?
• Eternal Family Doctrine.  This just ups the ante.  We do view our family units as eternal, so actions of family members have some sort of significance on each other.  Because there is lack of clarity what exactly will happen after this life, family members often fear the worst and “freak out” when someone leaves the church.  Personally, I think this one is just fear overcoming one’s better judgment.

Why does the organization often get blamed for things that are family traits?

• Too close to home.  It’s a little easier to blame the church (one more step removed from yourself than your family is).  After all, you have chosen to leave the church, but even if you wanted to, you can’t really leave your family.
• Bigger target.  Organizations are easy scapegoats because they are larger than what we can control; whether it’s your company, the government, or a retail chain, it’s easy to personify an organization and imbue it with the personality traits of a few of its representatives, employees or members.  Especially if you decide that you dislike that organization.
• Defensiveness.  When family members come out in defense of the church, those who have rejected the church may feel that the family member has chosen the church over them.

So, what do you think?  What bad behaviors have you seen from the faithful when someone leaves the church?  Is that typical or not?  Does the church foster good or bad behaviors with regard to apostate family members?  Are individuals more accountable for those behaviors or is the church?  Discuss.

Let’s first tackle the implications of the different things we might follow:

• The Prophet. Even toddlers are taught the song “Follow the Prophet,” not a personal favorite either musically (it’s the ”100 Bottles of Beer on the Wall” of the Primary songbook) or lyrically (the line “if you don’t believe me / go and watch the news” sounds like something Archie Bunker or Sean Hannity should be saying acerbically, not tiny tots singing sweetly).  Frankly, listening to an angelic chorus of youngsters sing this song makes Mormons sound creepy and cult-like.  I’d totally sign a petition to kill this song.  However, there’s no doubt that Mormons are taught to follow the Prophet, the living head of the church who is responsible to define the gospel for Mormons globally during his tenure (which only ends when God “releases” him / he dies).
• The Brethren.  This is similar to the Prophet, but generally includes all modern-day apostles, both living & dead, but all white (with an emphasis on the living ones).  Some would expand that beyond the apostles to include other high level leaders such as the 70, and possibly even the unseen correlation committee.
• Christ. Obviously, the purpose of the church is to come unto Christ.  Of course, this implies that WWJD covers all the scenarios you encounter, and that you feel confident in your interpretation of WWJD.  Of course many who wear a WWJD tee shirt are doing all kinds of things I don’t personally think J would D.  So, there is some interpretation here.  Are you really following Christ, your interpretation of him, your best version of yourself, or what others have told you?
• The Gospel.  Because there are many ways to interpret some aspects of the gospel for specific situations, this would usually mean the gospel “as you understand / interpret it.”  You might base your interpretation on some favorite scriptures, teachings of leaders, personal experiences, etc.  But your basis and understanding may differ from others’ in some particulars.  For cafeteria Mormons (and there really are no other kinds), it’s whatever is on your tray.
• The Spirit.  In Mormonism, this can mean different things to different people, but it generally means that when you need to know what to do, you seek personal spiritual guidance through whatever means have worked for you in the past:  prayer, thinking about it, dreams, reading scriptures or other inspirational materials, etc.  The more superstitious folks might use means like “Bible dips” (opening the scriptures to a passage and then using that to determine their course of action).
• The dictates of your own conscience.  This can mean using your own personal life experiences, wisdom, opinions, and preferences to determine your course of action.

A few times in leadership trainings, I have done what is called a Rokeach Value Survey.  In this exercise, you are presented with various values or life goals, most of which are probably desirable to you, and you have to rank order them.  This is done by comparing two of them and asking “If I could have A but not B, would I prefer that or to have B but not A.”  Basically, through this “false dichotomy” exercise, you determine which is your most dearly held value.  (Values considered are things like:  freedom, human love, a comfortable life, health, etc.)  Consider these types of dichotomies for yourself personally as you answer the poll.

• What if something a current Prophet says differs from something the Brethren have said?  Do you assume the prophet has more authority and is more timely than the other statement?  Does how you feel about what is being said (the dictates of your own conscience) change your feeling?
• What if a spiritual prompting differs from the dictates of your own conscience?  Would you take a leap and follow the spiritual prompting or would you assume it was indigestion?
• What if something the Brethren say differs from your interpretation of the Gospel?  Do you (generally) assume they know better and get on board?  Or do you assume they are mistaken and that your view is correct?

I’d like each of you to consider the following possibilities using this same methodology to choose the most important one to you personally.

