As Droves Out Our Windows

Reuters published a fascinating and timely article yesterday, and the opening four paragraphs reminded me of a favorite Richard Bushman quote: "To be credible we must be candid".  After learning about a forthcoming program called "The Rescue" (more on that here), I was heartened the Church may finally be recognizing (at least publicly) the crisis at hand.  An excerpt from the article (which you can read in full here) below:

A religious studies class late last year at Utah State University in Logan, Utah, was unusual for two reasons. The small group of students, faculty and faithful there to hear Mormon Elder Marlin Jensen were openly troubled about the future of their church, asking hard questions. And Jensen was uncharacteristically frank in acknowledging their concerns.

Did the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints know that members are "leaving in droves?" a woman asked.

"We are aware," said Jensen, according to a tape recording of his unscripted remarks. "And I'm speaking of the 15 men that are above me in the hierarchy of the church. They really do know and they really care," he said.

"My own daughter," he then added, "has come to me and said, 'Dad, why didn't you ever tell me that Joseph Smith was a polygamist?'" For the younger generation, Jensen acknowledged, "Everything's out there for them to consume if they want to Google it." The manuals used to teach the young church doctrine, meanwhile, are "severely outdated."

Some Muddled Thoughts on Mormonism

In a recent GOP debate, Mitt Romney was asked what he would do as president if he found out Fidel Castro had died.  Romney said he'd "thank heavens" that Castro had "returned to his maker".  I immediately thought of Alma 40:11 ("the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to the God that gave them life") and wondered how much that factored into Romney's reply.  Gingrich (and others) assumed Romney was speaking about a final resting place (even though in Mormon scripture, final judgement comes later on), and made it clear he believed Castro was "going to the other place".


I'm really not interested in talking politics, Fidel Castro, or even the semantics of someone who doesn't believe in creation ex nihilo using the word "maker".  But I did wonder for a brief second about whether the Mormon understanding of the plan of salvation would become public fodder for presidential debates.  As far as I can tell (thankfully), it hasn't.  Nevertheless, it didn't stop me from reflecting on one of the things I like most about Mormonism--a very generous and quite inclusive version of salvation. 


I really don't care where Fidel Castro ends up.  In fact, I may be unusual among Mormons because I really don't even think about post-earth life very much anymore, nor the "degrees" of heaven.  In a way, I almost feel as though I've personally adopted an atheist perspective in the sense that what matters most to me, regardless of what comes after, is making the most of the here and now.  These precious moments of life become all the more precious when you don't take for granted anything "after".   


Nevertheless, I can still participate in the discussion, and we had a good one in a recent church lesson on the plan of salvation.  The teacher took the opening few minutes to draw out an impressive visual on a white board mapping the entire plan from our pre-earth life all the way through the three degrees of glory, because you know, we "know" that's how it goes (wink).  The focus of the lesson happened to be on the final judgement, and another scripture from Alma came up: "Our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; . . . and our thoughts will also condemn us" (Alma 12:14). 


I raised two points: 1.  If this scripture were taken out of context, then it would be very easy to despair because we'd all be screwed.  And 2. The necessary context (and the only thing which happened to be missing on the impressive map/visual display) was actually the most important, but missing elephant in the room--hope through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.  (He immediately added "ATONEMENT" to the display in capital letters). 


Some Christians accuse Mormons of being universalists, since Mormons believe that ultimately most of God's children will end up in some kind of heaven.  The traditional Calvinist idea of God is one in which God predestines some of his children to heaven and some of them to hell.  I can't fathom a more unloving or more un-Christian idea.  I'm much more at peace with the idea of a generous and more inclusive afterlife.  It makes no sense to me that a God could eternally condemn His own children for something done here on earth when our understanding is so imperfect.


Of course the true Mormon view lies somewhere in between the two extremes of universalism and the injustices of the traditional heaven-hell theology.  On the one hand we Mormons have before us the Book of Mormon, which argues against universal salvation, and then on the other hand we have a later revelation through Joseph Smith (“The Vision”, or section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants), which leans more towards universal salvation—to a degree.


