The Faithful Dissident

Humane Day: Mormonism's Forgotten Moral Conscience

2011-11-06T12:49:00.000-08:00

This past week was Animal Week at Doves & Serpents. Check out my recent guest post about an interesting, but long-forgotten era of Mormon history.

Re-post: Is The Mormon Church Sacrificing Principle for Profit With Hunting Preserves?

2011-09-05T06:05:00.000-07:00

It's been almost two years since I first published a post about the LDS-owned hunting preserves. That post continues to generate a fair amount of traffic to my blog. Unfortunately, however, those who post about the hunting preserves elsewhere usually miss the link to my Mormon Matters post which contained some updated information which was not included in the original post. So for the sake of clarification, here's a re-post of my Mormon Matters article from 2009. To my knowledge, it is still the most up-to-date source of information regarding these hunting preserves that very few Mormons are aware of.

Is The LDS Church Sacrificing Principle for Profit With Hunting Preserves?

September 24, 2009

By Faithful Dissident

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

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

I recently learned about the two Church-owned and sanctioned hunting preserves mentioned above and was stunned by what amounts to be the killing of animals for profit by the LDS Church.

Perhaps unlike other Church business enterprises, however, is the fact that missionaries were sent to “serve God in a most unusual way,” according to this July, 2000 article on Deseret News about the LDS Church’s hunting preserves.

According to the information packet from Deseret Land and Livestock obtained by the Sunstone speaker on this podcast, a guided archery hunt to bag an elk can fetch $11,500 plus tax and license, as of the year 2001. (A more detailed price list can be accessed at around the 28 minute mark of the podcast.) When asked in a letter by concerned members of the Church how the hunting preserves could be ethically justified, the Presiding Bishopric (who oversees the hunting preserves) offered no response or explanation.

Now, many Mormons own a gun and many go hunting. Millions of Americans go hunting every year and it’s a big industry. So what’s the problem with the Church getting in on the profits? Well, when we consider LDS scripture and statements by General Authorities such as the following, it’s clear that we’re not “just another hunting enterprise:”

“And surely, blood shall not be shed, only for meat, to save your lives; and the blood of every beast will I require at your hands.” (Genesis 9:11, JST)

“I never could see why a man should be imbued with a blood-thirsty desire to kill and destroy animal life. I have known men—and they still exist among us—who enjoy what is, to them, the ‘sport’ of hunting birds and slaying them by the hundreds, and who will come in after a day’s sport boasting of how many harmless birds they have had the skill to slaughter … I do not believe any man should kill animals or birds unless he needs them for food, and then he should not kill innocent little birds that are not intended for food for man. I think it is wicked for men to thirst in their souls to kill almost everything which possesses animal life. It is wrong.” (President Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, Vol. 1, pp. 371-372)
“Now, I would like to add some of my feelings concerning the unnecessary shedding of blood and destruction of life … And not less with reference to the killing of innocent birds is the wildlife of our country that live upon the vermin that are indeed enemies to the farmer and to mankind. It is not only wicked to destroy them, it is a shame, in my opinion. I think that this principle should extend not only to the bird life but to the life of all animals … because God gave it to them, and they were to be used only, as I understand, for food and to supply the needs of men.” (President Spencer W. Kimball, “Fundamental Principles to Ponder and Live,” The Ensign, November 1978, p. 45)
“Killing for sport is wrong…One day, to while away the slowly passing hours, I took my gun with the intention of indulging in a little amusement in hunting turkeys… From boyhood I had been particularly, and I may say strangely, attached to a gun. Hunting in the forests of Ohio was a pastime that to me possessed the most fascinating attractions. It never occurred to my mind that it was wrong-that indulging in “what was sport to me was death to them;” that in shooting turkeys, squirrels, etc., I was taking life that I could not give; therefore I indulged in the murderous sport without the least compunction of conscience.” (Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, p.188-189)

Something happened between the days that those statements were made and the present day where sport hunting for profit within the Church was suddenly considered to be a good idea — so much so that missionaries were initially sent to tend to the grounds. How did we get from the days where the Church fostered such a high regard for animal life that Joseph Smith prevented the unnecessary killing of rattlesnakes; when the pioneers would lay their hands upon their oxen to bless them; when their animals were valued as they were the key to their survival, and hunting was done only because it was necessary to sustain their lives — to the days when they’re hunted down for recreation and profit? What does that say about our culture and our religion?

Did I miss a change in LDS teaching concerning reverence for the Lord’s animal creations? Or is the only change that we’ve put a price on their heads?

George Q. Cannon, counselor in the First Presidency under Brigham Young and editor of the Juvenile Instructor, probably wrote more concerning the humane treatment of animals than any member of the Church. In 1868 he began writing editorials advocating kindness to animals and in 1897 he founded a Sunday School-sponsored “Humane Day,” which became an annual event. Most members of the Church know nothing about it, but this program continued in the Church for the next twenty years.

It is perhaps a bit ironic that leaders of the Church — in the days of when members were more dependent on animals for their food and clothing — were so frequently vocal about the humane treatment of animals, emphasizing that we should never take their lives unless it is to save our own, whereas today — when we are much less dependent on animals for our survival, and are supposedly much more enlightened on the subject of animal intelligence, emotion, and sensitivity to pain – the leaders of the Church are mostly silent on the issue of animal welfare and see fit to send missionaries to tend to sport hunting grounds.

In the Deseret News article, referring to Elder Huff, who tended to Westlake, it says:

“Instead of knocking on doors, he spends his time bush- whacking in the thick brush along the southwest shores of Utah Lake, looking for the perfect place to nurture his birds by planting numerous stands of corn, rye and other grains….
Large holding tanks that are no longer used for farming now provide high-profile watering holes throughout the game preserve, attracting not only birds but rabbits, coyotes, deer and even antelope.”

Interestingly enough, President Joseph F. Smith made a very specific statement referring directly to hunting elk, deer and antelope, among others:

“I do not believe any man should kill animals or birds unless he needs them for food, and then he should not kill innocent little birds that are not intended for food for man. I think it is wicked for men to thirst in their souls to kill almost everything which possesses animal life. It is wrong. I have been surprised at prominent men whom I have seen whose very souls seemed to be athirst for the shedding of animal blood. They go off hunting deer, antelope, elk, anything they can find, and what for? “Just the fun of it!” Not that they are hungry and need the flesh of their prey, but just because they love to shoot and to destroy life. I am a firm believer, with reference to these things, in the simple words of one of the poets:
“Take not way the life you cannot give,
For all things have an equal right to live.”
Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol.4, p.48

President Smith seems to predict with amazing accuracy what is going on at places like Westlake, where ”prominent men,” (perhaps the “doctors, dentists and attorneys from Payson north to Ogden, including Park City,” that Elder Huff refers to in the Deseret News article) seem to be so “athirst for the shedding of animal blood” that they will literally spend tens of thousands of dollars to “go off hunting deer, antelope, elk, anything they can find, and what for? Just the fun of it!”

Indeed, a very elite, lucrative kind of “fun” that had (as of 2001) a six-year waiting list.

Information about these hunting preserves is very sparse, but according to Jim Catano, who contacted the Church’s public affairs department and was “told by the director that he would answer my questions, a second-tier media handler was assigned to inform me weeks later that they would not answer any of the questions I’d submitted in preparation for this article.” (The article he was referring to can be accessed here.) After deciding to drop into Westlake unannounced and being given a tour by manager Kevin Albrecht, he found out the following in 2001:

“Our efforts in bringing our opposition to the attention of the Church hierarchy have already had an impact. Not only do missionaries no longer staff the facility but “canned hunts” in which birds that have been raised in captivity are released just before the hunters go in are no longer sponsored. Kevin said he had had several meetings with upper management as a result of our activism, and canned hunts were one of the first things to be changed.
He told me that in a meeting he recently attended of commercial hunting facility managers, people from other parts of the country were surprised how low the daily bag limit is (2 per day as opposed to “as many as you can shoot for a price”) and that the facility no longer plants hatched birds but relies only on wild reproduction. He informed me how strict rule enforcement is and that members must report birds they think they’ve wounded but can’t find as part of their daily limit. He’s fairly confident that members do this although I have my doubts that all do.”

Since information about these preserves is limited, I decided to get in contact with Jim in order to ask him whether he had any new information since his update in 2001. He said that he had contacted Farm Management Corporation (wholly owned by the LDS Church to run its farm properties) sometime prior to 2003, but they “refused to talk to me and give me any more information on the subject at a certain point.”

So, while there have been positive changes as the result of protest about the initial practice of canned hunting, Jim says that it “didn’t change (his) mind about the merits of the existence of this facility.” The end result has remained unchanged: animals being hunted down for Church profit.

This isn’t about sustaining the lives of doctors and lawyers or meat going to waste. Who eats coyote? And $11,500 for a few elk steaks? This is about the number of animals being purposely multiplied by creating the perfect conditions and attracting them to the preseve for the purpose of being killed “just for fun” – not because they need the flesh to live on, as President Smith stated above.

Ironically, The Humane Society of the United States has a webpage dedicated to praising the LDS Church for its teachings about animal life. Do we deserve the praise? Or have we given nothing but lip service to our supposed respect for God’s creations and their right to life?

Despite past teachings and statements by General Authorities on the subject of hunting and the taking of animal life, many of you have no personal problem with sport hunting. Obviously, you have the legal right to hunt and I realize that I’m unlikely to change your personal views on the matter. I ask you, however, whether you would be troubled by any of the following purely hypothetical situations:

The Church preaches against alcohol consumption, but purchases a vineyard in California and profits from the sale of the grapes being harvested to produce wine.
The Church teaches that pornography is wrong, but has a stake in a popular fashion magazine featuring scantily-clothed women in sexual poses.
The Church opposes abortion but owns property in Florida that an abortion clinic rents.

Would you be prepared to defend these hypothetical scenarios in the same way that you defend the Church’s hunting preserves?

Of all the good ways to make a buck, is this the best we can do? Are we or are we not, as a Church, sacrificing principle for profit?

Gerald E. Jones stated the following in in an Ensign article from August, 1972 called “The Gospel And Animals:”

“The prophets have been consistent in reminding men of their duty to the animal world. As the Lord told Noah, “… the blood of every beast will I require at your hands.” (JST, Gen. 9:11.) It is our sacred stewardship to care for the earth and all the creatures on it.”

The prophets have been consistent. What about the Church?

I’ll leave you with a quote from Joseph F. Smith from an editorial published in the Juvenile Instructor in April, 1927:

“… The unnecessary destruction of life is a distinct spiritual loss to the human family. Men cannot worship the Creator and look with careless indifference upon his creations. The love of all life helps man to the enjoyment of a better life. It exalts the spiritual nature of those in need of divine favor.”

Mormongandhi's Easter Sunday Baptism

2011-04-26T09:39:00.000-07:00

One of my best friends in this world, mormongandhi, was baptized this past Easter Sunday into The Community of Christ (aka Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Unfortunately, I was unable to make the trip to Oslo to take part in his special day, but he wrote a beautiful testimony which he has shared on his blog, and which I know he won't mind that I share here. ;) It's an inspiration to me, a story of spiritual triumph.

As a married gay man with a love for the Book of Mormon and its non-violent message, and knowing what kind of person mormongandhi is and what kind of heart he has, I'm genuinely grateful for a place where he can feel at home. For him, that home is The Community of Christ and I know that its small community in Oslo, Norway is very happy to welcome him into their fold. Who wouldn't be?

Below is mormongandhi's baptismal talk, also posted on his blog, Latter-day Satyagraha.

I’ve been on a pilgrimage for the last 14 years, but I think that my
problem until recently has been that I have been looking back at what once was,
rather than looking forward to what might become. My motivation for being
baptized in the Community of Christ was the following: I wanted to symbolically
put an end to a long and painful change process and begin to look forward to a
new and better life as one of Jesus’ peaceable followers. I thought it was
rather symbolic that I had sung Mozart’s Requiem in the choir a few weeks ago,
as a requiem for the old creature I once was, a death mass for the life I once
lived and for the principles I once believed in.

