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.

Wanted: Men On The Outside

“Perhaps the Lord needs [] men on the outside of His Church to help it along. They... can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else... Hence, some are drawn into the fold and receive a testimony of the truth; while others remain unconverted... the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view, for a wise purpose."

{Orson F. Whitney, Conference Report, April 1928, p. 59 [quoted by Ezra Taft Benson, “Civic Standards for the Faithful Saints,” Ensign, Jul 1972, 59]}

I came across the above quote in an old Mormon Matters post and was struck by it for several reasons:

Firstly, I don't think I've heard or read anything quite like it from Church leaders before.

Secondly, it seems to be quite a contrast from the usual message of haste for the need to be converted in this life, not to mention Moroni's promise that "if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost" (Moroni 10:4), as well as "God giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not" (James 1:5). In fact, it almost seems like a contradiction to me.

Thirdly, it reminds me of the discussion we had earlier about The Faith Gene and it seems to confirm the theory that some are unable to believe, not because of their own wrongdoing, but because God sees fit that "the beauties and glories of the gospel (be) veiled temporarily from their view, for a wise purpose." That "men on the outside" can sometimes actually "do more good" elsewhere than in the Church.

Thoughts, anyone?

International Women's Day: Are LDS Women Femiphobic?

Today is International Women's Day. Since it fell on a Sunday, I was at church today and it was the subject of a talk in sacrament meeting coinciding with the upcoming Relief Society Anniversary that will be celebrated in my branch later this month.

The RS president in my branch gave a nice talk about all the usual RS values: sisterhood, charity, service, motherhood, etc. But there one part in her talk that bothered me.

She started off by mentioning how she remembered an International Women's Day years back where Norwegian women protested with a slogan that I can translate as "Don't give up on your demands!" Upon hearing this, a sister in the congregation let out a laugh that sounded just a tad like mocking to me. The RS president went on to say, very proudly indeed, that never in the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have the sisters "demanded" anything of the like.

Let me start off by saying that I'm not implying here that LDS women should start "demanding" things from the Church. When it comes to things like the priesthood, most Mormon women I know (myself included) have no real interest in obtaining it. Most of us probably don't even feel unequal, unless you count things like polygamous temple sealings -- which most probably don't give much thought to until they find themselves involved in one.

But are LDS women marginalizing the efforts and accomplishments of feminists -- the things that we are supposed to be celebrating and giving thought to this day? The reason why I say yes is because I used to do it myself. Just a few years ago, I could have been that sister laughing at feminists in sacrament meeting.

I'd be lying if I said that I was a good feminist. And to be perfectly honest, I have to say that more often than not, I have viewed the feminist movement as something negative: women telling me to burn my bra, wear pantsuits, or make sure that every kid in the country grows up in daycare while mom climbs to the top of the corporate ladder. But the older I get and the more I learn about history and the world around me, the more thankful I am for the women who went before me and paved the road so that I have as much access to the highway of life as my husband. Yes, I'm even thankful for those terribly "demanding" feminists who never "gave up."

I think that most LDS women have a cynical view of feminism (as I did) because they believe that the only aim of feminists is to pull them out of their homes and force them to work while their kids get shipped off to daycare, even though they have chosen of their own free will to be a stay-at-home mom and love it. They feel that their choice of lifetyle is being mocked, devalued, and discouraged. And I certainly think that sometimes this is the case.

But let's look at the other side of the coin. Is there not a Mormon equivalent of the die-hard, anti-traditional, bra-burning feminist? Aren't liberal, career-oriented, childless women generally looked upon by most Mormons as being selfish -- or perhaps even having an active hand in the breakdown of the family? We often hear how the traditional family is "under attack," which was reiterated in church today. And who is "attacking" it? I think that many LDS women think that feminists are. Perhaps that's why the word "feminist" still instinctively conjures up a negative feeling in me until I actually consciously think about it. And the more conscious thought I give it, the less threatened I feel by feminists.

But just as troublesome to me as die-hard feminists telling me that my place is in an office and not at home, is Mormons telling me that my place is not in an office but at home. Mormons can sprinkle as much sugar as they like on it, but the message is always the same: a woman's place is in the home raising children and it's not just where she should be, but where she should want to be. And a woman who doesn't want to be, or chooses to be childless, can perhaps barely be called a woman at all.

In her talk, the RS president addressed the concern that some have about a church that excludes women from the priesthood. Her explanation was that women make up for it in terms of equality by being "partners" with the Lord and giving birth to children -- something that men can't do. I sat there wondering where that leaves me. And I sometimes wonder whether I'm the only woman in the Church who is wondering. At times it feels like finding my place in this world is a lot easier than finding my place in the Church. Personally, I'd like to have some say in what my role in this life is.

So what do you think? Are LDS women a bunch of femiphobics? Can they really appreciate what the feminist movement has given them without mocking it?

The Validity Of Deathbed Confessions

A few months ago, I was talking to my parents about the movie Emma Smith, My Story, which they had just seen. I haven't yet seen the movie myself, but I was surprised to hear my father express skepticism that Joseph Smith ever practiced polygamy. Since Emma herself denied it -- even on her deathbed -- he seemed to think that there was perhaps some validity to her statement. After all, deathbed confessions are pretty reliable, right? Would someone like Emma actually tell such a big lie on their deathbed?

According to Wikipedia:

"Newell and Avery, in their biography, Mormon Enigma, make the claim that Emma witnessed several marriages of Joseph Smith, Jr. to plural wives. However, throughout her lifetime Emma publicly denied knowledge of her husband's involvement in the practice of polygamy and denied on her deathbed that the practice had ever occurred. Emma stated,

“ No such thing as polygamy, or spiritual wifery, was taught, publicly or privately, before my husband's death, that I have now, or ever had any knowledge of...He had no other wife but me; nor did he to my knowledge ever have.”

Emma Smith claimed that the very first time she ever became aware of a polygamy revelation being attributed by Mormons to Joseph Smith was when she read about it in Orson Pratt's booklet The Seer in 1853. Her son, Joseph Smith III, became prophet/president of the Reorganization — which gathered many of the Latter Day Saints still scattered across the Midwest and elsewhere. Many of the Midwestern Latter Day Saints had broken with Brigham Young and/or James Strang because of earnest opposition to polygamy. Emma's continuing public denial of the practice seemed to lend strength to their cause, and opposition to polygamy became a tenet of the RLDS church (now known as Community of Christ). Over the years many church historians attempted to prove that the practice had originated with Brigham Young."

Emma Smith is, to me, one of those tragic characters of history. Re-reading some of the parts about her in Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling it's sad to think about how her life was and how it could have been, particularly when she and Joseph seem to have truly loved each other:

"With Joseph gone from her life, Emma withdrew from religion. She was reluctant to talk about Mormonism. Approached by representatives of one of the Mormon churches that sprang up after the exodus, she told them, "I have always avoided talking to my children about having anything to do in the church, for I have suffered so much I have dreaded to have them take any part in it." Her sons grew up believing the Bible and the Book of Mormon but with little knowledge of their father's teachings -- and none about plural marriage. Eventually the reform Mormons who founded the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, made up of Saints who had not gone west, persuaded Joseph III to take the leadership. Emma joined but never took a leading role. She fended off Joseph III's increasingly urgent questions about plural marriage, leaving the impression that her husband had never supported the principle but keeping the door open for the revelation she knew he had received. When asked about the Book of Mormon and Joseph's translation, she professed complete belief. Like the 1844 reform group led by William Law, she believed in the early Joseph whose doctrines conformed to conventional Christianity. Until her death in 1879, the memory she chose to perpetuate for her children was of this milder Prophet rather than the religious revolutionary of the Nauvoo years." (Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, page 555)

Personally, I find it hard to deny that Joseph Smith ever practiced polygamy. I don't doubt that he kept many things hidden from Emma, at least for a time, but it's hard to imagine that she was totally oblivious to it all -- assuming it even happened, which she asserted it did not. So was Emma's pants on fire? Was she guilty of telling a huge whopper? Or could she have actually believed it herself? Could she have been so hurt, angered and traumatized by polygamy that she, somehow, "blocked it out?" I find it interesting that she "professed complete belief" when it came to the Book of Mormon and its translation, much like all of the witnesses who left the Church or were excommunicated but never denied their testimonies of the Book of Mormon.