I would assume that Universalists believe that eventually all mankind will get to live with God in heaven. However, under LDS doctrine, the truth is that some (a small minority) of God’s children will never permanently live with Him again.  But Mormons believe that a far more generous amount of people will eventually end up in a place they'll most likely feel perfectly comfortable with--"heaven".  And even though I don't worry too much about all that "future" stuff and try not to take post-earth life for granted (because my life now is all I've got), this is one of the things I love most about Mormonism.


I really like how Richard Bushman frames the issue in his classic biography “Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling” (p. 198-200), so I'll conclude my muddled thoughts by quoting at length his very articulate ones:

“Building on Paul, “The Vision” made the three resurrected glories of sun, moon, and stars into three heavenly realms…[Joseph Smith was not alone in believing thinking that] the sharp division of the afterlife into heaven and hell underestimated God’s desire to bless his children…Joseph later taught that there were three “heavens or degrees” within the celestial kingdom, further dividing the economy of God. 

“The most radical departure of “The Vision” was not the tripartite heaven but the contraction of hell. In Joseph[‘s] economy of God, the sinners ordinarily sent to hell forever remained there only until “Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet”. Then they are redeemed from the devil in the last resurrection to find a place in the telestial kingdom. Only those rare souls who know God’s power and reject it suffer everlasting punishment. God redeems all save these sons of perdition, “the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power”. 

“The doctrine recast life after death. The traditional division of heaven and hell made religious life arbitrary. One received grace or one went to hell. In Joseph’s afterlife, the issue was degrees of glory. A permanent hell threatened very few. The question was not escape from hell but closeness to God. God scaled the rewards to each person’s capacity. Even the telestial glory, the lowest of the three, “surpasses all understanding”. 

“A later revelation further softened divine judgment. In December 1832 the elders were told that glory was granted according to the law each person could “abide”, whether celestial, terrestrial, or telestial. One’s glory, it was implied, was tailored to one’s capacity. “He who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom, cannot abide a celestial glory.” The glory one received was the glory on found tolerable. “For what doth it profit a man,” the section concluded, “if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift? Behold he rejoices not in that which is given him.” One’s place in heaven reflected more one’s preference than a judgment. “Intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth”. The last judgment matched affinities. 

“The three degrees doctrine resembled the Universalists’ belief that Christ’s atonement was sufficient to redeem everyone, or, alternately, that a benevolent God would not eternally punish his own children. No sinners were beyond salvation. The Universalists derived their name from the doctrine that salvation was as universal as Christ’s atoning sacrifice was powerful. Though sinners might be punished for a time as a form of discipline, Christ would ultimately save everyone. Joseph’s grandfather Asael Smith was among many small farmers and workers attracted to Universalist doctrine. In a sense, “The Vision” perpetuated Smith family doctrine.

“Strange to say, the Book of Mormon argued against universal salvation. A teacher of universalist doctrine, Nehor, was labeled a heretic in the Book of Mormon, and his followers, a band of rebellious priests called the Order of Nehor, disrupted Nephite society. Alma, a preeminent prophet, refuted universal salvation in a discourse to his son Corianton, and another prophet, Lehi, delivered an elaborate philosophical discourse to show that the law must impose punishment on transgressors or good and evil had no meaning. In opposition to universal salvation, the Book of Mormon envisioned the afterlife as heaven or hell. 

“In a perplexing reversal, a revelation received in the very month the Book of Mormon was published contradicted the book’s firm stand. The revelation said that the phrase “endless torment” did not mean no end to torment, but that “Endless” was a name of God, and “endless punishment” meant God’s punishment. Torment for sins would be temporary, just as the Universalists taught. In this tug-of-war between the Book of Mormon and the revelations, “The Vision” reinforced the Universalist tendency against the Book of Mormon’s anti-universalism.

