In this two-part episode, panelists Natasha Helfer Parker, Charn Burton, and Nicholas Maughn join Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon in an thorough discussion of  suicide—offering education about its primary causes (what to look for if the person has given subtle clues about her or his intentions, how to best serve and be present for loved ones of the person who died, its many ripple effects pertaining to marriages and other relationships, survivor’s own mental health, etc.)—confronting bad information, cultural attitudes, and harmful theology, and suggesting helpful and healing notions about God and the type of universe in which we live. The discussion concerns all aspects of suicide and is conscious of the phenomena as a whole, but in the second part especially speaks directly to particular Mormon teachings—the hopeful ones as well as the ones that deserve being confronted and sent into oblivion. This is a very personal episode with powerful things in it for every person.

We look forward to your joining in the conversation below.

______

Links and Helps:

Elder M. Russell Ballard, “Suicide: Some Things We Know, and Some We Do Not” (Ensign, October 1987)

The Mormon Therapist (Mental Health and Straight Talking about Difficult Subjects blog by panelist Natasha Helfer Parker)

The Trevor Project (Crisis and suicide prevention organization especially for LGBTQ youth)

Suicide Hotlines you can call when you’re in crisis or are with someone in crisis

Fundraising for Suicide Prevention through community walks

In this podcast episode, Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon and panelists Jared Anderson, Brian Johnston, and Tresa Edmunds explore these questions and the historical attempts to answer them and explain the experience of transformation or renewed life through Christ that so many claim, including the panelists themselves. In general, the discussion explores the Atonement from the ideas that first show up in biblical sources and then onto the main Atonement theory categories: ransom, satisfaction, penal substitution, and moral influence. It also gives attention to various angles on the Atonement and Christ’s redeeming work that are emphasized the most in Mormonism, as well as a couple of Atonement models that are unique to it. The panelists then close the discussion with their own views regarding or experiences with the Atonement in their own lives.

This episode is longer than a typical Mormon Matters podcast, but if one is to believe the Atonement is the most important single thing to ever take place in this world, the discussion’s extra length is fitting for its subject (and even far too short)! We hope you will all join in and further the discussion in the comments section below.

_____

Links to articles/essays of possible interest:

Lorin Hansen Dialogue article that describes the main categories of Atonement theories while suggesting Mormon ideas are closest to the Moral Influence theory.

Eugene England essay on the Atonement, which also suggests a Moral Influence reading. He adds an attempt to do what Moral Influence has had trouble doing, which is to explain why it was “necessary,” how it is that “only Jesus” could effect this change.

J. Clair Batty Sunstone personal essay that shares his journey from confusion over God needing blood and anguish to forgive us to a sense of peace about the Atonement.

Link to an online posting of W. Cleon Skousen’s uniquely Mormon take on why the Atonement requiring Christ’s sacrifice was necessary.

Blake Ostler article outlining his views on how the Atonement works and comparing them to other Mormon theories.

Jared Anderson essay, “Jesus: Savior or Symbol,” mentioned a few times in the podcast. Anderson’s attempt to honor the reality of the experiences with the Atonement many persons have while not necessarily forcing one to see the Atonement as a discreet, literal event.

Josh Probert, in his talk “Joseph Smith and the Relational Definition of Sin” spoke of the “doctrine” of friendship/fellowship, one of the grand fundamentals of Mormonism. Joseph’s family kingdoms and welding Temple rituals altered the traditional parameters of Christian soteriology. Probert explained that early LDS emphasis on community reoriented the concept of sin and emphasized its effect on relationships. In such a system, the higher the disruption to covenant relationships, the more serious the sin. I confess I have never regarded sin in quite this way before. I have seen sin more as an individual problem, the action of an indulgent self. But I was entranced by Probert’s description, which recognizes that personal journeys might have rippling effects in community. Sin also disrupts one’s relationship to Deity.

The following talk, “All Sin is Relational: Resonances of Mormon and Feminist Theology,” was given by Diedre Green. Green discussed the feminist perspective of viewing the self as always being in community and related it to the LDS paradigm. She spoke of LDS members’ idea of being “saviors” of men — that our own salvation is indeed contingent upon it. The expanded notion of relational sin recognizes that we cannot harm a member of our society without harming the whole. There is a communal impact of discordant relations.  Green also explored feminist theology that there is a difference in feminine and masculine apporaches to sin.  Valerie Saiving, for instance, “contests the traditional notion that pride is the universal sin, arguing that women’s sin of tending to dissolve herself into the agendas of others may go unrecognized—and unredeemed—if it is solely a male subject that is assumed in a doctrine of sin.” Rather than pride as the universal sin, Saiving proposes that for women, sin might appear in the form of giving “too much of herself, so that nothing remains of her own uniqueness.”

