The Faithful Dissident Says Good-Bye... Sort Of

When I first started this blog, it took me a while before I wanted to reveal anything about myself. I think it took me a few posts to clarify that I was female. I figured that someone would eventually pick up the extra "U's," an "eh," or some other subtle difference in my spelling, so I figured I may as well say that I was Canadian. And then when I discovered all the ridiculous horror stories about "socialism," I decided to divulge the fact that I live in Norway, in order to get my two cents in some of the discussions. Eventually you got to see my eye, then half of my face. Now that I feel like I'm reaching a turning point with this blog, I'll leave you with my profile. :)

Why I'm Taking A Break:

There are times that I think I would have been better off had I not read Rough Stone Rolling or started studying Mormon history in-depth a couple of years ago. But the truth is that I was already unknowingly in spiritual decline for much of my life, even though I thought I was rock firm in my faith. Something didn't feel right. I didn't fit in. Certain elements within Mormonism nagged at me for years and they remained unresolved until they festered and erupted onto the surface almost four years ago.

The pain and frustration I've experienced by being propelled into Stage 4 (see the sidebar for more information about Fowler's Stages of Faith or my earlier post on the subject) has been difficult to contain. I seem to waver between keeping it bottled up inside so that I don't "infect" others with my doubts, and desiring to force everyone in Stage 3 into Stage 4 so that they can feel my pain and admit that you can't just "forget" or "get over" it. Perhaps the most difficult part about Stage 4 is that you yearn for acknowledgment: from the Church, from your family, and from your fellow members, that yes, you have good reason to feel the way you do and you're not just "weak" or "bad" or being fooled by the adversary. It's hurtful and annoying when other Mormons dismiss your issues, while they themselves feel no need to pick up a history book or read anything other than official publications. Unfortunately, though, you know that you wouldn't have believed it yourself if you hadn't experienced it first-hand. This is something you have to experience in order to truly understand -- although John Dehlin's telecast "Why People Leave The LDS Church" does an excellent job of trying to educate others about what it's like.

So, religiously speaking, I've had a tornado rip through my backyard. I've lost my home and it's time to build a new one. It may resemble that old home to a degree and I may end up very happy in it, but it will never be that old home again. Instead of just fixing up the remains of the old one, I'm starting from scratch to build a new home for myself. I can lament over the loss of the old home I grew up in, or I can focus on building a better, sturdier one. But, by blogging about all the things I've been lamenting over (and there are many), I'm distracting myself from building.

In all honesty, I have no regrets about my intense participation in the Bloggernacle. I've learned so much and it has all had an impact on me that I think was necessary for growth. I wish, in fact, that more Mormons would get involved in online discussions because I think it's a great way to develop compassion, respect, and an appreciation for differing perspectives. You also learn so much about yourself and the people around you. The downside of the Bloggernacle is that it can be a vent fest. Venting is necessary, I think, but it can't be a permanent stage without being detrimental to the mind, soul, and therefore even the body.

My family members have been pretty good about my Stage 4 experience, but at times I've feared creating a chasm between some of them and myself, which I don't want to do. This prompted me to make the change that I now feel is necessary, by taking a break from this blog. Whether it becomes a vacation, sabbatical, or retirement remains to be seen. I will perhaps continue to post relevant thoughts or developments from time to time, as I know that I love discussing things too much to walk away from it completely. And I'm sure that you will continue to see me commenting around the Bloggernacle as I continue to follow my favourite blogs. I'm just going to try to have a more casual relationship to it all. I hope to use this blog to feature inspirational and thought-provoking posts from around the Bloggernacle that have caught my eye. So stay tuned for those.

The past couple of years have been a very intense personal study of all things Mormon and how I really feel about it.

What I've Learned:

The Church is nowhere near perfect, but...

In my opinion, the Church has problems with:

• Owning up not just to the good, but also the bad and ugly of its past (i.e. not just polygamy, but polyandry and post-Manifesto polygamous marriages, declining to ever issue an official apology for anti-black teachings, inflammatory rhetoric by Church officials that played a key role in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, electroshock therapy on homosexuals at BYU, etc.). Moving forward is important and I think we're doing that. But acknowledgment of past mistakes is a key element to ensuring that the damage from such mistakes is not perpetuated. A willingness to openly discuss these issues, which is often lacking, is also a huge factor. It is what it is. So let's just quit trying to avoid that.
  

• Recognizing that some people do not, cannot -- and probably even should not -- fit the "Mormon mold," toning down hurtful rhetoric, inflexible gender roles, and exclusive teachings.
  

• Dismissing people with legitimate concerns, questions, disagreements, and theories (i.e. feminists, intellectuals, historians, gay activists, unorthodox members), sometimes going as far as to label them as "anti-Mormon" or "apostate."

• Building up the office of prophet -- at least culturally -- into an infallible post, although our history is rampant with examples of why it's not.
  

• Declining to make public the records that show how and where Church funds are being used, thereby closing the door to debate on the Church's involvement in certain ethically questionable and/or hypocritical activities (i.e. funding Evergreen International, making huge profits off the killing of animals in hunting preserves). Shutting the doors on constructive criticism or debate stunts growth and compromises integrity.
  

• Getting politically involved in things such as the ERA and Prop 8 because they're "moral issues," but remaining decidedly neutral on other moral issues such as the Iraq War and capital punishment.

• Making sure that members of the Church (particularly in America) are keeping politics out of church and ensuring that members are able to separate the pure Gospel of Christ from the personal political opinions of Church leaders and members. I'm pretty sure that Deseret Books would want to steer clear of any politically-charged literature about feminism or gay rights, so I'm not sure why Glenn Beck's "Arguing With Idiots" makes the bookshelf of a Church bookstore. The fact that so many Mormons are still under the impression that "good" Mormons have to be politically conservative and that the faith of liberal Mormons is often called into question for their political leanings is, in my opinion, a problem that needs to be dealt with before we lose more members over political disagreements.

That being said, there are loads of things that the Church deserves praise for, such as:

• Giving people -- particularly the youth -- a sense of direction in their lives.

• Putting the value on motherhood and traditional values that they deserve (unfortunately, though, sometimes at the cost of cultivating diversity or understanding for individual circumstances).

• Building a strong sense of personal honesty and integrity.
  

• Stressing the worth of each individual as a literal child of God, cultivating self-esteem, and encouraging us to always aim higher and reach our full potential.

• Opportunities for development and sharing of our talents and skills via callings, activities and the different auxiliaries. There are also many opportunities for compassionate service that are hard to get outside of a tight-knit church community.
  

• Putting love, charity, and compassion at forefront of our religion. I think we're pretty good at talking the talk and even walking the walk, but we can do much better.

• I know the Church does a good deal of humanitarian and charitable work around the world. This is definitely something that should be commended, but taking into account the fact that the Church is worth billions of dollars and it does not make financial records public, it's hard to say whether or not we're doing a lot or way too little in terms of humanitarian aid. I fear that our image has become one of a Mormon business that runs churches on the side.
  

• "Clean living" is, in my opinion, something that sets us apart in a good way. In a world full of broken homes, infidelity, promiscuity, substance abuse, dysfunction, hate, and disregard for human life, setting a high standard for ourselves is important. I LOVE the Mormon way of life. I think that it is and should be a source of pride for us as a people. Sadly, though, we often let this pride translate into a haughty sense of superiority as we look at those who aren't sharing our lifestyle, either because of their own poor choices or the circumstances that they were born into. This, I believe, is to our detriment as a people and it is where we should be more Christlike.

• At the end of the day, despite our many shortcomings, Mormons are a pretty good bunch of people and are probably, on average, more compassionate and honest than most people in the world today. I think this is true about Mormons, from the most conservative and orthodox, to the most liberal and radical.
  

• It says something of the Mormon lifestyle when, despite all the disappointment and disillusionment that stem from the Church, I don't feel the need or desire to make any significant changes in my lifestyle. Regardless of where I end up religiously, I feel that this truly is a good lifestyle.
  

What I've Resolved:

Religiously speaking, I haven't resolved much. In fact, I've probably gained ten problems for every one that I've solved. But on a personal level, I've been able to resolve some conflicts and develop an appreciation and understanding for those whom I've treated unfairly, such as my sister-in-law, my grandmother, and my own brother. Generally speaking, I think I've also gotten a much better understanding of my fellow countrymen (Norwegians), which took me a while to warm up to. As well, I've gotten a more realistic view of those whom Mormons often feel most threatened by: homosexuals, feminists, non-believers, "apostates," and ex-Mormons. And if I were to pick a personal "favourite" out of that bunch, I would say that I've been most touched and inspired by the many gay Mormon "faithful dissidents" who find themselves in between a rock and a very hard place. For those of you who are reading this, know that I value your perspective tremendously and that I've been blown away by the special spiritual gifts and intuition that you possess. My hope is that in time, the Church as a whole will take notice of those special gifts and take advantage of their potential to bring about positive change within the organization and in the world.

I was chatting to a good friend recently and she said that for her, the Church, religion, and faith are separate things. So how do I feel about each?

The Church:

To use a marriage analogy, my relationship to the Church is very strained. I feel like I've been deceived in some ways and my trust has been broken in others. This relationship has been further strained by those who tell me to just "get over" or ignore the historical issues -- or worse yet, those who have denied them -- and those within the Church who desire to protect its image at all cost. As I said in our discussion about the hunting preserves, I honestly believe that there will always be someone there to defend it and rationalize its actions, no matter what.

So my feelings towards the Church as an institution can perhaps be compared to a wife whose husband has broken her trust, but does not desire to sever ties because of family implications and the fact that she really still loves and admires him in many ways. Although it's understandable that a breach of trust can justify walking away from a relationship or a church, in some cases forgiveness and reconciliation can make it worth not cutting off all ties. Although I have a sincere understanding and respect for those who leave the Church over issues of trust, I'm not ready to walk and feel that I need to give it another shot. I may be able to retain my relationship to the Church for the rest of my life and it may even become a happier one over time. But the 100% trust is gone forever. And realistically speaking, it's probably the way it should be.

Religion:

I'm fascinated by religion and I hope that I always will be. But I have mixed feelings about religion. More so now than in the past, I feel disdain for religion because of the religious dogmas that harm individuals, both within and without Mormonism. When my relationship to the Church was good, I either didn't notice or I downplayed the harmful effects of certain dogmas. Now it's like I have an ultrasensitive sixth sense for it. So I think I've gotten a pretty good idea now of why so many today (particularly here in Europe) avoid religion like the plague or pursue a personalized spiritualism rather than an organized religion. Religions and churches like to blame the people for their wickedness, but for the most part, I think that religions and churches have to share the blame for their mistreatment of certain people and hypocrisies that have led to a decline in participation by the public because of resentment and mistrust.

Faith:

While my views on the Church and religion are somewhat cynical these days, I have higher hopes regarding faith.

Do I believe that the Church is everything it claims to be? No. Do I believe that the LDS Church is the only path to God? No. Do I have major problems with Mormonism? Yes. But I also feel that there is something very compelling about the Mormon faith. It's my religious home and I am Mormon on my own terms. In the end, aren't we all?

Recently I re-read George Orwell's novel 1984 and got thinking about the concept of Newspeak. The ultimate goal of Newspeak was to limit language such that it would eradicate the ability of the citizens of Oceania to conceive or process any thought that would threaten the image and power of Ingsoc. As human beings, I think that we are are confined to a Newspeak sort of existence on this earth. Although I believe that we can make personal connections and receive inspiration from God, I think that our perspectives, thought processes, and understanding are limited because our mortal state prevents us from having an "expanded, perfected vocabulary," spiritually speaking. Although we may be evolving (as opposed to regressing, which was the case of Orwell's utopian society), I fear that we do ourselves and our fellow human beings a disservice by assuming that we know with certainty the essence of God, what he want us all to do and how to be -- at least on any more than a very personal level -- because of our limited, fallen, "Newspeak" spiritual vocabulary.

I still believe firmly in God and my concept of him and the afterlife are still very Mormon. I continue to attend sacrament regularly and my lifestyle is pretty much the same as it's always been. But instead of being of the mindset that I know that's how things really are, I simply exercise the faith that, at least at this stage of my life, it's where God thinks I'm best suited to be -- much like Mother Teresa's place was within Catholicism, and Gandhi changed the world through his Hindu traditions. Who could argue that these individuals would have been better people anywhere else? It's not that I feel that I'm anywhere near the same league of people of such stature, but perhaps my personal potential, whatever it entails, is from within a Mormon frame. I guess only time will tell.

Over the past couple of years, I feel like I've gotten to know some of the "apostates," "dissidents," "liberals," "homosexuals," and even a few atheists and ex-Mormons. I feel privileged to have gotten a glimpse into their world through communicating with them and trying to view things from their different perspectives. Some of these individuals are the finest of people I have met and I am happy to be able to call some of them my friends. Although I may not always agree with everything, I admire the courage and integrity it takes for some Mormons to speak up and voice their disagreements or objections when they are outnumbered -- often at the risk of being ostracized in their wards, having their families broken up, or even losing their jobs if they are employed by the Church.

Where Do I Go From Here?

Whenever I find myself thinking about "the good old days" in my life as a secure TBM, I can't help thinking about the following passage of scripture:

"And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.

And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient."

(Moses 5: 10-11)

Like Adam and Eve, I've fallen. Some would say that I've fallen big time. It's been a tough road and I've lost the security of "Eden" when I was secure in the Church. But even if I could go back to that state, I don't want to. I really am thankful for what I've learned and how it's forced me to look at the world without those rose-coloured glasses that were impairing my view of other people.

I don't really think anymore that the whole point of this Mormon experience is to follow all the rules so perfectly that we lose ourselves in the process. All of us who have tried to fit ourselves into that little box that just doesn't have room for us know that it's painful -- as painful as if that box was physically real and our bodies were being literally crushed inside. Even though I have no idea what it's like to be gay, I see so many parallels in my life with the lives of gay Mormons. And that is why I sympathize with them so much. It's not a political thing. It's an emotional thing. I get the pain, even though it's in a slightly different way.

One thing that kind of irks me sometimes is the insinuation that those of us who have taken an unorthodox path either don't care or don't think about the eternal consequences. But, personally speaking, this couldn't be further from the truth.

I don't really think that I'm a morbid person, but I think a lot about death. I probably think about it even more now than I used to. Certainly my spiritual musings have caused me to ponder it more, but I'm also surrounded by things that make it a constant theme in my life. For starters, I work in a nursing home and someone is always at death's door. As well, I've been thinking a lot about my grandfather and my husband's family members, most of which are older and in poor health. Of late, I've also had a couple of co-workers who have been on my mind. The first one is a young man, barely 20 years old, who has very aggressive brain cancer that has metastasized and whose last hope is alternative treatment in Germany. The other is a woman who just lost her husband to cancer, only 42 years old. As I was talking to her a few days ago, she talked about her husband's belief in "the circle of life" and took comfort in that concept. A few years ago, I would have probably felt sorry for her in the sense that she didn't "know" what I "knew" and there was no need for uncertainty in terms of death and the afterlife. Now that that certainty has been replaced by ambiguity, I find myself in much the same boat as her as I think about the mysteries of God. It's humbling and it's difficult, but it's also made me look at this life in a new way. And while I don't think that it's reason enough to simply "eat drink and be merry," it does give new meaning to "men are that they may have joy."

I still think about life in terms of an eternal progression. But instead of it being a "one-size-fits-all" path, I think that we find ourselves in different stages and circumstances for a reason. Whether he has had an active, intentional hand in our lives or whether his approach is more Deist by nature, I think that if God wanted us to be all the same, he would have made us that way. Otherwise, it would seem that many of us are at a severe disadvantage in the journey to exaltation. In my opinion, there has to be more to it than that. The enormity of this world, its people, their individual lives and tremendously varied experiences, indicate to me that while Mormons may have much goodness and a portion of the Truth, we make up such a tiny, tiny fraction of the souls in the history of this universe. Surely all the others have had a deeper purpose than to simply get a body.

If I had one wish for Mormons and non-Mormons, believers and non-believers alike, it would be that people would really take time to really try to see things from a different perspective. Personal contact and communication is what breaks barriers of fear and mistrust (or builds them, depending on how we act). When I think about how I used to fear apostates, feminists, or gay activists, I now feel pretty silly about it. We only fear what we don't know, but now that I feel like I have a better grasp on what makes those people tick, most of it doesn't feel so threatening anymore. They're not bad people. And I only wish that those who feel threatened by Mormons would take the time to look below the surface and see that we're not all a bunch of bigots or fanatics. I wish that we could all see each other for what we truly are before we let judgment fall.

To the TBM's who will say that I have let pride get to me and that I've "apostasized," I say that my pride has been shattered as I lost the one constant, firm foundation that was always perfect in my mind. In its place has come compassion, understanding and love for those on a much higher level than I experienced before I found myself in the depths of Stage 4. Was it a fair trade-off? I don't know, but I will make the most out of it. Never say that it can't happen to you.

"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."

(1 Corinthians 13:2)

I think we all underestimate that verse. I don't pretend to have the gift of prophecy, understand all mysteries, all knowledge, or even have the strongest of faith. But I sincerely hope that I have a bit of charity and so I try to make that verse my personal Gospel.

I think I'll wrap up this post for now and I wish you all well in your individual spiritual and life journeys. I've had the pleasure of getting to know some of you personally on Facebook. If you're interested in connecting with me there, you can send an e-mail to the address in my profile. Please tell me who you are and I will send you the link to my profile. And please keep in mind that I do not publicize this blog or its name in any way on Facebook. For personal reasons, I intend on keeping it that way and I ask you to respect that.

For those of you who are interested in politics, I recently embarked on a new project called "The LDS Left," which is a quarterly PDF publication and this corresponding blog for Mormons from varying degrees of the left side of the political spectrum, as well as those with a heterodox/unorthodox faith. Perhaps a little more subdued than what you're used to from me, it's a compilation of leftist and unorthodox writings from a faithful Mormon perspective. We've released two issues so far and welcome your submissions. You can find information about requesting back issues or submitting articles on the blog.

I look forward to continued interaction with many of you around the Bloggernacle.

Best wishes,
FD

Is "Lamanite" A Mormon Term?

My husband and I have been watching an American miniseries from 1978 on DVD called Centennial, starring Richard Chamberlain, Robert Conrad, and Richard Crenna, among others. It's really great and gives the viewer an idea of what life was like in 18th Century America for whites, Indians, and so-called "half-breeds." I highly recommend it.

Richard Crenna plays the role of ruthless Frank Skimmerhorn, which I found out is a character loosely based on a real U.S. Army officer named John Chivington. To make a long story short, Skimmerhorn comes to Colorado in the mid-1860's and orders the brutal slaughter of innocent Indians, from the oldest to the very youngest.