“Where was Joseph Smith coming down on the question of universal salvation? Contradictory as they sound, the Universalist tendencies of the revelations and the anti-universalism of the Book of Mormon defined a middle ground where there were graded rewards in the afterlife, but few were damned. “The Vision” did not actually endorse universal salvation any more than the Book of Mormon did. It imposed permanent penalties for sinning, rewarded righteousness with higher degrees of glory, and assigned the sons of perdition to permanent outer darkness. But “The Vision” also eliminated the injustices of heaven-and-hell theology. The three degrees of glory doctrine lay somewhere between the two extremes.”

Genuine Mormon Relationships

I can't say enough about the awesome experience I had attending the Mormon Stories Conference held in Houston this past weekend.  It was a close enough drive from San Antonio to attend, and my wife was gracious enough to encourage my attendance by taking care of the kids.

I didn't take notes, because I assumed most of the talks would be released as podcasts anyway, but I could have filled up a notebook.  There was so much honesty, benevolence, virtue, and "doing good to all men"--an article of faith truly worthy of seeking after--and I found myself longing for more of this in my own ward community.

The connections made and the people I met were truly, genuinely amazing.  Gay, straight, believer, unbelievers and all sorts of in between, the title of the conference really captured it well: "positive relationships through empathy and dialogue".  I loved hearing peoples "stories" and instantly feeling I had made a friend.  All I can say is "thank you"!

Did Thomas S. Monson echo Dolly Parton?

We can't direct the wind, but we can adjust the sails


While reading the First Presidency message this month ("Living the Abundant Life"), I read the above quote (seemingly from President Monson--it didn't have quotation marks around it) and really liked it.  But I googled it, and while I can't confirm it, it appears more often attributed to Dolly Parton.  (Several other names pop up too.)

Does there reach a point where a catchy phrase becomes common property?

"The litmus for our elected leaders must not be the church they attend but the Constitution they defend."

"...In fashioning this remarkably enduring document, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia made it absolutely clear that no religious test should ever be imposed to hold office...The litmus for our elected leaders must not be the church they attend but the Constitution they defend."


"Citizens as voters do well when they pause to reflect on our nation’s history and traditions. If an unbeliever such as Jefferson or non-churchman like Lincoln can serve brilliantly as president, then America should stand — in an intolerant world characterized all too frequently by religious persecution — as a stirring example of welcoming hospitality for highly qualified men and women of good will seeking the nation’s highest office. Life experience, personal qualities and policy views are the pivotal points to guide Americans as they go to the polls in 2012."  


"Can I vote for a Mormon?" by Ken Starr (President of Baylor University)

Great Example of Respectfully Agreeing to Disagree

Letter from Henry Eyring to Joseph Fielding Smith on page 94 here:

Dear President Smith:

Thanks for your letter of April 15, 1955.  I am happy that you read my letter, which you refer to, as it expresses accurately my point of view.  Considering the difference in training of the members of the Church, I never cease to marvel at the degree of agreement found among believing Latter-Day-Saints.  So far from being disturbed to find that Brother Talmage, Brother Widtsoe and yourself didn't always see scientific matters alike, this situation seems natural and as it should be.  It will be a sad day for the Church and its members when the degree of disagreement you brethren expressed is not allowed.

I am convinced that if the Lord required that His children understand His works before they could be saved that no one would be saved.  It seems to me that to struggle for agreement on scientific matters in view of the disparity in background which the members of the Church have is to put emphasis in the wrong place.  In my judgment there is room in the Church for people who think that the periods of creation were (a) 24 hours, (b) 1000 years, or (c) millions of years.  I think it is fine to discuss these questions and for each individual to try to convert the other to what he thinks is right, but in matters where apparently equally reliable authorities disagree, I prefer to make haste slowly.

Since we agree on so many things, I trust we can amicably disagree on a few.  I have never liked, for example, the idea that many of the horizontally lying layers with their fossils are wreckage from earlier worlds.  In any case, the Lord created the world and my faith does not hinge on the detailed procedures.  Thanks again for your kindly, thoughtful letter.