How much do you trust a deathbed confession? Why do you think that Emma denied that Joseph practiced polygamy even as she was facing death? Do you think she herself believed what she was saying, perhaps for the reasons stated above? Do you think that she lied out of hurt and anger? Did she just want to protect her children? Or do you think there was any validity to her deathbed confession?

The Light Of Christ vs. Conscience

During Sunday School lessons and talks, members of the Church will often use the terms "Light of Christ" and "conscience" synonymously.

But are they the same thing?

First, a little background information:

"The phrase “light of Christ” does not appear in the Bible, although the principles that apply to it are frequently mentioned therein. The precise phrase is found in Alma 28: 14, Moro. 7: 18, and D&C 88: 7. Biblical phrases that are sometimes synonymous to the term “light of Christ” are “spirit of the Lord” and “light of life” (see, for example, John 1: 4; John 8: 12). The “spirit of the Lord,” however, sometimes is used with reference to the Holy Ghost, and so must not be taken in every case as having reference to the light of Christ.

The light of Christ is just what the words imply: enlightenment, knowledge, and an uplifting, ennobling, persevering influence that comes upon mankind because of Jesus Christ. For instance, Christ is “the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world” (D&C 93: 2; John 1: 9). The light of Christ fills the “immensity of space” and is the means by which Christ is able to be “in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things.” It “giveth life to all things” and is “the law by which all things are governed.” It is also “the light that quickeneth” man’s understanding (see D&C 88: 6-13, 41). In this manner, the light of Christ is related to man’s conscience and tells him right from wrong (cf. Moro. 7: 12-19).

The light of Christ should not be confused with the personage of the Holy Ghost, for the light of Christ is not a personage at all. Its influence is preliminary to and preparatory to one’s receiving the Holy Ghost. The light of Christ will lead the honest soul who “hearkeneth to the voice” to find the true gospel and the true Church and thereby receive the Holy Ghost (see D&C 84: 46-48). Additional references are Alma 19: 6; Alma 26: 3; D&C 20: 27."

(Bible Dictionary, "Light of Christ")

"The Light of Christ is the divine energy, power, or influence that proceeds from God through Christ and gives life and light to all things. The Light of Christ influences people for good and prepares them to receive the Holy Ghost. One manifestation of the Light of Christ is what we call a conscience."

(Gospel Topics, Light of Christ)

"The Light of Christ became a doctrine of the Latter Day Saint movement, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that most people would call conscience. This doctrine teaches that the light of Christ "lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (Holy Bible, King James Version, John 1:9) "Wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God." Book of Mormon, Moroni 7:13. The "Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil." (Moroni 7:16) As another divine source of inspiration and knowledge of truth, the Holy Ghost himself is a divine personage and member of the Godhead. All people are able to feel the influence of the Holy Ghost from time to time. But repeatedly going against the Light of Christ will eventually make one "beyond feeling" the influence of the Holy Ghost. The baptism of water spoken by Jesus to Nichodemus was a literal baptism as practiced in the church. The baptism of fire is to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost, or the opportunity to always feel the Holy Ghost's companionship, as long as one remains worthy of it. The Light of Christ is the knowledge of good and evil given to all mankind before baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. The conscience is a manifestation of the Light of Christ, enabling each individual to judge for themselves. Whether to follow the commandments of God, and hope for His eternal rewards, or to follow the enticings of the devil which persuadeth man to do evil and become captive and dammed to hell and eternal darkness. The Light of Christ is the knowledge of the difference between right and wrong."

(Wikipedia, "Light of Christ")

"The light of Christ will lead the honest soul who “hearkeneth to the voice” to find the true gospel and the true Church and thereby receive the Holy Ghost."

So how much do you trust your conscience? Should it override what others tell you is right, or can your conscience lead you astray, even if you consider yourself to be "an honest soul?" And is "Light of Christ" really a synonym for "conscience?"

Faithful Dissidents: Being The Change You Desire

I'm all for peaceful activism (OK, maybe not the kind shown in the picture), but we all know that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a church of activists. At least not in the traditional sense.

I've been thinking about the role of "faithful dissidents" in the Church and whether being one is, in fact, a form of activism -- the only kind that will ever possibly result in the change you desire.

I call myself "The Faithful Dissident" because I'm basically still a "faithful" Mormon in most ways, at least on the outside. I still go to church, pay a full tithe, keep the Word of Wisdom, though many could ask why. My "dissent" is very much on the inside: in my thoughts, feelings, and spirit. It's also a virtually silent dissent -- unless you count blogging. I've only discussed my true thoughts on the subject with half a handful of people face-to-face.

A common struggle that I've observed with other Mormons who think and feel like I do, is the feeling that any faithful perseverance in the Church will simply be in vain; that things never change and we'll always be wrong on everything. Such feelings inevitably give way to apathy, anger, and, in some cases, even bitterness.

But are faithful dissidents underestimating the impact that they have on the Church? Even the angriest and most apathetic of dissidents have to admit that things have and do change in the Church, even if it can sometimes seem to come at a snail's pace. And even the most puritan and orthodox of members have to admit that although God may be the same "yesterday, today, and forever," that's not the case with the Church. Change does come and it comes from within, not from without.

I think about my mother's generation and those before her, where stay-at-home mothers were the norm (at least in the Church). I'm grateful that my mom was always home with us, but I'm more grateful that she chose to be at home with us. (At least I think she did). I think that those who chose to have a career had to endure a lot of guilt from fellow Church members. Now it seems that the majority of RS sisters (at least in the areas where I have been) work outside of the home. Some do it out of financial necessity, while many do it for personal fulfillment. Some mothers find that they have to get out of the house in order to maintain their sanity. And although I think it's a stretch to say that LDS women are able to have a guilt-free career today, I think that leaders have softened their words on the subject over the years and my generation of LDS women has a slightly greater sense of freedom than our mothers' generation.

If faithful LDS women had accepted that birth control was such an evil abomination, as earlier prophets proclaimed, would it be such an acceptable "personal decision" today among Mormon couples? Does God really look at birth control differently now than he did 50 years ago? I doubt it. But the Church sure does. (See "Bored in Vernal's" very interesting "Evolution of Birth Control in the Mormon Church.")

Most of you have probably read descriptions of the earliest garments that covered most of the body. Today, our garments are probably less than half of what early Mormons wore. What we wear today -- even with our garments on -- would have been considered immodest back then. Did God lower his standards on modesty, or did the Church learn to accept a more liberal clothing style among its members that changed with the times?

I often think of earlier black members who had to endure some pretty demeaning teachings about why they were who they were. Amazingly, some still joined the Church. As we see when we look back at history, not even something as powerful and revolutionary as the American black civil right's movement was enough to bring change to the Church's policy on race. It appears that the most powerful catalyst to change in the Church came from within: blacks defying the odds by joining a "white church" and wanting to attend the temple. Were it not for the dilemma of all the Brazilian members who were ineligible to attend the temple that was to be built in their own country simply because of the African blood flowing through their veins, would the priesthood ban have been lifted? Probably not -- at least not then.

If homosexuals had never challenged the sentiment that they were choosing to be gay, or the fact that even just having a same sex attraction was at one time grounds for excommunication (see an excellent LDS gay history timeline on "Dichotomy"), would we see any openly-gay Mormons today, let alone those who attend the temple regularly?

Are all these changes truly founded in revelation? Are they simply coincidence? Or did they come about because of faithful dissidents who remained true to the Gospel, yet weren't afraid to think outside of the box and even push the envelope a bit?