When Skimmerhorn first comes to town, he meets some resistance from other white members of the U.S. Army who are on good terms with the Indians and hesistant to disturb the fragile peace. Interestingly, Skimmerhorn defends the extermination of the Indians by asking his men whether they've ever heard of "Lamanites," and talks about them "being cursed with a dark skin," etc. He then admonishes them to read their Bibles.

There is no mention of the word "Mormon" or "Book of Mormon." Just the Bible. Skimmerhorn is mentioned to be from Minnesota and he acts like a very pious, religious man who "talks to God," while at the same time he murders "Lamanites" left and right. He's the type of guy that makes your skin crawl and Crenna plays him well.

So does anyone know whether the term "Lamanite" is purely Mormon?

Why I'm Not Bothered By The Bruce C. Hafen Talk

The Bloggernacle is abuzz this week about a controversial speech that Bruce C. Hafen recently gave at the Evergreen International annual conference about same sex attraction.

There have been different reactions to the talk, such as here and here.

Certain statements from the speech, such as the following, could certainly be upsetting:

"Having same-gender attraction is NOT in your DNA"

"If you are faithful, on resurrection morning—and maybe even before then—you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex. Some of you may wonder if that doctrine is too good to be true."

"Find a therapist who can help you identify the unmet emotional needs that you are tempted to satisfy in false sexual ways."

"In 1973, in response to increasing disruptions and protests by gay activists, the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations removed homosexuality from their official lists of disorders."

"Evidence that people have indeed changed threatens the political agenda of the activists, because actual change disproves their claim that homosexuality is a fixed condition that deserves the same legal protections as those fixed conditions like race and gender."

“The false belief of inborn homosexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment, and despair.”

I should be upset, but strangely enough, I'm not. Maybe I'm just a little too optimistic, but I'm just waiting to someday hear something like the following, perhaps even by Bruce C. Hafen himself:

"There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that homosexuality was a psychological disorder that could be cured by therapy. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Thomas S. Monson or Boyd K. Packer or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about same sex attraction before now. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

Sound familiar?

So, I look forward to the day when that statement is released from some high-ranking Church official, coming like a bolt of lightning to those who couldn't see it coming before. In the mean time, I'll just shake my head and let it go.

Either that's another glimpse into Stage 5, or apathy has set in.

Adolf Hitler, Graf von Stauffenberg, And God

Claus Philipp Maria Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg.

The remarkable name was perhaps a sign of the remarkable life to come for one of the most fascinating figures from World War II. Graf von Stauffenberg headed probably the most famous, yet ill-fated, plot to kill Adolf Hitler on July 20, 1944. I watched his story told in the miniseries War And Remembrance (the sequel to The Winds Of War, which I saw just a few months ago), and I was reminded by it again after watching the film Valkyrie last night.

A brief summary of Graf von Stauffenberg's life from Wikipedia:

"Although Stauffenberg agreed with some of the Nazi Party's nationalistic aspects, he found many aspects of its ideology repugnant and never became a member of the party. Moreover, Stauffenberg remained a practicing Catholic. The Catholic Church had signed the Reichskonkordat in 1933, the year Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power. Stauffenberg vacillated between a strong personal dislike of Hitler's policies and a respect for what he perceived to be Hitler's military acumen. On top of this, the growing systematic ill-treatment of Jews and suppression of religion had offended Stauffenberg's strong personal sense of religious morality and justice.

From the beginning of September 1943 until 20 July, 1944, von Stauffenberg was the driving force behind the plot to assassinate Hitler and take control of Germany. His resolve, organizational abilities, and radical approach put an end to inactivity caused by doubts and long discussions on whether military virtues had been made obsolete by Hitler's behavior. With the help of his friend Henning von Tresckow, he united the conspirators and drove them into action.

Stauffenberg was aware that, under German law, he was committing high treason. He openly told young conspirator Axel von dem Bussche in late 1943, "ich betreibe mit allen mir zur Verfügung stehenden Mitteln den Hochverrat..." ("I am committing high treason with all my might and means...."). He justified himself to Bussche by referring to the right under natural law ("Naturrecht") to defend millions of people's lives from the criminal aggressions of Hitler ("Nothilfe").

Stauffenberg decided, only after the conspirator General Helmuth Stieff on 7 July, 1944 had declared himself unable to assassinate Hitler on a uniforms display at Klessheim castle near Salzburg, to personally kill Hitler and to run the plot in Berlin. By then, Stauffenberg had great doubts about the possibility of success. Tresckow convinced him to go on with it even if it had no chance of success at all, "The assassination must be attempted. Even if it fails, we must take action in Berlin", as this would be the only way to prove to the world that the Hitler regime and Germany were not one and the same and that not all Germans supported the regime.

Stauffenberg's part in the original plan required him to stay at the Bendlerstrasse offices in Berlin, so he could phone regular army units all over Europe in an attempt to convince them to arrest leaders of Nazi political organizations such as the Sicherheitsdienst (SD) and the Gestapo. Unfortunately, when General Helmuth Stieff, Chief of Operation at Army High Command, who had regular access to Hitler, backtracked from his earlier commitment to assassinate Hitler, Stauffenberg was forced to take on two critical roles: kill Hitler far from Berlin and trigger the military machine in Berlin during office hours of the very same day. Beside Stieff, he was the only conspirator who had regular access to Hitler (during his briefings) by mid-1944, as well as being the only officer among the conspirators thought to have the resolve and persuasiveness to convince German military leaders to throw in with the coup once Hitler was dead. This requirement greatly reduced the chance of a successful coup.

After several unsuccessful tries by Stauffenberg to meet Hitler, Göring and Himmler when they were together, he went ahead with the attempt at Wolfsschanze on 20 July, 1944. Stauffenberg entered the briefing room carrying a briefcase containing two small bombs. The location had unexpectedly been changed from the subterranean Führerbunker to Speer's wooden barrack/hut. He left the room to arm the first bomb with specially-adapted pliers, a task made difficult because he had lost his right hand and had only three fingers on his left. A guard knocked and opened the door, urging him to hurry as the meeting was about to begin. As a result, Stauffenberg was able to arm only one of the bombs. He left the second bomb with his aide-de-camp, Werner von Haeften, and returned to the briefing room, where he placed the briefcase under the conference table, as close as he could to Hitler. Some minutes later, he excused himself and left the room. After his exit, the briefcase was moved by Colonel Heinz Brandt.

When the explosion tore through the hut, Stauffenberg was convinced that no one in the room could have survived. Although four people were killed and almost all survivors were injured, Hitler himself was shielded from the blast by the heavy, solid-oak conference table and was only slightly wounded.

Stauffenberg and Haeften quickly left and drove to the nearby airfield. After his return to Berlin, Stauffenberg immediately began to motivate his friends to initiate the second phase: the military coup against the Nazi leaders. When Joseph Goebbels announced by radio that Hitler had survived and later, after Hitler himself personally spoke on the state radio, the conspirators realized that the coup had failed. They were tracked to their Bendlerstrasse offices and overpowered after a brief shoot-out, during which Stauffenberg was wounded in the shoulder."

Von Stauffenberg was executed by a firing squad on July 21, 1944, leaving behind a wife and five children (the youngest unborn). The courtyard where he and others were shot is now a memorial site in Berlin.

Something that I didn't realize until last night was that von Stauffenberg's plot to kill Hitler was just one of many in a long line of failed attempts to rid the world of him. Apparently there were somewhere around 15 known plots to assassinate him. (Some sources say 17, one I read put the number as high as 40.)

In the film Valkyrie, there is a scene where von Stauffenberg is sitting in what looks to be a Catholic church, presumably looking for spiritual guidance. Of course, whether or not there's any truth to that scene, we can only speculate on. But, being the devout Catholic that he apparently was, one would expect that he sought out God for help with this enormously dangerous mission. I was thinking of when Nephi was commanded to slay Laban in the Book of Mormon. Laban's life was not worth the cost to his people if he had been allowed to live, which is why Nephi is given the green light to behead him. It makes me think of the millions and millions of people that perished because of Hitler's regime. Von Stauffenberg's attempt came late in the war (1944). People were trying to liquidate him already as early as 1939. Imagine if the first ones had succeeded. Imagine if only von Stauffenberg -- as late as it was -- had succeeded. Think of all the additional destruction and lives that were lost in the final months of the war. Did God care about the innocent citizens of the world during those terrible years in the same way that he cared about Laban's people? I sometimes wonder.

No doubt some of the plots on Hitler's life were better planned than others. But surviving at least fifteen of them -- only to eventually end his life on his own terms -- was almost unbelievable. It almost seems like he had protection from a higher power. While it's hard to believe that God intended for Hitler to do what he did, I do have to wonder why God apparently did not see fit to intervene -- or even help those who were noble enough to risk (or lose) their own lives in order to rid Germany and the world of perhaps the worst dictator humankind has ever seen.

I know I probably have a bad habit of asking impossible questions. I guess I was just wondering whether anyone else has had similar thoughts.

Sacrificing Principle for Profit: Church Wildlife Enterprises and Hunting Preserves

"To what degree should the principle of 'respect for life" be extended to bird and animal creations? What do the scriptures, Joseph Smith, and other early Church leaders teach about the grand design and purposes of God's non-human creations? Does having "dominion" over the kingdom of creatures mean we are their predators and exploiters or does it suggest a "stewardship" relationship in which we become their caretakers in order to help them "fulfill the full measure of their creation?" If the scriptures teach, "woe be unto man that sheddeth blood or wasteth flesh and have no need," and "the blood of every beast will I require at your hands," what rationale could be used to explain Church-owned, revenue-generating enterprises such as Deseret Land and Livestock and the Westlake Hunting Preserve? Do these operations constitute sacrificing principle for profit?"

-Sacrificing Principle for Profit: Church Wildlife Enterprises and Hunting Preserves, Sunstone Magazine

Yesterday I did a post about tithing and we had a discussion about where it goes and what it's used for. I was appalled to learn about a Church-owned/run/sanctioned hunting preserve where missionaries are called to tend to flocks of birds and other animals so that they can multiply and be hunted down for large profit. You can read about it on Deseret News here.

I found out that the Church owns two hunting preserves: Deseret Land and Livestock, and Westlake Hunting Preserve in Utah County.

Here are just a few of the facts that caught my attention:

• Making it a "missionary calling" for couples to tend to the preseves so that wildlife numbers are increased, thereby increasing the number of animals killed for profit
  
• Archery hunting of animals such as elk, which I regard as being especially cruel
  
• Over $11,000 for a weekend getaway to bag a trophy elk
• 6 year waiting list (at least as of 2000) to hunt
  
• Charging thousands of dollars for hunting permits to kill trophy game
• The response the first brother who spoke in the podcast got to his letter by the presiding bishopric, inquiring of how this operation could be justified
• The refusal of the Church to publish any financial records of where all these huge profits are going
  

Please, please, please, I implore you all to listen to the podcast that you can download for free here. There is so much that is worth being made aware of and discussing. I wish I had a transcript of the two talks on it, but I don't. So please listen to it and come back to discuss it. The first few seconds have very bad sound quality, but please be patient and listen to it in its entirety.

I'll be honest. I'm a little more hardcore about this stuff than most of you probably are. Some of you may read this and think to yourself, "Girl, take a pill." I'm a vegetarian, I'm anti-gun, I'm anti-hunting (unless it's needed to save human life), and I'm especially against bow-hunting. Along with humanitarian causes, I donate to animal causes and I've petitioned many times against canned hunting, which I would say this Church enterprise fits the definition of. So, I've donated to causes that fight against what the Church is doing (Hmm... isn't that a temple recommend interview question?). It's one thing to expect this from members of the general public who, as much as I oppose it, have a legal right to hunt. It's another to see it justified, owned, and supported by the LDS Church, whose leaders (at least at one time) had the guts to speak out against the needless slaying of animals for recreation. And on top of that, I'm supposed to continue to give 10% of my income, trusting that it's not going to be used for anything ungodly.

I'm appalled. I'm saddened that, as the second brother in the podcast said, we have to so greatly reduce our expectations about the Church. I think the message that he wanted us to get was that we almost have to expect the Church to engage in such disappointing behaviour because it's a human organization. If we expect the Church to act ethically and to respect all of God's creatures, then we expect too much. If we expect our tithing money to go where we think it goes, we expect too much.

Makes me wonder why I expect anything at all anymore.

All I can say is that I will not give another penny to an organization which knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately supports canned trophy hunting for profit. And I will not give another penny of my money to an organization which is so secretive in its administration of the massive funds it takes in and possesses, that I can't even see where it's supposedly "helping" people.

So, I could wonder whether God would rather that I financially support canned hunting and real estate in Florida, or medications and microloans to the third world, but I think I already know the answer.

If there's something I've learned the past couple of days, it's this: the Church truly is only what you make out of it. It's an incredibly human and fallible organization that we put on way too high a pedestal and it's inevitable that the good faith of members who donate large sums of money, believing it's all going to the poor, is going to be violated. And it saddens me that the organization that I always looked up to -- to have the best expectations of -- cannot live up to those expectations and may even violate them in horribly unethical and hypocritical ways, such as with these hunting preserves.

I should have known.

I apologize if I seem angry, but I am. Of all the huge Church-related disappoinments and disillusionments I've had over the past few years, this probably tops them all because of what it means to me personally. It tops all the uncertainty and conflicting information about Prop 8 and how much money the Church did or did not donate to that cause. It tops all the business about malls and squares in Salt Lake City.

It's a monster pill for me to swallow.

10%: Does It Matter Where It Goes?

Something has been on my mind for a long time, but I've never been able to come to any decision about it and the end of the year is quickly approaching.

Let me just start off by saying that even though I can be very frugal, I've always paid a full tithe and have never done so begrudgingly. I'm incredibly fortunate and I have no qualms about giving 10% of my income to helping others in need. So I'm not really questioning whether I should or shouldn't give 10% of my income to others at the end of this year, as I always have. Where I remain undecided, however, is where my 10% should go.

I think that many of us assume that our tithing goes to help the needy. But, if I understand it correctly, it doesn't. That's what fast offerings are for, which most of us probably comes secondary to tithing.

We don't have tithing slips (as pictured) in Europe, which makes it much more efficient. There are no cheques, no way to donate cash, and so there is nothing to count after church. I simply transfer my tithing at the end of each year directly into a Church bank account and then I get a statement that I use when I file my income tax in the spring. The drawback of this system, however, is that because no one ever sees a tithing slip, I don't think that members think very much about the other categories. I was a bit disheartened (and concerned) when in the past couple years after I specified in the transfer a certain amount going to the Humanitarian Fund, the clerk would approach me at church, confused about what I meant. This has happened twice. It seemed rather sad to me that I was apparently the other only donating to the Humanitarian Fund. I assume the money got to where it was intended, but I'm not sure it did. Perhaps it just got lumped in with my tithing.

There seems to be a lot of confusion over what tithing money goes towards. Many accused the Church of using some tithing funds to fund Prop 8 on some technicality. There are similar accusations regarding the Church's involvement with Evergreen International. And then of course the Church is a big business in Utah, which most of us international members are pretty clueless about (you Utahns will have to educate me about this). I still have no idea how many of the accusations are true, partially-true, or completely false. I guess it depends on who you want to believe. There are always technicalities, just like in politics. It would be nice to have a Truth-o-Metre for this kind of stuff.

So, since I have some concerns about where my tithing it going to and what it's being used for, I've felt strongly about just giving my entire 10% lump sum directly to the cause that has always been closest to my heart: humanitarian aid. I came close to doing this last year, but chickened out at the prospect of not being able to call myself a "full tithe payer." I'm also perhaps a bit superstitious in fearing that to lose that title may result in my life spiraling out of control and God throwing financial hardships at us when we've worked hard and really penny-pinched in order to stay out of debt and save up a good downpayment when we bought our house. I realize that if I give my entire 10% to the Humanitarian Fund or as a Fast Offering, I'm not technically going to be able to call myself a "full tithe payer." But does it matter? Does the Lord care more about the 10% than what category it goes into? Or should all these things be secondary to tithing and building up the Church as an organization around the world? Some say that it's important to give without having any expectations or demands about how the money is used. But I feel torn about that.

What do you think?

How Much Do You Value Your Church Membership?

You fellow Mormon bloggers out there have probably had to ask yourselves a certain question:

What if you were "outed" and summoned to a Bishop's court for blogging?

I've asked myself this many times. I'm not naive. I know that I could easily be "outed" and -- depending on how high a tolerance my local leaders have for such -- be subject to discipline for openly discussing my unorthodox and/or heretical opinions on here.

So what would I do if that happened? What would be my options?

Option 1: I would delete my blog and renounce whatever I've said on here that could make me subject to discipline (I'm not saying that I have said anything that would make me subject to discipline, I'm simply saying that I don't know. I think the verdict would vary from place to place and among different local leaders.)

Option 2: I would stand by all that I've written and refuse to delete my blog on the grounds that I need an outlet in order to discuss things that my leaders do not wish or cannot discuss with me. I would not renounce the personal beliefs I currently have, although I would try to be as respectful as possible of our different points of view. I would accept whatever judgment came my way, which would leave me with two post options:

• Remain a (somewhat) believing and (somewhat) active Mormon by attending Church and keeping these things pretty much to myself outside of the online community. In other words, I would be doing basically what I'm doing now, but would either be disfellowshipped or excommunicated.
• Stop attending Church and completely withdraw from my local Mormon community. This, however, would probably not eliminate my internal Mormon identity.

Option 3: Willingly resign my Church membership before judgment falls.

I've tried to imagine any one of these scenarios. Option 1, I think, would be very difficult for me. It would eat away at me to put on an act, and yet I've become quite good at keeping these things to myself, though it's not easy to do and it unlikely to be sustainable over a lifetime. My hope is to find a constructive and respectful way to interact with like-minded Mormons without getting myself kicked out.

Option 2 would be heart-wrenching and difficult, for myself and probably for my family as well. So Option 2 is what I fear the most, but it's also the one that seems most realistic if I were to find myself in a disciplinary situation. And to be honest, I'm not sure that I would have the guts to follow through with Option 2 because of what it would do to my family. I know they would continue to love me and never disown me (I'm very fortunate that way), but it was a big enough deal to them when one of my brothers started drinking. I'm not sure how they would handle having a child/sibling being excommunicated. The difficulty of the situation would perhaps make me consider (and perhaps even follow through) with Option 1, but I know I'd probably be equally unhappy with either Option 1 or 2.

Option 3 is understandable. Being subject to a bishop's court must be mentally and emotionally exhausting. I like my Church leaders, but it would be intimidating to plead my case when they can't really understand it and because I'm not the most eloquent speaker, particularly when it's not in my mother tongue. Neither would I have anyone who could witness or vouch for me.

So I guess what it boils down to is how much we all value our Church membership. My impression is that most Mormons view it in a very literal sense. "What is bound on earth is bound in heaven." In other words, what we do here has eternal consequences and losing one's membership in the Kingdom of God here on earth is a HUGE deal -- particularly in terms of what it means for family relationships.