Sincerely your brother,
Henry Eyring

"I see through a glass darkly and I kinda like it"

Spotlighting a great post by Blair Hodges:  "I see through a glass darkly and I kinda like it" .  I think it pretty much sums up my feelings word for word.  One excerpt (but go read the whole post):

...The slippery slope goes like this: "If leaders in the past made mistakes (potentially the priesthood ban or something like it) then what about now?" I personally see the problem as part of a direct invitation to take more personal responsibility for our relationship to God. Sort of like when Nephi took things straight to God even though his dad had visions and so forth, and later when his dad "spoke as a man" leaving it up to Nephi to get some personal revelation on where to find some grub....

Who is Joseph Smith?

 I know a lot of people might answer that question a lot of different ways; here's the Jeopardy "answer" from Dec. 20th last week.  (Category was "Prophets")

Heretical Beliefs and Feeling Welcome in the Church

There is a great story on pages 55-56 in “David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism” in which Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee were moving to excommunicate Sterling McMurrin for his unorthodox beliefs. When President McKay heard about it, he phoned McMurrin and asked for a private meeting.  In that meeting, McKay was never critical nor disapproving. He told McMurrin: “They cannot do this to you! They cannot put you on trial!” and that if they did, he (the President of the Church) would be McMurrin’s “first witness”.

McMurrin said: “I should have been censured for being such a heretic, and here President McKay wan’t even interested in raising a single question about my beliefs, but simply insisted that a man in this Church had a right to believe as he pleased. And he stressed that in several ways… It was really a quite remarkable experience, to have the President of the Church talking in such genuinely liberal terms.”

I love that story. It makes me really love and respect President McKay. Would that we could have more members like him today.

Author Greg Prince later elaborated on that experience on a Mormon Stories podcast.  He said that during that same visit with Sterling McMurrin, President McKay asked a series of rhetorical questions such as “What is it that a man must believe to be a member of the church? Or what is it that a man is not allowed to believe to stay a member of the Church?”  

He didn’t answer either question, but they’re good rhetorical questions. This was in 1954 when McMurrin told McKay that it looked like they were going to try to throw him out of the Church. McKay said that if they do “I will be the first witness in your defense”, and when word of this got out the excommunication charges were dropped.  That’s some serious compassion from the President of the Church. And apparently he was as tolerant of those on the far conservative side as he was of those, like McMurrin, on the liberal side. Very cool example of pitching a big tent and welcoming everyone in.

"BYU blew it"

From the Eugene Register-Guard's "Ask a Duck: Mark Asper":

Q: As a Mormon, how did you end up at Oregon rather than BYU? — @c_drew 

A: BYU blew it. They dropped the ball. (Laughs) At first they didn’t offer me a scholarship until somebody else did. They were like, “Ah, you’re a big LDS kid, you’ll just walk on.” As soon as Oregon and some other schools showed interest, they were like, “Hey, yeah, we want you too!” Then they said they needed to know right away, but I said I hadn’t figured it all out yet, and so they said they were going to give the scholarship to somebody else. Then they called me back, and visited my high school the next day, and basically told me I’d be a bad Mormon if I didn’t go to BYU. I was like, “Jeez, great, that really makes me want to come!” They just blew it. They did a terrible job of recruiting me. And Oregon didn’t. Oregon did a great job.

Unrelated (but still really great!) Thoughts

I glanced this week at the new Teachings manual for George Albert Smith we'll "study" next year.  My knowledge about the man is probably superficial, although I do know and find it notable that he was the first non-polygamist president of the Church.  (I doubt that's mentioned in the actual manual.)  Crazy that the run of polygamist presidents didn't end until 1945 (although by the time Heber J. Grant actually became church president I think he was by then down to just one wife--but once a polygamist always a polygamist!)