A commenter, Papa D, said something in my last post that really struck a chord with me. He said:

"When I lived in the Deep South, invariably a black investigator would join the Church, face intense pressure from family and friends for joining a "white church", stay active for about 3-6 months then fade into inactivity - sometimes citing the fact that no other black people were joining the Church. Just as invariably, about 3-6 months later another black investigator would be baptized - and the cycle would repeat exactly. After a few years, if those black members would have stayed active, there would have been a thriving black membership in the Church in that area. I'm NOT blaming them for leaving. I actually understand how difficult it is to remain active in an organization when you feel like a token member - especially when you feel like the others in the organization don't really understand you. For many reasons, I get that completely. All I'm saying is that when someone leaves they automatically contribute to the stereotyped self-fulfilling prophecy against which they complain. They also reinforce, unfortunately, the stereotyped view of those who are unlike them - that black members, or liberal members, or gay members, or feminist members ad infinitum never make life-long members. Being a pioneer or Christlike rebel is hard, but leaving only exacerbates the problem at both ends. "Be the change you desire" is great advice, as long as that desire doesn't include bitterness and harsh confrontation and self-righteousness. It's a tricky balance sometimes, and it requires serious humility and meekness, but it's worth it in the end for those who can do it."

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, particularly about how it applies to my good friend Cody (aka Gayldsactor), who is likely facing excommunication in the near future after holding a commitment ceremony with his partner. Cody is active and very much a believer. He holds no malice towards the Church or the laws it has to uphold. He may soon no longer be a Mormon on record, but he will always be one in his heart and intends on living as such in every way that he can -- even if he is excommunicated.

I think that the Church needs more people like Cody. I have no idea what's in store for gay members of the Church in the future. It would seem foolish of me to make any optimistic predictions about any future acceptance of homosexual relationships within the Church. But at the same time, I often have this feeling that something's got to give. The "homosexuality question," I believe, is the issue of my generation in the Church and the story is not over. Members like Cody will be "sacrificed" along the way, but it will not be in vain. Just like all the early black members of the Church who lived and died without being able to hold the priesthood, enter the temple, or receive any of its ordinances, perhaps without having any family members to do their temple work, a way must be paved for all those who remain as faithful as they can if God is truly fair and just.

But the way will not be paved until enough faithful dissidents are committed to paving it, which requires faith, patience, sacrifice, and -- perhaps the most difficult -- a whole lot of humility.

The Faith Gene

Have you ever wondered why some people, who you think could be "perfect" Mormons in so many ways, reject the Gospel? What about how some people can sit through the most spiritual of meetings and feel absolutely nothing? Or witness events that we consider to be miraculous and still feel no reason to believe in a god?

There are certain reasons why we can assume that people do not believe in God. Among these are:

a) personal pride
b) disobedience
c) falling prey to Satan
d) denial

I admit that before I really gave atheism or agnosticism any serious thought, I would have put the blame squarely on the shoulders of anyone who claimed to not believe in God. And the reason why it was their fault and no one else's was because of one or more of the above. After all, God opens to all who knock. So why don't they just knock on the door?

But could there be more to it?

I think that I started to think about this more after getting to know certain people who were among the most wonderful, compassionate, loving individuals that I had ever met, and yet are either atheist or agnostic. The case of one friend in particular -- I'll call her Amber -- who happened to be born into the Church in Utah but later left it, made me think a lot. She is a real sweetheart, has the biggest heart for animals (a cause near and dear to my heart as well) and people who suffer. She has been through a lot of sadness and tragedy in her personal life. We had some interesting discussions via e-mail about God and why/how I can believe in Him. She wanted to find peace. She wanted to believe in God like I do. But she can't -- at least not up to this point in her life. I wouldn't call her an atheist, but I would say she is definitely agnostic. And I just can't quite attribute it to any of the reasons on my list.

We've been having an interesting discussion over at Three Feet High And Rising about whether a "faith gene" could exist. (Read the thread if you get a chance because it's very interesting.) I'm a believer. Yes, I have my doubts and sometimes they are major. I see many logical and sensible reasons to deny that God exists. Yet I can't. And then we have people like my friend who yearn for the kind of peace that believers are accustomed to, but find it to be elusive. Why is that? And who is to blame? Is it Amber's fault? Is it Satan's fault? Is it God's fault? Or is it simply the card that life dealt her?

PB, a non-believer who wished that she could believe, said on the Three Feet High And Rising thread that, "a core belief for Christians is that they are saved by Christ, which means that non-believers are damned."

I responded:

"That isn't really what we believe as Mormons and yet we seem to do a great job of making people think that that is what we believe. If we truly believe in our own doctrine -- that God is fair and just and that EVERYONE will get a fair shot to hear the Gospel in its purity and entirety (and not just the flawed, human, earthly interpretations of it), whether in this life or in the next -- then what do we have to fear if people like Jupee, PB, or my husband, decide to not join us in baptism and fellowship in the LDS Church? I don't know Jupee or PB personally, but I would venture to guess that they are good, decent people. We don't know why they seem to be lacking the "faith gene," but I believe that if God exists, he will give them their fair shot and won't hold it against them if they honestly never felt his presence in their earthly lives -- especially if they sincerely wished they could believe, like PB said."

Fifthgen, a fellow Mormon, then responded:

"So, I was thinking about the “faith gene” on the way to work. It has interesting implications for Mormonism. As FD points out, Mormons believe that, at some point, everyone will have a full opportunity to accept (or reject) God’s plan and follow Christ.

Let’s assume that there really is some genetic component to faith. If someone is genetically prevented from believing, or even significantly hindered in their ability to believe, Mormon doctrine would suggest that their full opportunity to make a knowing and voluntary decision would not come in this life. Presumably, it would come in the hereafter, when their genetic condition no longer interferes with their ability to have faith and accept God’s teachings. This raises some interesting ideas.

For example, maybe the “faith gene,” or rather its absence in some people, is a necessary part of the mortal experience. If everyone believed easily, no one’s faith would really be challenged. At least in some things. Maybe the genetic non-believers are here to allow an environment where faith is even possible.

Additionally, a genetic component to faith would make any sort of value judgment about non-believers very problematic. Until we can test for the DNA marker for the “faith gene,” who knows if you are talking to someone who made a voluntary decision not to have faith and follow God, or someone who simply cannot do that. The safest choice for believers would be to treat everyone charitably and without judgment, recognizing that they may not have really had their full opportunity to embrace God yet."

So what do you think? Are we genetically predisposed to either believe or not believe? And if we are, can we "change sides?"

Tough Questions... Tougher Answers

The later comments after my last post made me wonder about something.

How do we answer those tough questions from non-members about the Church? Should we even answer them? Or should we answer them politician-style (i.e. duck the subject and divert attention to another subject)?

Some of us were saying how we wish we could just hear "the truth," whatever it is. But, admittedly, we haven't always been so truthful ourselves. Maybe we've even tried to cover up certain things about the Church to those we care about who are perhaps interested in investigating.

Most of us have probably been there. Someone asks us about polygamy, the priesthood ban, Kolob, or the like. Or maybe we sort of feel obligated to tell people about such things before they get baptized so that they don't get a shock afterwards and leave the Church feeling disillusioned. I've told the story before about my cousin-in-law (who is black) who never heard about the priesthood ban until he was on his mission and someone told him about it before slamming the door in his face. Then it was time for some serious damage control. Are such awkward subjects something that should be dealt with early, in order to avoid such situations, or should we just worry about it when it happens?

Before when people asked me about polygamy, I used to just repeat what I had heard: there weren't enough men to take care of all the women, so it was a way to care for all the singles. (Incidentally, I remember sitting in on a discussion with the Elders and some investigators many years, who were concerned about polygamy. This was the reason that the Elders gave them and their response was that you don't have to marry someone and have sex with them in order to take care of them.) OK, so now I know that that isn't a good answer. It doesn't explain all the women that Joseph Smith married who were already married and taken care of. So now I can't really repeat it without knowingly lying. And I know people don't want to be lied to.

So how do we truthfully answer people's questions without giving them too much information that they might not be ready for? Should we try to cover up our past, perhaps because we feel a bit embarrassed by it (c'mon, you know you do sometimes!), or should we be an unapologetic "open book?"