There's no question that I value my membership in the Church. But I'm not sure that I value it in the same literal sense. All these stories of people (gays, feminists, intellectuals, scholars, etc.) getting excommunicated has made me fear it less in the literal sense. There's no question in my mind that many of these were/are people of immense faith, integrity, and being true to their inner light and convictions (even if they may be wrong and even if they deliberately did things that they knew were grounds for excommunication) -- qualities that are highly esteemed in Mormonism -- and so how can I believe that God will literally shut them out in the next phase of life?

So, if I were to lose my membership one day, would I be sad? Yes. Would I dread the unavoidable pain it would cause to my family? Yes. But would I see it as the end? No.

If you found yourself in the hypothetical situation that I outlined above (for some of you, it may not just be hypothetical), what do you think you would do? What would be the consequences?

How much do you value your Church membership? Do you ever fear being disciplined? Why or why not?

Renaissance

For all you Mormon Stories fans out there, the "second generation" of Mormon podcasts has begun now at Mormon Expression, so make sure to check out this new site when you get a chance (You can also see a link on my blog roll). A commenter on my previous thread, Sunflowercalm, tipped me off about a new podcast by the guys at Mormon Expression, interviewing John Dehlin about where he is now and how and why he is now in a much better place spiritually speaking. I think they asked him most of the questions that I would have wanted to ask him myself and I really enjoyed the insight that he was able to give from the experience of his journey. So download it and listen to it. You'll be glad you did.

More directly related to this post, however, is another series of the Mormon Stories podcasts that I hadn't listened to yet: "Fowler's Stages of Faith," podcasts #'s 15, 16, 17. I wish I had listened to this series first and I highly recommend listening to it before embarking on the rest of the podcasts. Seriously, if you listen to nothing else, LISTEN TO THIS SERIES. You won't regret it, I promise.

You can read a bit about Fowler's Stages of Faith Development here, but I highly recommend listening to at least the first podcast (#16) in order to get a better grasp on what it actually means. It will also help you better understand what I'm trying to get at in this post.

I first came across the "dark night of the soul" theory when I read Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light by Brian Kolodiejchuk (which I highly recommend, by the way). Mother Teresa herself experienced intense spiritual darkness and doubt that lasted for most of her life until just before her death. But back then I don't think that it registered in my mind that this phenomenon of a "purgation of the soul that brings purity and union with God," could perhaps apply to regular people and not just extraordinary and holy individuals such as Mother Teresa. It's not something that I've ever really heard in Mormon circles before and I think that this is probably because it is assumed that when we doubt and lack faith, the problem originates in us. God NEVER abandons us or closes the channels of communication, right? Wrong.

But there is a purpose.

Last time I was home visiting my family, I remember having a discussion during FHE about faith. Dad asked us all whether any of us had ever doubted that God existed. To my astonishment, I was the only one in my family who said they had. I was then suddenly aware of the chasm that existed between me and even my own family members, who are by no means ultraorthodox, conservative Mormons. Even they had never doubted. I know that my family would never mean to make me feel weak or "less" in any way. But I did.

I think that those of us who struggle in the Church are usually looked looked at with either misunderstanding (i.e. "They're just not committed to living the Gospel.") or pity (i.e. "It's too bad that they're just not strong enough.") But more than we actually hear it from people, we tend to feed ourselves these negative thoughts all the time. And sometimes we start to believe it. We feel sorry for ourselves. We start to think that perhaps we are weak because we doubt and everyone else knows that we doubt. Then the resentment of those who are spiritually-fulfilled sets in and we start to look at believers in the same condescending manner that we were probably looked at. As we become more "enlightened," we see how "deluded" they are.

After listening to these podcasts, I have begun to look at doubt in a different light. Although I had concluded that having doubts and issues weren't really a sign of weakness, I hadn't really thought about them as being constructive or a necessary part of progression. At least not in the way that they were presented in these podcasts. These stages of faith (or unfaith) are necessary, they can't be rushed, they can be lengthy, (even "brutal," as Tom says in the podcast) and they can't be skipped over.

For those of you who had lived a pretty orthodox, faithful life before entering a crisis of faith, you know the flood of emotions that comes with such a crisis: anger, disillusionment, apathy, and, my personal favourite -- cynicism. It's terrifying and perhaps even a little exhilarating at the same time as you are forced to cast aside all your old dogmas, beliefs and ideas, starting with a blank slate and realizing that you need to make the most out of this life since it may really be all there is. Priorities change. The way you view others changes (as Tom said in the last podcast, he was literally a homophobe and a racist when he was at Stage 3). When he got to Stage 4, it was hell. But now that he's gradually leaving 4, he is grateful for having been forced out of Stage 3. It's about going to a higher level -- and I don't mean that in condescending way. It's about having a deeper and more mature faith.

I'm in Stage 4, I don't know how long I'm going to be in it and I know there's no guarantee that I will ever leave it. I know that many people "check out" once they get to this stage. Some are in the purgatory of Stage 4 literally for years, perhaps even decades.

Part of graduating from Stage 4 and moving onto 5 or even 6 is not harbouring anger and resentment towards those who remain at Stage 3 -- and certainly avoiding any sense of superiority for doing so. For those of you who are or have been in Stage 4, you know how hard it is. And there's no magic pill to make you let go of the anger, doubt, resentment and sense of superiority. Even now that I'm able to put things into perspective and see a possible light at the end of the tunnel, I was reminded today as I sat in church and listened to people that I still have a very very long way to go.

Few will get past Stage 3 and probably fewer are able to leave Stage 4 once they enter it. I know that going back to Stage 3 is not an option. And I don't feel peace at 4. So the only way from here is up.

It's not about "getting my faith back." My old orthodox faith is gone and it's never coming back.

But a renaissance is possible. And who knows what it will look like then.

Maybe that's my glimpse into Stage 5. But it's just a glimpse.

Some Thoughts From Mormon Stories

I've had a couple of quiet days at home to take time to listen to some of the Mormon Stories podcasts that I hadn't yet had a chance to listen to. It's been challenging, uncomfortable, enlightening, and riveting -- all at the same time. As I finished listening to one of the podcasts this afternoon, I found myself lamenting over the fact that John Dehlin and some of those he interviewed on Mormon Stories have been dismissed as "Anti-Mormon" by some. A while back when I recommended a certain podcast to a church leader that I thought he would find helpful and insightful, he dismissed Dehlin as an employer of anti-Mormon tactics and had only negative things to say about him, even though I'm quite sure he was completely unfamiliar with him. So, as much as I still respect and admire this leader, I couldn't help but think how missing this unbelievably unique and insightful opportunity to learn more about Mormonism and Mormons from all across the spectrum was a huge loss on his part.

I've had a lot to process and digest over the past few days, but I'll try to summarize just some of my thoughts based on the various podcasts that I listened to. I can't recommend them enough to those of you who are struggling with the same issues that I am, or who are simply searching for an increase in understanding.

The first ones I listened to were a series with Paul Toscano (#'s 077-083), one of the September Six who were excommunicated in September of 1993. Toscano is very bold in his personal beliefs and observations. Although he can come across as arrogant, I think that "in-your-face," as he himself put it, is more accurate. He has some very interesting views about the Godhead, Christ, where the Church has gone wrong, where it has gone right, and what he'd like to see change. Although some of his opinions would sound heretical to most Mormons, I came away from the podcast with a deep appreciation for his view on Jesus Christ. Even though I may not share his view completely on exactly who or how Christ is, I found what he said about him downright inspiring and motivational. Yes, I'll say it again. I found an excommunicated "apostate" to be inspiring and motivational. I haven't yet listened to the series featuring his wife, Margaret Toscano, who was also excommunicated later on, but I'm looking forward to it.

The next series I listened to was with Grant Palmer, (#'s 030-033), author of An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, and disfellowshipped in 2004 for publishing the book. I found this series to be the most riveting, probably because of Palmer's personality and background story. I could relate to him on many personal levels and my impression was one of a broken man who had to suffer the consequences of finding himself unable to reconcile the evidences he uncovered with the story that he had been led to believe for most of his life. Although he reached some pretty dismal personal conclusions as to the truth of many of Mormonism's claims, ranging from Book of Mormon literal historicity to the multiple accounts of the First Vision, I found his perspective to nevertheless be inspiring in its own way. And even though I'm not sure that I share his opinions and views in all these areas, in a way I could say that I felt relieved by his approach. Here is someone who has lost much of his faith, who does not believe the Church to be literally true on all the levels that it claims, and yet continues to love and see value in the Church -- enough so that he values his membership and still attends sacrament meeting as a disfellowshipped member. I was inspired by the story of his church court hearing and the aftermath -- namely the deeply personal and overwhelming sense of divine peace and comfort he felt the night after an exhausting and traumatic day. I came away feeling comforted by the notion that God continues to reach out to and comfort those who are cut off by the Church organization. Although I haven't read Palmer's book, I think that Bushman's neutralized style is my preference, but I was thoroughly impressed by Palmer's integrity and sincerity. Even if he's totally wrong in his assessments, it takes guts to be honest with oneself and others about one's beliefs -- however unpopular they are -- and especially when the consequences can be monumental. Not only did it affect his church life, but it affected his family life. And I respect that. I couldn't be more disappointed by apologetics and those in the Church who have resorted to ad-hominem attacks on him. I thought that his views on what the Church needs to do to retain credibility, integrity, and prevent an exodus of those who are troubled by what they read in today's world of easily-accessed information were spot-on. And, as was the case after listening to Paul Toscano, I felt a renewed desire to focus solely on Christ -- even though I'm still not quite sure how I'm to do that.

As a contrast, I then listened to the series with FAIR apologetic John Lynch (#'s 007-009). I admit that I was a bit skeptical, as I haven't always been impressed by their (or FARMS') attempts to defend things that are, in my mind, undefendable. But overall, I felt that Lynch was fairly sympathetic to those of us who find it difficult to reconcile faith with history -- even though I don't think that many apologetics really "get" the need of some people for neutral objectivity as opposed to defending everything on the premise that it's true no matter what. But that being said, I think that there is a legitimate place and need for apologetics in the minefield of information about Mormonism that's available online today.

Next, I listened to a two-part interview (#'s 002-003) with Gregory Prince, author of David O. McKay And The Rise Of Modern Mormonism. The second part of this interview, which covered the priesthood ban, was particularly fascinating. David O. McKay was very progressive in many ways -- especially in his desire to see the priesthood ban lifted and the personal efforts he made to have it lifted in his time. However, this progressivism did not extend to his personal views on race and civil rights. His views about blacks was typical for the time and place in which he lived, and he neglected to rise above this mindset when he occasionally had the oppotunity to do so. Sad, but certainly not shocking. Nevertheless, McKay was a friend of scholarship, intellectualism, unorthodox views, and even intervened when certain people were threatened with excommunication for these unorthodox views that he didn't necessarily agree with. He was a champion of free agency -- in thought included.

Lastly, I listened to a Seattle recording (#066) of a speech given by a woman about the history of the involvement of the LDS Church in the ERA movement. I really knew very little about this part of our history, but I was struck by the parallels between it and our involvement in Prop 8, most notably the proportion of Mormons who decided to follow blindly the Church's appell to vote it down, as well as the reasons given for doing so. For instance, some argued that passing the ERA would allow homosexuals to marry, or that stay-at-home mothers would be forced out of the home. The words "scare tactics" came to mind, as was often the case when I read the arguments by some Church members during the Prop 8 campaign. (One noteworthy piece of information was the disappointing fact that George Romney -- a man who is often praised for his progressive stance in the Black Civil Rights movement despite being pressured by certain Church leaders to change that stance -- was quoted as dismissing the ERA as an attempt by "moral perverts" to destroy the family.)

I have many of the podcasts to listen to yet. Just thought I'd share my latest impressions and I look forward to hearing yours.

How Important Is Image?

I was just on my way to bed, but just as I was about to shut down my computer, I see this headline on my Yahoo homepage. So I guess I won't be going to bed just yet.

Let's not turn this into a Yes vs. No debate on Prop 8. We've all been there, done that. What I am interested in discussing, however, is how important our image is as Mormons and as a church.

Ironically, today I was able to catch up on Skype with my best friend since kindergarten, who came out as a lesbian a few years ago. We chatted a bit about some things we were mulling about in our lives, among them spirituality and our love of writing. I told her about my blog and even directed her to an essay I wrote regarding Prop 8 in another forum. To be honest, it felt good. I've thought about our friendship a lot throughout the whole gay marriage ruckus and often felt like I should address this delicate issue somehow. I don't want to be a part of this "image" that I fear we have become as Mormons -- thanks to the media, warped accounts, selective information, and unfair criticisms from those who dislike the Church and its policies, but, saddest of all, the fact that there is truth behind a lot of it.

Most interesting in the article linked above was this particular paragraph:

"What I hear from my community and from straight progressive individuals is that they now see the church as a force for evil and as an enemy of fairness and equality," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights. Kendell grew up Mormon in Utah. "To have the church's very deep and noble history telescoped down into this very nasty little image is as painful for me as for any faithful Mormon."

She's right. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, as a Mormon, this "nasty little image," as she calls it, is painful. Many in the Church will say that it doesn't matter, that "the work will go forward," while others almost seem to relish in it, having their persecution complex reignited and becoming virtual "martyrs for morality." But maybe image does matter. Isn't that what PR people are for?

Church spokeswoman Kim Farah claims:

"In reality the Church has received enormous support for its defense of marriage."

Maybe so, but I can guess where that support is coming from and it worries me in terms of where all the Church's growth will be coming from in the future.

And we think that Mormons have a conservative Republican image now?

How will it be when we've alienated virtually every progressive out there with this scary, anti civil rights image? Whether or not that is true is a whole other debate, but it's certainly becoming our image -- at least in America -- and I think that it will require investigators of the Church to really work hard at looking at the issues from a balanced, fair perspective in order to figure out what the Mormon religion is really about, as opposed to our image as a church. And how many will be able to do that? So, how much does image matter to you as a Mormon? Do you care about any of this? Why or why not?

The Euthanasia Debate Hits Close To Home

Yesterday I found out that my grandfather is dying.

We were prepared for this, as he is in his late 80's and had recently stopped eating and experiencing symptoms which indicated something very serious. The diagnosis is now official: prostate cancer that has mestastasized to the bones.

As the doctor told my grandmother, there are difficult months ahead. I know this all too well, working in elderly care myself and sometimes having tended to patients in the last days of their lives. Some go relatively quickly and peacefully, while others have to endure a long, difficult battle.

I was thinking last night about a great conversation we had on Mormon Heretic's blog a while back about euthanasia where we discussed at length the situations of terminal patients, among those Chantal Sébire, the French woman who fought for the right to assisted suicide. Nothing has really changed in my opinion on the matter since then.

Yesterday, before I got the news about my grandfather, the subject of euthanasia was already weighing heavily on my mind because of a foster cat I have been taken care of who has kidney failure. I talked to my vet and now it's just a matter of keeping her happy and comfortable for as long as we can. Once I can tell she is suffering, I know what I have to do. With previous pets, I had made the mistake of prolonging their suffering and it's something that I regret.

Euthanasia is a very difficult, sensitive subject. When I think about how adamant I am about preserving animal and human life and how I've often fought for it -- everything from rescuing unwanted animals from being killed and protesting against the meat industry, to opposing the death penalty even for convicted criminals and encouraging adoption over abortion -- it seems kind of ironic that I'd want people to be able to end their lives with assistance.

The Church's official stance on euthanasia is as follows:

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

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

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

Why is it OK to actively end the life of the baby, but not the terminally-ill cancer patient, when there is no hope of either of them surviving? Why is the baby not obligated to live for as long as it survives and endure a natural death like the cancer patient?

The common argument I hear from those who are opposed to euthanasia is that it's up to God to give and take life. But is it really all His doing? In the creation of life, God has empowered us human beings to decide together with Him (hopefully wisely) when a spirit should be sent to them in the form of a new life. Could it be that God has empowered us to make such decisions at the end stage of life as well?

God sees the sparrow fall, but is it He who causes it to fall? We know that God doesn't always intervene and gives us free agency to do good or inflict evil upon others. Does God purposely inflict us with diseases like cancer? Most would say no. So does He really want people to suffer horribly and, sometimes, seemingly endlessly when it doesn't have to be that way?

I outlined my view on how I think a euthanasia law should be on Mormon Heretic's thread, but wish to include it here:

1.) There would be a law allowing only for patients deemed terminally ill by at least two medical professionals to have access to the cocktail of meds that would allow the person to end his/her life peacefully and as pain-free as possible on his/her terms. I think it’s important to specify that it shouldn’t just be available to people in horrible pain because some terminal illnesses result in a slow death that may not cause horrible pain per se, but perhaps cause horrible symptoms like suffocation. It would be understandable that some would want to end their lives before they get to the later stage of their illness.

2.) If possible, the patient should administer the fatal dose his or herself. If the patient is unable to do so and yet able to state clearly his/her wishes, then a willing doctor or family member can administer it in the presence of medical witnesses, “willing” being a key word because some people would have a moral problem with being the one to administer the fatal dose, which should be respected.

3.) The part I’m not sure about is whether doctors and/or family members should have the authority to decide for a mentally incapacitated person (i.e. Alzheimer’s patient) that a fatal dose should be administered. Perhaps it should only be allowed if the patient had stated on record his/her wishes in such an event while he/she was still mentally sound enough to make that decision. Sort of like what people do now with “Do Not Rescucitate” orders.

I just can't help but find it ironic that most rational people will agree that animals -- the creatures that mankind has abused, exploited, neglected, and devalued all throughout history -- are entitled to a humane death, either through euthanization or (supposedly) humane slaughterhouse laws (which we all know are frequently abused and broken), whereas human beings that are in a hopeless, painful situation with no end in sight, are not permitted to exit this life as gracefully and compassionately as possible.

If we were never ever given the right to intervene in matters of life and death, one would think that Mormons would mostly be pacifists (they are not), opposed to capital punishment (they are not), opposed to abortion in all cases (they are not) and vegetarians (they are not). Why, then, are we opposed to giving someone the opportunity to end his or her life peacefully at the time when it seems to make the most sense?

I don't know what lies ahead for my grandfather. I hope that it won't be a long battle and that he will go home to the Lord without having to suffer much pain. But as I thought about him last night, I couldn't help but think how comforting it would be to anyone in that situation to know that they would have the option to go peacefully, surrounded by their loved ones, when they feel the time is right.

My grandmother reads my blog, so please show a little compassion and consideration in your comments. Also remember that it's easy to say what you would do until you're in such a situation yourself.

What Would Joseph Smith Think About The Modern LDS Church?

I think what I loved best about Rough Stone Rolling by Richard L. Bushman was the theological aspect. Despite all his many flaws and troublesome practices and dealings in life, some of Joseph Smith's theological writings and teachings blow me away. I'm not sure that I can believe them all, but I was astounded to read so many things that I had never heard of in my lifetime as a Mormon.