Speaking of Heber J. Grant, I read just a few short months ago a great little piece of historical writing by Ronald Walker about Emily Wells, Grant's second wife ("A Mormon 'Widow' in Colorado: The Exile of Emily Wells Grant").  Fascinating history, but like Annie Clark Tanner's autobiography ("A Mormon Mother") it made me grateful to not have polygamy a part of my life.  (Although I guess it's still kinda a part of my life in the sense that it's a part of our Mormon history and also in the sense that I enjoy watching "Sister Wives").  :)

This week I also related to a post by jmb275 called "Reining in the Analyst".  In many ways it describes my church experience in the past couple of years:

...Life seemed simpler before the events in my life caused me to question everything. Going to church was something I anticipated, and it felt like welcome relief. General Conference was a charging of my spiritual batteries, and I derived great comfort from things like the Ensign. It’s not so much that I was ignorant of the problems in the church, nor did I understand or believe every aspect of the Gospel.  There were doctrinal struggles, even then. But I derived happiness from my certainty, from my feeling, from my intuition, or from the Spirit (whatever that might mean). It’s also not that I now constantly bicker with church leaders, or criticize each talk and lesson when I go to church. Indeed, at church I usually don’t say much, but listen carefully to try and learn. It’s really about what’s going on in my mind, the nagging voice that feels the urge to constantly correct, analyze, and thoroughly dissect each idea, sentence, and thought. 

In short, I no longer feel when I go to church, I only think. And that, I’m afraid, sums up the problem when the analyst is the only one who shows up. And yet, I really do want to go to church and so I continue to go and slog through the analysis. I know what is possible there. I remember the feelings, the certainty, the truth. And still, even though I know (and don’t want) that certainty anymore, even though I’m happy with my outlook on life now, I believe I can allow myself to experience the feelings that were there if I can remind myself what it’s like to feel rather than analyze them....

I'm learning I "feel" best at church when I focus on what I call "edifying engagement"--and Sunday teachers seem to mean it when they keep telling me how much they appreciate my questions/comments which help spark that engagement.  Naturally, thinking and feeling are not mutually exclusive, so his post resonated with me as one trying to maintain balance.

Reading more of his posts led me to some other thoughts I can relate to, such as his (and my) desire to treat each other first and foremost as an individual rather than labeling and lumping someone into a group.  Although one label he and I don't mind embracing is "buffet Mormon"; jmb275 writes:  "I am a 100%, dyed in the wool, Buffet Mormon. Yep, I pick and choose what I like, and what I don’t like. I have separated my spiritual growth from the LDS church, and view the LDS church as a tool to help me obtain that growth."

BCC's Mark Brown once pointed out that to some degree every Mormon's a cafeteria Mormon and Dave put it this way: "We're All Middle-Way Mormons".

That's all for now.

His Prayer Is My Prayer

Lately I've become a bit more selective of when I say "amen".  (It's not a passive thing to me--I want it to mean something and not be taken for granted).  Here is a prayer to which I have no reservations saying amen--meaning, this is my prayer also:

"My prayer is that the Lord will give me discernment; that He will bless me to be honest, frank, and courageous when those are required, and to be discreet, understanding, and sensitive when those qualities are appropriate." --Leonard Arrington, p. 94 of "Adventures of a Church Historian"

Why The Priesthood Ban Matters

I highly recommend Margaret Blair Young's 3 part series at By Common Consent:
"All God's Critters:  Some Thoughts on the Priesthood Restriction and Differing Opinions"

In part two she writes:

"But why should the origin of the ban matter at all, given that the LDS Church was part of a racist nation and that most religions in the 19th Century had some racialist policies? Isn’t all that history merely a sad footnote in the LDS story which was resolved in 1978?

I would say that it is a mere footnote. The central tenet of our faith is the atonement, and nothing else compares in significance. But that footnote does matter because it still affects us, our missionary efforts, and the retention of converts. The folklore which undergirded the philosophy has lingered. As recently as 2009, an African missionary in the Congo had his Anglo companion ask Elder Holland, who was dedicating the country of Cameroon, if it was true that blacks had been “less valiant” than others in the pre-existence. Elder Holland denounced the idea with characteristic boldness, and said that everyone on Earth was valiant in the pre-mortal world—or they wouldn’t be here. Other families of African lineage, or parents of adopted black children, have also felt the sting of the folklore, and continue to deal with a view which casts them as cursed. There are still Mormons who believe such things, which leads them to unthinkingly denigrate people of color (many colors), and to behave in a way which President Hinckley called antithetical to being “a true disciple of Christ” (April Conference 2006). That’s why it matters."