Skeletons In The Closet

I stumbled across a site called StayLDS.com. In the blog section, there is an essay called "How To Stay," written by a board member of "Sunstone," which I encourage you all to read when you get a chance. It's geared towards Mormons like me: that is to say, Mormons who are feeling pretty disillusioned about some things within the Church and yet don't see leaving it as the solution. Whoever wrote this essay has a mindset that I appreciate. The tone is relaxed, even humouristic at times, but also seriously addresses the issues that some of us are grappling with. I also appreciate his approach to co-existing -- and even appreciating -- orthodox and dogmatic members.

There is, however, one section of the essay that I want to focus on. I wish to include it here, but hope that those of you reading this will take the time to read the rest of the essay in order to get a more accurate feel for it.

Understanding the brethren's dilemma

"Many disaffected folk expect LDS General Authorities to constantly apologize for all the past errors of the church, and to actively promote awareness of the most controversial aspects of LDS Church history. These are unfair and unrealistic expectations. Let's take a moment to consider the situation of LDS General Authorities:

• Most of them were raised as devout, multi-generational members of the LDS Church. Doubting and skepticism in general, and with the church in particular, were simply not major components of their formative years.
  

• As young men, many of them married soon after their mission, had many children, graduated from college, pursued successful professional careers, and actively served in high church leadership positions. Over time, their overall social status, reputation, and sense of being are directly tied to the church's exclusive truthfulness. They are viewed by all their LDS peers as pillars of the church's "one trueness."
  

• This heavy load of responsibilities leaves little, if any time for deep study of controversial LDS Church history. In addition, their positions of responsibility would rarely encourage or allow them to study the types of publications that would candidly discuss such matters (Sunstone, Dialogue, Quinn, etc.). In the end, I am quite convinced that a majority of them are simply not aware of peep stones, polyandry, Adam/God theory, blood atonement, the Danites, etc. Of course they have heard these terms throughout their lives, but they would have no real impetus, and most importantly, no time to study them deeply. They are super-busy men, and in their minds, the church is true -- so why dig much deeper? They are also taught strict obedience to church authority (past and present), and consequently would tolerate little, if any, criticism of early church leaders, even from themselves.
  

• In spite of all this, it's fair to say that the LDS First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve once made a sincere attempt at openness and full disclosure of LDS Church history. For those of you who aren't aware, there was a ten-year period of LDS Church history (1972 to 1982), under the leadership of Church Historian Leonard Arrington, where the brethren made an honest attempt at significant candor regarding church history and archives -- only to produce the likes of Michael Quinn as a result (of whom I am a big fan, by the way). In the end, I am convinced that the brethren tried the experiment of historical openness in good faith, and genuinely determined that a full, thorough, comprehensive awareness of factual LDS Church history by its members, more often than not, leads to decreased activity and commitment. As many members today continue to be exposed on the internet to this can of worms opened up in the 1970s, this conclusion seems to be validated. Doesn't that make perfect sense? If the factual, hard-hitting history was good for faith, the brethren would be promoting it like crazy. But because it actually proves to erode faith more often than not, it is not emphasized, and is obfuscated wherever possible. So, in my view, the brethren are acting rationally.
  

• If you step back and think about it, this makes perfect sense. If Gordon B. Hinckley were to start saying publicly today, "Joseph and Brigham were wrong on a, b and c, but all of you need to believe and obey x, y and z," it is not difficult to predict the ultimate consequences of such statements. Members will simply say, "Well, if Joseph or Brigham were wrong back then about a, b and c, what makes you so sure that you are right about x, y and z?" For the average member, such overt statements would very quickly weaken the prophetic mantle, and reduce commitment to LDS Church leadership. It makes no sense to expect LDS Church leaders to erode their own basis of power and influence. Humans simply do not function this way.
  

• Assuming that the brethren are sincere believers in both the truthfulness of the church, and in its goodness -- it is only reasonable, then, to expect them to govern the church in a way that maximizes commitment and happiness for the greatest number of its members. Consequently, the brethren clearly have had to ask themselves this question: recognizing that the vast majority of members know nothing of the tougher elements of church history, and only a relatively small group of LDS intellectuals do, which is preferable: 1) To lose some of the intellectuals on the margins by not directly confronting the historical issues (at the most 2% of total members -- and would they really be satisfied with apologies anyway?), or 2) To risk losing and weakening the core base of church membership (60%?) by making them all aware of, and then overtly apologizing for the tougher aspects of our history and doctrine?

If you were in their shoes, and the future of the church were riding on your shoulders, would you seriously rock the boat, and risk destroying an organization that you loved, believed in, and knew was an asset to literally millions of families worldwide? In my opinion, to do so would be grossly irresponsible.

Thus, their dilemma."

Although I personally don't think that General Authorities need to "actively promote awareness of the most controversial aspects of LDS Church history," I have often said that I believe that an acknowledgement -- and in some cases an apology -- for certain errors in the Church's past would help members like me be able to "move on." Many of us have great trouble reconciling fact and faith. Some choose to leave the Church, while others continue to trudge along the Mormon path without the spark they once had.

The author estimates "intellectuals" to make up approximately 2% of the Church's population, whereas the core base of the Church makes up around 60%. He seems to be arguing that the Brethren actually wanted to be more open (citing a period of "openness from 1972-1982 -- which was before my time), but found it to be faith-eroding for the Church's core base.

I can appreciate what he's arguing. Let's assume the Church is true -- which the Brethren are obviously convinced of. (I don't doubt that they believe it's true because how many people would want to make some of the sacrifices they do -- often for the rest of their lives -- for something that doesn't compensate them financially?) Even if there are some big, fat skeletons in our Church closet, why should we let them ruin the party for all the millions of people who are perfectly content in Mormonism, some of whom are totally oblivious to the fact that there are any closets -- let alone skeletons in them? So, as long as these closets are kept shut with double-padded locks, most people will live good Mormon lives from birth to death without being disturbed by these skeletons. That's good, right?

But what about that 2% (and likely growing in this internet age)? That snoopy minority of Church population that not only knows that the closets exist, but want to hear what the skeletons have to say, AND want the Brethren to give a satisfactory answer as to why the skeletons exist and why they had been locked up all these years.

Are we expecting too much from the Brethren? Are they really in a dilemma? Is it really all about sheer numbers (sacrificing 2% in order to save the rest)? Is it possible that those skeletons really are irrelevant to the here and now and will only impede our progress? Or are they going to have to be reckoned with eventually?

I Have A Confession To Make

Some of you may have read my earlier post where I confessed to judging my brother unfairly. I guess I'm on a confession roll, because I have another one that I've been thinking about for days. However, instead of being the one in need of asking for forgiveness, as in the case of my brother, I am guilty this time of withholding forgiveness -- even though the person who offended me has never asked for it.

I have three sister-in-laws. One of them lives in Canada, another in the US. Both of them are very sweet and I love them.

The third one lives here in Norway. I will call her "Helga."

Helga got together with my husband's older brother about two years after my husband and I started our relationship. We met her for the first time during one of my visits to Norway, before we were married. Even from that first meeting, although she seemed nice, I got a negative vibe from her. Later I found out why.

After I had gone back home to Canada, Helga continued to visit my husband's family and they spent more time together. Somehow, the word had gotten out that I was a Mormon. Helga is the type of person that can seem really sweet and polite, but suddenly make you feel put on the spot by asking very personal questions that can make for an uncomfortable situation. My husband found himself in the hot seat as she peppered him with questions about what kind of "cult" I was a member of, whether my family lived in a "Mormon quarter," and how my religion affected our relationship, etc. I remember talking to him on the phone later when he told me, "I have to say, I don't really like Helga."

About a year later we got married in Canada. When I heard that Helga was coming for the wedding, I felt nervous. I was worried that she would make for an awkward situation with my Mormon family, but I kept telling myself that things would be fine, that surely she would behave when she was the guest in a home of people she had never met who were having a wedding! Well, I was waaaaay too optimistic. Literally about two minutes after arriving, there was a quip in a mocking sort of tone about whether my husband was going to "convert" before the wedding. Later there was a not-so-veiled attempt to find out whether my husband and I would be sleeping together before the wedding, and plenty of other strange and rude comments, to do with religion or our way of life. My husband and I missed out on most of it, since we left for our honeymoon, but both my parents and my mother-in-law filled us in later on all of Helga's antics. Helga's behaviour on the Canada trip remains a classic story on both sides of our family to this day.