[poll=94]

Were you surprised by your results?  Do you object to false dichotomies on principle?  If so, get over it!  Discuss.

Firstly, I can understand other religions who live in my community who might be frustrated at the effort and money that is spent of events during the Christmas season, that is not directed into events that would help their own religious festivals.

Secondly, I sense that if Christians want their festivals to remain important then we need to ensure that they are important by our practising them rather than using (or assuming) some sort of cultural supremacy simply because we happen to be the dominant religious culture in a country.

Thirdly, no one else can determine whether I worship Christmas and the extent to which I feel the spirit of Christ.  Therefore although I think having that focus at Christmas time is a good thing I should not let the fact that other people do not believe become the major focus of my worship.  I am sure people who celebrate any of the Islamic festivals do not concern themselves with my benign neglect of their religious festival so why should I use mine against them.

Fourthly, no one can stop me from calling it Christmas, if I so choose.  I don’t care what anyone else calls.  If they want to change the legal name so that it does not alienate other religious denominations then I can’t see an issue with that.

This just seems a mis-directed way to focus on Christmas at a time of year when Christians should be at their most tolerating, inclusive and forgiving.

What do you think?

Should we legally protect Christmas or should we emphasise celebrating it ourselves and not be concerned about what others do?

From viewing Aaron’s video of himself witnessing at Temple Square I’m getting the feeling that he wants us to believe that if something is miraculous, it has to be completely incomprehensible. But he doesn’t realize that concept doesn’t appeal to us. Mormons are likely to say that God does not defy law, but he works through physical laws, a fundamental principle of the universe. This in no way impedes our awe or sense of the wonder of Christmastime or the birth of the Savior.

A primary purpose of Joseph Smith’s vision in the grove was to reveal an embodied God. This conception of Deity has been vital to our doctrine from the early days of the Church to this day. Thomas S. Monson taught:

“This loving God who introduced his crucified and resurrected Son was not a God lacking in body, parts, or passions ­­ the God of a man-­made philosophy. Rather, God our Father has ears with which to hear our prayers. He has eyes with which to see our actions. He has a mouth with which to speak to us. He has a heart with which to feel compassion and love. He is real. He is living. We are his children made in his image. We look like him and he looks like us.” (Conference Report, April 1966, p.63)

But  if we believe in an embodied God, we have to think about what this might imply, including  the mechanics of how Mary was impregnated.  Aaron and other Christian evangelicals are bothered that LDS leaders have taught that the seed of our Father in Heaven produced Jesus Christ in a literal, physical fashion. The Bible teaches that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost, but the Book of Mormon clarifies that this was done by the power of the Holy Ghost, after the manner of the flesh.

There is no doubt that the idea of physical relations between God and Mary has been clearly advocated in the Church by such authorities as Brigham Young [1], Orson Pratt [2], Heber C. Kimball [3], Joseph F. Smith, [4], Joseph Fielding Smith [5], James E. Talmage [6], Melvin J. Ballard [7], J. Reuben Clark [8], Bruce R. McConkie [9], and Ezra Taft Benson [10]. Mormons believe that Christ was literally the Son of God in the flesh, and he was conceived in a natural, physical way according to eternal law. In explaining this, the aforementioned leaders gave their views on how it was accomplished. Despite this, many members do not agree, are unaware of the idea, or prefer not to discuss it. It is certainly understandable that some feel it is a sacred subject. Some feel that it is merely speculation which does not affect the LDS doctrinal position on the nature of Christ. Others find it distasteful because it conjures up issues of celestial polygamy or spiritual incest. There are those who would like to skirt the issue by postulating that Mary may have been impregnated by some means such as artificial insemination. But I see no reason, if God has a body and parts, that he would not use his parts.

Several contemporary Mormon writers are willing to accept the conception of Christ through a physical relationship. Kevin Barney finds the idea appealing:

“I presume the mortal Jesus had 46 chromosomes, and that 23 came from Mary, but where did the other 23 come from? As a Mormon, I’m not big on the idea that they were created ex nihilo for this specific purpose. I like being able to say that Jesus really did have a father, not in a metaphorical sense only (the language of begetting in the creeds doesn’t mean literal begetting), but in a physical sense. He really was the Son of God.”

For those of us who are willing to entertain the notion of a physical conception, how do we explain the “Virgin Birth” spoken of in the scriptures? There are several possibilities.