These talks got me wondering about a few things.  Does viewing sin as behavior that damages saving relationships reorient our focus to love, as Probert suggests?  This is an exciting way to see the subject, and seems in my mind to be very motivational.  But would it tend to absolve the individual from personal responsibility?  Another question this sparks is whether a relational definition of sin makes us accountable for each other’s sin.  (This might be why Mormons are always into each other’s business!)  If sin is regarded relationally, it would certainly be important to help others in the community to overcome sin.  But how effective can we be in such a pursuit?

Do you think a relational definition of sin might be helpful for Latter-day Saints in their journeys toward godhood?

What, really, is sin? Not so much “what are some examples of sin…” because we all know there are endless ways and means TO sin. What IS it?

How do you define it?

I have often read from those who have left the church about the very idea of sin being silly. I can’t blame them, because for a long time I didn’t really know what it meant either. Missionaries trying to convince people of their sins, in order to help them see they needed a savior seemed a little strange.

My paradigm shifted when I began to think of what was most important to me in my faith (right after charity of course!): personal growth. From that point onward, “sin” became anything that thwarts, disrupts, or otherwise damages my progress.

In addition, while I believe there may be many universal “sins,” there may be some things that stunt my growth that do not harm others. We all have to figure that out on our own.

Looking at the LDS.org definition, I don’t really see a conflict with my definition either, perhaps just a different angle:

“To commit sin is to willfully disobey God’s commandments or to fail to act righteously despite a knowledge of the truth.”

God’s basic commandments? Love others. Love God. Be perfect. We are all “sinners” in the sense that we all do things that stunt our growth from time to time. That is NORMAL. We are here to learn from our mistakes, our sins, and to grow. To me, progression is the most important key, not being “worthy” vs. “unworthy.” We are all somewhere on the worthiness (read: progression) spectrum.

What does sin mean to you? How do you define it?

Pres. Benson’s talk, Beware of Pride clarifies that the comparison is what makes it pride, not where you see yourself in the comparison.  Pride is the opposite of the first and great commandment (and the second which is like unto it), to love God and your fellow man; he calls it the fundamental sin.

Opposition to God may be manifest by the following symptoms:

• Limiting God’s influence in your life through lack of faith, lack of willingness, lack of supplication, over-analysis or disbelief in whatever contradicts your preconceptions.
• Refusing to draw near to God or to be open to spiritual experiences.  Trivializing the spiritual experiences we have or trying to argue them away.
• Seeking for signs to prove the existence of God or His will.  Spiritualizing non-spiritual matters (e.g. having a testimony of folklore or cultural matters).

Opposition to our fellow men includes things like:

• Needing to be right or to belittle whatever is different.  Being contentious.  Being easily offended.  Trivializing others’ spiritual experiences, views, tastes or intellect because they differ from yours.
• Pitting any measuring device against others (intellect, opinions, works, wealth, talents, tastes, heritage, righteousness).  Self-justification and rationalization can follow.  Those who are prideful have a hard time learning from others.
• Caring what people think of you (social or cultural benefits), not what God thinks of you.  Doing things for the sake of appearance.  Being inauthentic or dishonest with others.  The prideful don’t want to admit they don’t know something or made a mistake.

Pride is a sin that can readily be seen in others but is rarely admitted in ourselves (just like both Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy are blinded by their own pride). Most of us consider pride to be a sin of those on the top, such as the rich and the learned, looking down at the rest of us. There is, however, a far more common ailment among us—and that is pride from the bottom looking up. It is manifest in so many ways, such as faultfinding, gossiping, backbiting, murmuring, living beyond our means, envying, coveting, withholding gratitude and praise that might lift another, and being unforgiving and jealous.