I sometimes get the feeling that the modern Church, while maintaining a thriving and rich culture, is lacking what it once had in terms of radical theological thinking and discussion. One could, of course, argue that this is a good thing. After all, many of us argue over what constitutes "official doctrine" and what doesn't. Speculation can be a dangerous thing, as it leads to false doctrines and gives birth to cultural myths being accepted as truth. So the less there is to speculate on, the better, right? But I must say that I often feel that Mormonism today, as it is practiced and preached in church and everyday life, is so "contained" that it's lacking in thought-provoking theological and philosophical discussion -- at least if the official manuals are an accurate indication of the type of discussions that we have at church on a weekly basis. I wonder whether it's only natural that the Church wouldn't be able to maintain the pace of revelation and theological discussion that Joseph accomplished in his short life, or whether the modern Church feels too "settled" in a sort of "comfort zone" so that it is therefore cutting itself short on additional revelation.

I think that a lot of Mormons, after reading Rough Stone Rolling or dabbing into Church history, come away feeling like the Church back then and the Church now are similar and yet vastly different -- not just because of polygamy, but many other things. Just to name a few, here are some things that come to mind:

• School of the Prophets (is the Sunday School program the modern-day equivalent?)
• Journal of Discourses (is the Ensign the modern-day equivalent?)
• Additional and regular canonized revelation, such as what is found in D&C
  
• Spiritual gifts being revealed in dramatic fashion at church, such as speaking in tongues, visions, etc.
  
• Women being permitted to administer blessings
  
• The close relationship between Mormons and Freemasonry. By this I don't just mean the temple ritual similarities, but the fact that Joseph Smith and other early Mormon leaders were active Freemasons and established a lodge in Nauvoo. In modern times, however, although the Church has not taken an official standpoint on Freemasonry, "Don LeFevre, a past spokesman for the church has said the church "...strongly advises its members not to affiliate with organizations that are secret, oath-bound, or would cause them to lose interest in church activities." (Wikipedia)

Questions for discussion:

• Do you think that the modern LDS Church is the vision that Joseph would have had for it as it grew and spread throughout the earth?

• What do you think would have pleased Joseph in the modern Church?
  

• Is there anything that you think he would object to or be troubled by in today's Church?
  

• What would Joseph think of Sunday School and Priesthood/RS meetings today?
  

• How do you think he would have written about himself in his memoirs if he had lived to write an autobiography? Would it have resembled Rough Stone Rolling or the current Priesthood/RS manuals?

Can Love Be A Bad Thing?

The following must not be interpreted as petition to the Church. It's simply a summary of some thoughts I have had that I would like to hear other perspectives on. Criticisms are welcome, but let's keep it respectful, compassionate, and understanding.

I actually wrote this post a while back for Mormon Matters, but for some reason I was waiting to post it on my own blog. After the latest Church vs. Gay controversy on Main Street Plaza in Salt Lake City, I think the time is right to discuss it again. (GayLDSActor did an excellent post about "the kiss" here for those who are interested.)

This post isn't about marriage. It isn't about sex.

It's about love: something that we all desire, crave, yearn, seek, and strive for. I have, and so have you.

Romantic love is not sex. Neither does it necessarily involve or lead to marriage or sex. It's that feeling of being captivated by another human being and caring for them, as well as expressing our emotions for them verbally or physically, often in a non-sexual manner such as holding hands, embracing, caressing, and innocent kissing: behaviour that is appropriate, according to LDS tradition, even between a couple that is not yet married. In other words, it's not like loving your mom.

It's not unheard of for people to live their entire lives and, if they never enter into marriage, never go beyond the non-sexual displays of affection that I just mentioned. Contrary to what some may think, most human beings are capable of living and functioning without sex, without suffering any "damage." I'm not sure, however, that the same would be true for all who desire and yearn for romantic love, but are denied that opportunity. Can you imagine life without love? If you are not currently in a romantic relationship, you probably have it as a hope or are always on the lookout for an opportunity, even subconsciously. Right?

A sexual relationship between two unmarried adults is immoral. Sex is, in this case, sinful. But is their love also a sin?

Look at the picture above. If the two people were of the same sex, how would you feel about it? Would you feel differently about it? Would you see their behaviour as immoral and something to be avoided? Why or why not?

The following "compromise," if you want to call it that, will not satisfy all. It will not satisfy those who demand no less than equal marriage status within the Church, heterosexual or homosexual, as well as Church-sanctioned homosexual sexual relations; neither will it satisfy those who believe that two members of the same sex who even sit together like that couple in the picture are treading down a wicked path. The term "compromise" is, actually, misleading in my opinion, because the way I see it, the Church would not be compromising anything in regards to the doctrines or policies related to marriage, families, or the Law of Chastity. The only thing that would change would be that heterosexual and homosexual members of the Church would truly be held to the same standards of chastity and morality outside of marriage. That would mean that a couple, such as depicted in the photo, sitting on a bench on BYU campus or outside the Tabernacle, would face no disciplinary action for their innocent display of romantic affection -- whether heterosexual or homosexual.

We know that we have a problem in the Church with homosexuals feeling alone, ostracized, without real purpose, and some even resorting to suicide.

• Would acceptance of non-sexual same-sex relationships within the Church help to ease the burden of those who struggle and help them to remain in the Church?
  

• What if gay members of the Church were truly held to the same standards of the Law of Chastity when it comes to expression of love and dating relationships?
  

• Do gay members of the Church need to be celibate AND alone in order to be chaste?
  

• What, if anything, would the Church be sacrificing or compromising on in order for gay members to be able to date openly, in the same way as heterosexual couples, without facing discipline?
  

• Why is/isn't this a good idea?

"Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins."
-Proverbs 10:12

Does Mormonism Have Any Official Doctrine?

There seems to be a lot of confusion among Mormons as to what constitutes "official doctrine" in the LDS Church. I've even seen the claim that Mormonism is a religion without any official doctrine. Even if this is not true, it certainly seems that there is rampant misunderstanding surrounding the subject.

Many Mormons equate the following with "official doctrine," when in fact, according to this guide put out by FAIR (Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research: A Foundation created to counter the misrepresentation and criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), they don't -- in my opinion -- appear to fulfill the criteria for being considered doctrinal:

• Church manuals
• General Conference talks
• First Presidency message in the Ensign
  
• Proclamation On The Family
• Quotes, statements, and teachings from prophets

And then there are certain teachings that were probably considered doctrinal at the time (i.e. polygamy, Adam-God theory, Blood Atonement, priesthood ban), but have since been abandoned by the Church and downplayed in importance. For example, the Adam-God theory, presented by Brigham Young, was later declared to be false doctrine by later prophets. The priesthood ban is now considered to have been policy and not doctrine, even by President David O. McKay, and President Hinckley famously told Larry King that he condemned polygamy, stating that he did not believe it was "doctrinal." Also, the practice of polygamy is no longer considered essential to salvation as was once taught.

Now, going back to the FAIR guide, I have to ask myself: what is official doctrine? Well, it would apparently have to:

• "...generally conform to what has already been revealed. “

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside,” wrote J. Fielding Smith. "The standard works are the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.”

It almost sounds like J. Fielding Smith is telling us that we shouldn't expect anything too earth-shattering in terms of doctrine, since it cannot be in conflict with what the Lord has already revealed in the scriptures. Interesting how he uses the term "man's doctrine." Is he downplaying the role of prophet here, by allowing much larger leeway for error than what is commonly assumed by Mormons who have an infallible view of the prophet being God's mouthpiece?

"Harold B. Lee expressed similar thoughts when he taught that any doctrine, advanced by anyone—regardless of position—that was not supported by the standard works, then “you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion.” He recognized that the Prophet could bring forth new doctrine, but “when he does, [he] will declare it as revelation from God,” after which it will be sustained by the body of Church."

But are the scriptures "official doctrine?" After all, we only "believe the Bible to be true as long as it is translated correctly." (8th Article of Faith) Do we need to allow room for error where the scriptures are concerned as well?

According to FAIR:

"The Prophet can add to the scriptures, but such new additions are presented by the First Presidency to the body of the Church and are accepted by common consent (by sustaining vote) as binding doctrine of the Church (See D&C 26:2; 107:27-31). Until such doctrines or opinions are sustained by vote in conference, however, they are “neither binding nor the official doctrine of the Church."

When was the last time that happened? Seriously, I can't recall a single event. I've seen those who have argued that the Proclamation On The Family is official doctrine. Perhaps I was just to young to remember, but I cannot recall a sustaining vote in General Conference when it was presented.

So, based on the guide put out by FAIR:

• Does the LDS Church have any "official doctrine?"
• If you think it does, can you name some "official doctrines?"
• Assuming that the priesthood ban was a policy and not doctrinal, as indicated by David O. McKay, is the Official Declaration in D&C regarding its cessation "official doctrine?"
  
• Do you view the scriptures as doctrinal?
  

What Would You Do If Polygamy Came Back?

Mormon Heretic had an interesting discussion on his blog recently about polygamy and I learned a lot about the good, the bad, and the ugly about its practice. It was especially interesting to hear the side of orthodox members who believe it to have been a divinely-inspired practice. Even though I don't agree with that view, I have to say that part of me admires the faith and willingness of those who claimed to receive confirmations about it to sacrifice so much in order to practice it as they believed it was supposed to be practiced -- even though, admittedly, I'm often disturbed by how it was practiced. Even just to be able to say today, as modern Mormons, that you believe that the way polygamy was practiced back in early Mormon history was divinely-inspired, takes a certain amount of guts and courage, in my opinion. Even Mitt Romney -- whose family tree contains examples of polygamy -- called it "bizarre" and "awful."

Have you ever thought about what you would do if Thomas S. Monson told us suddenly that the Lord was requiring his people to live this practice again in order to be saved? Or even if you personally didn't have to participate, what if men with higher callings (i.e. bishops, stake presidents, high priests) were instructed to take on at least one additional wife? Would you accept it? Or would you feel compelled to leave the Church?

Some things to consider:

• Would you believe such a "revelation" if Thomas S. Monson and the Quorum of the Twelve sustained it?
• Would you be OK with it as long as you didn't have to live it personally?
• Would it be unacceptable to you even if only brethren with higher callings were instructed to practice it?
• If you're a woman and your husband was asked to take on another wife, would you consider granting permission?
• If you're a man, would you ever consider being eternally sealed to another woman even if it was a spiritual marriage only? (non-sexual)
  
• Do you think that modern-day Mormon polygamy would look anything like Big Love?
• Do you think you could be happy in a polygamist relationship?

And ultimately...

• Would you leave the Church over it? Why or why not?

What Is "Anti-Mormon?"

To be honest, I always thought of "Anti-Mormons" being those who really do hate Mormons (like Westboro Baptist Church, who hates pretty much everything and everyone) and those who hand out ridiculous pamphlets or operate websites that are concerned with "exposing the Mormon Church," all of which range from partial truths and twisting of facts, to wild speculation and downright bullcrap.

During the election, I saw many label John McCain's mother an "Anti-Mormon" for her comments about Mormons causing the Salt Lake City Olympic scandal. Were her comments unfair? Yeah, I think so. Were they Anti-Mormon? Perhaps.

There was also Mike Huckabee, who was suspected of being an Anti-Mormon after asking whether Mormons believed that Jesus and Satan were brothers. Slimy campaign tactic? Absolutely. A valid question if asked sincerely? I think so.

Recently I watched the movie September Dawn. Not until after I watched it and read about it online did I realize that it, too, had received the label "Anti-Mormon." In many ways I agree with that assessment, as it contained some gross interpretations, misrepresentations, and wild speculation about Mormons and the actual history surrounding the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The end result was a scathing portrayal of Mormons that was presented as historical fact to uninformed viewers who would assume that we really know all the facts behind what actually happened. It did, however, contain a lot of selected truths. Was it Anti-Mormon? I would say so. But I think it would be inaccurate to say that it was 2 hours of pure lies.

I've also seen a few bloggers -- friends of mine -- be accused of being Anti-Mormons -- either consciously or unconsciously -- for their unorthodox views or questions. Am I an Anti-Mormon, too?

I've come to believe that Mormons use the term "Anti-Mormon" way too liberally. It seems to me that it's sometimes so overused that it's lost it's real meaning. In some cases, I think it's used to dismiss sincere and legitimate concerns that members and non-members have about Mormonism. Recently, when I communicated some concerns of mine regarding Church history with someone I know (and admire), I, too, was told in a tactful manner that I had been "affected by Anti-Mormon views." I was a bit taken aback by this, as most of the concerns I expressed were directly tied to Rough Stone Rolling, which I'm told is sold at Deseret book stores. Has Deseret started to stock Anti-Mormon literature?

So what is your criteria for assessing what is or what isn't "Anti-Mormon?"

The following are "Anti-Mormon," YES or NO and WHY:

• John McCain's mother
• Mike Huckabee
• Gay marriage proponents
• Any book that "exposes" the warts of Mormonism's past and present
• Blogs and other media that ask provocative questions or debate Mormonism's history, doctrine, or policy
• Mormon Stories podcasts (for those of you who have listened to them)
• Those who question authority in the Church
• Those who have objections to certain policies or practices in Mormonism
• Disenchanted ex-Mormons
  

Bloggernacle Niblets Awards

Cross-posting for Mormon Matters:

The opportunity to honor the unique and talented Mormon bloggers was sorely missed this year. So we decided to give you a chance to look back on 2008 and remember the great things that happened in the Bloggernacle. Mormon Matters will be hosting this event to highlight YOU and your favorite 2008 Mormon blogs, and we’ll be back again in 2009 to do the same. We are pleased to announce our collaboration with Ziff of Zelophehad’s Daughters, the mighty numbers cruncher, who will handle results presentation at the end of this event.

So without further ado, let’s announce the categories. Cut and paste this list in the comments if you would like to be part of the nominations process. As always, you are welcome to nominate yourself — isn’t that what blogging is all about?? Oh, and try to think of some other bloggers to recognize, too. Final voting will take place after the nominations are finalized.

Best big blog:
Best group blog:
Best solo blog:
Best new blog: (must have put up its first post in 2008)
Best blog layout/graphics:

Best commenter:
Most memorable comment: (please include link)
Best overall blogger:
Best humorous post: (please include link)
Best historical post: (please include link)
Best spiritual post: (please include link)
Best doctrinal post: (please include link)
Best current events post: (please include link)

Most blatant example of navel-gazing: (please include link)
Best contribution to the Bloggernacle in 2008:
Write-in category:

Thank you for your participation!

If you'd like to vote, please go here.

Belief vs. Faith

A quote I came across recently:

"Faith too often is reduced to belief; faith is more than cognition--it contains hope and seeds of action. It's operative power transforms, performs, creates, heals, forgives. It's generative potential is conditional upon love; if love doesn't fuel the faith, then it falls barren and sterile."

Does one have to believe in order to have faith?

Is faith without belief dead?

An Unexpected Visitor

Sometimes I get e-mails from random strangers who have visited my blog and were touched by something that I wrote. I received such an e-mail recently, but it wasn't from a stranger.

A few days ago I checked my e-mail to find an e-mail from my grandmother. I think my heart started to race when I read the sentence:

"(FD), I have discovered your blog, The Faithful Dissident, and have been reading your thoughts..."

I got a bit scared at what I was going to read next. But I was pleasantly surprised when I read:

"You have expressed a lot of my feelings within the Church."

First, I should tell you all a bit about my Grandma. She reads her e-mail, surfs the net (she discovered my blog through a link that my sister-in-law had posted), and even opened a Facebook account recently. I'm sure she'll eventually read this post. She still sometimes takes trips to Toronto and drives in some of Canada's heaviest traffic. A big fan of tennis, she has a huge crush on Pete Sampras. Not bad for a woman in her 80's. :)

My grandma is a very private person and doesn't like to dwell on the painful aspects of life. In some ways, she has a very different outlook on things than me. Truthfully, this has been hard for me to understand at times and, unfortunately, it has caused some tension in our family. Born and raised in London, her private, "stiff upper-lip" English mentality has at times collided with my Dr. Phil-styled "lay out all the cards, say it as it is, and get to the root of the problem" mentality. There have been fireworks, but I think I was usually the one shooting them into the air.

My grandmother has had her share of pain in life. She lived through the horrors of the German bombings in London. She also lost someone she cared about deeply to the ravages of WWII. As a young woman, she emigrated to Canada, married, and built a good life for her and her family, but not without a lot of pain and hardship.

After my mom introduced my dad to the Church, my Grandma and Grandpa joined as well. Grandpa has been inactive for as long as I can remember, but has always maintained his testimony and respect for the Church. Grandma has been semi-active for much of the time, seemingly never wanting "to get too close," but enjoys singing in the choir and attending sacrament meeting. It seems she has always kept the Church at a certain distance, which perhaps I couldn't really understand until I went through my own crisis of faith. Now it seemed that she summed up my feelings beautifully when she wrote:

"I was not raised with any religious instruction, but within a good family atmosphere. Certainly, a good moral way to live. But I have learned to accept that all human beings are created in a different way. We must love the good. We all need love, in order to reach our full potential and help our loved ones along life's path. That's our earthly mission. What else could be more important? I think our journey in this life is to reason out for ourselves, to use our free will, and thank our maker for that ability. If men did not seek, seek in life, all the discoveries in science, medical breakthroughs, etc, would not be here for our benefit. When I first came to Canada, people were being stricken with polio, living in an iron lung. Now, we don't even think of that illness. Life is a journey, in enlightenment, of discovery, in our relationships with others. It is true, man is not meant to live alone."

I've mentioned before in my blog that my view of the Church being perfect has been shattered. What hasn't been entirely shattered for me is my belief in God. I would say that my view of the Godhead is pretty much what it's always been, as well as the Plan of Salvation, although I don't take it all as literally as I used to. It's very unlikely that I will ever have what Mormons are "supposed" to have (i.e. temple marriage, children), but I've stopped caring. Why? Because I have a good husband, a life that I'm pretty happy with, and I've set my goals not on unrealistic things that would only cause me pain if I were to dwell on them too much, but rather doing the best I can to make this life better for people and animals. I truly believe that everything boils down to the Golden Rule, compassion and charity. I've learned to see the good in virtually all things -- even things that I never used to think had any good in them.

So, while I don't believe the LDS Church is "the only true church," I believe it's "good." Its core principles have blessed my life and made me a better person and I think the same can be said for most people in this world. In the 13th Article of Faith, it says:

"If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."

The positive aspects of the Church fall into that category for me, along with many other things in this world. I believe that God guides the LDS Church as much as any other church, religion, or group of people with a pure heart and sincere desire to do good. Probably no more and no less.

Although my Grandma and I will probably continue to approach certain things differently, I think that we probably have more in common than either of us realized -- at least where matters of faith and religion are concerned. If life truly is "a journey, in enlightenment, of discovery, in our relationships with others," then I was certainly "enlightened" by the connection to my grandmother that I didn't even realize I had. And I think she probably feels the same.