1. The word in the Bible translated as “virgin” actually means “young woman.”

An introduction to this controversy can be found here. Having studied the linguistics carefully, I believe there is merit to the argument that the Hebrew word “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 (Behold, a virgin shall conceive) was used for “young woman” and not specifically “virgin.” The word used in the New Testament passages to describe Mary as a virgin, “parthenos,” can also mean young woman (damsel), as in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament), when it refers to Dinah after she was raped. This explanation fits with the teachings of Church leaders that God the Father was the literal father of Jesus according to the flesh.

This argument is weakened by the fact that Mary is referred to as a virgin five times in 1 Nephi and once in Alma. Since we do not have the original language version of the Book of Mormon to refer to, we must take the English as it stands.

Additionally, General Authorities have insisted that our beliefs are consistent with Mary being a virgin. Therefore, some have conjectured:

2. Mary was a virgin because she did not have relations with a man, but with a God.

“One of the great questions that I have referred to that the world is concerned about, and is in confusion over, is as to whether or not his was a virgin birth, a birth wherein divine power interceded.” (Melvin J. Ballard)

Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father. (Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 18­20.) “For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being” (BRM, The Promised Messiah, pg. 466).

Although God has a physical body, the reasoning goes, it was glorified and perfected. Since the Being who impregnated Mary had a Divine nature, she was not changed in the way she would have been had she had intercourse with an earthly, fallen man with a human nature.

NOW, We’ve discussed the fun, speculative stuff, let’s get to the IMPORTANT, ESSENTIAL stuff:

• Who does the Bible say is the father of the incarnate Jesus (God), and how was it accomplished? (by the power of the Holy Ghost) (Luke 1:35) Do Mormon teachings fit with this statement?
• (This is the big one in my opinion): If we concede the Evangelical teachings on how one obtains salvation, how does knowing whether or not God actually had sex with Mary pertain?

***
So, Aaron, what’s holding Evangelical Christians back from singing Christmas carols with us on Temple Square? Why is our commemoration of Jesus’ birth less valuable than yours if we believe that sexual intercourse is divine? What better way could there be to create a being who is fully human and fully God?

________________________________________

[1]“The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers,” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).

[2] “There is no doubt that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary to sanctify her, and make her holy, and prepare her to endure the glorious presence of “the Highest’, that when ‘He’ should ‘overshadow’ her she might conceive, being filled with the Holy Ghost; hence the angel said, as recorded in Matthew, ‘That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost;’ that is, the Holy Ghost gave her strength to abide in the presence of the Father without being consumed, but it was the personage of the Father who begat the body of Jesus; and for this reason Jesus is called ‘the Only Begotten of the Father;’ that is, the only one in this world whose fleshly body was begotten by the Father…The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father..” (Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158)

[3] “I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it. (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 8:211)

[4] “I want the little folks [children] to hear what I am going to tell you. I am going to tell you a simple truth, yet it is one of the greatest truths and one of the most simple facts ever revealed to the children of men. You all know that your fathers are indeed your fathers and that your mothers are indeed your mothers – you all know that don’t you? You cannot deny it. Now, we are told in scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father…Now my little friends, I will repeat again in words as simple as I can, and you ask your parents about it, that God, the Eternal Father, is literally the father of Jesus Christ.” (Joseph F. Smith, Box Elder Stake Conference Dec 20, 1914 as quoted in Brigham City Box Elder News, 28 Jan, 1915, pp.1-2. see also Family Home Evening [Manual], copyright 1972 by Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, pages 125-126).

[5]“The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended with any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit,” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Religious Truths Defined, p. 44)

[6] “The only instance of offspring from woman dissociated from mortal fatherhood is the birth of Jesus the Christ, who was the earthly Son of a mortal mother, begotten by an immortal Father. He is the Only Begotten of the Eternal Father in the flesh, and was born of woman.” (James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, Ch.5, p.43)

[7] “No man or woman can live in mortality and survive the presence of the Highest except by the sustaining power of the Holy Ghost. So it came upon her [Mary] to prepare her for admittance into the divine presence, and the power of the Highest, who is the Father, was present, and overshadowed her, and the holy Child that was born of her was called the Son of God. Men who deny this, or who think that it degrades our Father, have no true conception of the sacredness of the most marvelous power with which God has endowed mortal men—the power of creation. Even though that power may be abused and may become a mere harp of pleasure to the wicked, nevertheless it is the most sacred and holy and divine function with which God has endowed man. Made holy, it is retained by the Father of us all, and in his exercise of that great and marvelous creative power and function, he did not debase himself, degrade himself, nor debauch his daughter. Thus Christ became the literal Son of a divine Father, and no one else was worthy to be his father.” (Sermons and Missionary Services of Melvin J. Ballard, p. 167)