Both the orthodox and heterodox can fall prey to this sin, working mothers and SAHMs alike, gay Mormons and straight Mormons, leaders and lay members.  Mastery over one’s pride can take a lifetime.  Consider these manifestations of pride:

• Both anti-authoritarian behavior and authoritative behavior are prideful. A proud person hates the fact that someone is above her or him and resists that authority. A proud person in authority hates the fact that someone is not recognizing her or his authority and pushes all the more.
• Both the self-righteous and the critical are prideful. A person who believes he is more righteous than another is guilty of pride.  A person who scorns the self-righteous person as a hypocrite (not as genuine as I am) is also guilty of pride.
  
• Both the offender and the defensive are guilty of pride. Arguing and contention are symptomatic of pride, whether one initiates it or attempts to prove one’s superiority over the other person.  It distances us as siblings in Christ.
• Both the rich and the poor can be prideful. The prideful put their heart on riches, whether they have them (and keep them) or don’t have them (and covet them) or judge those who don’t share them.
  
• Both the intellectual and the unlearned can be prideful. The intellectuals feel superior to those who know less or have less curiosity, while those who scorn the intellectuals may be equally guilty of pride if they judge intellectuals as less faithful or valiant than they are.
  

Pres. Benson warned that pride was the great stumblingblock for the church.  This talk was delivered in May of 1989, almost 20 years ago.  How is the church doing?  Have we become more or less prideful?  And does the b’nacle foster the sin of pride or just reveal what is already there?  Can we overcome pride or is it just part of human nature?  Discuss.

Anyone who’s been to a family reunion has surely noticed that even if we have been apart for a long time, when we get together, we notice our similar traits.  Are those commonalities due to nature or nurture?  Truth be told, probably both, but it has been proven that many criminal behaviors, such as violence, are influenced by genetics.  Are other sins and personality traits also hereditary?  Here are a few to consider (think of your own family or your spouse’s):

• Naivete, gullability
• Passive-aggressive behavior, being a martyr
• Being self-absorbed
• Holding grudges
• Over-intellectualizing
• Rationalizing
• Laziness
• Addictions
• Sarcasm and criticism
• Melodramatic outbursts
• Gluttony
• Being passive or indecisive
• Anger issues
• Permissiveness
• Cheating at cards – you people know who you are
• Pyromania

Here’s a case study.  A good friend of ours got arrested once for shoplifting.  He was just a kid at the time and was really upset while they were booking him.  He begged them not to tell his mom.  One of the officers rolled his eyes at this, and they all thought this was hilarious.  As it turned out, his mom was regularly picked up for shoplifting.  Coincidence?

So, what’s the point of all this navel-gazing?  What is to be gained from considering our familial weaknesses?

• Learn from their mistakes.  Sometimes you have to know the good, the bad, and the ugly to make use of the lesson.  Frankly, white-washed journals just don’t cut it in my book.  I’d like to know who these people really were.  Warts and all.  Because I can probably relate.  But that’s just me.
• Self-knowledge, understand our own motivations.  It can help you to know that you really do have a lot in common with these people.  Despite all evidence (or wishful thinking) to the contrary.
• Be a better parent.  Do any of you ever feel like you are raising one of your parents (because one of your kids is just like one of your parents)?  I have had that feeling.
• Marry wisely.  Maybe you need to marry someone with similar flaws so you can relate.
• Mix up that gene pool.  Or perhaps its time to bust out of that familial rut and mix your angry genes with some passive genes or your skeptical genes with some gullible genes.

As the saying goes, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.  So, do you think the sins we have to work through in life are influenced by genetic factors?  Is this one of the untapped benefits of genealogy?  What traits do you think you got from your family that you are hoping you didn’t pass on?  Do you think about your family traits this way?  Discuss.

1. “Bioethical” violations such as genetic modification.
2. “Morally dubious” experiments such as stem cell research.
3. Drug Abuse
4. Polluting the environment
5. Contributing to the widening divide between the rich and poor.
6. Excessive wealth
7. Creating poverty.
He cited violations of the basic rights of human nature through genetic manipulation, drugs and the imbalance between the rich and poor as some of the biggest sins of our time.

John Paul, also dedicated much of his long papacy to condemning the gap between have and have-nots in speeches in his travels throughout the world as well as in writings.

“The poor are always becoming poorer and the rich ever more rich, feeding unsustainable social injustice,” Girotti said in the interview published Sunday.

Anyone feeling guilty?

How do you feel about these “new sins”?