I’ve been a Christian all my life. I have been willing to take upon me
the name of Christ as far as I can remember. This faith had its origin in the
church community that I grew up in (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day
Saints). But it was only as a sergeant in the military, 14 years ago, that I was
challenged to the core. A soldier asked me if I was a Christian, and when I
answered yes – he said, what on earth are you doing here? It was an important
realization – that the greatest injustice one can do to oneself is to do
injustice to others – and I am grateful that someone else was more lucid than me
at the time and got me started on this transformational process. But I’m not
going to dwell on the past so much today. The important thing for me right now
in this moment is to look forward to a new life as a member of the Community of
Christ.

Jesus once said, “Without being born again, one can by no means enter
into the kingdom of God”. To me this passage of scripture means that when we are
baptized, we enter on a journey of discovering the kingdom of God within, so as
to contribute to establishing God’s kingdom in the world. Through my baptism
today I committed myself to seeing things from God’s perspective – and let the
Spirit of Christ and of His peace show me a gentler way to a better life so that
I can be a blessing to others. A peaceable disciple wants first and foremost to
serve his Master and this Master has always underlined the fact that we serve
him best by serving others.

In the Doctrine and Covenants 164:5 of the Community of Christ, it
says: “It is imperative to understand that when you are truly baptized into
Christ you become part of a new creation. By taking on the life and mind of
Christ, you increasingly view yourselves and others from a changed perspective.
Former ways of defining people by economic status, social class, sex, gender, or
ethnicity no longer are primary. Through the gospel of Christ a new community of
tolerance, reconciliation, unity in diversity, and love is being born as a
visible sign of the coming reign of God.”

It is this community that I want to be part of and as a member of the
Community of Christ, I can help bring it about: I can increasingly testify of
Jesus Christ and participate in my newfound church’s own mission of promoting
communities around the world that are built on hope, peace, love and joy.

Would I be here today unless Joseph and Emma Smith had dedicated their
lives to understanding God’s will for them? The Book of Mormon has been central
to my quest for peace in my own faith, and has convinced me like few other books
have, that war and violence are neither of God nor are they God’s will for His
children. War and violence is what we, together with God, must oppose. But still
there are many so-called Christians, to the extent I thought I was a Christian
when I was in the Armed Forces, that distort the teachings of Christ and adapt
them to serve their own purposes: this distortion has led to suffering, disaster
and death on an unimaginable scale.

How grateful am I for having found the Community of Christ that both
understands and interprets latter day scriptures in a responsible manner and
that have taken seriously the divine call to repent from the violence that has
previously defined (and still does) the Saints in the latter days. The first
Saints, who lived at the time of Jesus, must be looked upon as examples of
Christian living for the Latter-Day Saints, so that the last shall be (equal to)
the first. For the disciples in the time of Christ believed that they had indeed
beaten their swords into plowshares that they would no longer practice war – but
always seek peace. It is with them that I have chosen to lay down by the waters
of baptism (down by the riverside) my sword and my shield.

Does it mean that members of the Community of Christ do not feel
indignation at the injustice that characterizes the world we live in, that we do
not fret and grieve when nations go to war against each other or when
authoritarian regimes oppress people, or that we do not suffer when we see that
we are about to undermine and destroy the very Creation that sustains our puny
lives? On the contrary, like God, neither can we look upon sin in the slightest
and consent to it. We are called to promote good fellowship, through our
communion with the Holy Spirit that is the peace of Christ, to be a force in the
world that can transform unhealthy relationships, that we may promote God’s
peaceful reign and not the least, bring balance to and purity of
creation.

Peace I give unto you. Not as the world gives, give I unto you. Do not let
your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. I have always believed that
Joseph Smith’s vision of building Zion was one of the greatest innovations in
Christianity in the 19th Century. But the scripture I now am referring to, has
always been central to my understanding of how Zion will see the light of day.
We will achieve peace, but not through the methods of the world (not as the
world gives). Mahatma Gandhi said: There is no way to peace, peace is the way.
That is, there is no way to Zion, Zion is the way. I see the connection here
with what Christ said that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and that no
one comes to the Father but by him. We must dare to live as Christ suggested we
ought to in the Sermon on the Mount (is it any wonder we refer to Zion as Zion’s
Mount). Some have taken his admonition seriously and have followed Christ’s
long-suffering example in their quest for a better world.

Change does not come by itself, but it comes when we change ourselves –
and to help us along the way Jesus has given us rituals and symbols that can
help us keep to the uninterrupted and narrow path. Baptism is one of the
sacraments that can remind us of His death and resurrection, and also of his
victory over those who sought to get rid of him. He changed the course of
history in spite of opposition and persecution. Others have also tried to change
history through the same methods and all who refuse to lift up our swords
against our neighbors have become pilgrims in the pursuit of peace.

The symbolism of my baptism today, on an Easter Sunday (the day we
remember His resurrection) reminds me that I must follow in his footsteps
through all the days of my life on earth. The fact that I’m the same age as
Jesus was when he died on the cross and was reunited with his body, says a lot
about his ability to embrace His Divine calling in a relatively young age. 33 is
a good age in a modern world to take up the call I have received to testify of
Christ and the need to continue to admonish others of the importance of
nonviolence both as a believer in the Community of Christ, but also as a
committed member of the global world community.

Maybe that’s what I need to do as a newly baptized member, to see how
the principles taught in Doctrine and Covenants 164 can be implemented in other
contexts. Perhaps one day the world community will become a whole new creation,
a Community of Christ, a new society where we increasingly view ourselves and
others from a changed perspective, where former ways of defining people by
economic status, social class, sex, gender, or ethnicity no longer are primary.
Through the gospel of Christ a new community of tolerance, reconciliation, unity
in diversity, and love is being born as a visible sign of the coming reign of
God.”

Parallel Journeys

2011-03-25T05:41:00.000-07:00

It's been a while since I've written here, but I'm working on a third anniversary post that I hope to release in the coming days. In the mean time, you can check out a guest post that I've done for Doves and Serpents, entitled "Parallel Journeys," about some of my experiences of the past year. You can read it here.

Are You An Islamophobe or An Anti-Semite?

2010-11-17T03:44:00.000-08:00

I was reading the discussion going on at Mormon Heretic after his post about Benson, Eisenhower and Communism, as well as Glenn Beck's latest Jewish controversy, and was reminded of something that I've been wondering to myself lately.

What is "anti-semitic?" And what is "islamophobic?"

Those who have followed my most recent posts know that as I've gotten to know a lot of Muslim refugees the past year, I've been learning a bit about Islam. As well, I try to stay up-to-date as well as I can on what's going on close to home and in places like Afghanistan or Palestine. I try to combine first-hand information with everything that I read, realizing that the "real truth" can be really hard to get. I generally try to take everything with a grain of salt, but I must admit that I'm more inclined to favour first-hand accounts from people that I've developed a personal relationship with. Especially when they are both numerous and consistent.

When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although I'd hardly call myself a staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause, I think that I've learned enough about what's going on in Palestine to staunchly disagree with the way that Israel is handling things. (I wrote a bit about that in a previous post.) There is a reason why Norway is filled with Palestinian refugees -- not Israeli refugees -- and everything seems to indicate that Israel is abusing its power by doing their best to seal off the Palestinian people from the rest of the world.

But there are, of course, two sides to this dirty conflict and although it's a bit easier for me to take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it's certainly not so in the larger, general Muslim-Jewish conflict. As a friend from Iraq admitted to me, it's easier for her to like Christians than Jews. And although I do know of some refugees from Palestine who had Jewish friends back home, I wonder how I would have been received by my Muslim friends on that first day if I had said, "Hi, I'm from Israel" instead of "Hi, I'm from Canada." We all have our personal prejudices. I think I'm generally a pretty culturally open-minded and accepting person, but even I have to admit that some people are "harder for me to like." Let's just say... *a-hem*.... that loving certain Americans of certain political or religious persuasions requires an extra big effort on my part. ;) But I think I'm able to recognize my personal prejudice, be mindful of it, and try my best to resist it.

As in the US, there is a lot of Islamophobia going on in Europe. Norway is no exception, but is in a sort of unique positition. Being one of the world's strongest supporters for a free Palestine and an outspoken critic of Israel's operations in Gaza, it's been accused as being the most anti-semitic nation in Europe. Fresh accusations of this have been brought up in the media after the recent release of the Norwegian-produced film Gazas Tårer (Gaza's Tears) which features real and very raw footage of civilian casualties during the siege in Gaza. Critics cite the repeated anti-Israeli/anti-Jew/calls for revenge and Israel's downfall as evidence of Norway's tolerance of anti-semitism. I haven't seen the film, but I personally don't consider showing the angry rants of devastated Palestinians to be part of an anti-semitic agenda. Who in their posistion wouldn't be angry? But it goes without saying that whether it's watching Gaza's Tears, reading Eyes in Gaza, or meeting refugees and hearing their personal stories, one doesn't really come away with warm and fuzzy feelings for Israel.

On the other hand, there's a part of me that has real empathy for the Israeli paranoia that has led to extreme and inhumane actions on its part. While I find myself somewhat frequently speaking up on behalf of peaceful, moderate Muslims who are being marginalized in North America and Western Europe these days -- even writing letters to several newspapers and signing my name -- I sometimes have fears about what I am defending. And I can't help but think that there is a personal Mormon connection.

Even among seemingly moderate Muslims, I strongly suspect that there are seeds of anti-semitism being planted within Islam, just as seeds of racism, homophobia, anti-liberalism, anti-intellectualism, and anti-feminism have been planted throughout history within Mormonism. It's just hard to believe sometimes, behind all the smiles, love and generosity that typify Muslims or Mormons, that phobia or marginalization are being cultivated behind the scenes -- perhaps most often subconsciously, unknowingly, and largely unintentionally.

My Mormon background, combined with my personal encounters with nice, normal, moderate Muslims, makes for an interesting learning experience -- not to mention a paradox. I find myself sympathizing with my Muslim friends, remembering how I once felt marginalized by certain people as a socially conservative Mormon, and knowing that they are going to be viewed with at least some skepticism and suspicion by most of those who don't know them personally. But at the same time, now that I'm more aware of Mormon history and seen evidence of how some Mormons so eagerly blur the separation between church and state -- whether it's black civil rights, the ERA or Prop 8 -- I can't help but fear that I may be indirectly defending just that by defending moderate Islam. While I have no doubt about my Muslim friends as people, I sometimes worry about where even moderate Islam can lead if Muslims someday comprise a more significant portion of the population. Will they respect secular, democratic values and civil law? After all, how many orthodox Mormons wouldn't want to turn their country into Zion if they had the power to do so? "Because the prophet says so" has proven to be a very effective tool in hindering civil rights in America. I sometimes feel very conflicted about what type of role I should take in defending my Muslim brothers and sisters. Is there a way to defend Muslims without necessarily defending Islam? I hope so, but it can be difficult to separate the two.

And so this brings me back to my initial question. Am I anti-semitic because I support a free Palestine and that I think that this film from Gaza -- complete with its real footage of Palestinians calling for revenge and death to Israel -- is a film that the world needs to see? Am I islamophobic because I'm somewhat skeptical of the ability of even moderate Muslims to not plant seeds of anti-semitism and not want to mix religion with civil law?

Are you an islamophobe or an anti-semite? Or maybe even a bit mormophobic?

More About The LDS-Owned Hunting Preserves

2010-11-04T09:37:00.001-07:00

Some of you will recall an article I did a while back regarding the for-profit hunting preserves owned by the LDS Church. I still get a fair number of visits to my blog because of that article, but I think that some of you missed the update I did for Mormon Matters with more in-depth research on the subject. It's been over a year since I wrote that article, which you can read here, but as far as I know it's still status quo with the hunting preserves.