[8] “That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the “Son of the Highest.” In His nature would be combined the powers of Godhood with the capacity and possibilities of mortality; and this through the ordinary operation of the fundamental law of heredity, declared of God, demonstrated by science, and admitted by philosophy, that living beings shall propagate — after their kind.” (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Behold the Lamb of God, p.356)

[9] “These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only, begotten means begotten, and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in He same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 546)

[10] “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg.7)

In a series of previous posts, David Stout has suggested that there is an underlying rationalism that drives our worship services.  I suspect that this true to an extent but he misses, or perhaps neglects to mention another key factor.  Terryl Givens explores a paradox in Mormon thought between certainty and searching [1].  He explains that the discourse of our religious history is rooted in certainty and that conversion occurs when we know the truth, rather than in a conversion to Christ through forgiveness.  Therefore, perhaps, it is not strange to conclude that the highest form of worship is when such certainty is conveyed or shared between searching individuals.

Yet, this is not the only type of worship discussed in the LDS tradition.  In fact there are two other strains that I think are prominent: emulation and adoration.  Emulation as a form of worship continues the pragmatic theme which seems fixed in education as a form of worship (another of the paradoxes Givens discusses: The Sacred and the Banal).  Adoration is part of the Church but it seems diminished compared to other religious cultures like the Church of England, for example.  I can understand this, however, because Emulation and Adoration suggest different conceptions of sacred distance.  Emulation seeks to narrow that distance whereas Adoration wants to emphasise the differences between God and Human beings.

It occurs to me that the view of God that is generally held among Mormons (the Anthropomorphic God who becomes divine through a progressive process) results in a sense of dissatisfaction with the traditional forms of Adoration-type Worship held in other Churches, but neither Education nor Emulation have adequately replaced them, in my view.   So where is worship in LDS services?

One suggestion I have is that we should include both types of worship in our services.  I sense that including forms of worship which both accentuates and also diminishes the sacred distance between ourselves and God would be a spiritually productive paradox.  Accentuating this distance would emphasise our dependence upon God while seeking to receive his divine nature would ensure we do not stop striving to open ourselves to God’s love and the possibility of loving others and being loved by them.  Moreover, I am one of those people who sees that these (unresolvable) tensions prove fertile ground for our communion with God.

Questions:

How do you feel about Mormon Worship services?

What do you consider Worship and is it present in your wards and stakes?

What types of Worship could be included in our meetings?

According to the dictionary, to know has 6 different contemporary meanings (when used with a direct object): 

1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty; e.g. “I have a clear and certain understanding of eternal families.  My dead grandfather came back and said ‘yup’ that’s the way it is.”
2. to have established or fixed in the mind or memory; e.g. “I would be able to pick Jesus out of a line-up.”
3. to be cognizant or aware of; e. g. “I am aware of their being a devil on my shoulder, prodding me to do evil; can you guys see this?”
4. to be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report; e.g. “I have met Thomas S. Monson, and he sure looked like a prophet to me.”
5. to understand from experience or attainment (usually fol. by how before an infinitive);  e.g. “I understand the gospel because I have lived it and it makes my life better.” 
6. to be able to distinguish, as one from another;  e.g. “I know this church is the one that Jesus leads vs. those other false ones that Jesus merely dabbled with.”

To believe, on the other hand, has the following 5 meanings (when used with a direct object): 

1. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.);  to give credence to; e.g. “I have confidence in the idea of the atonement and that it will apply to me.”
2. to have confidence in an assertion;  e.g. “I believe that the church is a restoration of the early Christian church.”
3. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation;  e.g. “I believe Jesus was resurrected.”
4. to suppose or assume; understand (usually fol. by a noun clause);  e.g. “I believe in the counsel that was given at General Conference.” 
5. to believe in a) to be persuaded of the truth or existence of; b) to have faith in the reliability, honesty, benevolence, etc., of; e.g. “I believe I have heavenly parents who care about me.”

Ether 12:6 - I would show unto the world that ^afaith is things which are ^bhoped for and ^cnot seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no ^dwitness until after the ^etrial of your faith.

Alma 32: 18 & 21 – 18 Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to ^abelieve, for he knoweth it. 21 And now as I said concerning faith—^afaith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye ^bhope for things which are ^cnot seen, which are true.