Worrying about Helga's behaviour (which turned out to not be without reason) added to my stress. Although I was happy on my wedding day, I was also very sad. I was leaving my family and moving to a different continent. It was a bittersweet time for me and because of that, Helga's behaviour really stung. Not only was I angry, but I was hurt very deeply. By acting rudely towards my family, who I know treated her like gold throughout her entire stay, and making strange comments in a mocking tone regarding my religion, she alienated me and my husband completely. Once I moved to Norway, I did everything I could to avoid her. Even seeing her face or hearing her voice made my skin crawl and literally gave me a sick feeling. This went on for almost 6 years, during which we said not much more than hello to each other. My mother-in-law (who understood completely why we were upset) later told us that Helga had asked her why we were avoiding her and she told her. Helga seemed to be surprised and perhaps slightly apologetic, but she never made an attempt to apologize to us, even though she could have easily sent us a letter or e-mail to avoid the discomfort of a face-to-face meeting. She never asked for forgiveness and I wasn't about to give it to her. Although I can't really say that I "hate" anyone, Helga was high up on my list of people that I intensely disliked.

Now, after what I've told you about Helga so far, you're bound to be surprised at what I'm going to tell you next. You may be amazed to hear that a woman with such contempt for religion, and utterly lacking in tact or manners, had spent years earlier working for the UN in....... of all places..... Afghanistan and Pakistan! Yes, that's right. In a place where women couldn't even go out without a burqa, let alone speak their minds, Helga managed to work for five years without getting herself kicked out or stoned to death, getting out just before the Taliban reached her area. And if that doesn't surprise you enough already, after returning to Norway, going back to school, and meeting my husband's brother, she got a job working for the charity "Save The Children," which has required her to travel to even more war-torn and dangerous countries in recent years. It always puzzled me as to how someone who did such noble work could be so rude and intolerant towards her own family members.

Another classic family story is one that we refer to as "The Christening." Helga and my brother-in-law had a baby and were planning a non-religious "Naming Day" instead of the traditional Lutheran church christening. This is not so uncommon in Norway, where fewer and fewer people have a relationship to the state church outside of weddings and funerals, but it was sort of a big deal for my mother-in-law and her elderly mother, both of whom thought it was important to have the baby blessed by a priest. Helga objected to the christening ceremony, saying she had attended them before and didn't like what the priest had said. As well, she was upset that a prominent bishop in the state church had spoken out against gay marriage. In the end, Helga caved in and decided to honour the wishes of the baby's great-grandmother and the christening ceremony went on without a hitch, even though it looked for a while like Helga was going to perhaps tell the priest what he could or couldn't say during the ceremony. I think we all breathed a sigh of relief after it was over.

Now I need to fast-forward a few years. Everything remained pretty much status quo. We had limited contact with Helga and although it wasn't something that I was dwelling on, I certainly hadn't forgiven her for anything. But, over time, something changed. Perhaps a little bit in her, but a whole lot in me. Call it my "Christmas Miracle."

I had a lousy Christmas. I worked all of the holidays and it was depressing. It was way too quiet, no friends and very little family. I thought I had hit rock bottom when the "highlight" of my Christmas was going to be the usual dinner at Helga's cottage, that type of family event that is held and attended mostly out of obligation, with the usual minimal chit-chat. But somehow, it was different this year.

I had a nice time!

I actually somewhat enjoyed the chattering of my mother-in-law and Helga's mother, as well as the funny comments by our 4 year-old nephew.

I didn't even really want to go home!

And then we invited them all to come to dinner at our house. And I looked forward to it!

Maybe I was just desperate for the company.

Amazingly, we had a nice dinner, decent conversation, no rudeness, no prying, no comments about my picture of Jesus on the wall behind where she was sitting.

Just nice.

I realized after those two gatherings that I wasn't angry anymore. It's strange, but it's all gone -- even though I know that something will happen again, she will say something to bother me someday. In a way I think that's just her personality, but I don't care anymore.

Why?

Like I said, she has never apologized. We've never discussed it and so, in a way, nothing has ever been resolved. But over the past few weeks it's like I've had a revelation of sorts as to perhaps why Helga is the way she is.

I am Helga. Well, sort of. I have in a way become her, at least where the subject of religion is concerned. I'm seeing religion through her eyes now. I don't want to stay there, but I'm finding that it's very hard to not stay there.

Although I've never actually talked to Helga about any of this, I've tried to imagine where her hostility for religion stems from. I have several theories:

In a way, I think it's a cultural thing. Norwegians are generally an irreligious people. I've sensed a lot of hostility towards religion here -- especially conservative Christianity. Many Norwegians have little regard for a faith which has caused so much pain for so many people throughout history: those in earlier centuries who were slaughtered in the name of Christianity, those whose unchristened infants were not allowed to be buried in the church cemetery, parents who lost children during World War II and were told by their priest it was their punishment for not attending church, and in more modern times, homosexuals being treated as deviant sinners by certain Christian sects. Christianity, to many, equals guilt, pain, and judgment. The "Good News" message can be very hard to uncover in a sea of hypocrisy.

I know that Helga, as a young woman lost her father in a tragic drowning accident. Although I'd like to think that I would never be bitter at God after such a tragedy, I really can't say for sure that I wouldn't.

I think I also need to take into account that Helga has seen and experienced life in places that I have only read about. It's hard enough to see the good in religion when I'm living in one of the best countries of the world where I'm free to do pretty much whatever I want and not have to worry about suicide bombers at the supermarket. How would anyone fighting for a stop to public stonings and amputations, the right of women to show their faces in public, or protecting little girls from genital mutilation not become cynical about religion when much of the misery stems from exactly that? Would I be immune to such negativity? Would you?

As human beings, we can sometimes believe the unbelievable and do the unthinkable in the name of religion. And I think that we're mistaken if we believe that such extremism is limited to the type of people that blow themselves up on a bus full of innocent civilians. Extremism is sometimes manifested in small, undramatic and seemingly acceptable ways -- yes, even in our church.

I used to hate hearing when people would blame religion for all the war and misery in the world. I wanted to say they were wrong, but the truth is that they're right in many instances. Although pure religion in itself is not responsible for the disruption of peace, in my opinion, people can be convinced that their religious convictions give them a license to do the unthinkable -- Mormons included.

Watching the news from Gaza, I wonder what God really wants. Heck, I can wonder this by reading the Bible and reading how God supposedly advocates the eradication of an entire population -- women and children included -- in Gaza-like fashion. So why wouldn't he approve now?

I'm sure that I can't even begin to appreciate the complexity of the history, politics, and religion that have made the Gaza situation into what it is today. So, for me to pass judgment on what either side does sounds pretty ludicrous, doesn't it? Well, I'm going to do it anyways.

I can greatly sympathize with those who feel oppressed and have their basic freedoms taken away, but anyone who believes that Allah, God, or whatever you want to call him, wants him to pack himself up in explosives, get on a bus filled with innocent people going about their daily business, and blow it up to shreds is, in my opinion, so utterly lacking in any empathy or compassion that it makes me question whether they are even human.

I can also sympathize with the need for a group of people to defend itself from the type of people I mentioned above. If an intruder breaks into your home and threatens your family, you defend it. The intruder may even need to be destroyed in self-defense. But is it OK to kill your intruder's innocent wife, children, burn down his house, and shoot his neighbours because he was a danger to your family? Especially if the intruder has a legitimate claim on the lot that your home is standing on? At what point is it perhaps better to just leave your home, as unfair as it may be, if in order to stay you are required to slaughter the intruder's innocent family, including his children?

Everyone wants a piece of "The Holy Land." After all that has happened there over the centuries, how "holy" is it? All you have to do is watch CNN and the insanity will make you think that perhaps Christopher Hitchens has it right after all.