Though Rock Waterman's latest post about Mormon Corporatism, I learned of a newer post regarding the hunting preserves which you can read here. Although there isn't really any "news" per se, the author includes some quotes that I did not include, as well as examines the ethics of the Church using missionaries for private enterprises -- among other things. I recommend it to anyone interested in the subject.

The Danger Of Distance

2010-10-11T02:10:00.000-07:00

My husband and I recently celebrated our eighth wedding anniversary. I've been in Norway for eight years now. Hard to believe. It's gone by quickly. It's been challenging at times, but I've learned so much and I think that I've grown considerably. I've also changed a lot, although I think that I'm basically the same person I always was. But where I've changed most, I think, is that the older I've gotten and more aware of the world around me, the more I want to get involved. The more I want to bridge the distance between myself and the people and ideas that I don't understand. I've always been curious and fairly open-minded. But I've usually been an anxious, timid person. Though I still sometimes feel hindered by my lack of self-confidence and inhibitions, I do sometimes now find myself more willing to just "jump in" and get involved in things that I previously would have left up to someone else. And by doing so, I've learned some valuable lessons about how distance can be a hindrance to understanding and, thereby, compassion.

The danger of distance hit home to me more these past couple weeks in three different, totally unrelated forms.

Farm animals

As my regular readers know, I'm an avid animal welfare advocate and do my best to maintain and (hopefully) inspire others to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle -- or at the very least to cut down on meat consumption. There are a ton of reasons why vegetarianism is beneficial for people and the environment, but I won't get into those here because they're all secondary to the heart of the issue, in my opinion.

I read a detailed account of the life of a Norwegian veal calf named Tussi. The author followed him from his birth in a barn to when he was grazing in pastures, and then just under six months after his birth was loaded onto a truck and driven three hours to a slaughterhouse. There he was led through a narrow hall to where a bullet was shot into his skull, he was hung upside down, throat slit, drained for blood, and then cut into steak.

Paul McCartney once said, "If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegetarian." Personally, I think this is a stretch because I know that there are some people out there who have no problem with witnessing or personally participating in animal slaughter. In some places of the world, poverty has made some people dependent on their animals for survival. It's totally natural to some people and something that they probably don't give much thought to. However, I think that many people are the type who would become vegetarian if they had to witness -- or personally participate in -- the slaughter of every single animal they consume. The first person who comes to mind is my Dad. I think that my compassion for animals is something I got from him. Dad is the type who, if he finds them inside, puts spiders in plastic bags and carries them outside. I know he would never use anything but a humane mousetrap. He drew the line when grub worms were eating up his lawn and he bought some pesticides, but he wouldn't even let us step on ants as kids. But as nice as we were to ants, we all ate meat pretty much daily. I know that both of my parents would have been disturbed to hear about -- let alone witness -- how our dinner got onto our plates. And yet we managed to consume animals day after day without really worrying about it. And this could only be maintained through distancing ourselves from the realities of all the chickens, cows and pigs that we ate over the years. If Mom and Dad had had to personally butcher all of the cows, I have no doubt that we would have all grown up vegetarian. Now, my intention is not to criticize, because I managed to maintain that distance myself for 28 years. And sometimes I still do, when really kind people whom I don't want to offend serve me something containing meat. But the distance is not what it once was and it will never be again.

Refugees

In a totally unrelated incident, I had to say goodbye to a good friend of mine a couple of weeks ago. One of the several Afghan refugees that I've gotten close to these past few months, Ali is an approximately 19 year-old young man (most Afghans don't know their exact day or even year of birth because in a country of chaos and high illiteracy, births are not really registered) who got his final rejection from the Norwegian immigration authorities. He was ordered to leave Norway by a certain date or be sent to a detention centre until the authorities could put him on a plane to Kabul, which is not his home. Ali doesn't know where his family is. They were separated about ten years ago and the Red Cross was unable to track them down. According to Norwegian authorities, Ali was over 18 when he arrived in Norway two years ago, although even they admit that they can't say for sure that he isn't under 18 even now. Whereas a few years ago his case would have likely given him grounds to stay, the political situation has changed considerably recently. There is a strong anti-immigrant sentiment throughout Europe these days and Norway is no exception. So, Norway -- often referred to as "the world's richest country -- has no room for Ali. We "can't afford" him. We have "nothing" to offer him. It's "safe" enough for him to go back to Afghanistan, despite all the latest UN and NGO reports of an increase in violence and attacks on civilians -- particularly on ethnic minorities such as Ali, who is Hazara. Funny how we say it's "safe."

The last time I saw Ali, I was struck by how young he suddenly seemed to me. I thought of my own 19 year-old brother in Canada and tried to imagine him alone somewhere in some foreign country with no family, no money, no passport, no rights, and no place to call home. Even as I sit and type this, I still feel deeply impacted by my last image of Ali -- this incredibly bright and fun-loving young man who was nothing to Norway but another immigration case -- walking out the door to an incredibly uncertain future. Where is he now? Where will he be next week? Next month? Next year? In ten years?

I'd like to believe that there are few Norwegians who would have had the heart to send Ali out along his journey to nowhere if they knew him personally. If it were they who had to make the final decision. If it were up to them whether he were given the opportunity to continue his education, work, and have a life of stability in Norway where he had learned the language and had friends that had become like family to him; or whether he be left with the alternatives of returning to nothing in Afghanistan or being shuffled from one European country to another without any rights or protection.

But even though most people would probably agree that there is something wrong with what happened to Ali, they have a safe distance between themselves and "cases" like him. Even though the immigration authorities -- the "bad guys" -- were the ones who rejected him, we tend to forget that in a democracy like Norway, we are the immigration authorities. We are the "bad guys" for electing them into power and allowing them to implement their policies with little or no protest. Norwegians are great complainers. It's probably why they've probably built the greatest country in the world to live in. But there's not a lot of complaining going on for Ali and the thousands in his position. Why? Because of the distance we've managed to create between "us" and "them" -- even though we may literally be neighbours with "them." Norwegians, however, are not the only ones who distance themselves from other human beings. It was such distance that led to the dangerous dehumanization and subsequent genocide of the Hazara people by the Taliban and other groups in Ali's homeland. This, in turn, caused him and millions of others to have their lives ruined, families torn apart and scattered around the globe. Norwegians had nothing to do with those attrocities committed in Afghanistan. But does that clear us of any responsibility towards Ali?

I just finished reading the book Eyes In Gaza by Norwegian doctors Mads Gilbert and Erik Fosse, who were the only westerners present for much of the 22-day siege of Gaza in 2008-2009. If you remember watching CNN or BBC coverage of that event, you may remember their shocking reports of what they were witnessing as Gaza was being sealed up and cut off from the rest of the world. Although I realize that the Israel-Palestine conflict is far from one-sided, few have witnessed the scale and severity of the Palestinian suffering as these two doctors. The original book is in Norwegian, but I see that an English translation is available on Amazon here. I highly recommend it for anyone who wishes to get a more nuanced view from the Palestinian side of the conflict.

In one of the book's chapters, Dr. Fosse writes:

"It suddenly occured to me how dangerous distance is, and how easy it is to distance oneself when the victims have a foreign religion or rhetoric. The labelling of Gaza's population as religious fanatics and terrorists made it so that people in the west didn't identify with them and their suffering. The terror label had created a distance between them and us. For ever day that the war continued, more children had their lives ruined. Either they lost their lives, arms and legs, or they lost their parents. They were all psychologically injured of the chaos they lived in. Every day with war did irreversible damage to everyone in Gaza. As children were killed and maimed, American and European politicians discussed details in the wording of a resolution. I felt nauseous."

How relevant is Fosse's view of the danger of distance in other areas of the societies in which we live? Is it applicable elsewhere?

Homosexuals

The danger of distance came to mind again this past week as another gay Mormon took his own life and the media were buzzing over Boyd K. Packer's talk about homosexuality in General Conference. I don't wish to analyze and criticize his talk because that's been done many times before. But when I heard what he had to say, the subject of distance came to mind again. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that Elder Packer doesn't really have any gay friends. Once again, I could be wrong but I'm going to assume that he hasn't spent a lot of time with homosexuals, hearing their stories or associating with them. I'm guessing that he generally views them and their supporters as enemies of the Church. Of course, none of us can know for sure what is in his heart, but his choice of rhetoric on several occasions seems to support my theory.

Just this morning I read about New York gubernatorial hopeful Carl P. Paladino's comments about how children should not be "brainwashed" into thinking homosexuality was acceptable. "That's not how God created us," he said. And then he added, "I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t.”

The other side could claim that religious groups are engaging in brainwashing themselves. But really, who needs to be brainwashed? People can decide for themselves and pass judgment once they've personally bridged the distance. And perhaps it says something that those haven't had that distance between themselves and gays are the ones that generally seem to exhibit the most compassion and understanding. In the Mormon community, Carol Lynn Pearson comes to mind. Is there anyone who gets it better?

A friend of mine sent me a message this past week in which he wrote:

"I was raised in a very conservative, Republican, Mormon household with all of the subtle (and not so subtle) prejudiced attitudes against women, poor people, races and cultures different from our own, and, yes, against homosexuals. After all, "they" are not like "us," and, further, "they" are choosing to be different from "us." So, growing up, and even on my mission in the late Eighties, my view were very much what Boyd K. has expressed over the years.

As I have pursued my working career, I have formed too many friendships with gay and lesbian men and women. You know, so long as I was separate from "them," I did not have to take anything new in. Needless to say, over many years, and many conversations, and pondering, my programming has been updated."

I thought that his sentence, "so long as I was separate from "them," I did not have to take anything new in" hit the nail on the head. And it was very timely as the subject of distance had been on my mind lately.

On a relevant note, Marlin Jensen caused some waves of his own over his Prop 8 apology at a Church meeting in California. The way I see it, Packer and Jensen adhere to the same doctrine. Neither of them see a place for homosexuals in the Church who are not celibate. But Jensen's approach somehow seemed so much more palatable in this Salt Lake Tribune article where it was reported:

Jensen was the visiting general authority and offered to meet with members on the issue. About 90 people attended the meeting by invitation, and 13 shared their stories of pain as gays or family members, Pearson reported on her website. After one particularly harrowing account, many in the room, including Jensen, began to cry.
The speaker said he felt the church owed him an apology.
Jensen arose and said through his tears, according to Pearson, he had heard very clearly the pain that had been expressed and that “to the full extent of my capacity I say that I am sorry.”
Marriage as only between a man and a woman was a “bedrock of our doctrine and would not change,” Jensen told the group that day, nor would the policy requiring gays to remain celibate.
“However, I want you to know that as a result of being with you this morning, my aversion to homophobia has grown,” Jensen said. “I know that many very good people have been deeply hurt.”
Jensen’s heartfelt empathy was such a healing balm that day, said Andy Sorenson, bishop of the Moraga Ward, home to about half the participants. There was widespread sobbing.
“He said that we have to do better going forward as a Christian people in expressing Christ’s love and fostering our common bonds together,” Sorenson said Monday. “It was one of the most powerful spiritual experiences of my life."

Maybe he is starting to recognize the danger of distance.

FD Recommends: "Pure Mormonism"

2010-09-28T02:44:00.001-07:00

I don't do this nearly enough on here, but from time to time I've featured certain blogs or articles that I've found worth sharing. I've been following one blog in particular for a while that some of you may have seen, but in case you haven't, I recommend checking it out.

Pure Mormonism, by Alan Rock Waterman (pictured right) has become one of my favourite blogs. Here is a brief description in his own words:

"I've had a lifelong interest in what the early Latter-day Saints understood to be the "pure theology" of The Restoration, unfiltered by many of the common assumptions prevalent among a majority of modern Mormons today. In Joseph Smith's time, a teaching was accepted as valid only if obtained through divine revelation from God. Today, much of what passes for doctrine among my fellow Saints appears to contain "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture." I've been further intrigued by warnings of the falling away of the latter-day saints in our day as foretold in the Book of Mormon, and this blog was created as a forum for discussing some of the possible signs of that prophesied derailment."