What do people at church mean when they say they “know” things they relate in their testimony?  Here are some possibilities:

1. They aren’t certain, but they’ve decided to act on their hope (the first stages of faith).
2. The language of certainty is the norm; they are simply spouting cliches or don’t want to sound “different” by expressing what they believe or hope.
3. They haven’t questioned to this point in their life or experienced doubts; therefore, they are “certain” by default.  They still have the unblinking faith of a child.
4. They have experienced a witness of a specific concept after acting on their faith.  They “know” this specific thing based on that witness.
5. They have experienced some general sort of “witness” (loosely defined) that they are applying holistically to all concepts taught at church, assuming that one witness covers all points of doctrines (all win or lose together).

So, what do you think it means when people say they “know”?  Is it a cliché that is damaging to those who don’t “know” but assume everyone else does?  Is it dishonest?  Is it an act of faith to say we know when we only hope or believe?  Would you rather hear more accurate language in testimonies?

Discuss.

This photograph was taken by Sebastiao Salgado at a gold mine in Brazil.  I first saw it in a room at the University I attend.  As an idealistic and aspiring academic I felt moved by the raw power of the worker as he resisted the guard.  Ever since then I have had a copy of this picture in my study areas.  It reminds me that my life is not just about doing good, but that I have a moral duty to alleviate as much suffering in this world as I can.  It reminds me that sometimes I need to resist those in power to protect the weak.  I believe that is part of the heritage that Christ has given us.

Egon Friedell

In this regard I was recently provoked to thought by something Egon Friedell has said about the Christian tradition.  I had never heard of Egon Friedell, until reading a book by Clive James entitled ‘Cultural Amnesia’ (which I whole-heartedly recommend), but I think I really like him.  James describes him as the ‘polymath’s polymath’.  Yet, Friedell was not merely a book-worm but was also one of the most famous cabaret artist’s of his day in a city (Vienna) full of performers.  Before discussing his ideas I wanted to share one tid-bit from his life which was (oddly) inspiring for me:

‘On the day of the AnschluB in 1938, Friedell saw the storm troopers marching down the street, on their way to the building in which he had his apartment full of books.  He was only a few floors up but it was high enough to do the job.  On his way out of the window he called a warning, in case his falling body hit an innocent passer-by.’

His magnum opus ‘Cultural History of the Modern Age’ contains this line: ‘Mankind in the Christian Era possesses one huge advantage over the ancients: a bad conscience’.  Now it seems that neither James nor Friedell were Christians but they recognised something that the world had been given because of Christianity.  In James’ words, ‘When Friedell talked about a bad conscience, he meant the mind that was capable of seeing that might and right were not the same thing’.

One challenge with making this distinction is discerning it amidst the normalising power of culture.  Seeing oppression and pain inflicted by those in power is difficult when those causing such situations are the same people we revere or respect; it is harder still is to resist it.  ‘Most men’ James notes ‘bend with the breeze: which is to say, they go with the prevailing power.  But a few do not.  With or without Christ’s help, they grow a bad conscience.  Thank God for that.’

Yet, what haunts me more is that, in the words Albert Camus, ‘I [find] that there [are] sweet dreams of oppression within me’.  I really believe that ’it is the nature and disposition of almost all men… to exercise unrighteous dominion’ (D&C 121:39); and this includes me.  Friedell’s ‘bad conscience’ must work inward as much as it flows outward; I must check myself against the tendencies that I have to use any ‘perceived’ authority I might have to justify my own prejudices.  James’ oppressive breeze blows both from within and from without.  

The last century saw many idealistic and bright people bend with that breeze, and yet, within the Christian heritage is the ‘bad conscience’, which urges us to resist oppressive behaviour, even from ourselves.  I wonder whether I have been true to my tradition.  I wonder whether I have stood up for the down-trodden and the out-cast. I wonder whether my respect for authority has led me to turn a blind-eye to unrighteous dominion (wherever that is found).  I hope I can be rigid in one of the few senses I see as important; that I will never concede to view that power leads inevitably to truth.

Posing the Questions on a Personal Level

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

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

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

Answering the Questions For ME

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where you see yourself probably has a lot to do with whether you prefer being an insider or an outsider, and what the tolerance for deviation from the norms is from those with whom you most closely associate.

Personal Preference - which type are you?

• Affiliation.  Some people want to belong.  They are called affiliators.  They like to be a part of a group, they want to fit in, and they do not like to be seen as “different.”
• Differentiation.  Some people want to be seen as different or unique.  They can’t stand being like everyone else.  They will point out the ways they are not like the group’s norms.