So perhaps I am not the first generation of faithful dissidents in my family.

Liberalism: Mormonism's Self-Destruction?

It's no secret that the LDS Church seems to attract a lot of right-wing conservatives, particularly in America. Utah and Idaho (both of which have a high Mormon population) are perhaps the most conservative states and Mormons vote overwhelmingly Republican. Politics aside, Mormons are reknown for their socially conservative views and lifestyle, which many associate with Republican political values.

I came this statement by someone who regards himself as a liberal Mormon:

"Mormonism has a small minority of liberal leaning thinkers, leaders, apostles, but the mainstream is towards the right. If Mormonism would liberalize it would not have as many converts."

Mormon Heretic has been hosting a very interesting and enlightening interview with members of the Community of Christ on his blog. For those who aren't aware, Community of Christ (CofC) is what used to be The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (RLDS). It's been interesting to read how the RLDS evolved into what it is now, which elements of the early LDS Church it kept, and which ones it has abandoned. The CofC, which permits women to hold the priesthood, is more open-minded about the prospect of same sex marriage, and rejected polygamy from the very beginning, would seem to be an attractive alternative to Mormons who are socially liberal and/or who reject certain teachings throughout LDS Church history. Fire Tag, a CofC commenter on Mormon Heretic's blog, shared his very thought-provoking perspective. (You can read the entire thread here.) He made it clear that this was simply his personal opinion, not the church's official policy, and that the CofC was seeking to revitalize its institutions, even though he personally felt that it wasn't what God wanted them to concentrate on doing:

“Attempts to revitalize our congregations may succeed here and there for a time. Congregations have been revitalized in the past with no discernable long-term effect on the larger church’s growth. An apostolic leadership will, of course, continue to look to see how we can maintain and reinvigorate our institutions in order to try and carry out our mission. Yet, sooner than we wish, our denominational infrastructure, regardless of how desirable it might be to have, is going to disappear for most of our people; most of the people of the West have already launched our society’s future toward another course. “Evolutionary pressures” from that society are driving us toward a time of increasing individual ministerial autonomy in which church leadership cannot even monitor, let alone direct, most of what our people do in the name of Christ. And most of that work will not be carried out through congregational structures or programs.

The recently published Pew Religious Landscape Survey confirms the increasing disconnect between denominational life and religious life in the United States, with more than half of American adults either having left the denomination in which they were raised or regarding themselves as religiously unaffiliated, even though 83% of the adult population still regards itself as religious.

For our denomination to adapt the gospel faithfully in our cultural setting, and hopefully even to thrive, requires that we become a denomination that glories in sending people OUT of our denomination, to where God calls them to best serve in the culture.

So, to reiterate, I believe our continued value as a corporate entity to the work of the Lord at this point in history involves the church supporting our people in dispersing out of our “corporation” and moving wholeheartedly into participation in the multiple, cross-cutting communities that make up a modern society. This is almost like the early Christians moving into the catacombs of Rome where they could refresh themselves beneath Rome’s notice, yet continue to provide enriching ministry to their neighbors in their daily lives as God opened doors. None of the turmoil of the Empire could ever dig them out of the society once they were so dispersed, and these “meek of the earth” did inherit the Empire.

In our time, such distributed efforts will send us into fellowships with groups made up of differing Christian, non-Christian, and/or secular backgrounds. The unity or preservation of our faith community and its institutions will no longer be primary, for the time has come for many of us to expend ourselves. Should that not be enough to fulfill our part in the mission of transforming the world, then we can best hope that God will grant us the opportunity to prepare the path for the work of our successors, and perhaps even allow the youngest of us to participate in the movement of our successors.”

I think that many of us Mormons who would like to see the LDS Church become more liberal have this vision of it flourishing and people easily accepting the faith if it would just let go of what some regard as very archaic teachings and practices. But would it result in the Church's self-destruction?

Imagine next year that the priesthood is extended to women. Or five years from now same sex sealings are being performed in the temple. What would happen? Would the "God fearing, gun toting, flag waving" conservatives abandon the Church? Would it attract liberals or would they remain generally uninterested in organized religion? Does the Church need to attract conservatives in order to survive and maintain its structure?

What do you think would happen to the LDS Church if it were to become more liberal?

Can Mormons Be Humanists?

I noticed recently that an acquaintance of mine, who left the Church a few months ago, had joined a group on Facebook for Humanists. I had wanted to do a post on Humanism before, so I thought that it would be interesting to present a summary of Humanism.

Humanism was not something I was very familiar with in Canada, but it's quite popular in Norway, especially since those who do not identify with the state Lutheran church needed to find alternatives for the Norwegian cultural traditions of christenings and confirmations. The Humanist Association organizes "name days" and "humanist confirmations" instead of christenings and confirmations, for those who wish to maintain the cultural traditions minus the religion. They appear to be increasing in popularity, particularly among teenagers who reach confirmation age (15 years) but have no relationship to the church and therefore no desire to be affiliated with it.

I admit that my initial impression of Humanism was not favourable, as some articles and interviews with Humanists that I came across left me with an impression of militant anti-theism and utter lack of respect, such as an instance where Humanists encouraged high school students to go to a Christmas mass with earplugs in protest of the school organizing trips to the church, which no one was forced to attend anyways. (A school organizing trips to church may sound odd, but as secular as Norwegian society is, the church and state are not officially separate.)

But despite the unfortunate characteristics of some Humanists, Humanist philosophy in itself is something that I've grown to appreciate more and more, the more I've gotten to know about it. There is much that religious folk can learn from Humanism, in my opinion, and I dare say that Mormons probably have more in common with Humanists than we would like to admit. (Well, at least a left-leaning Mormon like myself. :)

My comments are in red.

"Secular humanism is a philosophy and world view which centers upon human concerns and employs rational and scientific methods to address the wide range of issues important to us all. While secular humanism is at odds with faith-based religious systems on many issues, it is dedicated to the fulfillment of the individual and humankind in general. To accomplish this end, secular humanism encourages a commitment to a set of principles which promote the development of tolerance and compassion and an understanding of the methods of science, critical analysis, and philosophical reflection."

"...it is dedicated to the fulfillment of the individual and humankind in general." Does Mormonism have a similar purpose? "Men are that they may have joy," for example?

"To accomplish this end, secular humanism encourages a commitment to a set of principles which promote the development of tolerance and compassion and an understanding of the methods of science, critical analysis, and philosophical reflection."

Doesn't that sound like the type of world you'd like to live in, albeit, with the option of a separate spiritual/religious element? Does a society which "promote(s) the development of tolerance and compassion and an understanding of the methods of science, critical analysis, and philosophical reflection" sound reasonable to a Mormon? Why or why not?

"Secular humanists are generally nontheists. They typically describe themselves as nonreligious. They hail from widely divergent philosophical and religious backgrounds. Secular humanism is not a dogma or a creed. There are wide differences of opinion among secular humanists on many issues. Nevertheless, there is a loose consensus with respect to several propositions. We are apprehensive that modern civilization is threatened by forces antithetical to reason, democracy, and freedom. Many religious believers will no doubt share with us a belief in many secular humanist and democratic values, and we welcome their joining with us in the defense of these ideals."

Do you feel that you could join with Humanists in defending Humanist ideals? I think that Prop 8 brought out the "Humanist" in a lot of Mormons, who may not have necessarily 100% supported gay marriage, but voted or campaigned for what they viewed as the democratic/constitutional right of homosexuals to marry in the civil realm.

"Skeptical of theories of redemption, damnation, and reincarnation, secular humanists attempt to approach the human situation in realistic terms: human beings are responsible for their own destinies. We believe that it is possible to bring about a more humane world, one based upon the methods of reason and the principles of tolerance, compromise, and the negotiations of difference."

Imagine this philosophy being applied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, just as an example. As someone who is deeply disturbed by cruelty towards animals and humans, I love the idea of a "more humane world." I often wish that many in the religious world spent as much time and resources towards combatting cruelty and intolerance as they do on things like fighting homosexuality, sex education, or producing propaganda criticizing other religions.

"Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:

*A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

* Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions."

This sounds good in theory and in a pluralistic society, it seems reasonable to put things like reason, evidence, and science above religion -- particularly since there are so many different religions with so many varying viewpoints. However, in my opinion, Humanists are sometimes asking the impossible. To me, it's like expecting to be able to scrape melted butter entirely off a piece of toast. You can't. One of my favourite parts of The Audacity of Hope was when Obama said:

"Surely, secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square, Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. --indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history -- not only were motivated by faith but repeatedly used religious language to argue their causes. To say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public-policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it is grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition. What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy does demand is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values."

Continuing on about Humanism:

"* A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

* A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

* A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us."

Is there anything in those three points that conflicts with Mormonism?

"* A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility. * A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children."

No objections on my part.

"Secular humanists reject supernatural and authoritarian beliefs. They affirm that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation."

Sounds similar to Mormon values of self-reliance, freedom, service, charity, and tolerance for others.

"Secular humanists are committed to moral principles, which are derived from critical intelligence and human experience, and we must pursue positive ideals. We should therefore observe the common moral decencies: integrity, humanitarianism, truthfulness, trustworthiness, fairness, and responsibility. This means caring for one another, being tolerant of differences, and striving to overcome divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, creed, or class."

Where do I sign up? :)

"Our best guide to truth is free and rational inquiry; we should therefore not be bound by the dictates of arbitrary authority, comfortable superstition, stifling tradition, or suffocating orthodoxy. We should defer to no dogma - neither religious nor secular - and never be afraid to ask "How do you know?"

I've never been afraid to ask that. I just haven't always gotten an answer. :)

I thought that I would end this post with the following:

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

-11th Article of Faith

And may I add, "let them not worship at all, if they so choose."

Love Is Not Blind - Part III: Reconciliation

This is Part III in a series of posts about Bruce C. Hafen's talk Love Is Not Blind from 1979. If you missed the first two parts, you can read Part I here and Part II here.

Part II dealt with ambiguity, and Part III expands on that theme. I encourage you all to read the talk in its entirety, if you haven't already, but I wish to include here the parts which are most relevant to the discussion. My personal comments are in red.

"Given, then, the existence for most of us of a gap between where we stand and where we would like to be, and given that we will have at least some experiences that make us wonder, what are we to do? I believe that there are three different levels of dealing with ambiguity. There may be more, but I would like to talk in terms of three. At level one there are two typical attitudes, one of which is that we simply do not--perhaps cannot--see the problems that exist. Some seem almost consciously to filter out any perception of a gap between the real and the ideal. Those in this category are they for whom the gospel at its best is a firm handshake, an enthusiastic greeting, and a smiley button. Their mission was the best, their student ward is the best, and every new day is probably going to be the best day they ever had. These cheerful ones are happy, spontaneous, and optimistic, and they always manage to hang loose. They are able to weather many storms that would seem formidable to more pessimistic types, though one wonders if the reason is often that they have somehow missed hearing that a storm was going on."

If you're like me, these are the types of members that tend to push your buttons. They're the ones for whom church seems to be like Woodstock: everyone is happy, everyone loves everyone, everyone nods in agreement... it's perfect! They seem to have difficulty understanding why anyone would want to quit going to church or not find the counsel of leaders to make perfect sense. And while you're sitting in sacrament meeting fuming mad at the narrow-minded statements from a speaker, they're sitting there seemingly oblivious to the fact that anyone could possibly take offense.

"A second group at level one has quite a different problem with the gap between what is and what ought to be. Those in this category eliminate the frustration created as they sense a distance between the real and the ideal in their world by, in effect, erasing the inner circle of reality. They cling to the ideal so single-mindedly that they are able to avoid feeling the pain that would come from facing the truth about themselves, others, or the world around them. I recall listening to a group of students as they discussed which of the two types of people I have just described offered the most appropriate model for their emulation. They felt that they had to choose between being relaxed and happy and carefree about the gospel, or being intense perfectionists. After listening to the discussion, I felt that both of these types suffer from the same limitation. It is not much of a choice to select between a frantic concern with perfection and a forced superficial happiness. Both perspectives lack depth, and their proponents understand things too quickly and draw conclusions from their experience too easily. Neither type is very well prepared for adversity, and I fear that the first strong wind that comes along will blow both of them over. This, I believe, is primarily because their roots have not sunk deep enough into the soil of experience to establish a firm foundation. Both also reflect the thinness of philosophy untempered by common sense. In both cases, it would be helpful simply to be more realistic about life's experiences, even if that means facing some questions and limitations that leave one a bit uncomfortable. That very discomfort can be a motivation toward real growth. As someone has said, the true Church is intended not only to comfort the afflicted, but to afflict the comfortable. I invite you, then, to step up to level two, where you see things for what they are; for only then can you deal with them in a meaningful and constructive way. If we are not willing to grapple with the frustration that comes from honestly and bravely facing the uncertainties we encounter, we may never develop the kind of spiritual maturity that is necessary for our ultimate preparations. It was Heber C. Kimball who once said that the Church has many close places through which it must yet pass and that those living on borrowed light will not be able to stand when those days come. Thus, we need to develop the capacity to form judgments of our own about the value of ideas, opportunities, or people who may come into our lives... ...We must develop sufficient independence of judgment and maturity of perspective that we are prepared to handle the shafts and whirlwinds of adversity and contradiction that are so likely to come along in our lives. When those times come, we cannot be living on borrowed light. We should not be deceived by the clear-cut labels some may use to describe circumstances that are, in fact, not so clear. Our encounters with reality and disappointment are in fact vital stages in the development of our maturity and understanding."

That last sentence is very interesting. Prior to the last few years, I was a "labeller." Now I hesitate to label anything -- which some could perhaps argue is just as dangerous. But I believe that a vital part of stepping up to level two, as Elder Hafen puts it, is challenging our thinking and being willing to cast aside those labels if we discover that they are not as "clear-cut" as we previously assumed. I think that homosexuality is a good example of this because I'm sure I'm not the only Mormon whose views on the subject have changed dramatically in recent years. Even just a couple of years ago, I think that I had the subject filed nice and neatly under the "labels" that I was sure they belonged. But now, after further investigation and opening my heart and mind to the reality of the situations that many gay members of the Church find themselves in -- even though I do not claim to know what is "right" or "wrong" -- I find things to be not nearly as clear as I thought they were. It's been extremely challenging to me on so many levels, but I hope that that is one of the "vital stages in the development of our maturity and understanding" that Elder Hafen speaks of.

"Despite the value of this level-two kind of awareness about which I have been talking, some serious hazards still remain. One's acceptance of the clouds of uncertainty may be so complete that the iron rod fades into the receding mist and skepticism becomes a guiding philosophy. Often, this perspective comes from erasing the outer circle representing the ideal, or what ought to be, and focusing excessively on the inner circle of reality. When I was a teacher at the BYU Law School, I noticed how common it was among our first-year students to experience great frustration as they discovered how much our legal system is characterized not by hard and fast rules but by legal principles that often appear to contradict each other. I remember, for example, one student in his first year who approached me after a class early in the semester to express the confusion he was encountering in his study of law. He said that he had what he called "a low tolerance for ambiguity" and had been wondering if part of his problem was that he had returned only weeks before from a mission, where everything was crisp and clear and where even the words he was to speak were provided for him. To feel successful, all he had to do was follow the step-by-step plan given him for each day and each task on his mission. Law school was making him feel totally at sea, as he groped for simple guidelines that would tell him what to do. His circumstance was only another example of what I have previously tried to describe as typical of college and university students early in their experience. However, by the time our law students reached their third year of study, it was not at all uncommon for them to develop such a high tolerance for ambiguity that they were skeptical about everything, including some dimensions of their religious faith. Where formerly they felt they had all the answers but just did not know what the questions were, they now seemed to have all the questions but few of the answers. I found myself wanting to tell our third-year law student that those who take too much delight in their finely honed tools of skepticism and dispassionate analysis will limit their effectiveness in the Church and elsewhere, because they become contentious, standoffish, arrogant, and unwilling to get involved and commit themselves." Does anyone else recognize themselves in the paragraphs above? "I have seen some of these people try out their new intellectual tools in some context like a priesthood quorum or Sunday School class. A well-meaning teacher will make a point that they think is a little silly, and they will feel an irresistible urge to leap to their feet and pop the teacher's bubble. If they are successful, they begin looking for other opportunities to point out the exception to any rule anybody can state. They begin to delight in cross-examination of the unsuspecting, just looking for somebody's bubble up there floating around so that they can pop it with their shiny new pin. And in all that, they fail to realize that when some of those bubbles pop, out goes the air; and with it goes much of the feeling of trust, loyalty, harmony, and sincerity so essential to preserving the Spirit of the Lord."

I'm not one to try out any of my new "intellectual tools" (if you can call them that) at church. I lack the confidence and ability to express myself verbally in a way that I feel I won't be misunderstood. But I'm guilty of doing so in my head. Boy, am I guilty. If my thoughts at church could be heard, I'd probably get myself thrown out. So I make mental notes and blog about it instead. It's an important outlet for me.

"If that begins to happen in your ward, in your home, or in your marriage, you might have begun to destroy the fragile fabric of trust that binds us together in all loving relationships. People in your ward may come away from some of their encounters with you wondering how you can possibly have a deep commitment to the Church and do some of the things you do. I am not suggesting that we should always just smile and nod our approval, implying that everything is wonderful and that our highest hope is that everybody have a nice day. That is level one. I am suggesting that you realize the potential for evil as well as good that may come with what a college education can do to your mind and your way of dealing with other people. The dangers of which I speak are not limited to our relations with others. They can becomes very personal, prying into our own hearts in unhealthy ways. The ability to acknowledge ambiguity is not a final form of enlightenment. Having admitted to a willingness to suspend judgment temporarily on questions that seem hard to answer, having developed greater tolerance and more patience, our basic posture toward the Church can, if we are not careful, gradually shift from being committed to being noncommittal. That is not a healthy posture. Indeed, in many ways, a Church member who moves from a stage of commitment to a stage of being tentative and non-commital is in a worse position than one who has never before experienced a basic commitment. The previously committed person who developed a high tolerance for ambiguity may too easily assume that he has already been through the "positive mental attitude" routine and "knows better" now, as he judges things. He may assume that being submissive, meek, obedient, and humble are matters with which he is already familiar, and that he has finally outgrown the need to work very hard at being that way again. Brothers and sisters, those are the assumptions of a hardened heart."

Withdrawing from participation in class discussions or activities is something that I am guilty of. I am in the "non-committal" stage and to be honest, I'm not sure how I can leave it without putting on a big act. When I resigned from my RS calling, it was because I felt uncomfortable teaching things that I didn't feel right about. I was also a bit uncomfortable with some of the tactics being used to try to reactivate certain sisters because I doubted the sincerity of certain people. I even doubted my own sincerity. If someone says something that I disagree with, I'm always afraid that my silence will be misinterpreted as being in agreement. And yet if I voice a dissenting opinion, then I definitely risk alientating myself as "the apostate." It's a catch 22. If I commit to something, I feel horribly guilty having to back out of it (which is why I grappled with the decision to resign my RS calling for well over a year before actually doing it), so my natural inclination is to just avoid committing to anything. Do I have a "hardened heart?" Absolutely. But it's not impenetrable.

There comes a point, however, when we have to decide whether we want to be in this Church or not. And if we've made the decision to stay, then we have to decide whether we're going to make it a pleasant stay or just be angry and resentful our entire lives in the Church. I know it sounds a bit cliche, but I do believe that each of us has the power to decide whether or not we will respond to offense, even when we're entirely justified in feeling offended. I don't yet know exactly how to reconcile my doubts and resentment with my desire to stay in the Church, but I am at least committed to doing my part and resist letting my heart become hardened beyond repair. I admit that it's not easy. In fact, it's incredibly difficult at times.

On occasion, I have received e-mails from people who have stumbled across my blog and wished to thank me for a particular post that really resonated with them. This happened recently when I got an e-mail from a reader who was very touched after discovering my blog and reading Love Is Not Blind. In the course of the past couple of weeks, she and I have been writing to each other and discussing many things related to our experiences in the Church. With her permission, I wish to quote directly from the blog that she has just started, Simply Me, in order to introduce her to my readers. I encourage you all to read what she has to say and to share your thoughts and experiences with her, because the connections that we make and insights that we get through blogging are things that are hard to get in your own ward -- and vice versa.

"As I am exploring the creation of my blog I keep reading other blogs and I am intrigued. Today I want to talk about what I've gleaned from one post, in particular, and how I can use the gift of ambiguity as I embark on my journey to return to church and to embrace reconciliation along the way. It is a new journey for me that draws parallels similar to my baptism. When I was 19 years old my grandpa stood in the baptismal font and guided me as I entered the waters of baptism. On one hand I knew that it was a completely personal and spiritual act and on the other it was meaningful to have my grandpa be the one to hold me as he baptized me. It was a special moment for us. On my baptismal program the verse that was shared was from 2 Nephi 31: 20. It reads: "Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life." My baptism was a time when I had broadened my horizons. When the musings of my heart were confirmed by what I had learned regarding the eternities from the LDS church's perspective. I knew that I was on a good path. Approaching the road of reconciliation is similar to having entered the waters of baptism even though one is an ordinance and the other is not. They are both intentional. During baptism I exercised faith in simple ways. During this phase of reconciliation I plan to exercise faith using ambiguity in an attempt to make things a little simpler for me, as oxymoronic as that may sound. Thanks to the writings and examples of people who struggle in that place of ambiguity yet hold to their faith pressing on with hope, love for God and people, studying the word (in whatever form that works for you including these discussions), and staying the course."

Question:

Is reconciliation with the Church and fellow members possible even if we have "irreconcilable differences?"

Before You Go...

Taking an intermission from our Love Is Not Blind series, I wanted to share something else with you all.

When I first started to get involved around the Bloggernacle, there was a whole new "world" that I had to discover. Not living in Utah and only being a casual follower of Utah news, I didn't know who the September Six were, I had never heard of Sunstone Magazine, and I sure as heck had never heard of John Dehlin (pictured right).

Since I know a lot of those who stumble across my blog and others like it are still new to blogging and perhaps unaware of some of the best that the Bloggernacle has to offer, I wanted to do a post highlighting a few of John Dehlin's pieces that I've found to be extremely helpful.

Although I've never met John personally, my impression of him is one of a thoughtful, caring, open, honest, very intelligent person with tremendous integrity to say the things he does with conviction, yet humility. I especially admire his courage to put a name and face to the highly personal thoughts and experiences he shares with the listener. That takes guts. (I still haven't shown more than half my face. :) He has helped find many Mormons like me a reason to stay, as well as showing empathy and understanding for those who feel that they need to leave. Whether one decides to stay or leave the LDS Church, I wish that everyone who has ever seriously thought about it would listen to his podcasts.

John has been kind enough to grant me permission to link to his work for those of you who will find it of interest.

This telecast, called Why People Leave The LDS Church And What We Can Do About It, is very helpful because:

• To those who are contemplating leaving the Church -- or even those who already have and are feeling pressured or ostracized by family and friends -- it will either help you find a reason to stay, or help those in your life understand why you feel compelled to leave. Every bishop and stake president in the Church should see this telecast, in my opinion. If you feel that your family doesn't "get it," do whatever you can to get them to watch it. It will help them understand the spiritual transformation you have gone through and -- most importantly -- it will help them to understand what you really need from them. You may also wish to share it with your own bishop or stake leaders.
  

• It also does an excellent job of summarizing the journey and transformation that we go through after we've studied the Church more in-depth and are feeling disillusioned, angry, and alone. I once told my mother how after finding out the things that I've found out, I will never be able to look at the Church or Joseph Smith or prophets -- or anything for that matter -- in the same way that I did before. I asked her to watch the telecast. She did, and she said she now understood exactly what I meant.

John shares the story of his life as a Mormon in a three-part podcast series called My Story. I recommend listening to all three parts, which can be found in his podcast archive at Mormon Stories. But if there's one that I wish that everyone would listen to, it's Part 3, "What I Do And Don't Believe And Why I Remain A Mormon." I guarantee that any of you who struggle with some of Mormonism's toughest issues will see yourself in this podcast. If you haven't personally struggled with these issues, then both of these links will really help you understand how some of us "see" things.

Lastly, this essay, entitled How To Stay, is also very helpful, and touches on a lot of what John discusses in the above podcast.

I think my favourite part of the Why People Leave The LDS Church podcast is when he explains what happens to those who have discovered the troubling details of Mormonism. He says:

"Once this happens to you...

• You never look at Joseph Smith the same way again
• You never look at scripture the same way again
• You never look at the church the same way again
• You never think of "authority" the same way again
• Your concept of God and Jesus and "the one true church" can change dramatically"

Many of you probably recognize these points as something that you yourself have been through. I think that this is true even in the case of those who remain active in the Church. Making a rash decision to leave the Church can, in some cases, be just as foolish as making a rash decision to enter into it. It's certainly possible to weather the storm and stay, but even if you do so, it's never the same.

Spiritually speaking, the things that were once rocks of your stability are never the same. Suddenly, everything is thrown into question. Everything.

Naturally, as you then begin to re-evaluate things, you start to redefine what they mean to you. And sometimes the change can be dramatic, as John says.

I look forward to hearing any of your thoughts or comments related to what I've shared in this post. I'll leave you with a quote from Part 3 of My Story that really resonated with me:

"I believe that many of the perversions, evils, sadness, and depression in this world stem from people having to hide and cover-up their innermost feelings and thoughts for fear of what people externally are going to think or feel or judge them about. I feel that's unhealthy and wrong."

-John Dehlin

Love Is Not Blind - Part II: Ambiguity

This is Part II of the discussion related to Bruce C. Hafen's talk Love Is Not Blind. If you missed Part I, you can read it here.

At the heart of this talk is the concept of "ambiguity." Elder Hafen says:

"The fundamental teachings of the restored gospel are potent, clear and unambiguous; but it is possible, on occasion, to encounter some ambiguity even in studying the scriptures. Consider for example the case--known to all of us--of Nephi, who slew Laban in order to obtain the scriptural record (see 1 Nephi 4:5­18). That situation is not free from ambiguity until the reader realizes that God himself, who gave the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13), was also the origin of the instructions to Nephi in that exceptional case."

God sometimes appears inconsistent in the scriptures -- especially when it comes to killing other human beings -- something that God can do himself, but for some reason that I cannot understand, supposedly orders us to do at times. Mormon Heretic did a great post a while back about whether genocide can ever be sanctioned by God in Joshua's Unholy War. Ambiguous or not, I'm not sure that the order to slaughter innocent human beings -- especially children -- can ever really come from God.

Elder Hafen presents an interesting example of ambiguity and what it can mean for different interpretations of the same story:

"Consider also the case of Peter on the night he denied any knowledge of his Master three times in succession (see Matthew 26; Mark 14; Luke 22; John 18). We commonly regard Peter as something of a coward whose commitment was not strong enough to make him rise to the Savior's defense, but I once heard President Spencer W. Kimball offer an alternative interpretation of Peter's situation. In a talk on this campus in 1971, President Kimball, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, said that the Savior's statement that Peter would deny him three times before the cock crowed might have been a request to Peter, not a prediction. Jesus just might have been instructing his chief apostle to deny any association with him in order to insure strong leadership for the Church after the Crucifixion. As President Kimball asked, who can doubt Peter's boldness and willingness to stand up and be counted when he struck off the ear of the guard in the garden of Gethsemane. President Kimball did not offer this view as the only interpretation, but he did point out that there is enough justification for it that it ought to be considered. So what is the answer--was Peter a weakling, or was he so crucial to the survival of the Church that he was prohibited from risking his life? We are not sure. This is a scriptural incident in which there is some ambiguity inhibiting our total understanding."

I enjoyed this particular theory about the story of Peter. Maybe I'm just strange, but I often find myself feeling bad for the "weaklings" in the scriptures who are often dealt with very harshly for their mistakes. Did they always deserve what they got? Did Lot's wife deserve to be turned into a pillar of salt for simply looking back (Genesis 19)? Did Onan deserve to be liquidated for "spilling his seed" instead of impregnating his sister-in-law (Genesis 38)? Did 42 children deserve to be killed for mocking Elisha's bald head (Numbers 16)? (I used to make fun of David O. McKay's hair or Spencer W. Kimball's pointy ears in pictures that I saw as a kid. Am I lucky to be alive because of that?) Does Peter really deserve being accused of cowardice or betrayal for denying Christ? I think that the suggestion that Jesus was making a request to Peter instead of simply a prediction makes sense. We've probably assumed that a light bulb suddenly went off in Peter's mind when he heard the cock crow, as if he thought, "Oh yeah, I forgot what Jesus said about my denying him three times before the cock crowed. Dangit, he was right!" Surely Peter hadn't really forgotten something as significant as that prediction or, perhaps, request.

Elder Hafen continues:

"Let us compare some other scriptural passages. The Lord has said that he cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance (D&C 1:31), yet elsewhere he said to the adulteress, "Where are . . . thine accusers? . . . Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more" (John 8:10, 11). There is indeed a principle of justice, but there is also a principle of mercy. At times these two correct principles collide with each other as the unifying higher principle of the Atonement does its work. Even though God has given us correct principles by which we are to govern ourselves, it is not always easy to apply them to particular situations in our lives."

One of the hardest parts of Gospel application is where justice and mercy collide. I usually lean heavily towards mercy. I admit that if I were a judge, I'd hear the sad stories of people and would want to send them away with a slap on the wrist. In Church settings, I really wish sometimes that we could just cut people some slack. In a lot of cases (not all, but a lot), I think that if we really try to see things from the perspective of another, we would also be able to honestly say, "Neither do I condemn thee." When Elder Hafen says regarding justice and mercy that, "(a)t times these two correct principles collide with each other as the unifying higher principle of the Atonement does its work. Even though God has given us correct principles by which we are to govern ourselves, it is not always easy to apply them to particular situations in our lives," I can't help but think of those who find themselves unable to live the Church's laws concerning homosexuality when overwhelming loneliness takes over. In those cases, I think the Lord knows that some just cannot do it, and so "the higher principle of the Atonement does its work" once the person does all that he/she can do.

Continuing on:

"Church and family life are not the only areas where the right answer is not always on the tip of the tongue. If you would stretch your mind about the implications of ambiguity, you might think once again of the Vietnam War. Should our nation have tried to do more than it did, or less than it did? Or perhaps you could consider whether we should sell all we have and donate our surplus to the millions of people who are starving. You might also ask yourself how much governmental intervention in business and private life is too much. The people on the extreme sides of these questions convey great certainty about what should be done. However, I think some of these people are more interested in being certain than they are in being right."

I think my one of my favourite parts in this entire talk is the ambiguity that Elder Hafen leaves around the question of "how much governmental intervention in business and private life is too much." In fact, I find ambiguity in this matter to be refreshing, since I don't think there is a black and white, right or wrong answer to the question -- contrary to what many members of the Church seem to be under the impression of. I'm open about the fact that my personal political preference is an ideology that embraces certain social democratic values. I tried ad nauseum to educate fellow Mormons about what social democracy really entails around different blogs and groups during the election when Obama was being branded an "evil socialist" by many in the Church. Yes, I think the world would be a better place if every country could adhere to certain social democratic values, and I think that liberalism has at least just as much of a legitimate place in Mormonism as conservativism . But I don't think God is a socialist. Neither do I think He's a Democrat, a Republican, a right-wing libertarian, or a Constitutionalist. Even though we all have our preferences, virtually every political philosophy probably has at least some value that we can learn from and use in our progression -- even those that we would personally never vote for. I don't think it's coincidence that there is enough ambiguity surrounding this question in order for us to be able to reach our individual conclusions in the matter of politics and government intervention -- despite the fact that many members I encountered in various discussions proclaimed that this party or that philosophy had God's stamp of approval.

Thoughts on any of the issues presented in this part of the talk? Do you draw any personal interpretations from ambiguity?

Love Is Not Blind - Part I: Divine Intervention

This is the first post in a series I wished to do based on a talk called Love Is Not Blind, given by Bruce C. Hafen at BYU in 1979.

The talk is long, but it's full of great discussion material and so that is why I have decided to "dissect" it here in a series of posts.

First of all, I should tell you all how I even came across this talk.

Recently we had a very special missionary serving in my branch. He wasn't just special because he was the first non-American serving in my branch, at least since I've been here -- he is German -- but because he was an excellent missionary. To me, that does not necessarily mean one that has had any great success in conversion statistics, but rather one who seems to sincerely care about the people around him and seems to be genuinely interested in service and friendship -- not simply baptisms. Many missionaries focus so much on leading people to the waters of baptism or "saving" everyone around them, that they forget to be a friend and thereby miss the opportunity to plant "seeds" -- ones that may never sprout in this lifetime, but may in the next. So, if missionary success is to be measured by seeds of friendship rather than baptisms, I would say that Elder W was about as successful as a missionary can hope to be.

Since Germany is special to my husband and me (it's where we met, and German was our main language of communication for several years), we quickly made a connection with Elder W. He had a good sense of humour, was a good sport with all our German jokes, and always honoured my request to not pressure my husband into further investigation of the Church, but rather just be our friend.

Before Elder W's mission ended, he said that he wanted to give me a talk on mp3 to listen to. So I transferred it onto my mp3 player and listened to it for the first time while flying home to Canada for a visit. I wasn't really sure what the talk was about, but expected it to be just another General Conference talk. It soon became evident that this was not the type of talk that we hear in in conference.

This talk is remarkable for several reasons and it was one that I needed to hear. As I listened to it, I had many thoughts and hope that I can capture just a few of them in this series of posts. I'm sure I'm not the only one who can benefit from it and therefore I wish to share it with all of my readers and hear their thoughts.

The first themes Elder Hafen touches on are prayer, God's involvement in ours lives, and the challenges to spirituality that come with intellectual maturity, as we read in the following excerpt:

"One Sunday morning, the Elders Quorum in our ward held a special testimony meeting characterized by spiritual warmth and personal openness. During that meeting, a fellow law student related a boyhood experience that had occurred just after he had been ordained a deacon. He lived on a farm and had been promised that a calf about to be born would be his very own to raise. One summer morning when his parents were away, he was working in the barn when the expectant cow began to calve prematurely. He watched in great amazement as the little calf was born; and then, without warning, the mother suddenly rolled over the little calf. He could see that she was trying to kill it. In his heart he cried out to the Lord for help. Not thinking about how much more the cow weighed than he did, he pushed on her with all his strength and somehow moved her away. He picked up the lifeless body of the calf in his arms and, brokenhearted, the tears running down his cheeks, he looked at it, wondering what had happened and what he could do. Then he remembered, he told us, that he now held the Priesthood and had every right to pray for additional help. And so he prayed from the depths of his boyish, believing heart. Before long the little animal began breathing again, and he knew that his prayer had been heard.

After relating the story, the tears welled up in his eyes and he said to us, "Brethren, I tell you that story because I don't know that I would do now what I did then. I think I might not expect the Lord's help in that kind of situation. I am not sure that I would believe now, even if I relived that experience, that the calf's survival was anything more than a coincidence. I don't understand what has happened to me since that incident, but I sense that something has gone a little bit wrong."

My friend in the Elders Quorum was not saying that he had lost faith in the Lord; rather, he was simply being very honest with us, I think, in sharing both the childlike and the sophisticated dimensions of his experience. This story reflects the thoughts and feelings that many of us experience, in our own way, during the college years. These thoughts and feelings are an important part of growing toward spiritual and intellectual maturity, as well as an important part of understanding both the strengths and the limitations of a college education."

Most of us probably have wondered if or how much God is really involved in our individual lives. Personally, I have more trouble believing that God hears the pleas of others than my own. I wonder why God will grant me the trivialities of my life -- yes, trivialities like fresh produce or a washing machine -- and yet literally leave others out in the cold without the bare necessities of life. We often say that God doesn't intervene much because he must allow us our free agency. In other words, He couldn't save all those in the depths of Auschwitz's gas chambers and He cannot save the people in Darfur from starvation because the free agency of the perpetrators overrides His ability to intervene, no matter how much the victims plead with God to save them.

So if God allows certain humans to have so much power over others -- on the grounds of free agency -- then why even ask Him to protect us from anything? If a knife-wielding lunatic on the street exercises his free agency and decides he is going to get me, can God do anything about it? If so, then why not at least throw suffering people a bone?

And yet I continue to pray for a blessing of safety upon me and my loved ones. A habit of hope and fear, I suppose. Hope that it will make a difference. Fear that it won't or even can't, because life is really just a big series of one coincidence after another. An intellectual maturity does not necessarily cause us to lose our faith in the Lord's existence. But I think that if we're honest with ourselves, a more sophisticated style of thinking makes us question just how big of a role He plays in our lives, which thereby challenges our spirituality.

What do you think? Was the calf's survival a coincidence? Is the very fact that you are living, breathing and reading right now a coincidence or divine intervention? Is it coincidence or divine intervention that separates your reality from that of the orphan with a shrapnel wound in Pakistan's Swat region?

To be honest, I'm not sure which alternative makes me feel better.

"I See Dead People."

One of the main reasons why I am able to maintain my faith despite doubt is because I believe very strongly in life after death. Exactly how the next life will be, I do not claim to know. I do, however, believe that there is one. I've tried to imagine sometimes that this life is really all there will ever be. But even on my most cynical days, I just cannot convince myself of it. A major reason for that is because of some amazing spiritual experiences related to death that I've heard from certain family members, close friends, or other sources. They've come in different forms: dreams, visions, feelings, and other experiences. I'm only going to list a few of them here.