It seems a bit unlikely, actually, that Rock's work would appeal to me. His views are very Mormon -- purely Mormon, you could say -- while mine have taken a much more universalistic shift. I don't share his theory on Joseph Smith's (non) practice of polygamy, neither do we have much in common politically. He's libertarian, has a great appreciation for the writings of Cleon Skousen, and well, I'm a "pinko" as he jokingly put it. :)

But don't let these things scare you off!

Rock was a vegan for a year and a half before admittedly falling off the wagon. How many libertarian vegans have you known?

Rock's take on war here and here are particularly worth reading. On an ironic note, I find myself a bit further on the conservative side -- as a reluctant supporter of the NATO presence in Afghanistan -- which has only come after getting to know Afghan refugee ethnic minorities who have become a part of my family, and learning more from them about the enormous complexities of the conflict there.

While the term "Pure Mormonism" may give you an impression of ultraconservative fundamentalist, Rock's approach to the Gospel is one that is as liberal, open-minded, and inquisitive as any of the free-thinking liberal Mormon bloggers out there. He also has a great sense of humour that really comes out in his writing, which is probably why I enjoy reading his work.

Rock's posts consistently call for a return to a Gospel that's more about love, acceptance and open discussion, rather than rigidness, conformity, and dogma. As he stated in his latest post, Living The Gospel, Or Walking In Zombie Land? (which is perhaps his best yet):

"Rather than simply emulating Christ and allowing His light to shine within them, some in the church seem to define “living the gospel” as a desperate race to obey all the rules of the institutional Church. This counterfeit gospel keeps the membership focused on their shortcomings; constantly worried about what they should or should not be doing, they're motivated by the fear that what they're doing is never enough, rather than allowing themselves to simply be who they really are: Sons and Daughters of the Light."

I think that's something that most of my readers -- pinkos and non-pinkos alike -- can appreciate. :)

Religiosity: A Hindrance To "The Good Life?"

2010-08-17T04:52:00.000-07:00

I wish I had more time to research the subject and write a more in-depth post, but unfortunately I haven't got much time. So I'd like to just throw out this question to all my readers for discussion:

Why is it that -- generally speaking -- the countries of the world which have the best standard of living, peace and stability are also the least religious?

There's an interesting article here about worldwide religiosity and it's interesting to look at the world map of religiosity. Contrast that with the UN Human Development Index or this study on Newsweek. Of the top 10 countries listed there, I would say that Canada is probably the most religious, even though last time I checked, only around 17% of Canadians go to church on a regular basis. And then there is the question of happiness. According to this recent study, the "happiest" countries in the world are -- once again -- the most irreligious. Of course, there are other relevant factors that determine how "happy" a country is, such as democracy and political/economic stability. But does religion play a role in how those elements are (or aren't) implemented in a society?

So what do you think? Is there are a real link between religion and quality of life/standard of living? Does religiosity hinder peace, stability and progress -- even happiness? Are there other factors? Or is it all a matter of coincidence?

"I Put Away Childish Things"

2010-08-11T15:37:00.000-07:00

The challenge of reconciling intellect with faith is what gave life to the Bloggernaccle. Virtually everything that is discussed in various Mormon blogs and forums is somehow connected to this subject.

In Mark 10:14, Jesus says:

"I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

1 Corinthians 13:11 says:

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

So what does the scripture in Mark really mean? The standard Sunday School answer is that it means that we need to be humble, obedient and submissive -- like children. But is this what God really wants from us?

Children are innocent. They are smart. But they are also gullible. Their brains are not yet fully-developed and they therefore lack the judgment and wisdom of an adult. They are humble, obedient and submissive -- not because they necessarily want to be, but because they don't have much choice in the matter.

So, while Mark quotes Jesus as saying that readily accepting the Gospel (which for most Mormons is synoymous with the institutional Church) as a child is the only way to get into Heaven, 1 Corinthians seems to indicate that, for adults, thinking or acting like a child is a barrier to the entering the Kingdom of God.

I remember how I used to think as a primary child. It was easy to accept what I was taught because it was never challenged. Am I really supposed to go back to that? And if so, isn't the verse in Corinthians at odds with Jesus? Is the author of Corinthians imploring us to develop our childish minds into something more intellectually mature, or is he simply telling us to give up our childish behaviour and temper tantrums?

How do you apply these scriptures to real life? Are childlike traits like obedience, humility and submission more important than adult traits such as questioning, seeking knowledge, intellectual development, or personal integrity and authenticity?

I recently came across an interesting quote:

"If your theology doesn't match up with your reality, there's nothing wrong
with your reality."

Reality is reality. And sometimes we just can't match it up with our theology. So why the heck do we keep trying?

The Greatest Of All Blessings?

2010-06-24T02:49:00.000-07:00

I cannot take the credit for this, but I thought it was worth sharing.

A Franciscan blessing

“May God bless you with a restless discomfort about easy answers,
half-truths and superficial relationships, so that you may seek truth boldly and love deep within your heart.

May God bless you with holy anger at injustice, oppression, and exploitation of people, so that you may tirelessly work for justice, freedom, and peace among all people.

May God bless you with the gift of tears to shed with those who suffer from pain, rejection, starvation, or the loss of all that they cherish, so that you may reach out your hand to comfort them and transform their pain into joy.

May God bless you with enough foolishness to believe that you really CAN make a difference in this world, so that you are able, with God’s grace, to do what others claim cannot be done.

AMEN.”

Perhaps this is the greatest of all blessings?

Families Are Forever: Who Is Your Family?

2010-06-11T15:30:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking lately about the concept of "family."

I'm lucky. I have a close, loving family and was recently fortunate enough to have some of my family members come to visit me in Norway for the first time. I love my family and I'm thankful for the relationship that we have with each other.

My family is not limited to biological relatives or in-laws, however. I have four biological brothers, but I also have a brother from Afghanistan (you can read my previous posts for the background story). We're neither biologically nor legally related, but we're family nonetheless.

So how does this type of family fit into Mormon theology?

In early Mormonism, there was a practice known as the Law of Adoption, in which men who were not related to each other were sealed to each other, like as fathers and sons. The practice was eventually discontinued and there is nothing comparable in modern Mormonism that I am aware of, but it's an interesting concept in terms of connecting people for eternity that wouldn't otherwise have a reason to be sealed to each other.

Aside from Islam, which teaches that Muslim couples are married for eternity, I'm not aware of any other religion outside of Mormonism that believes in eternal marriage or eternal families. From what I understand, most other Christian denominations would point to Matthew 22:30 as evidence for the marriage (or perhaps family) relationship being dissolved after death:

"At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they
will be like the angels in heaven."

I understand that to mean that in heaven, all people will be of equal standing and that there will be no husbands, wives, children, etc. Instead, perhaps we'll just be one big "happy family" as opposed to many individual family units.

For those of us who have had a happy family life, the prospect of an eternal family is, of course, something that gives us a lot of hope and comfort. But some people would rather spend eternity with their friends than their families. Some have strained family relationships, or have been abused and betrayed by their family members. Or others may have a good relationship with their families, but they may also have close friends that they love like their families.

I think that most people of faith believe that they will be reunited with their loved ones after death, but how many believe that they will still be a family? And what is the significance of that family bond in the Hereafter? Is it symbolic or literal? And will our eternal family only consist of those who were our "real" family in this life?

I've learned so much in recent months about family and what it means to me. I want to be with my family forever, but my family extends beyond the traditional Mormon definition.

Who is your family? Is it limited to those who are related to you biologically or legally? Do you have friends that you love as family? Do you believe you will spend eternity with them? And if so, how do you think your relationship will be?

An Open Discussion With FD and Hassan: Islam, Christianity, War in Afghanistan, Ethnic Discrimination, The Role Of God And Religion In Our Lives

2010-05-02T02:13:00.000-07:00

After my previous post recounting my recent experience at Lutheran mass, my Afghan brother Hassan left a comment that I thought deserved a post of its own.

In recent days I've been thinking about how we, as Mormons, usually attribute all the suffering and misery in the world to human beings exercising their free agency and thereby inflicting pain on others by their own choice -- against God's will. A few days ago, an Afghan friend of ours -- and Hassan's best friend -- was suddenly deported and there was absolutely nothing we could do about it. I don't think it was "God's will" for him to be sent out of the country into an uncertain future on the streets, neither do I believe that the majority of people here (if they knew about it) would have wanted this to happen to him, but one ends up feeling rather helpless. Is the world really dominated by a majority of heartless people who want to perpetuate all the pain and suffering of poverty, war, violence, and discrimination? Or is the problem, in reality, that a minority of people with evil intentions has an upper-hand on the good majority? It's the main reason why I believe in a god that is more deist in nature, rather than one that is actively involved in every intricate detail of our lives.

One thing that I've learned from my discussions with Hassan is that the "explanations" for inequality that I was once so comfortable giving seem terribly inadequate when you're faced with them head-on. Some of the Mormon theories in regards to free agency, pre-existence and foreordination seem totally plausible until you have someone like a refugee sitting in front of you whose life is in political limbo and utter ruin. Another Afghan refugee sent me a link yesterday about children in war, which you can see here, and there was a line in the song that really struck me:

"Is this what my life is for? To be wasted in a world of war?"

I have never felt from Hassan that he is bitter, even though he has every reason in the world to be so. But I remember a conversation with him when he asked, "What crime did I commit to be given this destiny, except that I was born in Afghanistan?" I have no sensible answer for that question.

So, before we jump into Hassan's list of questions, here is some useful background information:

I'm still technically Mormon, but am more universalist at heart and personally believe that the spiritual and temporal welfare of individuals is more important than what religion is "true" or "correct." Religion is no longer "one-size-fits-all" in my world view.

Hassan is a non-practicing/non-believing Shia Muslim who had to flee wartorn Afghanistan because of his ethnicity and dissenting political and religious views. As a Hazara and Shia Muslim, he was both a religious and ethnic minority in Afghanistan. His application for political asylum is currently being processed, so he still has to live daily with a cloud of uncertainty hanging over his head. The current political situation is bad for refugees, particularly from Afghanistan, and the majority are having their asylum applications rejected.

I'm currently reading the Qu'ran (among other things) and Hassan is reading the Bible and selections of the Book of Mormon in Persian.

We share a very similar world view, and despite our non-literalist approach and problems with religion, we have a similar view on its valuable role in the lives of the human population.

We both believe that a secular state is necessary in order to protect religious freedom and civil rights.

We question the appropriateness of any religion to discriminate within its faith based on factors such as race or gender.

So, although most of us are Mormon here, let's open our hearts and minds to consider some varying perspectives and discuss Hassan's following questions and comments (I've made some minor spelling and grammatical edits for clarity):

Who is God and what is our destiny?

Is God "nice" and "just?"

If he planned everything for human beings from the beginning, why does he treat people differently?

"I am looking for some answer that makes sense to believe in a
religion. I was born in Afghanistan into a Shia Muslim family, though
I never wanted this. I have been abused and insulted because of my race,
nationality and mostly religion. If I had been born in another place,
for sure I could have a different life and different destiny. I feel like a
victim of religion, and my belief has always created problems for me. I want a
religion to ease my life and help me with the best way of life based on peace
and freedom, but now I am mostly afraid of religion. If I practice my previous
religion, I have to endure abasement and insult my whole life, if I change
my belief, I will be killed, and if I don’t believe any religion still I will be
killed. These are all because of being born in Afghanistan, and according to
Islam, it is my destiny. God has planned it for me from the beginning
of my life. I don’t know, how do you believe, FD, MG, MH and other
friends? :)"

I'd like to invite all of you readers to an open dialogue here. Feel free to ask Hassan your questions about Afghanistan, life as a refugee, or any of the aforementioned topics, and I'm sure he'll be happy to answer if he can. Most of my readers are pretty good at being open-minded and respectful, but let's try to steer clear of any prejudice or religious dogma. So if we disagree, let's do it without being disagreeable. You can all let me have it, but be nice to Hassan. ;)

The floor is now open for your question and comments.