The real solution here is that you have to own up to your preferences.  If you like being different or unique, don’t complain about being different and unique.  And if you want to fit in, own up to that and don’t blame others if your need to feel accepted outweighs the total amount of commonality you have with the group

Group Tolerance - which approach do you take?

• Inclusive. Some people want to broaden the tent of Mormonism, allowing for everyone who has any interest to be “in” and to feel welcome.  They tend to find the universalist bent to the plan of salvation comforting and appealing.  They want to assure themselves that no one will ultimately be left out. They like to reach out to anyone at church who may be an investigator, or just have different or unpopular views.  They want everyone to be accepted.
• Exclusive.  Some people want to police the standards and to “protect” the exclusivity of the community.  They quickly point out unacceptable deviations (sometimes directly or sometimes alerting lay leadership of the dangers posed by that person).  These individuals need to belong to an organization that is exclusive, free from infiltrators.  They might sniff with disdain when they smell cigarette smoke on someone’s clothes or whisper about that outrageous comment Sister Smith made in RS.  They might mention to the bishop the concern they felt when they saw Bro. Jones walking out of a store on a Sunday or that the YW president’s daughter was wearing a bikini to wash the family car in the driveway.

In reality, we are all insiders and outsiders throughout every conversation.  Things are said that we identify with (insider) and that we dislike (outsider), that we agree with (insider), and that we have no interest in (outsider).  These are probably the same categories whether you are at church or at work or hanging out at a family or high school reunion.  I have grouped these into a few categories:

• Things you don’t believe (outsider) vs. shared beliefs (insider)
• Things you haven’t experienced (outsider) vs. shared experiences (insider)
• Things you don’t value (outsider) vs. shared values (insider)
• Cultural differences (outsider) vs. shared culture (insider)

Christ would say we should strive to be more inclusive of others, while helping them to become the best they can be.  But first we must accept others on their own terms if they are at all interested in being part of the group.  To do that, we need to downplay the focus on shared experiences and shared cultural markers that are especially difficult for newcomers to share.  Focusing on shared values and beliefs seems the best way to be inclusive.

So, what do you think?  Are you more of an ousider or an insider?  Is that the way you like it?  How inclusive are you of others?  Are you sometimes surprised at how inside or outside you feel?  Time for a short poll based on the categories above.

[poll id="50"]

[poll id="48"] [poll id="49"]

Discuss.

To illustrate this line of thinking further, suppose for a moment that Tony Soprano has entered a very strange Witness Protection program.  He is being relocated to Salt Lake City where he will be living as if he were a Mormon.  He will be assigned to a local ward where he will be made the bishop of a local congregation for five years.  He will need to attend to the temporal and spiritual needs of the ward while conducting his normal job as a business manager during the week.  Tony has been trained very successfully by his FBI Handlers.  He knows the lingo (words like “shadow of a doubt,” “every fiber of my being,” and “we’re grateful for the moisture we’ve received.”)  He understands the requirements and standards (modesty/no more wife beaters, cutting down his considerable profanity, no porn, chastity and fidelity to his wife, honesty, etc.).  While he knows it is a big departure from his previous life, he is confident he can live those standards.  However, he is entering this arrangement with no belief whatsoever in the LDS church.  He is purely going through the motions.

At the same time, because the FBI are apparently into weird social experimentation (or at least my example is), they will be sending Bishop Mike Young (whom Bishop Soprano will replace) back to run the Bada-Bing and manage Tony’s mafia affairs in his stead.  Although Bishop Young is a believer in his LDS faith, this assignment will require him to play a part that contradicts his beliefs.  He will be subject to all manner of temptations (dishonesty, murder, illicit sex–the constant barrage of profanity will be the least of his worries), and he will have to participate in these things or be killed by his new colleagues who will immediately smell a rat if he does not play the part.

So, who is in the more impossible situation?  What is the likely outcome of each?  Will Bishop Soprano become converted to the gospel through his newly clean lifestyle?  Or will he corrupt the ward members because he doesn’t believe?  Will Bishop Young become converted to the dark side by his new cronies?  Or will Bishop Young infiltrate the mafia with his more charitable tendencies?  What is the most likely outcome for each situation?

I’m inclined to think that Bishop Soprano is in a good position to become persuaded this new lifestyle is the way to go, whether that leads to a testimony or just a more Christ-like life.  I tend to think Bishop Young is at peril of falling into sin, but that he will continue to feel bad about it and long for a future situation that will allow him to return to living his beliefs.  But that’s just me.