Stuff like this tears me apart and makes me long for a religion that's easy, that's just about love, compassion, service, and nothing more. No judgments, no guilt, no feeling torn between what feels right and what people want to tell me is right. But it has to be believable. And that's the problem. Someone like Christopher Hitchens is very appealing to one's ego, but one's ego isn't worth so much when a one needs a miracle. People like Hitchens are very smart, but they can't explain away mystical and miraculous religious experiences any more than they can make the earth spin backwards. To me, they're more impossible to believe in as the religions they think they've debunked. But in all honesty, I now understand better than ever why more and more people seem to be finding atheism or agnosticism to make the most sense. In fact, lately I've been thinking that the world would be a better place if everyone thought like Christopher Hitchens. After all, could it get any worse than the current situation in "The Holy Land?"

I wonder if we really understand why people often view religion -- Mormonism being no exception -- the way they do. Do we really get it? I always thought I did, but I think I needed to marry a non-member and move to a place like Norway to understand it better. Maybe I still don't completely get it, but I think I'm getting there. I've always been looking from the inside out. Now I think I've gotten a better perspective from the outside. When I first moved here, I really resented what I felt to be a very strong anti-religious atmosphere. My bad experience with Helga only intensified this feeling and even to this day, I'm a bit paranoid about people here finding out that I'm a Christian. A Mormon! Will they automatically view me as a fanatic? Well, the truth is that some probably would. And this has forced me to get off my religious high horse and really ask myself why people like Helga are the way they are. Is it really all just their fault and theirs alone? In a way yes, in a way no.

I recently came across someone on Facebook, who is LDS, asking why so many people in Arizona seem to hate Mormons these days. I noticed that a fellow Mormon responded by saying, "We have no reason to be dissed at all as our church only teaches good things. Nothing bad whatsoever."

Well, maybe it's all "good" to us!

It amazes me sometimes how we expect everyone to have the same high esteem for our religious teachings and values as we do. We sometimes feel taken aback when people get annoyed at the Elders when they knock on their door (even though you know you get annoyed when the Jehovah's Witnesses knock on yours), when people associate us with the FLDS (even though they stem from us), or when we have a large enough influence to get Prop 8 passed (even though you perhaps resent your neighbour for voting No on 8). I don't necessarily think that we need to apologize for our personal convictions, but I do think that we sometimes expect too much sympathy from people who have negative experience with religion. "We're not threatened by any of this, so why should anyone else have reason to be?" we think to ourselves. And yet how many of us would not feel the least bit discomfort if an atheist was elected as president or prime minister? I admit that even I would.

I have to say that I am, more than ever, grateful for the unique experience of marrying a non-member and moving to a place that I like to describe as a "spiritual desert." One could easily wonder whether that was really the Lord confirming to me that my husband was the one for me and that I should embark on this spiritual journey virtually alone. Some days I think that Satan must have claimed victory the day that he saw me go down this road. I hope, on the contrary, that the Lord was pleased that I would be given this experience and unique perspective from "the other side." And hopefully He was optimistic enough that I'd be able to handle it.

I'm not naive enough to believe that Helga and I will be best friends. Besides our rocky history, I think that our personalities clash. But I have learned to now see her in a slightly more flattering light. Although I don't think that her behaviour was justified by her negative encounters with religion, I think that it's perhaps understandable. And I forgive her, whether she cares or not.

It would be nice if everyone was as open-minded about my beliefs and actually wanted to try to understand them as much as I want to understand theirs. In the mean time, I'd settle for common courtesy, an end to hostility, and a stop to the hate and slaughter that we're seeing in the Middle East.

It seems strange that the Lord would want me to begin to have negative thoughts about religion for the sake of learning forgiveness for someone like Helga. So I'm not sure whether He really intended for me to go down this road, or whether being able to forgive Helga was just a lucky bi-product of a deep spiritual rut that I'm in.

One burden lost, another one gained.

Gender: A State Of Mind

I sort of touched on this subject several months ago in an earlier post, but I wanted to revisit it because I've had some new thoughts and ideas on the topic. I was reminded about it after catching an old episode of Oprah a few weeks ago. Those of you in North America probably saw it months ago, since Oprah is delayed by a couple of months here because they need to add subtitles.

The guests on Oprah were young transgenders, who underwent hormone therapy and/or a sex change operation because they felt they had been born into the wrong body. One had been born a boy, but was living as a woman. The other had been born a girl and was now living as a man.

The more that I witness the personal stories of such people, the harder it is for me (or anyone, in my opinion) to deny that what they feel is extremely real and often devastating, depending on the support -- or lack of it -- that they receive from their loved ones.

I found the story of the young girl-to-man especially compelling. It was interesting to see old pictures of when he was a little girl. You could see the unhappiness and, more than anything, the awkwardness. I don't meant to be mean, but she was a very homely girl. Why? Because she looked like a boy in a wig and dress. Now that "she" has become a "he," he looks normal. His mother described the living hell that their family went through when this young girl was suicidal because of her mental and emotional agony. As soon as she began with hormone therapy and started on the road to becoming a man, he became a happy person, the depression and the suicidal feelings disappeared. Being Mormon, I tried to imagine being in the position of that mother, who wasn't Mormon. If she had followed Church policy on gender -- which, from what I understand includes excommunication for those who undergo transgender operations -- and pushed for her daughter to continue living as a girl, the daughter very likely would have taken her life or at least remained terribly depressed her entire life. Talk about feeling torn.

One thing that really puzzles me whenever I try to reconcile Church doctrine on gender and sexuality with such personal accounts from real people is the fact that almost all of them report feeling either that they were gay or were born the wrong gender from a very early age -- before the age of accountability. We are taught that Satan has no power on those under the age of 8. To me, that means that if a child is feeling a homosexual attraction or gender confusion at age 5, for example, then it can't be a temptation coming from Satan. So where does it come from? God?

Another thing I've thought about is the perplexing question of those people who are born intersex.

"Intersexuality is the state of a living thing of a gonochoristic species whose sex chromosomes, genitalia, and/or secondary sex characteristics are determined to be neither exclusively male nor female. An intersex organism may have biological characteristics of both the male and female sexes. Intersexuality is the term adopted by medicine during the 20th century applied to human beings who cannot be classified as either male or female." (Wikepedia)

In "The Family: A Proclamation To The World," the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles stated:

"All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

Where does this leave intersex people? They're neither one nor the other. Do they have to choose? Is their gender determined by how they feel or is it determined purely by biology and whether or not they have a Y chromosome?

I've tried to imagine what it would be like if someone said to me, "FD, you are a man, so you just need to accept it. You need to start thinking, acting, walking, talking, and dressing like a man. And therefore you should be attracted to women."

Can you imagine what it would be like if you had to convince yourself that you were actually the opposite sex that you think and feel you are?

I agree with the the "Proclamation On The Family" that "(G)ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." I believe that our gender is eternal and that Heavenly Father didn't just leave it up randomly to our DNA to decide whether we would be one gender or the other.

But...

I'm thinking more and more that gender really is a state of mind and spirit: one that is as much a part of us as all the other aspects of our spirit and intelligence. I am female because I feel and act female. If I were sitting in a male body at this very moment but with the same mind that I have now, would I consider myself to not be female?

Heavenly Father can and does allow some of us to be born into bodies that are defective or imperfect, for reasons that are often a mystery to us. The physical state of such individuals does not change their spirit. Could it not also be the same case with physical gender? Could he not have allowed certain individuals to be born into the "wrong" physical body, which then causes a conflict with their spirit, which is of a different gender?

We are taught in Mormonism that our physical bodies are imperfect, subject to disease and defect, and that our spirits and intelligences are eternal. Why, then, should our gender be defined solely by our physical bodies? Should not the mind/spirit take precedence over the body?

This is just a theory that has got me thinking a lot. I'm sure many would say that I'm wrong and they may be correct, but to me personally, it's the only way that I can reconcile the Church's teachings on gender with the compelling personal accounts of those who are intersex, transgender, or struggling with the feeling of being in the wrong body. It's the only thing that makes sense to me.

When The Word Of Wisdom Leaves You Lacking In Wisdom

As I said in a previous post, I have no problem living the Word of Wisdom.

Or rather, I have no problem living the Word of Wisdom when I understand exactly what the Word of Wisdom includes.