Receiving Tools From The Unlikeliest Of Places

2010-04-30T01:13:00.000-07:00

I remember when I first came to Norway almost eight years ago, back when I was a strong TBM, I was so turned-off by the Norwegian Lutheran Church. As I was learning the language, I would read newspaper editorials and articles about religion in Norway, the approach of the state Church here, and my impression was that it was simply watered-down Christianity directed by politics that didn't require anything of its members and had totally veered away from the "right" path after ordaining female priests, being open to homosexuality, etc.

On Easter Sunday I went to Lutheran mass with my husband (who is still officially Lutheran, though never attended church regularly) and my Afghan refugee brother Hassan. I certainly haven't been looking to "jump ship" membership-wise, but as I've found it increasingly difficult to go to the LDS Church regularly, I decided why not check out something different.

Last Sunday was stake conference and since I wasn't about to go all the way to Oslo for church even at the height of my TBM days, I told my husband I was going to go to the Lutheran service just for the heck of it. He said he wanted to come with me, so we went. The church was packed (a rarity) because it was baby christening Sunday. At first I was disappointed because I just wanted to be there for a regular service. So we sat there and enjoyed the music and screaming babies, and then a man that neither of us knew got up and held a sermon that totally took our breath away.

He told a story about a friend of his, a doctor in a nearby city who was on his way to a Christmas party one evening last December and suddenly noticed a young man on the street who looked quite distressed. He felt that he should stop and ask him what the matter was, and so he did. The young man replied that he had missed the last bus to the refugee centre where he lived (which is quite a way outside of the city and certainly not within walking distance, especially not in the middle of winter). When he mentioned the word "refugee," my husband and I looked at each other, surprised, since the matter of refugees is extremely central in our lives at this time. And then he mentioned that the man said he was a refugee from Afghanistan, which really took our breath away. (The Afghans are the ones we've gotten really close to and they have such a special place in our hearts. I started to think of Hassan, imagining if it were him sitting out in the cold somewhere with no place to go, and suddenly I couldn't stop my eyes from overflowing with tears.) The doctor decided that Christmas parties will come and go each year, but this was an opportunity for service that he couldn't let go. So he drove the young man home and was invited in for tea. It was the first time he had entered a refugee centre (very few Norwegians ever do) and it was an eye-opener for him. The young Afghan man introduced him to some of his other Afghan friends and they struck up a close friendship, which led to the devlopment of a Norwegian-Afghan support network. In the process, he and some of his friends converted to Christianity and are active in the Norwegian church community in a nearby city.

The man closed his sermon with an inspiring talk about our attitudes towards refugees in Norway. (At worst, some are downright hostile, but most probably view them as a big burden to society that they wish would simply go away.) So he asked the congregation: should we lament about this "burden" of refugees, or should we thank God that they survived the dangerous journey to this country and view them as an asset? He finished with a prayer, specifically mentioning the refugees of our town. My husband and I we were both sort of floored, as this is not a topic one expects to hear at church -- and of all the Sundays that it should be mentioned, when we were actually there to hear it... my husband even felt moved enough to go up and take the sacrament at the end of the meeting, which I had never seen before.

It's funny to think that we should decide to go to Lutheran mass on exactly that day, but I'm sure glad we did. I got in contact via e-mail with the man who spoke and told him how he probably had no idea of the the unlikely impact he would make that day with his sermon. He was appreciative for the feedback and as he thought more and more about it, felt compelled to contact me again about working together in an interfaith/cultural network of people in the area who want to work towards building a better relationship with the refugee community in our town. And who is more prepared to do that than us?

A few years ago, I would have felt it was such a waste of time to get involved in a "wrong" church when I had the "true" one. Now that truth is in the backseat and the welfare of souls (not just in a spiritual sense, but especially in a temporal, humanitarian sense) is in the driver's seat, I'm just thankful for the opportunity to help and for the tools that seem to be finding their way to me, from the unlikeliest of places.

A Mormon And A Muslim Go To Mass

2010-04-04T11:56:00.000-07:00

Although we have some similarities, there's a significant difference between the worshipping styles of Mormons and other Christian denominations. And this difference is perhaps most noticeable during the two biggest Christian celebrations: Christmas and Easter. Compared to their Catholic and Protestant counterparts, Mormons are, on average, probably much better at actually attending church on a regular basis. Though the Church is extremely small in Norway, my local branch probably draws an average of around 15-20 people on any given Sunday. The local Lutheran church draws about the same number on most Sundays, despite the fact that there are thousands of more Lutherans than Mormons.

But, while Mormons are generally better in the church attendace department than our Catholic and Protestant counterparts, I think that we could learn a thing or two from them when it comes to celebrating -- or even acknowledging -- the holy days of Christianity. Cases in point: Unless Christmas falls on a Sunday, Mormon churches are closed. If General Conference happens to fall on Easter Sunday like this year, then conference takes precedence. And as a life-long Mormon, I had never even heard of the Ascension of Christ or Pentecost celebrations -- both stat holidays in much of Europe -- until I moved here.

So this year, I just felt like doing something different and decided to experience Lutheran Easter Sunday mass in a church that dates back to about 1150. Along with my Lutheran-on-record husband, I had the pleasure of being accompanied by my Afghan brother, Hassan (see my previous post for the story of how I met him).

It was a special day for me, to be accompanied by two of the dearest people in my life, and to have a quiet day to reflect upon what the whole thing actually means to me. I used to think of Lutheranism as watered-down Christianity, changing with the times and without much emphasis on lifestyle or morality. I could sit here and argue how true or not that is, or which approach to Christianity is "better," but suffice it to say that on this day, it was what I needed.

The priest recited a story about how he was once officiating at a funeral and after throwing the three ceremonial spoonfuls of earth onto the casket, a five-year old boy remarked that it was not enough. This, he was reminded, was the central message of the story of Easter. On our own, we can never do "enough." This was a dilemma that had been much on my mind this past week as I attempted to comfort a very distraught refugee friend who is facing a looming deportation order.

Jesus said, "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you" (John 14: 18). God says he will not leave us comfortless, but it seems that more often than not, that is dependent on whether or not we are willing to extend that comfort to someone.

"Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn."
-Romans 12: 15

I got to do a little of both this past week.

At the core of the sermon was the message, "Gud er kjærlighet" -- God is love. I think that many of us want to believe that, but become witnesses to so many attrocities and injustices of varying degree in this world -- many committed in the name of God -- that it becomes extremely problematic to reconcile "God's love" with reality or religion. Hassan's life is a perfect example of that.

Many today, including myself, are moving away from a literal, orthodox approach to religion. Whatever our view on the Easter miracle, or religion in general -- whether literal or metaphorical -- love is a central theme. Instead of focusing on where we fall short and beating ourselves up over it, sometimes it's better to just focus on that love. Sometimes it's really all we can do.

Although my life is nothing to complain about, it's hard to feel God's love. I can say that my life is good and therefore I feel God's love, but all I have to do is look around me to see examples of why equating material wealth or stability with divine love is so problematic. Perhaps the closest I can come to feeling God's love is indirectly -- through the individuals that enrich and enlighten my life.

I'm not looking to switch religions, but as a lapsed Mormon, I enjoyed the simplicity of the Lutheran priest's poignant sermon. And as a lapsed Muslim, even though he doesn't yet understand much Norwegian, I hope that Hassan was uplifted by the special atmosphere of this holy day.

Thanks for an Easter Sunday that I will remember. It was a good day.

Happy Easter, everyone.

The Faithful Dissident's 2nd Anniversary: A Year In Review

2010-03-24T14:00:00.000-07:00

Hard to believe that another year has come and gone. I've been very busy lately and have had lots to think about, but thought that my readers might like to hear what I've been up to and what's been going through my mind lately. So here is a summary!

We had some great discussions here over the course of the year. Some of the highlights included:

My thoughts about what I think I'd be if I weren't a Mormon.
The mysteries that people have experienced surrounding death and the afterlife.
My exploration of humanism and whether or not it's compatible with Mormonism.
An unexpected "visit" from my grandmother.
Contemplating what we'd all do if polygamy came back.
A very lively discussion about what Joseph Smith would think about the current LDS Church, which drew some interesting comments from people across the entire belief spectrum of Mormonism.
How Hitler's life can perhaps tell us a bit about the nature of God.
The dilemma of truth exclusivity claims.

The lowest point of the year was probably when I discovered the LDS Church hunting preserves, which sent me a little over the edge. I did some more research into the matter and did a report on it for Mormon Matters, which from what I gather, seems to be the most detailed and up-to-date information about the current situation of these hunting preserves run by the Church.

The matter of the hunting preserves propelled me into a very cynical period and so I decided to pull a Martin Luther of sorts and nail my own "95 theses" on the door of the Church, so to speak. The result was a long blog post in which I outlined about 7 main criticisms, but managed to say plenty nice about the Church as well. :) I decided that I should take a sabbatical from blogging, which was short-lived, but was a turning point in the direction that I wanted to take The Faithful Dissident. From there, I decided to just write when I really felt inspired to do so, and to focus on using the blog as a forum for some of the many great Mormon bloggers out there.

In other news, The Faithful Dissident was nominated for "Best Solo Blog" in the Niblet Awards and got second place. This was a pleasant surprise to me and I thank all those who voted for me!

I know that many of my readers are on a similar journey to mine, and so some of you are probably wondering about where I am at this point in my religious journey. I guess the easiest way to sum it up is that I'm not really anywhere. Not that there was ever much going on in my small branch to begin with, but going to church at all remains a real battle for the most part. I've found that if I force myself to go when I don't really feel like it, it only makes it harder to go back the next time. But on the other hand, sometimes I really want to go to sacrament and so I go. Sometimes I feel spiritually-charged, but other times it really sucks, to be brutally honest.

If you were to ask me what I believe, the only honest way for me to answer that question is to say that I have no idea. I wouldn't say that I don't believe any aspect of Mormonism anymore, because my idea of God is still very Mormon and it's my religious culture and heritage. As well, it's the basis of reference when I'm exploring other faiths because it's still "mine." But my religious convictions are on a leave of absence and I don't know if or when they're coming back.

This past year, I've had the privilege of meeting and talking to some interesting people, but there are two very special individuals who have made a huge impact in my life and have become very relevant in my personal spiritual journey.

The first person is mormongandhi, whose blog I featured here a few months ago. It's not every day that I meet gay feminist non-violent vegetarian Mormon bloggers in Norway, so it's hard to believe that it's mere coincidence that mormongandhi and The Faithful Dissident should meet. I'm so happy to have met him and to have gotten a glimpse of his world, his views, ideas, and faith. It's rare that I've clicked so well with someone instantly, but if there's any truth to the doctrine of pre-existence, I'd like to think that mormongandhi and I planned to cross paths long before we found each other in the Bloggernaccle. I've learned a lot from him about the peace movement, which has inspired and motivated me to care more about these issues and examine them from a new angle. (You rock, mormongandhi! :)

And these issues of war and peace lead up to the next special individual that has crossed my path in life...