Considering a much less extreme example, which is harder to manage through?  Believing in the church, but not living up to the standards (which often results in inactivity) or not believing in the church while going through the motions (activity, but without testimony)?  I would place the hierarchy of belief/action combos like this:

1. Easiest:  Neither believing nor living the standards.  Again, depends on how far down the “not living the standards” scale you go before you get to reduced quality of life.  On some level, though, ignorance is bliss.  Once you are aware of the standards, though, even if your belief level changes, unless it becomes disbelief, you will have difficulty with this choice.
2. Next Easiest:  Believing & living the standards.  Obviously, all of us fall short at times, but belief causes people to want to live the standards, and living the standards reinforces belief.  This helps people minimize guilt and stress.
3. Getting More Difficult:  Not believing, but living the standards.  This is still a valuable choice because the standards create a good life.  This is the worst-case scenario in Pascal’s wager.  And belief is not all or nothing anyway.  One can believe in the value of standards that have a lifestyle benefit.
4. Most Difficult:  Believing but not living the standards.  Since we all fall short from time to time, this seems like the next logical stop down in the hierarchy.  Some just fail to meet on a bigger scale, but their belief is still there.  They believe what they are doing is wrong.  They feel guilt and shame.

Do lower standards reinforce lack of belief or the other way around?  Does lack of belief promote self-justification?  Is faith a principle of action only (vs. one’s level of belief) in that it colors our actions?

Discuss.

I remember when I was younger I often, for some reason, considered the case of Pontius Pilate.  I remember reading about him and perceiving him as a helpless, unwitting player in Christ’s death.  I saw him as innocent, washing his hands of the blood of Christ, wanting to help but not having the power to stem the relentless tide of the throngs of angry people wishing to put the Savior to death.  I remember one time in particular when I was very young, probably eleven or twelve, praying on my knees to ask God not to judge Pilate harshly.  It hadn’t entered my heart that I was not the first person to do this over the last couple thousand years.  I just felt closely connected to the story, and from what I read I saw him as mostly innocent.

Into my deconstructive teenage years, I read a bit more about Pilate’s life and realized that a great deal of evidence points to the idea that he may have been a cruel man, as many Roman leaders were, and that his life was anything but exemplary.  Christ was probably one of many men that Pilate sent to their death.  I saw myself as naive and almost embarrassed for thinking he was innocent.  Sometimes I think we get a strange kind of pleasure out of character deconstruction, especially historical figures, as Russ may tell you from his grad school history studies.

Yet popular opinion is as it usually is:  divided.  It’s a subject that has been explored countless times in countless places.  Certain Ethiopian Orthodox churches venerated Pilate as a saint.  Medieval European plays show him as a bureaucrat or a demon.  There are non-canonized writings that add much to the Pilate story, good and bad.

For me, I’ve found myself doing what many do:  projecting my own self onto a vacuum of evidence.  When something in history seems to have no answers, people tend to fill the void with their own agendas, and I’m no exception.  And thus we see that in some cases, when we judge the morality of others, we are actually looking at ourselves.  “Our people” I’ve noticed have somewhat of a love affair with judging the morality of those not within our stewardship (Richard Dutcher!  Brother Marriott!  Kirby Heyborne!  Emma Smith!).

In my life I have stopped wondering about the morality of others so much anymore, yet I still think of him now and then.  Thoughts on Poor Pontius Pilate?

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Curriculum/music.htm/hymns.htm/prayer%20and%20supplication.htm/114%20come%20unto%20him.htm#JD_Hymns.114

and the music (written by Hugh W. Dougall, 1872-1963):

http://www.lds.org/churchmusic/detailmu … seqend=ZZZ

The scriptures cited in the hymnbook are Psalm 55:16–17, 22 and Matthew 11:28–30—both of which are beautiful scriptures that talk about coming unto Christ. 

The third verse mentions three kinds of people who could benefit from coming unto Christ—the depressed, the erring, and the weary.  I feel weary lots of times in terms of my relationship with the church.  I have allowed those feelings to impact my feelings about both God and Christ, which I regret and would like to change.  In thinking about this hymn, I came across a speech that Elder Holland gave at BYU about coming unto Christ (http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=2912).  There are some things in it that I don’t like or am not sure about – the belief that Christ is the “only way” to achieve happiness/eternal life/whatever.  I know that this is a basic premise of Mormonism and of Christianity in general and as I’m typing this, I realize that I may be farther “out” than I am willing to admit.  However, there is much about this central message of Christianity that I like.