I've come to realize that there are a lot of Word of Wisdom grey areas, or certain parts about it that we're all a little fuzzy on. Sometimes I've had friends ask me, "Can you eat/drink this?" And I have to say, "Uh... I don't know, so I guess I better not just to be safe." That happened to me many years ago when I was out with a Chinese friend and was served green tea, which, silly me, thought was soup. It was in a little bowl and looked like soup and I was about to try it, but when he said it was green tea, I had to decline. Later on I discovered that it's black tea that's included in the Word of Wisdom. And green tea isn't black.

Ah, but it's because of the caffeine. That's what makes green tea off limits, right?

Tell that to all the Mormons who drink Coke and still get a temple recommend.

So caffeine isn't what makes something OK or not OK. Right?

Depends on who you ask.

I'm going to list some Word of Wisdom questions that I've had but have never really found a concrete answer to. Maybe some of you know better than I do, or are also confused:

• I grew up believing that ANY tea that wasn't herbal was bad. I believed this until, ironically, I happened to sit in on the missionary discussions when I was in Germany. This was before "Preach My Gospel" and The Elders had those flip-cards with phrases and pictures. Under the Word of Wisdom section, it listed the usual alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and "schwarzer tee," or "black tea." OK, so what does that mean? I worked in the food section of Wal-Mart once and I use to peruse all the different kids of tea. The English "Earl Grey" teas did say "black tea" on the label, so it was clear that those would be out. But then there were all these yummy-smelling other teas that looked red, yellow, green, but were not considered "black tea," nor "herbal tea." Now, if I were a German investigator, I would assume that any tea that wasn't black would be OK -- such as green tea, for example. But green tea has caffeine. Does that make it bad? If so, then decaffeinated green tea must be OK, right? Ah, but it's not herbal tea. However, it's not black. Confused? Me too.
  

• Browsing through recipes for chocolate cake in various magazines here, I discovered that almost all of them call for a small amount of coffee. I make my own cake and it's fine without it, but what happens when you get invited to someone's house, they serve you a piece of cake, which you know probably contains coffee? When I did my temple prep classes, the brother teaching them seemed to say that something like coffee in baked goods is not something we should worry about too much and that we shouldn't obsess over the Word of Wisdom. And yet I've heard of some Mormons not even using vanilla in cookie batter.
  

• Speaking of coffee, is decaf OK? I remember my parents' home teacher, who was a temple worker at the time, mentioning how he had stopped by the local donut shop to get his cup of decaf. I remember being surprised that decaf was OK because I had understood all coffee -- decaf or not -- to be a no-no. I still find it hard to believe that decaf is OK, but maybe it is?
  

• Are there any rules about cooking with alcohol (i.e. wine)? I knew an Italian brother in my home ward who cooked authentic Italian food and used wine because, according to him, the alcohol evaporates during the cooking process. I've heard others say this, but I've also heard that it doesn't evaporate completely. So what do you do when you discover that a delicious cream sauce or an Italian soup contains wine? Should you get rid of it or not worry about it? Just the other day, I was in a hurry and picked up a microwavable meal that was discounted because it was about to expire. When I got home, I noticed that the label said it contained white wine. When I checked the list of ingredients it said "white wine powder." I felt torn for a few seconds but then I thought, "Dang it, I'm not going to throw out a perfectly good meal just because of that."

• Red wine vinegar. Do you/would you use it?

• And then there is "alcohol free" beer and wine. I've never tried any of these products, first of all because I don't think I'd like them (at least not the beer), and second of all because most of them aren't entirely alcohol-free. With a few exceptions, they usually contain trace amounts of alcohol, around 0.5%. My dad used to tell me about something called "Texas Pride," near-beer which contained 0% alcohol and was brought to the Church picnic by a member who later went on to become an Area Authority. As far as I know, no one had a problem with it.
  

On the one hand, it's not like I'm dying to consume any of these things. But on the other hand, when it's served to me, it would be nice to know whether it's worth disappointing my host or drawing strange looks by declining something if I don't have to decline it. It would certainly be nice to say with confidence, "Yes, I can drink green tea," or "Actually, I don't drink any kind of tea. Sorry."

By the way, the picture above is of "Munkholm" alcohol-free beer which I've seen some members of the Church drink here in Norway. It was even served at a Mormon wedding that I attended. It's got 0% alcohol and if I thought I'd like it, I wouldn't have a problem drinking it.

What about "the appearance of evil?" If you were out at a restaurant with a bunch of friends, would you feel strange holding a bottle that looks like that?

'Tis The Season For Making Amends

I often like to think back to what I was doing a year ago at the same time. With Christmas approaching, I've been thinking back to a year ago when I was going through some major stress, trying to clean up a family conflict of gargantuan proportions.

In my previous post entitled "1932," we discussed the importance of not letting religious dogmas come at the expense of individuals. Anyone who follows my blog knows that this is a common theme, that I do a lot of preaching about tolerance within the Church and without. I know the importance of justice, but I prefer mercy. I know the importance of having high moral standards, but I try not to judge people for their weaknesses. Karene, a commenter from the "1932" post, said:

"My intolerance has almost always been directed at members of the Church...at those I think should "know better", whereas I've cut a lot of slack to a nonmember..."

Although I think I'm pretty good at cutting big long pieces of slack to non-members and even fellow members who struggle with an array of challenges that make it difficult for them to live the Gospel as a "good Mormon" should, I have to admit that, unfortunately, I haven't been so generous with slack distribution among members of my own family. And I've been feeling bad about it for quite some time.

To make a very long story short, I'm the oldest of five kids and the only girl. My parents and all of my brothers are active in the Church -- with the exception of one. He's the middle child and I'll call him "Georgie," simply because it was one of his many nicknames as a kid. Georgie is the type of guy that everyone loves. I don't think he's ever had an enemy. Even the crusty old neighbours, who are skeptical of anyone darker than their pasty shade of white, love him -- his deep brown complexion and all. When he worked at Wal-Mart as a student, he was the favourite among co-workers. But like me, I think he likes to push the envelope -- although perhaps in different ways than I do.

Georgie went through some difficult times the past couple of years in his marriage (which thankfully seems to be back on track). Through a sequence of events, we discovered -- to our shock -- that he had begun drinking and partying during a rough time. I and the other siblings were angry and felt betrayed by Georgie. When I confronted him about it, he assured me it was a one-time thing and I took his word for it. When I later discovered that wasn't true, I was furious. Even an ocean away, I really let him have it and for a while it looked like maybe he wouldn't have contact with me or any of our siblings anymore.

I think that perhaps it's difficult for us to understand how others can struggle with something that comes so easily to ourselves. In a way, those who struggle with the Word of Wisdom are at a disadvantage because it's harder for them to hide their weaknesses than for those of us who struggle with other things. It's hard to cover-up clothing that reeks of smoke, dilated pupils, or breath that stinks of alcohol. On the other hand, someone who struggles with a porn addiction can easily delete their internet browser history, switch off their computer, and chances are that no one except God will know. How many of us watch something we know we probably shouldn't be watching or listen to music that is raunchy but so dang catchy? Mea culpa.

When it comes to the Word of Wisdom, I'm a rock. It's perhaps one of the few aspects of the Gospel that I can say I live without any problem or hesitation. Nothing about alcohol, coffee, tea, or tobacco has ever been the least bit tempting to me, so it's hard to me to appreciate the temptation that it is to others. A couple of years ago I cut out meat, which you could also say is a part of the Word of Wisdom that is often ignored or rationalized by most Mormons, and no matter how good a turkey or hot dog may smell, I'm happy with my soy and never feel tempted to cheat. Perhaps I inherited the willpower of my stubborn old English great-grandfather, who quit cold turkey after smoking for many years, even with the pack of cigarettes laying on the table, staring him in the face. I'd like to think that I have the willpower to give up any food or drink if I made my mind up to do it. My biggest challenge would be chocolate, but I gave it up completely for 40 days once and did alright.