In my town here in Norway, there is a refugee centre that was re-opened a little over a year ago which houses about 125 people from around 18 different nations who are seeking political asylum in Norway. Under the current system, the process can easily take years and depending on what status is assigned to their case, some of these refugees are not entitled to much more than a place to sleep, basic health care, and barely enough money to buy food and essentials. Some are entitled to go to school to learn Norwegian, but many are not. So, for most of these refugees, the days are long and lonely, and the waiting and uncertainty of their future can be as harrowing as the journey many of them had to make to get here. The language barrier, cultural and religious differences, the current political climate where immigration is concerned, general apathy, and skepticism tend to make it very difficult to bridge the gap between refugees and the local Norwegian population. The result is that people generally keep to themselves. I read in the local newspaper recently that although the locals are good at donating material goods to these refugees, what they need most is "folkevenner" (friends of the people) to actually spend time with them. So I decided to get in touch with the centre. And I have to say that getting involved and reaching out to these refugees has absolutely been one of the best decisions that I have ever made. Not only was I later offered a paid temp job as a result of my volunteer work (which was a nice change from my usual job with dementia patients), but what this experience has meant to me personally is perhaps most significant.

On my first day of visiting the centre, I met several wonderful people who overwhelmed me with their warmth and friendliness. But one of these people really stood out and made a big impression on me and my husband. I will call him Hassan: a young Hazara man from Afghanistan (if you've read or seen The Kite Runner, you will perhaps remember the Hazara servant boy also named Hassan, pictured left).

Hassan is an incredibly bright, intelligent, well-read and informed young man who has seen and experienced more in his 24 years than most of us ever will in an entire lifetime. On top of speaking excellent English, he seems to have natural leadership skills and I know that many of the other refugees look up to him and respect him. He's also been a big help to me in my job, stepping in as a contact person and translator when needed.

You all know how much I like to discuss social and political issues, so it's been interesting to hear about Hassan's life in Afghanistan and how it has impacted his views on things like feminist issues, social equality, civil rights, secular government, and religion. I know he's really appreciated getting to know me and my husband, and the appreciation is completely mutual.

Since I started working with these refugees, I've been happier and feel like my life has more of a purpose. In the past, I've often felt frustrated by my desire to do more to help people in need without knowing what I could really do from my cushy, first-world Norwegian existence. With this experience, I feel like I can be proactive -- which is very important to me.

Although I'm just as frustrated with religion as I ever was and most of my issues remain unresolved, I find myself fretting about it a lot less. I can just relax and put religion on the shelf while I serve others and, assuming he exists, serve God through serving his children. And in the process, I've acquired a new family of sorts. Hassan and I are both far away from our families (in my case, the circumstances are much more favourable, of course), and so I think that we both feel like we've found a surrogate family in each other. He's my brother and I'm his sister.

As a foreiger in Norway myself -- but one who feels pretty well-integrated into Norwegian society -- I think that my perspective is valuable to both sides. I have a decent idea of the challenges and obstacles that immigrants face (I'm learning more about it every day), and yet I understand the Norwegian perspective as well. I still don't know exactly what I can do or how I can do it, but if we can even just help to bridge the gap between people and motivate them to actually care about the plight of these refugees enough to generate a political force for good -- one person at a time -- maybe we can make a difference. I told Hassan about The Starfish Story, which has inspired me in my animal welfare activities, but my hope is that we can do more for people in his situation. We have a dream for peace. A dream that the Norwegian government will see fit to give Hassan the opportunity to fulfill his endless potential as a human being and to use his unique experience and perspective to effect positive change in this world.

Insh'allah.

A young Somalian refugee in the English class that I teach has lent me a book in English about the Quran, which I'm now reading. Some of the parallels to Mormonism are fascinating and I'm grateful to get a more nuanced view of Islam from these people, as opposed to what we see in the news on a daily basis.

So, I want to send out a big thanks to all of my readers who have been following me throughout this journey the past couple of years and I hope that I'll be able to continue sharing my insights with you into my third year as The Faithful Dissident. I have no idea where I'll be religiously and spriritually a year from now, and I know this may sound arrogant to some of you, but I'm not really concerned about it for a couple of reasons:

1.) "When ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the
service of your God."
-Mosiah 2:17
2.) "The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service
of others."
-Mahatma Gandhi

When The Spirit "Speaks," What Does It "Say," And What "Language" Does It Speak?

2010-02-26T01:23:00.000-08:00

Mormons are big on feelings. We're supposed to study, fast, and pray in order to get confirmation of the Church being true. Investigators are encouraged to read the Book of Mormon and attend church. People do this and then they may sometimes have a profound spiritual experience, but most often it's based on a feeling. They feel that it's good, that it makes sense, and often that's enough for them to conclude that the Church is true and that it's the only true church.

I certainly don't need to discount or dismiss the "warm and fuzzy" feelings or spiritual experiences that I've heard others describe. I've had them myself. Sometimes I still do. They're just as real as they ever were. But now they just mean something different to me.

As we discussed in a previous thread, the more I studied and observed the different faiths of others, I realized that there was a lot that I couldn't reconcile with the "one true church." I know of some very Mormon-specific spiritual experiences that have occurred in my circle of family and friends, but I also know of some other very faith and denomination-specific spiritual experiences outside of Mormonism. And I can no longer believe that mine are more "true" than theirs.

Recently the missionaries challenged me to read the Book of Mormon. Again. I think they hope that I'll get those feelings and that it will restore my faith in the "one true church." But I tend to take those feelings at face value now. If someone reads the Book of Mormon and gets a good feeling about it, then it means it's a good book with a good message -- divine, even. But if the book is good and even divinely-inspired, does it have to mean that the LDS Church is the only true church on the face of the earth? Does it have to mean that Lehi and Nephi really existed? Does it have to mean that an angel really threatened Joseph Smith with a sword if he didn't marry all those women? Does it have to mean that God really ordered genocide in the Bible? I know that some would see it as a cop-out to say no to all of these things, but maybe it's just unreasonable to say yes.

I think that many fellow Mormons would be hurt or offended by my rejection of some of the things they deem to be literal truths. But maybe we want to invest way too much into our spiritual experiences and feelings -- so much so that they overreach their ability to stand firm in the face of reality and we end up obsessing over their literalness at the expense of focusing on what we're actually supposed to learn from them (i.e. stressing the Book of Mormon as literal and historical, while discussions about its nonviolent message in a very violent world are relatively few).

Maybe our expectations are simply unreasonable.

In a recent Mormon Stories podcast with a woman named Jacque, she talked about Mormonism being her "spiritual language," just like English is her spoken language. As someone who has learned four different languages, this was an analogy that I could really relate to. I've learned through my studies that languages are different. Although one is not really superior to the others, some languages have their strengths. French can be beautiful and poetic, German is very literal and ordered. There are things I can say and express in Norwegian that I simply can't in English. And vice versa. We are missing certain words and expressions in English that are incredibly useful in Norwegian, which I use on a daily basis, that cannot be translated literally into English in a way that will make sense. And vice versa. Isn't religion the same way? We are getting certain things in Mormonism that we simply can't get in other religions. And vice versa. It doesn't make any one religion superior to another, but we cannot practice them all -- just like we can't learn every language. We need to find the one that works for us, use it, but realize that it can be helpful to learn additional "languages" because we may be missing out on certain elements.

So when you hear the spirit, what is it actually saying to you? And what language does it speak?

Who's The Prophet?

2010-02-19T01:17:00.000-08:00

Recently my husband and I watched the movie "Gandhi." Of course, we all know he was a fascinating character and an exemplary man but the more I thought about him, his message, his motivations, and how the "gospel" that he preached could change the world for the better if human beings would actually take it to heart, I wonder why we (as Mormons or Christians in general) don't consider him -- or anyone outside of the Judeo-Christian scriptures or the modern-day LDS Church -- to be a "prophet."

Even within the Judeo-Christian scriptures, questions arise for a Mormon. As a friend of mine recently said:

"On the one hand, we declare that the President of the Church is the prophet for the whole world. On the other hand, all of our ancient scriptures have examples of prophets, and prophetesses, who are not necessarily the "line of authority" church leaders."

Gandhi was a Hindu. He wasn't a Christian and he wasn't a Mormon. And yet what he preached seems to have more similarities to what Christ himself preached than most of the modern-day "Christians" that I know in terms of creating peace of earth and turning the other cheek. Gandhi was not a man of lip service. He was, of course, a man -- a fallible man -- just like all those in the Mormon faith that we consider to be prophets, but don't always want to believe really were fallible. But I do wonder why we consider some to be "prophets" and guys like Gandhi to be merely "good men."

There were several times throughout the movie when a passage in Matthew kept coming to mind:

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly
they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather
grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth
good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot
bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the
fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

(Matt. 7: 15-20)

I couldn't help but contrast Gandhi's words with, for instance, Brigham Young's fiery rhetoric -- the kind of stuff that preceded Mountain Meadows, for instance. And I'm not trying to diss Brigham here. I realize that he did great and important things in his lifetime and that we must allow for mistakes. The same can be said of Gandhi, no doubt, who certainly made mistakes.

But who's the prophet? "By their fruits ye shall know them...."

How does one examine the "fruits" of people like Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, or Mother Teresa, or any of the other peacemakers that have risen throughout time and inspired the world to do better and given their lives to their noble cause, and conclude that they "just didn't have" what Brigham had or what Thomas S. Monson has? Why is studying Mormon prophets over and over again, year after year, so important that the others will never even make it into the lesson manuals?

Precious.

2010-02-01T01:27:00.000-08:00

This past weekend I went to the cinema with some friends and saw the film, Precious. Here is a short synopsis from Hollywood.com:

"Set in Harlem in 1987, it is the story of Claireece Precious Jones, a sixteen-year-old African-American girl born into a life no one would want. She's pregnant for the second time by her absent father; at home, she must wait hand and foot on her mother, a poisonously angry woman who abuses her emotionally and physically. School is a place of chaos, and Precious has reached the ninth grade with good marks and an awful secret: she can neither read nor write. Precious may sometimes be down, but she is never out. Beneath her impassive expression is a watchful, curious young woman with an inchoate but unshakeable sense that other possibilities exist for her. Threatened with expulsion, Precious is
offered the chance to transfer to an alternative school, Each One/Teach One. Precious doesnt know the meaning of alternative, but her instincts tell her this is the chance she has been waiting for. In the literacy workshop taught by the patient yet firm Ms. Rain, Precious begins a journey that will lead her from darkness, pain and powerlessness to light, love and self-determination."

This movie is certainly not a "feel-good" movie. "Viewer discretion" is certainly advised. It's raw. It's brutal. It's depressing, really. But I'm glad I saw it because it stirred something within me and I hope that it would do the same for anyone else who sees it. The young actress who plays Precious was born to play this role, in my opinion. Movies these days are full of pointless profanity and violence, but occasionally one comes along that actually gives meaning to it all. And since most of us aren't going to move to Harlem and live this young girl's life, seeing a film like this is probably as close as any of us are going to get to understanding what it must be like to be born into and live under such circumstances. And once you're aware of it, you want to do something about it.

The day after seeing the movie, I went with my friend to a Community of Christ meeting (formerly known as the RLDS church). The meeting was simple and I enjoyed it. Since there were only 5 or 6 of us and we were in a private home, there was no organ or hymn singing, but they played some spiritually uplifting music on CD. One of the songs they chose was by one of my favourite groups, Secret Garden, the Norwegian-Irish duo who composed the original version of "You Raise Me Up" (the song made famous by Josh Groban). The song they chose to play is called "Sometimes A Prayer Will Do" and the vocalist is the same African American gospel artist who sang in the original version of "You Raise Me Up." My friend and I both reflected upon the movie of the previous night as we heard the song and I think we both felt pretty moved.

The movie's tagline is:

"Life is hard. Life is short. Life is painful. Life is
rich. Life is precious."

Indeed. But sadly, I think that many get stuck in the "painful" parts, never to attain the "rich," and are robbed of the "precious."

So I've been thinking about the huge gap between my life and that of a person like Precious. How do we bridge that gap? How do we truly "bear one another's burdens?" I can sit and cry about her circumstances, and my heart can be filled with all the compassion in the world. But how does that help her?

I'd like to believe that "sometimes a prayer will do," but sometimes it just seems so horribly inadequate.

Niblet Awards Bloggernaccle Best Of: Don't Forget To Vote!

2010-01-28T02:30:00.000-08:00

Just want to remind all of you to cast your votes for the "Niblets Bloggernaccle Awards" over at Mormon Matters. Vote for your favourite blog or blogger in all of the different categories. I've been nominated for Best Solo Blog, have held a steady 2nd place, and feel honoured. :)

Lots of great stuff, so check it out! The polls close at midnight on January 31st.

The Revival Of Mormon Stories And More About That Ever Elusive Stage 5

2010-01-21T05:34:00.000-08:00

In case you've missed it, John Dehlin has revived the popular podcasts, Mormon Stories. For more information about that, see John's latest post on Mormon Matters.

But while John is busy putting together more podcasts, make sure to check out the latest Mormon Expression podcast, where John Dehlin guest panels, about that ever elusive Fowler's Stage 5 of faith and what it means to Mormonism. It's a great podcast -- one of the best I've ever heard, in fact.

So check it out!

Haiti's Deal With The Devil

2010-01-13T15:20:00.000-08:00

Pat Robertson has an interesting explanation for the tragedy that is unfolding in Haiti:

"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti and people might not want to talk about. They were under the heel of the French, you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.' True story. And so the devil said, 'Ok it’s a deal.' And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got something themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another."

Makes one wonder what he would have to say if an earthquake were to strike Virginia tomorrow, where I understand he is based.

But instead of dwelling on Pat Robertson's B.S, or how badly God wanted Sarah Palin's to be VP, I have been left to ask myself what reason there is to believe in anything but a Deist God. When one sees apparently God-forsaken peoples and countries, believing that God intervenes to help us find our keys, help us have a good day at work, or even save our lives, suddenly doesn't feel so comforting -- or at the very least, certainly not without a whole lot of guilt.

How I would trade up divine intervention to find my lost keys if it meant that someone in Haiti could have been spared from having their head smashed in by a crumbling wall, or being left with severed legs to die on the street.

I have to ask myself what's worse: the fact that God doesn't intervene or that he does? Because if he does, I think he's playing favourites.

Atheism must get a lot of new members on days like today.

"I know the Church is true and therefore I know the others aren't."

2010-01-07T06:01:00.000-08:00

One of the challenges that comes to a Mormon who encounters different people, cultures, and faiths, can be that the LDS Church's exclusivity claims can become very problematic for the individual. This is not true for everyone, though, as I know of Mormons who are well-travelled and well-versed in religion outside of Mormonism and yet remain staunch in their faith that the LDS Church is what it claims: the only true Church of God on the face of the earth. Others experience a total shift after examining the history of Mormonism or gaining life experience, and they start to look at Mormonism as being as flawed as any other religion out there.

Have you ever read the story of Mohammed? It certainly has some similarities to the Joseph Smith story (i.e. visitations, revelation of scripture, etc.). Assuming that people have prayed to God and felt they got an answer that Islam (or any other religion) is "true" -- in much the same way that you have perhaps experienced yourself in Mormonism -- how do you "know" that your "truth" overrides theirs? Why is yours or mine "better?"

Do you believe that Mohammed and the Koran were inspired by God? Why or why not?

Do you believe that God talks to the Pope in the same way that he does to Thomas S. Monson? Why or why not?

Do you believe that the Blessed Virgin appeared to the children of Fatima, Portugal? Why or why not?

Do you believe that God would intentionally direct someone to Hinduism or Judaism instead of Christianity? Why or why not?

I know that most Mormons will say that all religions have some "good" and "truth" to them. But if you haven't studied the other religions of the world and walked in the shoes of someone who practices another faith, how can you "know" that yours is the "only" true religion -- either intellectually or spiritually? What if someone of another faith told you that he had been told by God that his faith was the only true one? On what grounds do we reject the faith claims of others?

I'm curious as to why we all believe the things that we do, why we reject the things that we do, and I'd like to hear your perspectives.

Hope: A Powerful Motivator

2009-12-30T09:49:00.000-08:00

Recently I discovered the blog "Evolution of a Lesbian: An Intellectual Approach," by EvolvingLesbian (EL). There are a lot of gay Mormon men in the Bloggernacle, but few Mormon lesbians that I am aware of, and so I thought that her seemingly rare perspective is an interesting one.

EL did a post entitled "Hope," which I think is incredibly relevant not only to gay Mormons, but any of those who find themselves unable to conform and the struggle that often follows. If you fit the Mormon mold and, even if you don't necessarily attain them, you at least desire the "correct" things (i.e. getting married to someone of the opposite sex in the temple, having children, being sealed for eternity, becoming like God and having spirit children), then it's easy to hope and to look forward to what makes you happy. And if it is your ideal, then I think it's hard to understand why it's not for someone else, whether it be someone who is gay, someone who has no desire to have children, or perhaps someone who comes from a dysfunctional family that they can't stand the thought of being sealed to for eternity.

EL writes:

"I've been thinking about what leads a person to leave the Church. The
glib, Sunday School answer is always "Satan's influence." Or, if you want to
emphasize personal responsibility, then you refine it to "sin." Another popular
choice, especially among those who venerate the prophet Ezra Taft Benson, is
"pride." But what is it, really? Of course, the answers are as varied as the
people themselves.

Let us refine our question, then. What leads a faithful gay (as in
homosexual, including lesbians) Mormon to leave the Church? Is it lack of sexual
self-control? Is it fundamental doctrinal disagreement? Is it peer pressure
(from both sides)? All true in some cases, yes. But I think for many of us it is
a question of hope, both the presence of it and the lack of it.

Hope is a powerful motivator. It is hope for a better world that gives
us faith in Christ's atonement. Hope in man's innate goodness keeps us trusting
one another in the face of betrayal and disappointment. Hope in an eternal
reward gives us the courage to die. Hope for a better job and therefore easier
life motivates us to finish high school, college, and so on. The lack of hope
brings despair, depression, darkness, and death.

In Mormondom, hope plays a pervasive role in both spirituality and in
cultural performance. Our pioneer heritage is related in terms of enduring
physical hardship because the Saints hoped for a better world, either in heaven
or in Zion. Small acts of daily obedience are predicated on the hope that they
will garner blessings, either on earth or in the eternities. Grand acts of
submission to God's will are demonstrations of hope that He will make life
better in the long run (long is understood to include eternity).

All Mormons are taught that the ultimate goal in life (both on earth
and afterwards) is to become a god. Exaltation is the be-all and end-all of
eternal existence. This, then, is the ultimate hope. To get there, every Mormon
must tread the same strait and narrow path: baptism, confirmation, (Melchizedek
priesthood if male), endowment, eternal marriage. If you can't accomplish these
things on earth, then you get another chance in the afterlife, but the gates
must be passed through or you cannot reach your destination.

The problem is, if you are a gay Mormon, it seems like you can't pass
through that final gate without burying or denying part of yourself. After all,
the eternal marriage part of the Plan of Salvation isn't merely an ordinance.
It's a living, breathing way of life that requires every iota of your spiritual
and physical being to do right. This is both the beauty of making it a
requirement for exaltation, since no institution causes or requires so much
growth as this partnership, and the hope-destroying nature of it. Because, as
defined by doctrine and church, eternal marriage can only exist between a man
and a woman. Because, as defined by common sense and by individual desire, being
gay means you don't want to and probably can't forge that soul-nurturing
partnership with the opposite sex.

Faced with those definitions, the gay Mormon is confronted with a
curtailment of hope. By accepting his or her own soul-deep desire to partner
with someone of the same sex, the gay Mormon sees that that ultimate goal of
exaltation may not be attainable, after all. (Just to be clear, the faithful
Mormons we speak of are good at denying surface desires, so those are not the
problem.)

At the same time, in identifying who they want to be with, gay Mormons
can suddenly rekindle a hope they had thought lost - that of finding that life
partner most of us still want. I think the vast majority of gay Mormons still
want that eternal partnership; they just can't imagine it with somebody of the
opposite sex. Therein lies the frustration for gay Mormons. We want the same
thing as all other Mormons; just in a slightly different package.

What is it - supposedly - about the man-woman pairing that makes it
inherently more exalting than a man-man or woman-woman pairing? Is it simply the
ability to procreate? Is that all that sets gods apart - the fact that they have
children? That seems to be the Mormon definition of godhood, if you think about
it. Gods have children and take joy in them. We really don't have any other
definition. Well, then, are gods truly superior to their non-procreating
brothers and sisters?

This brings us back to goals. We are taught that exaltation is the
topmost tier of the celestial kingdom, yet all "levels" of the celestial kingdom
are grand and glorious beyond comprehension. Why, then, can't we as a Church
conceive of a celestial kingdom where gay partners achieve the second highest
tier? Wait, why not throw out these respecter-of-men gradations altogether and
realize that by the time we enter any kingdom, we are beyond comparatives and
are simply learning how to be the best "us" we possibly can? That some people
will be gods, while others will be ministering angels, and still others will do
other things perfectly suited to who they are. Are we simply buying into a
one-size-fits-all definition of glory?

All right, putting away truly radical reimaginings of heaven and
returning to our topic of hope...This cultural and doctrinal emphasis on
exaltation as the only goal worthy of effort, and the rule that says it is only
attainable through man-woman marriage, sets the gay Mormon up for a failure of
hope. Even those who choose to remain chaste rather than either lawfully marry a
member of the opposite sex or unlawfully (according to religious law) partner
with a member of the same sex, even those people cannot help but feel their hope
frustrated. Where is their promise that all their longings will be fulfilled?
For the straight person, the lack of earthly partner is promised to be remedied
in heaven, as long as he or she remains faithful on earth. For the gay person,
no such hope is held out. (Unless the "gay" part is seen as an earthly trial to
be overcome by the resurrection.)

Those gay Mormons who choose to pursue a same-sex partnership on earth,
thereby engaging in the individual growth that marriage is intended to promote,
still faces the loss of hope in exaltation. First, because their actions are
deemed outside the law, which disqualifies them. Second, because although they
have entered into the kind of relationship that would seemingly propel them to
godhood, the law again says that it's not quite right and they have no hope of
success.

I think, then, that when a gay Mormon decides to leave the Church
(either through deliberate withdrawal or unwillingly as a result of other
decisions), he or she is reacting to and acting upon hope. With the acceptance
of homosexuality, the ultimate hope of exaltation no longer exists. Yet, that
same acceptance often gives new birth to the hope of finding a partner with whom
he or she can fulfill her potential, which must be the ultimate definition of
godhood."

Thanks, EL, for an excellent post.

So how do we offer hope to members such as EL? What incentive can we offer them for staying in the LDS Church, as opposed to joining another church or leaving religion altogether?

And what is your hope for this life on earth and, assuming there is one, the life that comes hereafter?

Orthoprax Mormonism

2009-12-21T06:00:00.000-08:00

I just wanted to share something that a friend of mine, named Joel, shared with me and some friends. I've just made some minor edits in order to fit it into this blog post, but the thoughts are his:

"Pictured is one of my favorite paintings. It's "The Doubting of Thomas" by Caravaggio. I have used this painting one time when I was asked to teach priesthood. I explained to the other members that I am not Peter, with the always undying faith, but rather I am Thomas. Unless I see with my eyes and feel with my hands, I won't believe. In Caravaggio's painting, not only is Thomas feeling the wound in the side but Christ has grabbed Thomas' hand and thrust it into the wound.