I think that most people, religious or not, believe in something after this life. I've wanted to do a post like this for some time, but it always got pushed aside until I was reminded by it after having a conversation with a very good friend of mine from my home ward in Canada (I'll call her Virginia) about some amazing spiritual experiences she and her siblings experienced after losing each of their parents. When her mother died, Virginia had a very detailed dream about her mother, in which her mother looked the way she did when she was younger. They embraced and she recalls vividly how it felt and how her mother smelled. Her mother told her that she was happy and well. Later on, Virginia was talking to her sister, who told her of a dream that she had had herself about their mother -- which turned out to be the exact same dream that Virginia had had, right down to the details.

When Virginia's father died, he was an old man and had been ill for some time. As each of the sisters took turns sitting by his bedside, each one of them "heard" a special message from their father -- even though he was lying unconscious in his bed. The only one who didn't get a special message was Virginia (who is, incidentally, the only one in the family who was active in the Church along with her father). At first she was a little disappointed, but accepted that it wasn't meant to be. Their father passed away just a few hours later.

Later that evening after leaving the hospital, Virginia settled down to bed. At about 3 am, she suddenly awoke to see the room light up like day and a vision of her father, dressed in his nice dark suit and looking exactly like he did when he was in his 40's, stepping down through a sort of "portal" and walking towards Virginia's bed. He was smiling and he looked "radiant," as she described. But Virginia was so shocked by this vision that she freaked out, hid her face under the covers and yelled "NO!" And then he was gone.

Before I got married, I became good friends with an older woman in my ward. I'll call her Mary. When I was 18, she had gotten the news from the doctor that she was terminally ill. She had a bad heart but was not a candidate for a transplant because she was not strong enough to survive the surgery. I'm now 31 and Mary finally died just a couple of months ago. Over the years, I had many conversations with Mary, who talked openly about her impending death, what she imagined it would be like, and some interesting spiritual experiences she had had -- particularly concerning her husband, who died back in the 70's. Especially these last couple of years, Mary had a strong feeling of his presence on several occasions and even had a beautiful vision of him, much like Virginia had of her father.

My husband's father died during heart bypass surgery just after we met. So unfortunately, I never knew my father-in-law. However, I'm close to my mother-in-law (I'll call her Brita) and she told me an interesting story. My husband's family is not particularly religious, but I know that they believe in "something," and that there is "more between heaven and earth," as Norwegians like to say. One day a few years ago I was helping my mother-in-law dust the tops of her kitchen cupboards. As I carefully dusted a small porcelain music box, she told me a very interesting story. Her husband (I'll call him Rolf) had received that music box as a gift from either his mother or grandmother (I can't remember). It was one of those that you have to twist in order for it to play.

Shortly after her husband's death, Brita said that she was alone in the kitchen one evening and started to think out loud: "Rolf, if you're really out there somewhere and listening to this, let me know somehow." Then, to her astonishment, the music box started to play. I cannot believe that this was simply a coincidence because:


a) the music box is out of reach without a chair or a ladder

b) it won't start playing if simply touched -- it's needs to be twisted

c) it's never played on its own, before or since that particular occasion

d) Brita is one of the most rational, level-headed people I know and I KNOW she would not make up something like this

Not only do I believe in spirits, I also believe that certain people, so-called "mediums" have a special gift in making contact and relating messages between the living and the dead, much like some people have the gift of tongues or healing. I'm not talking about the type of people who place ads in newspapers and charge you 10 bucks a minute to call a 1-900 number. I'm not talking about those who are obviously frauds or who use sneaky tactics to make money off their supposed "gift." I'm talking about those who are sincere and who really appear to have a gift, those who make stunning connections that have to be more than coincidence, and offer their services not to get rich, but in order to bring comfort to those who are grieving over a loss or feeling burdened by a presence that is "haunting" them.

My parents have a copy of Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie. Even though it's been almost 15 years since I've read that book, a lot of things have never been forgotten -- mostly negative things, unfortunately. I've been home for a visit and after that conversation with my friend Virginia, I was reminded by some of the things that McConkie wrote in that book concerning spirits and mediums. I found the book buried beneath a pile of stuff in an old bookshelf and started to re-read the passages on a variety of topics that were burned in my mind all these years. I remember my mother telling me years ago how she never liked that book. I feel the same way. I get such a negative feeling when I even think about it. But because McConkie provided an opposing viewpoint to my own, and since his is most likely accepted as truth by most Mormons, I decided to cite his writings on the subject in this post for the sake of the "spirit" of discussion (no pun intended).

Under "Medium," McConkie writes:

"Mediums are witches; they are persons who have so trained and schooled themselves in sorcery and spiritualism that they have ready access to and communion with evil spirits. In modern spiritualism they are the ones who conduct seances and who profess to call back the dead and receive messages from them. In the main, of course, the messages received are from devils and not from the departed dead." (Mormon Doctrine, page 473)

McConkie continues in a section called "Spiritualism."

"It is true that some mediums do make contact with spirits during their seances. In most instances, however, such spirits as manifest themselves are probably the demons or devils who were cast out of heaven for rebellion. Such departed spirits as become involved in these spiritualistic orgies would obviously be the spirits of wicked and depraved persons who because of their previous wickedness in mortality had wholly subjected themselves to the dominion of Lucifer. Righteous spirits would have nothing but contempt and pity for the attempts of mediums to make contact with them.

Isaiah's famous statement on the falsity of spiritualism is: "And when they shall say unto you: Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep and mutter -- should not a people seek unto their God for the living to hear from the dead? To the law and to the testimony; and if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (2 Ne. 18:19-20; Isa. 8:19-20; Inspired Version, Isa. 8:19-20) Thus, no matter how sincerely mediums may be deceived into thinking they are following a divinely-approved pattern, they are in fact turning to an evil source "for the living to hear from the dead." Those who are truly spiritually inclined know this by personal revelation from the true Spirit; further, the information revealed from spirits through mediums is not according to "the law and to the testimony." Accordingly, though some true facts may be found in it, yet its acceptance and use has the effect of leading souls into the clutches of those evil powers which give the data." (Mormon Doctrine, page 759)

So here are some questions I have. Feel free to answer them all, or just the ones that you feel you can.

a) Have you or anyone you know ever had a mysterious experience with spirits, good or bad?

b) Do you believe that the dead can come back to comfort us or give us a message?

c) Do you believe in mediums? Do you believethat certain people have a spiritual gift that allows them to "see dead people" or communicate with them?

d) Do you believe in hauntings and do you believe that mediums can help these spirits to "cross over" and stop plaguing the living and/or relate a message of comfort to those who are grieving?

e) Do you believe, like Bruce R. McConkie, that all mediums are engaging in a sort of devil worship with evil spirits, whether intentionally or unintentionally?

(Not Quite) Miss USA

I know I'm usually quick to point out the hypocrisy and narrow-mindedness coming from religious conservatives when it comes to the subject of gay marriage. But this round is going to be a little different.

In the final of the Miss USA pageant, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked by blogger Perez Hilton:

"Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?"

Prejean responded:

"Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. Um, we live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and in, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there. But that's how I was raised and that's how I think that it should be between a man and a woman."

OK, forget the "um" and her airheadish choice of words. She answered the question that was asked of her. She is entitled to her own opinions. The question was worded, "Do you think...?" That signifies to me that Hilton was asking for her opinion. And he got it.

Now, I probably know as much about the judging rules of the Miss USA pageant as Miss Arizona knew about universal health care, but I thought that the purpose of those questions is to see how the contestants handle and express themselves when faced with spontaneous and (sometimes difficult) questions under pressure. Since when is there a "right" or "wrong" answer to any of these questions?

So I'm not sure who I feel more sorry for: Miss California, for being judged on her personal opinions as opposed to her ability to (at least somewhat) coherently anwer a question, or Miss North Carolina, for knowing that the crown was hers because, as Hilton himself openly admitted, Miss California's opinion "lost her the crown, without a doubt!"

Maybe the Miss USA pageant really should be all about looks.

If I Weren't A Mormon...

I suppose that we've all thought at one time or another about what our lives would have been like if we weren't LDS. Actually, whether you're LDS or of another faith, perhaps you've tried to imagine what it would be like to convert to a different religion. Lately I've been thinking about it a lot, not because I'm really considering "changing teams," but because I like to imagine what it would be like to see the world through other religious perspectives besides Mormonism. So here are just a few that I've been able to narrow down:

Catholicism: First of all, I'm under no illusions about my ability to be a "good" Catholic. If I converted from Mormonism to Catholicism, my aversion to certain doctrines and dogmas certainly wouldn't be lessened. However, I love a lot of things about Catholicism. The obvious attractions are the history, traditions, and churches. I've visited countless Catholic churches and cathedrals throughout Europe and Mexico and have always felt something special inside of them. Aside from being awe-struck on a purely secular level by beautiful art and stunning architecture, it's hard to not somehow feel closer to Deity in such an atmosphere -- especially when you throw Gregorian chants into the mix. It commands reverence in a way that I probably haven't experienced anywhere else. I felt it when I just happened to be in Notre Dame in Paris during an Easter Sunday mass a few years ago, as well as when I visited Palais des Papes in Avignon, France, or the stunning cathedral pictured here in Florence, Italy. I love the fact that many of the cathedrals are always open and you are free to walk in, light a candle, and just sit quietly and meditate in a place that is spiritually inspiring.

Another thing I love about Catholicism is intercessory prayers to patron saints and the Blessed Virgin. Many mistakingly believe that Catholics pray to Mary and the saints in order to worship them, which is false. As Mormons, we do something similar by petitioning each other to pray on behalf of ourselves or others. We do it in temples with the prayer roll, we do it in sacrament meeting when we ask the congregation to pray for someone in the ward. Catholics, however, have the option of petitioning departed saints to plead their case before God. I love this idea and would love to think that I could pray to Mary, or Heavenly Mother, or "saints," Mormon or non-Mormon, and have them ask the Lord on my behalf for something that I need.

As well, I used to always imagine Catholic confession to be a horribly embarrassing practice that I was glad we didn't have in the LDS Church. However, after reading Catholicism for Dummies, I sort of changed my mind about it. In fact, I could almost see the appeal in being able to go to a priest, who has taken an oath of confidentiality (very important factor!), tell him everything I'm feeling guilty about and then hopefully receive penance for my sins. In some ways, I think it must be very therapeutic. As Mormons, we only go to the Bishop for major sins, but Catholics confess even their lesser sins to a priest. By doing so, one would think that it would be easier to be mindful of everything we do and say and therefore always be "on our best behaviour," so that we avoid having to make frequent trips to confession. Pope John Paul II outlined three main reasons for confession:

1. we are renewed in fervor


2. strengthened in our resolutions


3. supported by divine encouragement

Seventh-day Adventist: I actually knew zip about Seventh-day Adventists until I noticed that a vegan friend of mine had it listed as her religious views on Facebook. I was curious and did a bit of research. It has certain similarities to Mormonism, both in doctrine and policy, and Adventists do a lot of humanitarian and community work. In fact, my husband's uncle, who suffers from extreme back pain, recently stayed at a rehabilitation centre run by Adventists and after a 3-week stay, he looked like a new man. Being a heavy-drinking chain-smoking meat eater, we were skeptical about how he would like this meat-free, smoke-free, alcohol-free environment, but he apparently enjoyed his time in the centre. Seeing what it did for him, I wish he could live there permanently.

What I like best about Seventh-day Adventism is its emphasis on a healthy vegetarian diet. Most avoid coffee and caffeinated drinks like Mormons, but I like the fact that they promote and practise a vegetarian lifestyle. Adventists are credited with the development of certain health and vegetarian products, and according to Wikipedia, research by the US National Institute of Health found that the average Adventist in California lives 4-10 years longer than the average Californian.

The Black Churches: I know it probably sounds ignorant of me to lump a whole bunch of churches into one group based on race, but there is something special about the African American way of worship. I've never personally been to a "black church," but I've watched some services and sermons on TV. The minister giving the sermon is often quite animated, often backed up by an energetic choir and background music, and the congregation is lively. Mormons, by contrast, are pretty conservative in their style of worship. No standing, no clapping, no waving, no shouts of "amen." I don't think that either of these styles of worship are "right" or "wrong." I see value and purpose to both and am perhaps most suited to a style of worship where I can sit quiet and do nothing, but can certainly see the appeal -- and perhaps even need -- for a more animated style of worship.

Jainism: I first heard of this religion because of an Indian acquaintance of mine, who is a Jain. What I like about Jainism is its respect for all life. According to Wikipedia, "(B)ecause all living beings possess a soul, great care and awareness is essential in one's actions in the incarnate world. Jainism emphasizes the equality of all life, advocating harmlessness towards all, whether these be creatures great or small. This policy extends even to microscopic organisms." A devout Jain will not only refuse meat, but even root vegetables such as onions and potatoes, in order to preserve the life of the plant. Pictured on the right is a Jain temple in Ranakpur, India.

Veganism: I know, it's not really a religion, right? Well, no, not in the traditional sense, but I think that veganism holds, to many of its adherents, a spiritual aspect to it. I have a few friends who are vegan and although they're not really "religious" per se, they consider veganism to be their spirituality and are probably among the most compassionate and loving people I know -- towards both humans and animals. Veganism requires people to really think about how their dietary choices and actions affect animals and the environment. Although I'm not vegan myself, I definitely have a bit of "vegan envy" of those who are able to avoid all animal products for ethical reasons.

Agnosticism: Simply put, agnosticism is "the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism, though it is not a religious declaration in itself." (See Wikipedia for more information.)

I have my days, but for the most part I don't really doubt that God exists. I do doubt sometimes, however, whether we can ever really "know" that God exists. Wikipedia breaks down different types of agnosticism and I would say that I strongly identify with "Agnostic theism," also called "religious" or "spiritual agnosticism:" -- the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. Søren Kierkegaard believed that knowledge of any deity is impossible, and because of that people who want to be theists must believe: "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe."

So what would I be if I weren't a Mormon? In terms of style of worship, I feel very drawn to Catholicism for the reasons that I mentioned above. In terms of ethics and morality, I absolutely love the message of Jainism, particularly the reasons behind its dietary code. It adds a more religious element to veganism and that's something that I find very appealing, even though I'm not vegan. Still, though, I feel drawn to Christianity. But Christianity can be a maze of confusion, with all the different denominations, interpretations and disappointing feuding and hypocrisy. (Mormonism in itself can be a maze that can test one's spiritual endurance.) Had I not been raised Mormon and found my own little niche in the Church, I think that I would have been drawn to something like Jainism, but would have perhaps still felt that something was missing. If I had found Mormonism later in life, I think I would have been drawn to the Plan of Salvation -- which is my favourite part about Mormonism -- but I think that I would have been scared off by certain elements of Mormonism and therefore would not have investigated it further.

So I think that if I weren't a Mormon, I would have felt drawn to a combination of Christianity and Jainism, but would have most likely considered myself to be agnostic. But after doing this post, I think I've finally figured out what I am right now:

I'm a practising Mormon Agnostic Theist with Jain envy.

What about you?

Where I Come From

I'm a very lucky girl.

I'm lucky for many reasons, but most especially for the parents I was born to and for the home in which I was raised. And as you will soon find out, God had to create quite a complex formula in order for me to have been born to whom, where, and when I was born.

I've said before that my main reason for staying in the Church, despite all my questions and problems with it (and y'all know I have plenty of those), is because I've experienced some things in my life that I consider to be more than just coincidence -- perhaps even miraculous -- that I've seen a divine hand in. One of these things is the story of how my parents got together.

I realize that to the skeptic, this will appear to be nothing more than a nice story with some funny coincidences that led to a couple of regular people getting together and having a family. Interesting, but pretty uneventful and nothing special. But knowing my parents as I do, and being a part of their family, I have a hard time denying God's role in our lives even on my most cynical days.

I got this e-mail from my father recently. Names and certain minor details have been changed for privacy reasons, but other than that it's complete. I've added some personal commentary in red.

So this is "where I come from." My parents' marriage has perhaps been the greatest blessing in my life, as it gave me safety and stability while growing up. But most importantly, their example was undoubtedly the greatest influence on my choice of partner and what kind of marriage relationship I knew I wanted in my life.

Enjoy.

---------------------------------
Dear Family,

I want to share with you a special talk I am giving today at Church. It is on a topic that is very special to me, and though you couldn't be here with us, at least I can share it with you:

Love, Dad

Back on 22 March, Brother Dawson asked me to speak in Sacrament on a most unusual topic: “My wife’s influence in my life.”

Because of the unusual topic he assigned me, and being one of the brethern... I had to make a moment of lightness out of this... so I answered him... That should only take 30 seconds!

Later that day, another thought crossed my mind... I’ll tell Maria the topic, and get her to write the talk for me!

Afterwards, I got serious as I knew I would, because there is nothing more beautiful in this world to me than what I am about to share with you. This may be the most personal talk I have ever given in Church. I also want you to know that Maria knows nothing about the topic I was assigned to speak to you on today.

To truly appreciate the influence my wife has been in my life, we need to go back in time. This is where my talk truly begins. As a young person, I was not a member of the Church and knew nothing about it. However, as I look back, God and Jesus Christ were important in my life from as far back as I can remember. I owe that to my Dad who taught me that God was real, and my Mom’s example of teaching Sunday School at our local Church for several years in the 1960’s.

There was a time in my life when I rarely went to Church. This would be in the early 1960’s. Then I remember our local Church minister paying us a visit to our home encouraging us to come. I remember asking him if going to Church was important to get to Heaven. He answered in the affirmative and from that day forward, I usually attended Church most Sundays. Afterwards, I always felt bad on those Sundays when I would miss Church. One day in the eternities, I hope to thank that minister for reactivating me and getting me to come back to Church.

Little did I know that thousands of kilometres from here, in 1970, the Lord was preparing a family, and a special girl in my future, to share the restored gospel with me. Maria and some of her family joined the Church in November of that year. By 1971, all but her father had joined.

Prior to meeting Maria, I spoke no Spanish, and she spoke no English. So how was the Lord going to bring Maria and I together? How was I ever going to meet her? After I share this story with you, I think you’ll agree it would have been much easier for me to find a needle in any old haystack. It really began in the summer of 1973. My mother’s friend talked her into taking a cooking class that fall. Because of this, my Mom met a Mexican girl named Sylvia who was an exchange student here in Canada. Mom eventually invited this girl to our place, and she and our family soon became good friends. (I find this small detail to be very interesting because my grandmother hates to cook. The last thing I can imagine her doing is taking a cooking class, let alone Mexican food, which I can't imagine she would eat.)

I was at college, semester 5, and had plans to travel at Christmas break on the Greyhound to Oakland, California to look up friends I had met in Spain in August. I planned to also go to other locations in Western Canada and the US, as many as I could pack into 3 weeks. Sylvia asked me if I had ever been to Mexico. I told her no, but that I would love to go. She mentioned to me that if I wanted to travel to Mexico City on this trip, that her family would provide me with a place to stay and show me around the sights. All this if I would simply take a few Christmas gifts to her family that she would send with me. It was too good of a deal to pass up, so I decided to go.