Elder Holland said:  “On the example of the Savior himself and his call to his apostles, and with the need for peace and comfort ringing in our ears, I ask you to be a healer, be a helper, be someone who joins in the work of Christ in lifting burdens, in making the load lighter, in making things better.   Isn’t that the phrase we used to use as children when we had a bump or a bruise? Didn’t we say to Mom or Dad, “Make it better.” Well, lots of people on your right hand and on your left are carrying bumps and bruises that they hope will be healed and made whole. Someone sitting within reasonable proximity to you tonight is carrying a spiritual or physical or emotional burden of some sort or some other affliction drawn from life’s catalog of a thousand kinds of sorrow. In the spirit of Christ’s first invitation to Philip and Andrew and then to Peter and the whole of his twelve apostles, jump into this work. Help people. Heal old wounds and try to make things better.”

Holland concludes by saying that Christ “wishes us to come unto him, to follow him, to be comforted by him. Then he wishes us to give comfort to others.”  That’s the central premise of this hymn, I think.  Or at least that’s the take-away message for me.  We’re supposed to do for others what Christ says he will do for us—help us, comfort us, pay attention to us, listen to us, serve us.  Regardless of my questions/confusions/doubts about “the church” and “the gospel,” this is clearly something I can do, both for myself and for others.

NOW….hold up your credit card to the screen

and lets exercise those demons out of your credit card amen brother….hold it up…come on dont be shy.

Let’s make it a “changelujah”!!!!

Now….it is time for us to confess our shopping sins….I will start…..

I am ashamed….please forgive me Lord….

I bought two Diet Cokes today because I was so tired even though I know In Colombia, workers at Coca-Cola bottling plants have had their safety threatened and even been murdered by Colombian paramilitaries for trying to unionize. I am a sinner…I am going to have a MacDonalds tonight and I am justifying it again because I am tired. And while I write this my car is in the University Car Park clocking up $2 an hour when I could have parked it 15 minutes walk away for free…..Please forgive me my shopping sins. Let me have the courage to change and break my addiction to chocolate, WalMart, computer and my cell-phone. Give me courage to come to you and let go Lord.

NOW YOUR TURN EVERYONE!

Let me begin with my disclaimer — as some of you may have realized, I am struggling (as a member of the LDS church) with the way that church leaders (as of late) appear to be publicly distancing themselves from many of the tenets of the “gospel” that I grew up with. This is complicated by the fact that while I am happy to see many of these changes — I also am simultaneously fearful that as we “assimilate” into mainstream U.S. culture by playing up our commonalities with others — and distancing ourselves from the differences — we will ultimately weaken the church I love, by weakening the core beliefs/theology that once made us strong.

Anyway, to illustrate….during the interview, Dr. Millet was asked why Mormons target Christians as well as non-Christians with their missionary work. His response was as follows:

“Now, people will frequently ask us, ‘But why do you go to Christians who already have a church, who already have a belief?’ And, ‘Why don’t you just go to the heathen, you know?’ And there’s a practical answer for that. And that is — I’ve had pastors ask me this, and I’ve said to them, ‘How large is your congregation?’ ‘Well, about 700.’ ‘When you look out at that congregation, can you literally tell at one glance who of all those people have truly been converted? Who of all those people have had a personal conversion experience? Who of all those people have been born again? Who of all those people have, in your language, accepted Jesus as their savior? Do you know in each case?’ And he said, ‘Well, no, of course not.’ I said, ‘Neither do we.’ And so we approach everyone. “

Based on Mormon scripture, doctrine, and theology — isn’t the most honest and up front answer to this question the following: “We don’t consider any other church to have the legitimate authority of God — and so our missionary work must go to all people”. If I may quote from the Pearl of Great Price:

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all ^awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those ^bprofessors were all ^ccorrupt; that: “they ^ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ^ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the ^fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the ^gpower thereof.”

Again — I can understand what he is doing here. He is trying to build on common beliefs — and he doesn’t want to offend.

But I ask you — is it completely honest? Or is it misleading? Is Dr. Millet telling the whole truth here — or only a partial truth? More importantly — as more and more devout LDS folks pick up on answers like this — are they not going to start wondering what’s going on…and where the church that they grew up in (and that the pioneers sacrificed for) has gone? All watered down and stuff?

Finally, for those of you who were missionaries — how focused were you on “helping people to accept Jesus as their personal savior”, vs. helping them to join the one and only true church? And if people told you that they had already accepted Jesus as their Savior, did you politely accept their response, and move on to someone else — or did you keep trying?