So even though I'm a Word of Wisdom wizz, it's painfully evident to anyone that reads this blog that I'm not much of a wizz in a lot of the other important areas of the Gospel. For all I know, Georgie is more of a spiritual wizz than I am -- drinking and all -- but I spent more time focusing on the beer in his hand instead of on the fact that he expressed a testimony of the Gospel, despite his shortcomings. Since that time, all my many flaws, weaknesses, and doubts have seemed to have been amplified and I can find myself wishing that I "only" had Word of Wisdom problems to deal with. I have often thought that it perhaps isn't just a coincidence that I entered this spiritual hurricane after my conflict with Georgie. It's amazing that I was even able to see the mote in his eye for the huge beam in mine.

Things between Georgie and me are good now. We both apologized to each other for a lot of things and things feel more like the way they were before. I know nothing of his current spiritual state or way of living and have no reason to ask. I do, however, have one major regret that I still have not resolved. I haven't really apologized for chastising him so harshly for his drinking or actually said that my love for him as a sister is not dependent on whether or not he drinks or does whatever else. Although it wouldn't be entirely true for me to say that I don't care whether he drinks or not, I do want him to know that even if his drinking should put Larry Hagman to shame, our brother-sister relationship should never be dependent on whether or not he breaks the Word of Wisdom. And to his credit, I have to say that he took a beating from me in written form when I confronted him about his behaviour, but he just took it and never reacted with the same anger or harshness that I dished out.

This past Sunday in Relief Society, I arrived just in time to hear a sister read a short story from a small book which I think was entitled "Finding Christ." I thought this story was so great, I asked her for a copy of it, knowing that I just had to share it on my blog. Luckily, it was already in English, so it saves me from having to translate. The story was in a chapter called "Giving Him Everything -- Misunderstanding Grace."

{So what does it mean to give him everything? Some of us simply have more ability, more talents, than others. Yet according to the parable, those with only one talent or only two talents are not expected to earn five. Only the one with five talents is expected to earn five.

Let me illustrate with an example. Many years ago I came into contact with a woman who was, initially at least, one of the roughest persons I have ever known. Abused as a child, she had run away from home and had lived on the streets for years. As a young woman, she traveled around the country with a motorcycle gang. In late middle age, her beauty gone, she spent most of her time in a pub, where some missionaries met her when they went in to get change for a pay phone outside. When she was baptized, many of the members worried that her conversion wouldn’t last, and there were good reasons to suspect it might not.

For a long time after her baptism, this sister still swore like a trooper, even in Church, and never quite lived the Word of Wisdom one hundred percent. On one occasion during her first year in the Church, she lost her temper during a Relief Society meeting and punched out one of the other sisters. Her ex-husband is an alcoholic, and her children have all spent time in jail. Now the question before us is whether someone like this can seriously expect to be saved. What hope does a person like this, with all her faults and weaknesses, really have? With her background and problems, why bother coming to Church at all?

“Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” God does not lie. Whoever will come, may come. All are invited, none is excluded. Though this sister had further to travel than most, the same covenant was offered to her: “Do all you can. I will do the rest while you learn how.” And she was as faithful as she could be under her circumstances. She never said, “No, I won’t,” or “Get off my back,” or “Why talk to me? Talk to him, he started it.” She always said, “I know; I’m sorry. I’ll try to do better.” Then she would try to do better. Often she would fail, but little by little over the years, she improved a great deal. First she gave up coffee, tea, and alcohol. Then she stopped swearing. Later she overcame smoking and got her temper somewhat under control. Finally, after she’d been in the Church many years, she was ready to go to the temple. Can such a person really expect to inherit the kingdom of God? Of course.

But now the harder question. At what point did this sister become a candidate for the kingdom? Was it when she finally gave up her cigarettes, or when she got her language and temper under control? Or was it when she finally qualified for a temple recommend? No. It was none of these, though they were all important landmarks in her progress. She was justified through her faith in Jesus Christ on the day that she repented of her sins, was baptized, and received the gift of the Holy Ghost, for she entered into that covenant in good faith and in all sincerity. She believed in Christ, and she believed Christ. Like the widow with her mite, she gave all she had and held nothing back. It may not have been much, but it was everything.

Every week she took the sacrament, having repented of her mistakes and resolving again to eliminate them. Some things took years to overcome. Other things perhaps haven’t been overcome yet, but she still tries, and she won’t give up. And as long as she won’t give up but endure to the end in the gospel harness, pulling towards the kingdom, her reward is sure. God knows our circumstances, and he judges us accordingly. He knows who is standing in a hole and who is standing on a chair, and he does not just measure height – he measures growth.

Each of us operates at a different level of performance within the covenant boundaries. The percentages vary both from person to person and, even for the same person, over a period of time. In my case, my efforts might take me twenty percent of the way to perfection. The Savior covers the other eighty percent. In your case, your efforts might take you fifty percent – or two percent – of the way. The Savior still covers the difference. But in every case the sum of the joint effort is the same – anyone’s best efforts, however great or small, plus the atonement of Christ will equal 100 percent of what is needed to enter God’s kingdom.}

I think that only we ourselves know just what percentage we are personally capable of contributing towards Christ's atonement. But perhaps even we aren't always able to give an exact figure. Some of us are maybe a little too optimstic, while others think that they can sail along comfortably at 1-2% when they are, in fact, capable of much more. Although I think that we can and should encourage others to reach a higher percentage point, we should never make them feel that they have to get an A+ to justify their activity and participation in the Church and in the Gospel.

I've been musing about whether or not I should tell Georgie about my blog. We seem to share a sense of humour, so he might actually enjoy it. Part of me worries that some of the subject matter here is too "heavy" for him, but then again most of this stuff is only a couple clicks away from anyone who googles "Mormons." He could be struggling with the same things that I do, for all I know. Maybe it would help him to discover that there are plenty of Mormon Misfits out there who fall miserably short of perfection and get ticked off with things, still knowing that there is something good enough about it that makes us want to stick around. And yes, there is, otherwise I know that most of us would have been gone long ago.

So maybe this Christmas season we we can try to make amends with someone in our lives that perhaps deserves more slack than they've gotten from us.

If all else fails, you always have your shoe.

Should I Pray Or Should I Save My Breath? - Epilogue

Several months ago I wrote a post about prayer. We ended up having a really good discussion and it was one of my most successful posts in regards to the number of comments I got. In that discussion, I talked a bit about our moving dilemma. Now that we've just moved into a new house, I thought I should do a follow-up post since a lot has happened since then.

Almost 2 years ago we bought a piece of land from the locak gov't "cheap(er)" than market value to build a home. It was in a beautiful area close to town and we had plans to build a small home. There was no time to get a final price estimate before applying for the lot, so we did a bit of investigating and then entered this lot lottery, not being overly confident that we would get a lot since interest was huge. I prayed that we would ONLY get it IF it was right for us, because it wasn't like we were set on building new if it wasn't right for us.

So, long story short (you can read the details in the last post if you wish), my prayer was answered, just not in the way that we planned. We had to be really patient -- and believe me, there were times that I was going out of my mind and we wanted to move SO badly, but there was nothing interesting on the market. But suddenly in early November the perfect house for us came up for sale in an area even closer to town and a neighbourhood where we think we'll be very happy. The home is only 10 years old, yet still looks and feels brand new, is bigger than the one we had planned on building, and has more than we could have afforded to build ourselves. If we had bought this house even a year ago, I expect we would have paid around $50,000 USD more than we did now, since the financial crisis has brought the housing market to a standstill. And compared to the modest house we were planning to build, I figure we saved at least $100,000, meaning we now have a much more comfortable mortgage. Now, what about that piece of land we bought that we were seemingly stuck with at a hefty loss? The local gov't originally said they would refund most of the money, since they were partially at fault for everyone suddenly backing out, but we were expecting to lose about $8000 USD in non-refundable fees. But recently we got word from them that they are going to refund 100% of what we paid for it.

I still can't say that I'm getting promptings or burning bosoms when I pray. I still feel that "stupor of thought" and I still struggle to pray because of that. However, this ordeal was a lesson that the Lord still hears and answers my prayers, even if I don't feel anything. And in this case, the Lord saved us a ton of money, so it'd be pretty ungrateful for me to not acknowledge His hand in that.

Now if my cats will just get along and if we can just get our internet hooked up at home, it'll be a very Merry Christmas indeed. :)