Christmas break came and I travelled to California and stayed with my friends in Oakland. They were not members, but I remember them showing me the lights of the Oakland Temple at night. Even then, the Lord was preparing me. I toured San Francisco, took in Disneyland and San Diego, then headed east through Arizona, saw the Grand Canyon and on to Albuquerque, NM where I spent the night on Dec 29, 1973.

Next day, I headed to El Paso where I intended to spend the night… if I could find a motel that fit my budget. It was 5pm and if I failed, I could catch the bus to Mexico City at 7 pm. It was a 26 hour ride. After checking El Paso’s nearby hotels, they were all out of my price range so I went back to the bus depot and bought a bus ticket on the Mexican bus headed to Mexico City. One note of interest here is that El Paso was the only town on all my trips I took in Europe and North America where hotels were too expensive. My life would today be dramatically different if I had stayed in El Paso overnight. Another note of interest is that on Mexican buses, it was necessary to choose your seat before you got on the bus. I chose passenger side front. This was to also be a critical decision as you will see in a few moments.

Crossing the border to Ciudad Juarez, a older Mexican lady noticed I could not speak Spanish. She asked Maria’s sister and her girlfriend, both whom I did not know, and travelling back from Utah, to help me through Mexican customs. Afterwards, Maria’s sister befriended me on the bus. The reason she was able to do this is because she sat across the aisle and one row back. Not long into the trip, the seats just in front of her were vacated. She spoke a little English. Some hours later, she asked me where I was going to stay when I arrived in Mexico City. I told her I would look for a hotel close to the bus depot when we arrived at 9:30 pm. Knowing it was a rough section of the city, dark, and New Year’s Eve, she invited me to her home to spend the night with her family. This would lead to my real introduction to the Church.

I first met Maria just before midnight on 31 Dec 1973 in her house. I really didn’t get to know her very well on this first visit, but the 4 nights I spent with her family had an amazing impact on me. The 4th evening, when I surprised them returning from Acapulco with a few thank-you gifts, I entered the home as a movie was running for a home fireside. It was in English, Spanish subtitled, and called “Brigham Young” with Tyrone Power. Again, the Lord provided me with an opportunity to learn a little about the Church and it’s history in my own language.

I went on to spend several days with Sylvia’s family and had a wonderful time before returning by bus to Michigan and to school back home here in Canada. When home, I bought myself a book to learn Spanish. In my spare time, I would study and I made it through about ¼ of the book. The following November, now being graduated from school and having saved enough money from a job I had, I went on a 76 day bus trip and during the last month, I returned to Maria’s home on 2 Jan 1975. Maria was not in school anymore and spent her days at home tending to her oldest sister’s newborn baby and looking after the house. As the next 10 days passed, we spent a lot of time together. I realized not only was Maria strikingly beautiful on the outside, but she was the nicest person I had ever met on the inside. She had a faith in God and practiced it, as did her family. I realized I had fallen in love with her. She had no idea, as I never asked her out officially. There wasn’t time. On January 11, I remember asking God in my prayers that night if I should ask Maria to marry me. I felt strongly impressed by the Spirit that I should, and late the next night, I asked her in the little Spanish I could now speak, that “I thought you are a good wife for me.” This was totally unexpected to her and she had no reply right then. 4 more days would pass, and on the afternoon of 16 January 1975, in a taxi…Maria said yes. One note of interest here is that never in my life have I felt a quicker and more powerful answer to my prayers than that night… asking Heavenly Father if Maria was right for me. (My dad is a classic Type A personality, takes things slowly, and is about the least spontaneous person I know. He often agonizes over decisions, thinking everything through. Another interesting note is that he never dated before, never had a girlfriend, was not really on the lookout for a wife, was only interested in travelling and seemed to enjoy being a bachelor until he met my mom and sparks apparently started flying out of nowhere. He also liked blondes, which my mom definitely is not. :) All this seems so far off the wall when I think about it now. Two young people who hardly knew each other... from different countries, cultures and languages, attempting to try to make a successful marriage with all these obstacles. It was very uncharacteristic of the man Maria knows now to make such a hasty decision to rush into marriage so quickly. I normally take a lot of time to make large decisions in my life. (To say the least. :)

It was a scary evening when I had to brake the news to Maria’s mother 12 nights later. My hand was forced as I had to get back home, so I left it to the day before departure. I thought I might be sleeping out on the street that night. However, she had no objections and was very kind to me. She said I had to also ask Maria’s oldest brother, being there was no father in the house. That could not be done till the next night, so I had to stay one extra day. Again, nothing but kindness and acceptance. At this point in my talk as I reflect, I come to realize that the chances of ever meeting Maria were so remote that I often marvel as to how it ever happened. I like to look at all that had to happen as one big puzzle. Take away just one piece of the puzzle, or incident that absolutely had to take place, and my chances of meeting her would be taken away. One could conclude it was all coincidence, but I know better. I saw the hand of the Lord in so many critical moments in our meeting, that I have no doubt he made it all come to pass.

In June 1975, I returned by air to Mexico to bring Maria back to Canada after her immigration papers were ready. We had a great trip to Canada by bus and crossed the Canadian border on July 7. Soon thereafter, Maria and I met Bishop Hill, who agreed to marry us on Aug 1. (Bishop Hill, years later, told my dad how skeptical he was at the time that their marriage would work out, but he was pleased to see that they had beaten the odds.)

Why is this story so important? How did Maria, at the age of 18 ½, make such monumental decisions in her life? I was 22, but looking back on it now, I was nowhere near the maturity level of her. She sacrificed everything to be my wife. Not only did I gain the best wife God could ever give me, the best mother for our future children, but she and her family touched me in a way no other family ever has. Materially, this family had very little. A humble home, a mother and 10 kids, no father who cared, not even financially. Only one sibling was married, and she and her husband and baby also lived in this small home with only 3 bedrooms. They had very little money coming in, but they all treated me with a kindness that I have never seen. (Dad has always told us how humbled he felt when they gave him his own room in this small, humble house full of people. They also took time out of their day to drive him to all sorts of places and show him all the sites. Mexican hospitality is hard to match in this world and my mother's family is no exception.)

All of Maria’s family at home were members of the Church, but they never pushed the Church on me. I was invited to attend Church with them when Sunday came and I was happy to go. In Canada, I took Maria to her Church for a few weeks until we were married, then I resumed attending my own Church for a few months. In November, 1975, because Bishop Hill married us, he felt prompted to ask us to his home to view the brand new Washington DC Temple movie. That really acted as a catalyst for me to take Maria to Church two Sundays later. Sacrament meeting was at 5 pm those days, and after the meeting I approached the missionaries and asked them if they would teach me about the Church.

The major obstacle I had to overcome to join the Church hinged on getting some answers to a handout I was given in November 1974 on a Greyhound bus travelling from Hollywood, California to Reno, Nevada. I met this formerly LDS girl on the bus. She had attended BYU and while there, her mother back home in California left the Church. This girl did the same when she returned home. Her mom had written a very professional anti LDS pamphlet that her daughter gave me on the bus. When I read it, I was certain I would never join that Church. That’s even the way I felt when I married Maria 9 months later, though I never told her. So I took this pamphlet to Bishop Hill in November 1975 to give him a chance to answer these tough questions. His answers seemed genuine and I left that day opened-minded that I needed to give the Church at least a chance. I also remembered what Bishop Hill said to me in the Bishop’s office back in July when we asked him if he would marry us. He said..”Charles, you owe it to yourself to look into the Church.” Talking to the missionaries usually at the Hills' home over the next few weeks, I initially refused to set a baptismal date. I later agreed to 10 am February 21, 1976 as the big day. However, at 2 am on very that day, I wasn’t sure if I would go through with it. There was only 1 obstacle left. Tithing. This is where my wonderful wife gave me some advice as to “give it a try.” I did, and although it still took me a few more months to gain a testimony of it, I showed up that day to be baptized. (Our family was always blessed, perhaps as a result of tithing, and I'm often in awe of how my parents managed to raise 5 kids in comfortable circumstances on one salary, plus pay off their mortgage in just 5 years and never be in debt again.)

What kind of an influence was Maria on me through my conversion? Just an example of how a good Church member should live. She gave me my complete free agency to choose. Never pushy, though I knew it would mean the world to her if I was to join. One thing most people don’t know is that when she agreed to marry me, she had a very good chance to marry a return missionary from Utah who cared for her perhaps as much as I did. Instead she chose me, a non-member. Usually this is not a good thing to do, but in this case, I joined the Church, and the return missionary soon went inactive after his mission ended. We soon set a goal to have our marriage sealed forever in the Temple. That day came on April 29, 1977 at St George, Utah. Maria’s sister, the one I met on the bus and her now American husband, escorted us through.

Looking back at that girl on the bus who gave me that anti-LDS handout, I realized afterwards that Satan knew I knew Maria’s family, and he did his best to keep me away from ever joining the Church. God had other plans for me. 34 yrs later, I can tell you much more about the influence my wife has been in my life. She has been ever so faithful in the Church, for me always someone I can look to when I need to see the right way.

Maria has raised 5 kids and been a shining example to all of them. She has given everything she has to her family. She also helps her extended family whenever they are in need. She is completely selfless, rarely ever putting herself first. (Yes, yes, yes, and yes.)

Whenever someone in the family needs counsel, I mean really good counsel with tough problems, Maria is as good as most professionals. I am a person who doesn’t handle stress very well. (Dad passed his worry-wart genes onto me.) She helps me through times like these, and the Lord puts me in contact with others who can also help me. She ruins watching Dr. Phil for me because she is usually right about the advice his guests need before Dr. Phil gets to give it to them. Maria is a shrink without the university degree. I’m often amazed at her wisdom. Most times when we have had a difference in opinion on something, I have soon seen that she was usually right. Not many men like to admit that, but that is why I have come to respect everything she says, especially involving the kids and my problems. I remember Maria’s first calling here in Canada… a teacher in Primary. She could only speak a little English and she often came home with headaches from trying to understand, but she took the calling and the Lord blessed her to learn the language quite well after 2 yrs here, despite the fact she never had a formal English lesson. Currently, Maria teaches seminary. It is only a 1 hr lesson each Wednesday night. I have noticed that every single week as she prepares the lesson, she averages about 8 hrs total preparation time. Back in December, Maria was called to be 1st Counsellor in the Stake Primary. She could not give the High Councilman an answer right away, as she knew she had to talk to me first. She would need my support to provide rides as the calling involves a lot of travel and she doesn’t like to drive on the highway. I was only more than happy to support her in this calling, and we have been both blessed from it. To conclude, it is an understatement to say that my wife has not been a major influence in my life for good. Only the Lord’s influence could be considered greater. I have learned to thank the Lord in my prayers for her frequently, because I know she could never be replaced if I ever lost her. Thank goodness, our marriage is sealed for all time and eternity in the Temple of the Lord. I have also come to appreciate the magnitude of the sacrifice she made for me in 1975, giving up all she knew including her culture, language and family to be my wife. I will be forever grateful for that.

All this had to be, so I could have the restored gospel in my life. I hope my talk was not too much of a travelogue. That was not my intention. I wanted you to see that the Lord was guiding all that happened and that is why it happened. I have come to learn that I owe the Lord a great deal for this. The Lord prepared the way and because I accepted it, the result has been a life of stability and happiness. Not just happiness for this life, ...but for all time and eternity. I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, AMEN.

The Faithful Dissident's First Anniversary

A year ago on this day, I published my first post.

Throughout the past year I managed to attract a number of regular readers and others who stumble upon my blog. Recently I was made a permablogger over at Mormon Matters and I've guest posted several times on Feminist Mormon Housewives. Sometimes I'm still amazed that anyone wants to read stuff that originated in my mind.

I thought that some of you may be interested in hearing the story of what became the catalyst for this blog.

I read a lot of news and somehow stumbled upon the story of Peter and Mary Danzig (see here and here to refresh your memory), which troubled me. And the more I read, the more troubled I became, not just about the Danzigs, but about things related to the Church and Mormonism that I had never heard of. And low and behold, I discovered something called The Bloggernacle.

At first I just read and read and read. But I had so many thoughts myself that I started to feel compelled to write them down. I began to think that perhaps I could start my own blog. But I wasn't a writer and I was definitely no scholar. Who would read it? And wouldn't it be like blasphemy or something? If someone found out it was me, could I end up like the Danzigs? So I put it out of my mind for a while.

I remember one day feeling incredibly frustrated by church. Something that someone in my branch had done to tick me off, combined with all the disappointing things about the Church that I had read, not to mention the fact that a couple of well-meaning yet overzealous missionaries scared off my non-member husband a couple of years before, and just the fact that I was utterly alone in the Church in general, made for an intensely negative spiritual time in my life and I was feeling very disillusioned. So I went out for a run in the melting snow to blow off some steam, my mp3 blaring, and that's when the idea to start a blog came back. And this time I wasn't going to shrug it off. But what would I call it? Feeling torn between faith and logic, I felt strongly that an oxymoron best described me. And then it came to me: The Faithful Dissident.

So, a year later, where am I now? In some ways I think I'm in a much better place now than before I started blogging, while sometimes I think that it just opened a can of worms. But I don't really have any regrets. I've met some wonderful people through blogging and although I've never met any of them in person, I think that we've made some special spiritual connections with one another that wouldn't have been possible any other way.

I can understand why some Church leaders don't want anyone to delve into Church history. I think that once you do, it's virtually impossible to maintain exactly the same beliefs that you had before you decided to delve deeper. So I'm actually hesitant to recommend doing so to anyone. It's a tough road to go down and there's really no going back.

In the past few years, my former view of the Church has been shattered. It's lost its shine and even some of its goodness in my eyes. My view of the Church is no longer this beacon of light and impeccable righteousness. I don't think it'll ever be the same. How can it be? But it's not enough to make me leave. I've just had to redefine what it means to me, FD.

I think what I've redefined more than anything is my priorities. To me, the most important thing is not to simply "follow the prophet," but to "love (my) neighbour as (myself)." To many Mormons it's all the same thing, but to me, sometimes paradoxes get in the way. Does this mean that the Church has become redundant or irrelevant to me? Not at all, since it's still very much the foundation upon which I build my life and faith in God. Does this mean that I now think that anything is acceptable? Of course not. What it means is that I'm willing to open my mind and spirit, look deeper into something and give it more consideration than most think is necessary. By doing so, I've been able to look at things very differently, learn a lot about the world and my fellow brothers and sisters, and even let go of some very stubborn grudges I had been holding towards some people. It's been a very humbling experience.

The decision of whether or not to remain active is really quite simple. Am I better off with or without it? Is it going to influence me for better or for worse in the future? My way of answering those questions is to ask myself yet another question: who and where would I be today if I had not been raised in the Church? I'd like to think that I'd be much the same person that I am now, but I tend to believe that the uniquely Mormon perspective of who God is and the Plan of Salvation -- as lacking in details and specifics as I think these doctrines still are to us -- are what have kept me from losing all hope and becoming very bitter and cynical about this world. And ironically, I think it's those fundamental beliefs that have shaped some of the views I hold which are so controversial or borderline apostate in the eyes of many of my fellow Mormons, whether it be related to racism, polygamy, socialism, or homosexuality.

I once told a friend that a testimony is like the stock market. It fluctuates and has its highs and lows, and in order to profit from it you have to be in for the long haul. I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to say that I have a testimony. A testimony is usually considered to be a witness of a knowledge that someone has and I'm very hesitant to say that I know anything. I do, however, have faith. And I have decided to invest it for the long haul.

I've only "come out" to a handful of fellow bloggers and friends I've met online that I've connected with and trust. Aside from that, only my immediate family members know who FD really is. I realize that someday, someone who knows me may stumble across my blog and put two and two together. In the mean time, although I've sometimes been tempted to reveal more, remaining at least somewhat anonymous allows me greater freedom to write what's really on my mind.

So that was my first "annual report" and I look forward to more in the future.

Some fun facts:

Most controversial post: Hard to narrow down, but anything to do with Prop 8 was generally controversial and I decided to compile my thoughts in My Prop 8 Manifesto

Post that generated the most comments: That would have to be Ezra Taft Benson vs. Democratic Socialism, which I wrote around the time that some Mormon Republicans were branding Obama a reincarnation of Stalin. Keeping up with all the comments on this post got to be a full time job and for the first time, I had to close down a thread. Even now, I still get lots of hits on that post. And in case any of you are wondering whether I've repented of being a part of "Satan's counterfeit plan," all I can say is that I'm still content with "spreading the wealth around."

Most thought-provoking post: There probably isn't much that requires more mental aerobics than reconciling the Church's teachings on gender and the reality of intersex and transsexuals. I presented my thoughts on the subject in Gender: A State Of Mind.

Most personal post: I related the very personal story about my brother and a conflict I had with him in 'Tis The Season For Making Amends.

Post that was the most fun to write: I would say that would be How I Co-Authored Barack Obama's The Audacity Of Hope simply because I thoroughly enjoyed the book, particularly the chapters about faith, which I cite in the post.

Post that was hardest to write: I really had to cough up my pride and let go of an enormous grudge against my sister-in-law in I Have A Confession To Make. In that post I also let off some steam about religion in general.

Most Frustrating Post: If I discount all the political and socialism stuff, Elder Russell M. Nelson gets the dubious honour for his conference talk about "cheap" marital options. My commentary on Elder Nelson's talk in How I Got My Husband Off The Clearance Rack on FMH generated a lot of feedback from other Mormons who were equally offended by his marriage analogies.

Post that I'm personally most proud of: Make Some Room. This post came as pure inspiration at about 2 am one morning just after the US election and I wrote it in a relatively short amount of time. I got some great feedback when it was posted on FMH and I even received e-mails from some members who thanked me profusely for it.

Now... here are some gems that I've discovered in the Bloggernacle over the past year that I recommend:

For the best-researched posts that I still cite from time to time, the prize goes to three bloggers:

Mormon Heretic for Was The Priesthood Ban Inspired?

Bored In Vernal: Hieing to Kolob for Evolution Of Birth Control Teachings In The Mormon Church

Dichotomy: Mormon In The Closet for LDS Gay History Timeline

Most touching post:

God's Love by my good friend Cody from GayLDSActor.

Other special mentions:

"I'd Like To Bear My Testimony:" Why I Came Out To My Entire Ward by Clint from Soy Made Me Gay.

Rick from Politicalds (one of my favourite blogs and the one that I probably spent the most time on) did this great post entitled Pro-Death? on why that description apparently fits him better than "pro-life," which sparked an interesting debate about abortion, euthanasia, and animal rights, among other things.

Late Addition:

Ray, coincidentally I just stumbled upon this post of yours from last year about When Moral Issues Become Political Issues. This is a keeper! Even if just for your position on abortion, which is exactly how I feel. Very good for all of us who feel torn on these issues.