Like many, my testimony is hard to define. I can't just believe. I find it hard to understand many of my family and friends that say they have never doubted and get up in church and say "I know." I went from being a true believer to an athiest to agnostic. I stopped going to church but there was a void. I tried to fill the void with humanitarian and social justice work but that didn't work. My adviser in my post graduate studies (Anthropology) is a Jewish Cantor. He explained two things to me that became important concepts to me in coming back to church. The first was that people who are religious from childhood into adulthood have a hard time leaving religion behind. There are spaces inside the person that can only be filled by religion and not being religious leaves a void. The second thing he explained was the difference between orthopraxy and orthodoxy. Orthodoxy literally means "right thinking." Orthopraxy means "right doing." He said one Jew will never ask another Jew what he believes. It's irrelevant. What matters is what you do. Judaism is not based on what you believe but on what you do. So I became an orthopraxic Mormon.

I guess what I am saying is the Thomases of the world have to work things out differently from the Peters and in Mormon culture, especially Utah Mormon culture where we are expected to be Peters. On other sites I have found, you have to be anti or pro and they leave no room for those of us who have to feel the prints in the hands and the wound in the side."

Some Christians like to attack Mormons for their emphasis on works instead of grace. One could argue that within Christianity, Mormons are a very orthopraxic people (emphasizing working out our own salvation). But within Mormonism itself, I've found that we're not very accepting of those who are orthopraxic rather than orthodox. Not "knowing" is considered a weakness and expressing doubt about the Church, the prophet, the doctrines, teachings, or anything -- even if you are doing everything "right" (i.e. going to church, keeping the Word of Wisdom, Law of Chastity, paying tithing, service, etc.) -- is not likely to be well-received or understood.

It's been said that faith without works is dead. What about works without faith?

Thanks, Joel, for sharing this with me. To you, and to all my readers, best wishes for a peaceful Christmas and Year 2010.

FD

The Faithful Dissident Meets Mormongandhi

2009-12-07T03:36:00.001-08:00

Recently I discovered that, lo and behold, I was not the lone member of the Bloggernacle in Norway. Through my activities on The LDS Left, I discovered an interesting blog, Latter Day Satyagraha, by one called "mormongandhi" -- a Norwegian who is "an advocate for nonviolence in the Restoration movement." The small letter cases are intentional, as mormongandhi feels that "it is important to provide other ‘mormongandhis’ in the LDS church, and also more generally within the LDS movement, a place of refuge, a haven of peace, where we can express our nonviolent faith."

When I decided to take a break from this blog (see my last post), I had hoped to continue to at least feature different blogs and articles from around the Bloggernacle that I felt everyone should see. Unfortunately, I haven't been doing that the past couple of months and so, after spending a couple of days with mormongandhi and hearing his views, I've been reminded of my original intention. I learned a lot this past weekend after meeting mormongandhi and I feel that it is worthy of being shared with others.

In addition to his blog, mormongandhi has started the Peaceable Followers Forum, a "discussion forum for peaceable followers of Christ to discuss and comment on the nonviolent study chapters of the book of mormon posted on the main “latter day satyagraha” site."

In his own words, mormongandhi states:

"I am not a trained theologian (at all), but on the other hand I did finish institute and seminary, I served a mission and I certainly came to love the scriptures. I have a bachelors degree in peace and development studies and a master’s in peace operations (including a couple of years in the military).

The source of my nonviolence comes from believing the words of Jesus in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. You have to use those books together, like they say, and not just read them. There is a reason why the Sermon on the Mount is such a central text in both books. Mormons should therefore be twice as committed as anyone else to those same teachings.

I appreciate the warnings of the prophets – mostly referred to as presidents of the church – and the advice we receive from apostles too. For this reason, I quote widely from their talks and conference addresses. I see no contradiction in that. I love the Temple and its rituals, and am not therefore a stranger to what is taught there. I miss it. I do. I am saddened however that too many members fail to see the rituals and the teachings we receive there as an elongated Sermon on the Mount."

He also expresses his intention with his blog:

"My intention with (my) blog is to love my opponents in the faith – those who still practice the saying: an eye for an eye. I want to do good to those who have difficulty showing love, to bless those who speak evil of others whom they do not know, and my prayer is that latter day saints would see us, the mormongandhis, the jesus radicals, the anti-nephi-lehies, the pacifists, the nonviolent practitioners, the LDS anarchists, as co-partakers of the fruit and that through our words and our actions they too might be converted – not the other way around.

Someone once said: ‘it is better to be alone than in bad company. It is even better to be in good company than to be alone’. Being a minority within a minority has never been easy for anyone (a nonviolent practitioner in a violent faith in a predominantly secularized society), and these are difficult questions to grapple with – emotive questions. I share the little I have come to know in the spirit of humility, motivated by brotherly love. I hope that one day, we will all come to see him – the other (black, muslim, female, gay person with disability and internally displaced with nowhere to go, victim of war and/or prisoner of conscience) - as he is, and see that he is a man like ourselves (D&C 130:1)."

The topic of peace seems to be especially relevant at the present time, with wars raging in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and the "Holy" Land. But "peace," as I learned from mormongandhi, is about much more than simply the absence of war. With Christmas just around the corner, people are often talking about "peace." "Peace on earth, peace be with you, the Prince of Peace," etc. What does that all really mean and do we give it enough thought? Probably not.

We always hear that the Book of Mormon was meant for our day and that it's just as relevant today as it ever was. So perhaps it's time to study the Book of Mormon through a new lens and to see it for what it really is: not a record of war, but one of peace.

Latter Day Satyagraha: http://mormongandhi.com/

Peaceable Followers Forum: http://peaceablefollowers.wordpress.com/

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

2009-10-16T13:45:00.000-07:00

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

Why I'm Taking A Break:

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I've Learned:

The Church is nowhere near perfect, but...

In my opinion, the Church has problems with:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Building a strong sense of personal honesty and integrity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I've Resolved:

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

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

The Church:

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

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

Religion:

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

Faith:

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

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

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

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

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

Where Do I Go From Here?

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

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

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

(Moses 5: 10-11)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1 Corinthians 13:2)

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

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

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

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

Best wishes,
FD

Is "Lamanite" A Mormon Term?

2009-10-02T01:32:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-09-23T11:38:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sound familiar?

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

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

Adolf Hitler, Graf von Stauffenberg, And God

2009-09-20T05:19:00.000-07:00

Claus Philipp Maria Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg.

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

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

"Although Stauffenberg agreed with some of the Nazi Party's nationalistic aspects, he found many aspects of its ideology repugnant and never became a member of the party. Moreover, Stauffenberg remained a practicing Catholic. The Catholic Church had signed the Reichskonkordat in 1933, the year Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power. Stauffenberg vacillated between a strong personal dislike of Hitler's policies and a respect for what he perceived to be Hitler's military acumen. On top of this, the growing systematic ill-treatment of Jews and suppression of religion had offended Stauffenberg's strong personal sense of religious morality and justice.
From the beginning of September 1943 until 20 July, 1944, von Stauffenberg was the driving force behind the plot to assassinate Hitler and take control of Germany. His resolve, organizational abilities, and radical approach put an end to inactivity caused by doubts and long discussions on whether military virtues had been made obsolete by Hitler's behavior. With the help of his friend Henning von Tresckow, he united the conspirators and drove them into action.
Stauffenberg was aware that, under German law, he was committing high treason. He openly told young conspirator Axel von dem Bussche in late 1943, "ich betreibe mit allen mir zur Verfügung stehenden Mitteln den Hochverrat..." ("I am committing high treason with all my might and means...."). He justified himself to Bussche by referring to the right under natural law ("Naturrecht") to defend millions of people's lives from the criminal aggressions of Hitler ("Nothilfe").
Stauffenberg decided, only after the conspirator General Helmuth Stieff on 7 July, 1944 had declared himself unable to assassinate Hitler on a uniforms display at Klessheim castle near Salzburg, to personally kill Hitler and to run the plot in Berlin. By then, Stauffenberg had great doubts about the possibility of success. Tresckow convinced him to go on with it even if it had no chance of success at all, "The assassination must be attempted. Even if it fails, we must take action in Berlin", as this would be the only way to prove to the world that the Hitler regime and Germany were not one and the same and that not all Germans supported the regime.
Stauffenberg's part in the original plan required him to stay at the Bendlerstrasse offices in Berlin, so he could phone regular army units all over Europe in an attempt to convince them to arrest leaders of Nazi political organizations such as the Sicherheitsdienst (SD) and the Gestapo. Unfortunately, when General Helmuth Stieff, Chief of Operation at Army High Command, who had regular access to Hitler, backtracked from his earlier commitment to assassinate Hitler, Stauffenberg was forced to take on two critical roles: kill Hitler far from Berlin and trigger the military machine in Berlin during office hours of the very same day. Beside Stieff, he was the only conspirator who had regular access to Hitler (during his briefings) by mid-1944, as well as being the only officer among the conspirators thought to have the resolve and persuasiveness to convince German military leaders to throw in with the coup once Hitler was dead. This requirement greatly reduced the chance of a successful coup.
After several unsuccessful tries by Stauffenberg to meet Hitler, Göring and Himmler when they were together, he went ahead with the attempt at Wolfsschanze on 20 July, 1944. Stauffenberg entered the briefing room carrying a briefcase containing two small bombs. The location had unexpectedly been changed from the subterranean Führerbunker to Speer's wooden barrack/hut. He left the room to arm the first bomb with specially-adapted pliers, a task made difficult because he had lost his right hand and had only three fingers on his left. A guard knocked and opened the door, urging him to hurry as the meeting was about to begin. As a result, Stauffenberg was able to arm only one of the bombs. He left the second bomb with his aide-de-camp, Werner von Haeften, and returned to the briefing room, where he placed the briefcase under the conference table, as close as he could to Hitler. Some minutes later, he excused himself and left the room. After his exit, the briefcase was moved by Colonel Heinz Brandt.
When the explosion tore through the hut, Stauffenberg was convinced that no one in the room could have survived. Although four people were killed and almost all survivors were injured, Hitler himself was shielded from the blast by the heavy, solid-oak conference table and was only slightly wounded.
Stauffenberg and Haeften quickly left and drove to the nearby airfield. After his return to Berlin, Stauffenberg immediately began to motivate his friends to initiate the second phase: the military coup against the Nazi leaders. When Joseph Goebbels announced by radio that Hitler had survived and later, after Hitler himself personally spoke on the state radio, the conspirators realized that the coup had failed. They were tracked to their Bendlerstrasse offices and overpowered after a brief shoot-out, during which Stauffenberg was wounded in the shoulder."

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

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

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

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

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

Sacrificing Principle for Profit: Church Wildlife Enterprises and Hunting Preserves

2009-09-15T04:59:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Makes me wonder why I expect anything at all anymore.

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

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

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

I should have known.

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

It's a monster pill for me to swallow.

10%: Does It Matter Where It Goes?

2009-09-14T01:55:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

How Much Do You Value Your Church Membership?

2009-09-08T03:46:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Renaissance

2009-08-30T14:00:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

But there is a purpose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Thoughts From Mormon Stories

2009-08-26T11:51:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Important Is Image?

2009-08-15T15:06:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Church spokeswoman Kim Farah claims:

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

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

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

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

The Euthanasia Debate Hits Close To Home

2009-08-06T01:04:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I found out that my grandfather is dying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Would Joseph Smith Think About The Modern LDS Church?

2009-07-29T11:40:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

Questions for discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

Can Love Be A Bad Thing?

2009-07-19T10:45:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is/isn't this a good idea?

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

Does Mormonism Have Any Official Doctrine?

2009-07-14T09:57:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-07-08T08:07:00.000-07:00

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?"

2009-07-02T12:10:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-30T13:46:00.001-07:00

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

2009-06-29T13:28:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-24T04:00:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-06-15T16:00:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-06-08T13:30:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-01T15:48:00.000-07:00

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...

2009-05-18T05:27:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-13T13:12:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-07T16:33:00.000-07:00

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."

2009-04-24T09:15:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-20T21:27:00.000-07:00

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...

2009-04-11T20:30:00.000-07:00

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:

we are renewed in fervor

strengthened in our resolutions

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?