Part one is here
Part two is here
Part three is here

Ethan Allen: Jehovah's Witness

Context:  Teaching about the Revolutionary War and how Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys captured Fort Ticonderoga from the British:

Teacher (me):  "In rushing up the stairs to the officer's quarters, Ethan Allen banged on the door and demanded the surrender of the fort.  The British captain was awakened and demanded to know by what authority the fort was being attacked.  Allen replied "In the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress!".

8th grade male student:  "What was he, a Jehovah's Witness or something?"

Me:  "What?"


Student:  "Well, you know, knocking on the door and talking about Jehovah..."

Letter to Local Journalist Who Wrote About Mormonism

Good afternoon Mr. Levy.  As a local San Antonio reader of the Express-News I noticed your front page article "GOP race has put the spotlight on Mormonism" Sunday morning.  However, I felt there was one line in particular which obfuscates what Mormons believe and might give a false impression to your readers.  While most people probably couldn't care less, I consider myself a very ecumenically minded Mormon and thus know that many do care, and therefore think a clarification is in order.

I refer to these two sentences: "The doctrine also breaks from the standard Christian belief that Jesus always was God.  He began as a spirit child, perfecting himself later into becoming God in a process also available to humanity in the hereafter."

There is actually quite a nuanced diversity within Mormon thought concerning the three points you mentioned in those two sentences above, and I write to you because I (as a Mormon) certainly don't wished to be lumped into an unnecessary stereotype that confuses what I believe (even if some Mormons believe it), but also because if I were you I would appreciate being notified where my writing could be stronger.  The three unsettled points in Mormon thought are listed below:

1. Whether Jesus has always been God or at some point zillions of years ago became God.  (I'm one of many Mormons who believes Jesus was always God, and thus strongly object anytime people say it's a "doctrine" or tenet of our faith that it's otherwise.  The truth is, there's much speculation that sometimes gets confused as standard doctrine (both within and without the church).  There's always room for interpretation, but it is indeed a fact that the title page of The Book of Mormon states that "Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God".  http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/bofm-title?lang=eng

2.  Whether we were born/created as spirit children or whether we were uncreated/pre-existing spirits adopted by God.  See, for example, "God, Self, and Spiritual Birth: Two Perspectives" http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2011/01/god-self-and-spiritual-birth-two-perspectives/
Many Mormons thus believe that Jesus was uncreated and thus didn't "beg[i]n as a spirit child".

3.  What the process of theosis/exaltation means, in terms of becoming LIKE God (or a god) or "becoming God".  There are huge ramifications here.  Mormons do not (or at least should not) believe that they will somehow supplant God as if we are on the same track as God.  While some might believe that, Mormons more often speak of becoming "one" with God.  There is not a well defined doctrine, but rather a wide spectrum of Mormon thought in regards to what it means to become "gods" (with a lowercase g)  because God (the one and only uppercase "G") through his grace has the power to exalt His children.  Clearly, there is a difference between future exalted beings and the Exalted One we will always worship.   One helpful clarification about the idea that we can become like God was given by the Church in response to an interview by Fox News during the last election season:

"We believe that the apostle Peter's biblical reference to partaking of the divine nature and the apostle Paul's reference to being 'joint heirs with Christ' reflect the intent that children of God should strive to emulate their Heavenly Father in every way. Throughout the eternities, Mormons believe, they will reverence and worship God the Father and Jesus Christ. The goal is not to equal them or to achieve parity with them but to imitate and someday acquire their perfect goodness, love and other divine attributes."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317272,00.html

I hope this helps sheds light on some of the nuances that are often missed when reporting on Mormonism, so that people don't assume all Mormons believe many of these tangential (and oft-debated) ideas are core elements of our faith.  (See, for example, "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" on the Church website:  http://newsroom.lds.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine)