Clean Cut (with a Coke)

Some Muddled Thoughts on Mormonism

2012-01-26T13:08:00.000-06:00

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

2012-01-22T08:58:00.005-06:00

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?

2012-01-17T16:32:00.000-06:00

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."

2012-01-09T12:54:00.001-06:00

"...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

2012-01-04T16:55:00.002-06:00

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"

2012-01-03T12:23:00.000-06:00

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?

2011-12-27T19:38:00.000-06:00

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

2011-12-13T11:12:00.002-06:00

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"

2011-12-13T09:19:00.000-06:00

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

2011-12-09T13:31:00.001-06:00

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

2011-11-16T16:26:00.001-06:00

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

2011-10-24T10:52:00.001-05:00

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

2011-10-21T17:30:00.001-05:00

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

2011-10-18T16:07:00.002-05:00

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)

This Mormon Says 'More Mouw Please'

2011-10-10T13:08:00.000-05:00

I continue to be impressed by Richard Mouw. Check out his CNN "belief" blog post here:

My Take: This evangelical says Mormonism isn’t a cult

The Deseret News covers it here:

Evangelical leader says LDS Church is not a cult

I've previously blogged about Mouw here:

Mormons Are Non-Traditional Christians (and other interfaith dialogue)

Convicted and Civil

Prophetic Expectations

2011-09-30T17:51:00.001-05:00

Next to the atonement of Jesus Christ, the claim of having a living prophet gets right to the heart of Mormonism. Expectations about prophets are all over the place, and my sense is that sometimes our expectations (and our rhetoric) outpace reality.

I am one of many who have undergone a slow evolution over the past few years in terms of how I view prophets. Perhaps as a kid I might have believed that the prophet could do no wrong, but as a kid I was also naive. Unresolved questions and examples of prophets being wrong on doctrinal matters never even entered the radar.

I go on as a Mormon appreciating what I can, not hesitating to take personal responsibility for what I personally believe rather than what "the institution" says I believe. I once shared my prophet/parent analogy, but at the same time I recognize that there are a lot of great parents in the world. Yet Latter-day Saints expect that there's something unique about the prophet. Some Mormons use rhetoric such as "mouthpiece of the Lord" and that "God speaks to a modern day Moses". Naturally, that kind of rhetoric can lead to high expectations. And naturally, there is also a wide diversity of belief about how literally to take that. (I've already shared some of my feelings about overdoing the mantra to "follow the prophet" here and here.)

Aaron B. once shared his experience teaching Sunday School about the Priesthood ban and subsequent 1978 revelation. In "Teaching OD-2" he articulated some important points concerning prophets: "As the hour drew to a close, the conversation turned to the nature of prophets, how to trust prophets if they are partly products of their time (capable of giving us erroneous instruction), the role of personal spiritual confirmation in evaluating truth claims (even when they come from prophets), and the limitations of this approach as well. This was an inevitable turn in the conversation, and for some, a potentially troubling one. I refused to give everyone easy answers where there are none."

Upholding a certain mystique about how (and how often) God actually speaks is probably to the advantage of our "prophets, seers, and revelators". I think this was illustrated when apostle Howard W. Hunter met with new Church Historian Leonard Arrington, shortly after Arrington was called and Hunter was made his advisor. Hunter "said that he felt the church was mature enough that our history should be honest. Our faith should not overpower our collective memories and documented experiences."

He did not believe in suppressing information, hiding documents, or concealing or withholding minutes for 'screening.' He thought we should publish the documents of our history. Why should we withhold things that are a part of our history? He thought it in our best interest to encourage scholars--to help and cooperate with them in doing honest research. Nevertheless, Hunter counseled me to keep in mind that church members reverenced leaders and their policies. To investigate too closely the private lives of leaders and the circumstances that led to their decisions might remove some of the aura that sanctified church policies and procedures. If the daylight of historical research should shine too brightly upon prophets and their policies, he cautioned, it might devitalize the charisma that dedicated leadership inspires. I accepted Hunter's counsel as a mandate for free and honest scholarly pursuit, with a warning that we must be discreet."("Adventures of a Church Historian" by Leonard Arrington, p. 84)

I do believe Hunter knew what he was talking about. In my case, learning about our history has actually changed the way I view prophets and their policies. While I respect and sustain our prophet leaders, I no longer feel the same reverence or mystique I did even just a few years ago. As I've adjusted expectations I've also had to let go of that aura--some of that Mormon mystique which surrounds those holding apostolic positions. I have come to identify with what Mormon historian Richard Poll once said: "History tells me that leading any organized religion is more of a priestly rather than a prophetic function."

In an article by Peggy Fletcher Stack published just days before the last spring General Conference (Infallible? Mormons told to ‘follow the prophet’ in the Salt Lake Tribune and Mormon president can do no wrong to religion's members in the USA Today), John Fowles spoke of those whose faith is sometimes shakened because of “unrealistic and unnecessary expectations” for our prophets. I agree 100% with what John said. But I still wonder what realistic and proper expectations of our prophets should look like.

Philip Barlow, Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture at Utah State University, was also quoted by Peggy Fletcher Stack in the same article. He said that disillusionment with LDS leaders "would evaporate if people saw the church not as essentially divine, marred only by the weaknesses of human administrators, but rather … [as made up] entirely of human beings — with all of their limitations—who are trying to respond to the divine with which they have (in faith) been touched.”

He best articulated my view of the Church. (And this is also why I no longer prefer to conflate the Church with "the Kingdom of God on earth".) Not everyone shares the same experiences or arrives at the same place when it comes to learning about Church history, the way things work, or even their level of religious enthusiasm/commitment. Some might have once sang "We Thank Thee Oh God For a Prophet" with zeal but now feel a bit more restrained. Others have felt the need to lower their expectations of a prophet in order to still maintain a connection to the Mormon prophetic tradition. Those with reasonable expectations of prophets can even feel out of place when attending church with members who still have expectations that go through the roof--including those who believe that the prophet literally speaks directly with God in a way the rest of us cannot/have not, or those who think that when the prophet speaks the thinking is done.

I have no insight into the perfect or ideal set of prophetic expectations. But I do agree with John Fowles in the sense that "unrealistic expectations" exist and may make people ripe for a faith crisis. Ironically, by wanting to tell only the "faith promoting", as if everything prophets do is inspired, leaders can further perpetuate the "unrealistic expectations" that set people up for a faith crisis. Like a balloon going high in the sky, those expectations might just end up popping--or simply deflating.

Andrew S. (a thoughtful self-described atheist and "cultural Mormon") probably had these folks in mind when he remarked: "For some people [it] isn’t that “the grass will be greener” outside [of the Church], but rather, for a church that claims divine revelation, the true gospel, inspired leaders, it’s surprising that the lawn *is* just the same as everyone else’s, if not quirkier in some areas (while other lawns are have quirks in other areas.)" Or in other words, "If we are taught that the church’s grass is superior, restored, and full, then shouldn’t finding out that the church grass is just on par with everyone else’s grass be a great let down?"

Ultimately, we Latter-day Saints sustain our leaders as prophets, seers, and revelators, although the meaning given to those very words vary according to each believer. And as Peggy Fletcher Stack wrote, "Mormons have to decide for themselves how much deference to give the words of their leaders and deal with the consequences of their choices."

Some may question the benefit in having a prophet "to guide us in these latter days" if we as individual agents must ultimately rely on our own combination of "inspiration and perspiration". However, the prophet's role is not for us to rely on him, notwithstanding the rhetoric, but to point/guide people to Christ, and to rely on "the merits, mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah". Placing faith in Him--our ultimate "Prophet, Priest, and King"--means that we'll always have expectations that will not be disappointed.

Rethinking Modesty

2011-09-28T12:50:00.000-05:00

Putting a spotlight on what should be required LDS reading:

Perverting Modesty

(By Tracy M--http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/07/09/perverting-modesty/)

Church Signs: Second Edition

2011-09-27T13:14:00.001-05:00

Ever since I took a picture of my favorite church sign, I've been on the look out for others I can capture and share. Here are a few that have caught my eye recently for one reason or another:

I really like this one from a local United Methodist Church, (although not likely to show up in front of an LDS Church):

On the other hand, here are a couple that would fit in quite well at an LDS church, especially the sign as you leave the parking lot of the local John Calvin Presbyterian Church ("You are now entering the mission field"):

Another LDS type sign, since we know how much LDS folk love focussing on "self-improvement":

A little sign caught my eye inside the kitchen of the Stake Center where I attend (definitely NOT one of my favorites):

Still haven't found one to rival my favorite sign, but I've enjoyed snapping the pictures none the less.

Improving Our Sacrament Meetings

2011-09-06T17:12:00.001-05:00

Several months ago our bishop started off a combined 5th Sunday (3rd hour) meeting showing a PowerPoint of data his counselor crunched. Sacrament meeting attendance (along with home teaching and other statistics) has been trending down ever since our ward was created over a year ago.

The bishop, who isn't known for his sense of humor (or warmth, for that matter), asked: "What does this mean?" I quietly leaned towards my wife and jokingly said: "Time to fire the bishopric". Thankfully only the couple in front of me heard, and I'm glad they laughed because it truly was a joke--obviously it's not all the bishops fault. Yet at the same time, while sacrament meeting "worship" is largely a personal experience, I do feel more can be done to improve the quality of the group "worship" experience during our sacrament meetings (and consequently improve the attendance at those meetings).

The bishop then asked us all why we thought this downward trend was happening. A few answers were given, none of which seemed to resonate with anyone, including the bishop. He went on to speak about "rescuing" and how we need to "rescue" others so that they come to church--which struck me as the wrong answer simply because they're not falling overboard--they're jumping ship. People have come to expect lifeless and sub-par sacrament meetings and don't seem to miss much of a spiritual experience when they're not present. As the bishop continued, he mentioned that it's his responsibility to oversee gospel teaching in the ward, and I agreed and raised my hand. Here was my chance to say what I was thinking by piggybacking on his comment. I said:

"I think you've hit the nail on the head with the importance of teaching. Too often we content ourselves with boring and lifeless meetings rather than fill them with meaning and making them truly edifying. I'm reminded of the quote by President Kimball where he said that "We often do vigorous enlistment work to get members to come to church but then do not adequately watch over what they receive when they do come".

I recited it by heart because I had just barely looked it up on my smart phone to make sure I got it right. But the full quote would have been great too:

"Stake presidents, bishops, and branch presidents, please take a particular interest in improving the quality of teaching in the Church. The Savior has told us to feed his sheep (see John 21:15-17). I fear that all too often many of our members come to church, sit through a class or meeting, and they then return home having been largely uninformed [Elder Holland uses the word uninspired]. It is especially unfortunate when this happens at a time when they may be entering a period of stress, temptation, or crisis. We all need to be touched and nurtured by the Spirit, and effective teaching is one of the most important ways this can happen. We often do vigorous enlistment work to get members to come to church but then do not adequately watch over what they receive when they do come." ~ Spencer W. Kimball, "Ministering to the Needs of Members," Ensign, Nov 1980, 45.

In response to my comment, the ward clerk (who admits to being a grumpy kind of guy--"I don't smile") states from his seat up on the stand a familiar platitude, something like: "It's our fault if the meeting is boring, because it's an individual responsibility to get something out of the meeting".

I secretly roll my eyes and wait for him to finish before offering a rejoinder: "I agree with you but only up to a point. I do believe I have a personal responsibility to worship and get the most out of a meeting--yes. But if I were sick and go to a doctor, the doctor isn't going to tell me 'well, it's your responsibility to get well. Come on--what's wrong with you?!' There is a TWO way relationship and responsibility there. And sometimes I think the sentiment you expressed is used as a cop out to go ahead and be content with boring meetings."

Thankfully another sister, whose husband is not a member but attends sacrament meeting with her, spoke up and agreed with me (although she put things much nicer and far less bluntly)--mentioning that her husband can't possibly be expected to know how to "get something out" of a sub-par meeting by himself and feel the spirit on his own.

Apparently it took my speaking out to break the ice. A friend and former counselor in the pre-ward-split bishopric then spoke out and shared something with the large group he had shared with me before privately. "I personally feel, Bishop, that I'm getting that spiritual nourishment in our Sunday school class. [He's told this to my wife before too because she was the teacher of the class]. But I've been struggling with our sacrament meetings".

Felt good that I wasn't alone. Another stalwart sister in the ward, who also happens to teach some popular institute classes in our stake, chimed in to say probably the one positive thing she could: "I do feel that this ward does an excellent job, better than any ward I've ever been a part of, of having a very reverent passing of the sacrament. It's always so quiet and reverent during that special time". (What she didn't say is that it often feels like a funeral the rest of the time.) But after the meeting she quickly came up to me, shook my hand, and simply said "THANK YOU". It felt good to have her validate my comment.

My point in sharing all this is that I sense there is much room for improvement in our sacrament meetings. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way, for in that very discussion...well, out of the mouths of two or three witnesses.

And just this past Sunday during a dinner conversation with some new members in our ward, they began talking about the great Sunday School class they had attended, which until that very day was taught by my wife (she was a magnificent gospel doctrine teacher for all the right reasons but on Sunday accepted another calling), and how the atmosphere was exactly what teaching improvement coordinators had aspired to. I decided to ask the question: "How can we get our sacrament meetings to be more like that?"

I was thrilled to hear this new ward member (who had served in a bishopric in Louisiana prior to moving to Texas) tell me that in his previous stake, the stake presidency and bishoprics had begun receiving training from their area presidency on how to improve the talks in sacrament meeting. Apparently they were using Gene R. Cook's excellent book/CD "Teaching by the Spirit" and focusing on changing the culture of sacrament meeting talks so that people more often share how a particular gospel principle has affected their life rather than just present some research compiled on the particular topic (and which is quite impersonal and boring).

I thought this sounded like a step in the right direction, and was glad that any area presidency would be trying to emphasize this important approach in the stakes and wards throughout the church. I'd like to know if that was just a local area emphasis or if it might also be receiving more widespread attention throughout the Church. While it's a good start to emphasize this first to stake presidencies and bishoprics, I'm not quite clear on how bishoprics are to then transfer that perspective and train the members in the ward who'll be speaking. Perhaps a sacrament meeting improvement class could serve a need similar to the "teaching improvement coordinator" concept of yesteryear. Whatever the case, I'm sure smart people can think of something. Obviously this isn't a "new" idea, but about now I'm open to ANY ideas and approaches that might make our meetings more edifying, nourishing, vibrant, and worthwhile--as they should be.

Set Your DVR's for TONIGHT!

2011-07-26T15:15:00.003-05:00

Premiering on the Documentary Channel (channel 197 on Dish network) tonight is the award-winning film Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons.

A stunning examination of racial issues within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons traces the history and experiences of African Americans in the Mormon church from the church's beginnings in 1830, through the Civil Rights Movement, to the present day. At the heart of the debate lies the churches denial of the priesthood and most sacred privileges of the faith to its African American members – denials that were reversed in 1978 with a historic "priesthood revelation".

History and an Open Future--According to Plan?

2011-07-06T01:00:00.004-05:00

On the Fourth of July I decided to re-read David McCullough's masterful speech entitled "The Glorious Cause of America". The full speech is worth a read, but something in his opening thoughts (which I appreciate) made me ponder. He opens by stating:

"One of the hardest, and I think the most important, realities of history to convey to students or readers of books or viewers of television documentaries is that nothing ever had to happen the way it happened. Any great past event could have gone off in any number of different directions for any number of different reasons. We should understand that history was never on a track. It was never preordained that it would turn out as it did.

Very often we are taught history as if it were predetermined, and if that way of teaching begins early enough and is sustained through our education, we begin to think that it had to have happened as it did. We think that there had to have been a Revolutionary War, that there had to have been a Declaration of Independence, that there had to have been a Constitution, but never was that so. In history, chance plays a part again and again. Character counts over and over. Personality is often the determining factor in why things turn out the way they do."

My question arises by juxtaposing this idea (that history isn't preordained, that it didn't HAVE to happen the way it did, that there didn't HAVE to be a Constitution, etc.) with the LDS belief that God perhaps foreordained or at least "raised up" the founders to do what they did, that Nephi saw some of this continents' history in vision, and that the American Revolution was a prerequisite in order to prepare the way for the Restoration (as though it were on a track, which McCullough explicitly rejects because history involves chance).

How should a Latter-day Saint reconcile these seemingly contradictory ideas? Naturally, there is an important nuance between "foreordination" and "predestination", but how much of the "plan" has stayed on plan or has gone off plan? (Parenthetically, was "Plan B" concerning the 116 lost pages of the Book of Mormon because God knew what was going to happen or because He knew what was possible?)

Moving beyond history, it's an intriguing question to think about whether the future is truly open or already "fixed"--especially when prophecy is thrown in to complicate the picture. Sometimes Latter-day Saints start sounding like Calvinists (or maybe just fans of "The Adjustment Bureau"?) when they speak of God knowing the future as though it were predetermined, rather than allowing for real agency (not just the illusion of agency) and an open future.

Stupid Arguments Are Just Stupid

2011-05-25T11:44:00.008-05:00

"A Vote for Romney Is a Vote for the LDS Church"

That's the first stupid thing stated in this Patheos article by Warren Cole Smith--and that's just the title.

I'm really not a pugnacious person. So why bother even mentioning this? Because I can politely disagree. And every once in awhile I don't care to be polite. Just because an imperious author gets published doesn't mean he's not still full of it. Case in point:

"Certain qualifications make a candidate unfit to serve. I believe a candidate who either by intent or effect promotes a false and dangerous religion is unfit to serve. Mitt Romney has said it is not his intent to promote Mormonism. Yet there can be little doubt that the effect of his candidacy—whether or not this is his intent—will be to promote Mormonism. A Romney presidency would have the effect of actively promoting a false religion in the world. If you have any regard for the Gospel of Christ, you should care. A false religion should not prosper with the support of Christians. The salvation of souls is at stake.

For me, that alone disqualifies him from my vote. Because Mormons believe in continuing revelation, it is possible that in the future the LDS church will renounce its heretical beliefs and come fully into the fold of orthodox Christianity. Many theologians and church historians believe the church is on such a trajectory. But if that happens, it is an event still well in the future. The Mormon Church of today is, by the lights of biblical evangelical Christianity, a false religion. If Mitt Romney believes what the Mormon Church teaches about the world and how it operates, then he is unfit to serve. We make him our President at great peril to the intellectual and spiritual health of our nation."

Whether one thinks that believing in some or all aspects of Mormonism (or any other religious preference) is dangerous or silly is one thing, but disqualifying an American from service because your perception of their religion is warped is just stupid. It's also unconstitutional--"no religious test"--and ironically un-American.

Romney is not the first Mormon to seek or hold public office. The world still spins and people still believe what they want to believe. A president's religion doesn't change any of that.

The whole argument is ridiculous--especially the implication that it's his Christian duty to oppose Mitt Romney. If you don't like Romney, fine. If you don't like Mormonism, fine. But opposing someone just because of their religion (and saying his/her election determines the salvation of souls) is not only bigoted--it's stupid. Someone ought to kindly inform the author that he's being obtuse.

The 2nd Coming's Coming

2011-05-18T11:18:00.001-05:00

Taken from my phone on highway close to home

It's hard enough planning for my wife's birthday (May 21st) on normal years, but this is really going to crimp my plans.

Shine On

2011-05-04T13:57:00.007-05:00

Now that I've finished my masters degree (commencement is this Saturday), I feel like I can finally breath (this semester's "exit paper" has been grueling) and take notice of the world around me. Today at lunch I happened to look up. I was surprised to see this dark ring around the sun--I've never seen anything like it before.

I'm sure it's not the first of many things I've failed to notice in life by failing to look outside of myself--whether looking around me or up. And maybe its the primary chorister calling I have, but reflecting on this picture of the sun (I snapped it on my phone) made me think of the little song, "Shine On":

1. My light is but a little one,
My light of faith and prayer;
But lo! it glows like God’s great sun,
For it was lighted there.

2. I may not hide my little light;
The Lord has told me so.
’Tis given me to keep in sight,
That all may see it glow.

Chorus
Shine on, shine on, shine on bright and clear;
Shine on, shine on now the day is here.

Truth is, I haven't particularly felt much like shining lately. My "light of faith and prayer" has diminished somewhat in recent months. There hasn't been any sudden crisis of faith, just an ongoing transition in matters of faith in which things no longer shine as bright and clear as they seemed to in the past. I guess I can relate to that dark ring around the sun. More than ever, I recognize how much I see "through a glass darkly". At least I can still see the light from the darkness.

ALL Families Are Valuable

2011-05-03T11:35:00.001-05:00

"What I think I wish, and this is just an idea taking form, is that the 'value of the traditional family' was replaced with 'the value of all families'. I feel like a footnote when I get told, after a talk about family roles, that 'Oh, but you’re okay too!' ALL families are valuable. We are all likely working towards the same goals- namely an environment where those we care for, including ourselves, can grow and learn in love, happiness and safety."

Amen, Tracy M. Amen.

"Uncomfortably negative for some, insufficiently critical for others"

2011-03-06T12:09:00.002-06:00

A friend of mine and fellow blogger recently shared with me an interesting book review of "Adventures of a Church Historian". One line of the review summarizes Leonard Arrington's memoir thusly: "Uncomfortably negative for some, insufficiently critical for others, the book remains a valuable yet single viewpoint."

I enjoyed the review and immediately felt a great desire to read the book. Thanks to the interlibrary loan, I've now been enjoying it the past few days. There's just something about me that simply appreciates candor. While some may view it as "negative" and others as "insufficiently critical", I simply call it refreshing.

Like Leonard Arrington, who tried in his memoir to be "both circumspect and honest", many of us Mormon bloggers try and do the same in our posts. Some take more risks than others, but all in all I find the bloggernacle (for the most part) refreshing. Of course we all know that not everyone has an appetite for frankness.

A close relative of mine recently related to me why he isn't quite a fan of the Mormon blogging scene. His view was that there is too much of negativity and bitterness prevalent within the bloggernacle. While his concern is legit, he did concede that not everything one might view as negative is negative to another. And he also agreed with my suggestion that it's possible sometimes critical thinking is mistaken for negativity.

It's difficult to find the right balance between "spiritualizing the intellectual" and "intellectualizing the spiritual". Because of this, it seems likely that the bloggernacle itself will likewise continue to be viewed as "uncomfortably negative for some, insufficiently critical for others".

Granted, we all come from different places, have different experiences, and thus different viewpoints. The way we each live and experience the gospel is not quite the same as any other. Yet across the broad tapestry of "Mormon" bloggers I see a common thread--each of us is committed to "truth" as we understand it--even as our understanding of "truth" is evolving.

Which brings me back to Arrington's "Adventures of a Church Historian". In his introduction he states:

"I believe 'the truth' can be both constructive and therapeutic. My fellow church members have a right to an understanding of the matters I discuss. I do not wish to do harm to anyone or any good cause. Above all, I believe that Latter-day Saint readers, as well as my children and close friends, have a right to this personal recital of their father's, friend's, and leader's experience in a key post in the kingdom of God. I hope that readers will be reassured by the words in 2 Nephi 9:40: 'The words of truth [may be] hard...; but the righteous fear them not, for they love the truth and are not shaken" (p. 6).

Arrington took unique inspiration for his approach from the writers of scripture, as he states in the introduction:

"Biblical writers had an insistent tendency to avoid hiding or concealing the sins and misdeeds of the persons they wrote about, whether they were the chosen people of Israel or individual prophets, patriarchs, and apostles. Moses, the greatest character in the Old Testament, and Peter, the apostle of Jesus, are three-dimensional persons, capable of both error and wondrous uprightness. Even Jesus once lost his temper with a fig tree (Matt. 21:19); but he also remembered that a little girl, when she recovered from a fever, would be extremely hungry (Mark 5:38-42)."

"...their approach [that of scriptural authors] suggests that salvation comes from the Lord, not from divinely appointed leaders..."

"Nor did Book of Mormon prophets hesitate to find fault with the church of their day. Nephi, for example, charged that those inclined to proclaim uncritically 'all is well in Zion' (2 Nephi 28:21-29) were following the precepts of men. As we write we must 'behold our weakness' (Ether 12:25) and write with integrity to ourselves and to God. Or, as Will Rogers said, 'It's great to be great, but it's greater to be human.' In any case, I have endeavored, as did the Apostle Paul, to 'speak the truth in love' (Eph. 4:15)."

THIS is the kind of perspective I crave. While it may be easier to gloss over weaknesses and mistakes of church leaders, I believe there is much to be learned from those too. As Arrington wrote, "We may not be edified by every move they made, but we are warmed by their humanity." I don't want a caricature, but neither do I want an idealistic-only view that ignores reality. I want the "nitty gritty". I appreciate objectivity and honesty. This is why I love biographies like Rough Stone Rolling, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, and Lengthen Your Stride: the Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball.

Finally, from the introduction to "Adventures of a Church Historian":

"General authorities of the church and general church officers, for reasons of policy or personal preference, have chosen not to leave autobiographical public records of their dealings and associations with each other, so that church members have no way of knowing what goes on inside church headquarters. Do general authorities ever disagree? What are they like as human beings when they shed their official status as prophets, seers, and revelators? Along with their significant strengths are there also weaknesses--or at least misunderstandings? This book seeks to give some glimpses of the spiritual and organizational aspects of Mormon history and historiography that may add another dimension to understanding LDS life and leadership"...

..."When he wrote the authorized biography of J. Reuben Clark Jr., Frank Fox was advised by Clark's literary executor, Marion G. Romney, as related in the book's forward: 'Any biographer of President Clark must write the truth about him; to tell more than or less than the truth would violate a governing principle of his life. When I first met with those who are writing his biography, I explained that I did not want them to produce a mere collection of uplifting experiences about President Clark (although I knew that numerous such stories could be told), nor did I want a detailed defense of his beliefs. I wanted a biography of the man himself, as he was, written with the same kind of courage, honesty, and frankness that J. Reuben Clark himself would have shown. An account of his life should tell of his decisions and indecisions, sorrows and joys, regrets and aspirations, reverses and accomplishments, and above all, his constant striving to overcome any and all obstacles.'"

Here's to more of this balanced approach to writing history. Surly some on the far right will continue to view it as "negative" and others on the far left might view it "insufficiently critical", but I cast my vote for (and voice my appreciation for) a moderate approach that strives for balance.

Salvation by Grace, Obedience, and the Parable of the Pie

2011-02-14T14:20:00.012-06:00

As the ward primary chorister I teach the children to sing the article of faith songs; this month it's the third article of faith. While I primarily teach the gospel through music, there are many times when I feel the need to clarify what they're actually singing about so that they don't misunderstand. I fear that many within (as well as outside) the Mormon faith do this all too easily when they read the third article of faith. It states: "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel."

My concern lies in taking three words out of context--saved by obedience--and getting a distorted picture of how this whole salvation thing is supposed to work. Thankfully the language in the third article of faith (“all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel”) is clarified in the fourth article of faith: “We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, second, Repentance, third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins.” Then to those who obey these principles God gives the gift of the Holy Spirit ("fourth, laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.”).

But since we don't sing the fourth article of faith until next month, I'll try to make sure those kids don't miss the most sublime and important point--the Atonement of Christ saves. The only crucial "laws and principles" for which our obedience is of upmost importance is having faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and repenting. Those two principles represent the real good news--Christ has us covered (see 2nd Nephi 2: 6-7, Alma 12: 33-34). I feel dismayed at how many people get stuck on a "do it yourself" salvation mentality--as if they can work out their own salvation if they're just obedient enough. (Let me know how that goes!)

When we sing "I stand all amazed at the love Jesus offers me, confused at the grace that so fully he proffers me", I would hope that no Mormon would ever be confused about grace as though it were a foreign concept. Rather, I would hope we're all amazed and confused at how all emcompasing that amazing grace truly is, especially being applied to mortals like us who don't deserve it.

With that said, I'd like to share my current favorite analogy here--The Parable of the Pie. I was first introduced to the parable here, but its author (Pyschochemiker) recently wrote it out in greater detail here. I quote it below, with some minor edits:

THE PARABLE OF THE PIE:

If I bake a pie (imagine your favorite, mine’s definitely blackberry), and invite you over, even when you don’t deserve it, cut a piece out, hand you a fork, and put some ice cream on top. Now there’s a choice, you could sit there and talk about how nice it was for me to make the pie, and talk about how good of a baker I am, or how awesome I am to not require you to do anything to get the pie. But until you choose to actually eat any of the pie, you won’t really know how good it tastes. Would you have gained from the pie without having eaten it, no. Yet, would you really claim boasting rights, or consider it an achievement that you actually ate the pie. Of course not.

From the Mormon point of view, eating the pie is the equivalent of [having faith in Christ, repentance], submitting to baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost...[followed by] a life of discipleship. That is how you “come unto Christ.” That’s how you partake of His grace. But just like we didn’t earn the pie, we also don’t enjoy it unless we eat it.

[One might ask]: “Have I not then become, in a sense, a co-savior with Christ?”
And I would answer: “Not unless you also become a co-baker with me for eating my pie.”

The pie is the salvation that Christ has prepared for us, but we MUST choose to follow him, yet we don’t earn the salvation. He moved first, He provides, He saves, but we must react positively and obediently to His message. “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, if ye do not the things which I say unto you.”

Now it’s true Christ doesn’t cut the slice out for everyone, and doesn’t hand the fork to everyone, but He has made the pie for everyone, and invited everyone to come and have some. Those who know the sweetness of that pie, know that Christ is the Baker thereof, and we [wouldn't trade it for any other substitute]."

Interrogating My Faith: "Fulness" of the Gospel?

2011-02-02T11:42:00.017-06:00

"You could say that I was born Mormon and will likely die Mormon. Why then am I always interrogating my own faith? I am always asking why I believe. What do my beliefs mean? How can they be explained and justified? I have sympathy for questioners because I am a questioner too. Settled as faith is in my own life, I understand why people doubt. I see in questioning something deeply religious as well as deeply human..." --Richard Bushman, Mormon Scholars Testify

In that same spirit of asking/interrogation, I'd like to throw out a question and open it up to evaluation. What is the essence of "fulness" in the oft heard phrase "Fulness of the Gospel"?

The (non-canonical) Introduction to the Book of Mormon states that the book "contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel." If both the Bible and Book of Mormon have it, doesn't that sound a little like saying "You are special. Just like everybody else"? I'm not going to make an argument either way, but does the Book of Mormon have it exclusively? Does the Bible have it independently? By "it" I of course mean "the fulness" of the gospel.

First, let's define our terms. My understanding of "the gospel" is "the good news of Jesus Christ". In fact, in 3 Nephi 27:13-19, Jesus defines "the gospel" himself.

Robert Millet takes a stab at the Bible question: "While Latter-day Saints do not believe that one can derive divine authority to perform the saving ordinances from the scriptures, we do say that the Bible contains the fulness of the gospel in the sense that (1) it teaches of groups of people in the past who enjoyed the full blessings of the everlasting gospel; and (2) it teaches (especially the New Testament) the good news or glad tidings of redemption in Christ through the Atonement (3 Nephi 27:13-21; D&C 76:40-42)."

Naturally the primary message of the gospel--the "good news" of Jesus Christ--is that he has atoned for our sins and makes way for the salvation of all mankind. This is the message of Christianity in general. So what is the "fulness" that's so unique to the Latter-day Saints? Is it solely the exclusive authority claim?

I know a lot of people would jump at the chance to say that the "fulness" entails temple ordinances. Problem is that the Book of Mormon would have already contained the "fulness" before Joseph Smith instituted a temple building program. That all came later. When Moroni first told Joseph about a book hidden in a hill, he said that the "fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants" (Joseph Smith History 1-34).

So what exactly constitutes the "fulness of the gospel" which had to be restored? Or does a fulness speak more to the quality of our gospel centered life--and not necessarily a "restoration"? More than just getting stuck on semantics, it's a question that ought to have some compelling answers. Even though some LDS sometimes use these interchangeably, the "fulness of the gospel" is not the same as the "restored gospel".

One attempt is problematic:
"The fullness of the gospel, then, means that God’s prophets are on the earth, allowing us to sort truth from the teachings of men, and helping us to prepare for the triumphant return of the Savior, and for our own return to God’s presence."

Unfortunately, the last time I checked, having a prophet wasn't a panacea for sorting out the truth (ex: Brigham Young and "Adam God").

Perhaps the Book of Mormon introduction is just wrong? Regardless, one can use the book itself to argue that the intro should be changed. After all, "when [the Bible] proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the Twelve apostles bear record...[but over time] many parts which are plain and most precious [were taken out]; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away," which seems to suggest that the fulness of the gospel was lost (1 Ne. 13:24-29). If so, why maintain in the intro that it's still there?

President Ezra Taft Benson wrote: "The Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ (D&C 20:9). That does not mean it contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation. And they are taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation".

Yet, what part of the essential gospel does the Book of Mormon have that the Bible doesn't have? If one only expresses that it contains a more lucid description of the gospel, then one is making a subjective statement but admitting that the content (while expressed differently) remains essentially the same. (I'm not talking about the separate issue of "gospel" versus "gospel doctrines". In other words, the question of whether the Book of Mormon contains the 'fulness of the gospel' when it doesn't contain a number of unique LDS doctrines is not the point and is irrelevant.)

Dictionaries tell us that "fulness"= (1) "the state of being filled to capacity", (2) "the state of being complete or whole", (3) "richness or intensity of flavor, sound, or color". I must admit that if we Mormons ever had this third definition then perhaps we've now lost it in favor of blandness.

Any talk of being full or complete just seems wrong anyway. Can we be complete if we don't have all the answers, and if we expect more [institutional] revelation in the future--even if only a trickle every generation? And can we be "complete" or "filled to capacity" when we clearly do not possess all truth?

Before Mormon.org had its facelift, it contained the following explanation: [My commentary in brackets] "Although many good people believed in Christ and tried to understand and teach His gospel, they did not have the fulness of truth [nor do we] or the priesthood authority to baptize and perform other saving ordinances at that time [while we claim priesthood, I'm not a fan of the "saving ordinances" language simply because ordinances don't save; the Savior saves] . They had inherited a state of apostasy, as each generation was influenced by what the previous one passed on, including changes in the doctrines and in ordinances, such as baptism". [This last statement is the most problematic in my opinion, as we too have had plenty of doctrinal changes, we're also influenced by what our LDS predecessors have passed on to us, and we've even changed ordinances (ex: temple).]

I'm beginning to wonder if a foolproof explanation (at least from the LDS viewpoint) of "fulness of the gospel" even exists. Of course ultimately that completeness/wholeness comes only in and through Jesus Christ--by being "in Christ" or "perfect in Christ". Thus, I have to say that I like how President Stephen M. Veazey of the Community of Christ puts it: "In the most fundamental sense, Jesus Christ is the fullness of the gospel!"

Favorite Forwards

2011-01-31T15:12:00.003-06:00

We all get forwards--sometimes too many--and rarely are they even worth the time to read. For me, it's even less likely I'd pass them along. But here's one I actually liked:

Urgent Warning:

Aliens are coming to Earth on Friday and their mission is to abduct all the good looking and sexy people.

You will be safe, but I'm just emailing you to say goodbye.

Feel free to share your favorite forwards (or jokes) below:

My Kind Of Church Sign...

2011-01-22T20:27:00.002-06:00

What Would Eugene England Do?

2011-01-14T14:34:00.005-06:00

Last summer while visiting Washington D.C. I went to the Jefferson memorial for the first time. I was struck not only by its size, but by the words of Jefferson engraved upon the walls. Most prominent are the words inscribed around the dome:

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

I loved the quote--another bold declaration of independence, if you will, from control over individual beliefs, thoughts, and freedom of speech/expression.

I thought about that quote while writing my last post, "Let them worship how, where, or what they may", and of times when Latter-day Saints haven't been quite as tolerant of divergent beliefs/thoughts among their own. I remembered a specific experience Eugene England had with Bruce R. McConkie in which Gene showed such grace (when hostility would have been so natural) after being confronted with authoritarianism. As for myself, I'm not sure how I would have responded if it had been me. Perhaps that's the reason I'd like to spotlight a post that raises some of those same introspective questions (and gives more of the backstory):

Spotlighting WWEED? What Would Eugene England Do? by the Narrator.

"Let them worship how, where, or what they may"

2011-01-11T16:24:00.002-06:00

"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"

According to the 11th Article of Faith, it seems to me that Latter-day Saints are typically quite generous (or at least ought to be) in our allowance (or tolerance) of the religious beliefs of those not of our faith. But must letting "them worship" differently only refer to people in other faiths? Or can "them" also refer to fellow Mormons in terms of how they worship? My question isn't original (see "Should we apply the 11th article of faith internally?"), but it's nonetheless a question I've had on my mind lately.

There may have been a time when I read this particular article of faith only in the direction of "us" and "them"--Mormon and non-Mormon. Now I read it and apply it in all directions, including within Mormonism. How tolerant are we with "allowing" variances within our own faith as opposed to simply being tolerant with "others"? How generous are we with each other in recognizing that we must each individually follow "the dictates of our own conscience"? What should be said (if at all) about the limits to divergence of our personal choices of worship (or lack thereof) inside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

(Richard) Poll's (Faith) Pillars

2010-12-15T09:32:00.006-06:00

The following is an excerpt of a talk by Richard Poll entitled "Pillars of my faith", which I transcribed while listening to it on Mormon Stories. I've become something of a fan of his lately. Yesterday when I joined the Mormon History Association I noticed his name as a former president, and I was reminded at how much I enjoyed these remarks:

For me faith is what an earlier Paul said it is. The substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen. It transcends empirical knowledge. And because what humanity learns by reason and experience is both finite and fallible, it may even contradict such knowledge. [Where this happens,] I feel no compulsion to choose between them, unless it becomes necessary to act. [Many issues that have strained relationships between Latter-day Saints] do not require resolution. For pragmatic and doctrinal reasons I believe in suspending judgment in such cases.

I am, in short, a Latter-day Saint who believes the gospel is true, but who has an imperfect and evolving understanding of what the gospel is.

My testimony will, I suppose, be of most interest to people like me. People for whom neither dogmatic fundamentalism nor dogmatic humanism provides convincing answers to life’s most basic questions.

The pillars of my faith are two. Two articles of faith defined by the prophet and founder of my church and an interpretive principle provided by one of the founding fathers of my country….first: ”we believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost". The 9th article affirms “we believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God”

James Madison cautioned: “When the Almighty Himself condescends to address mankind in their own language, His meaning, luminous as it must be, is rendered dim and doubtful by the cloudy medium through which it is communicated.”

Because I believe, with Madison, that everyone, including Paul and the other prophets, saw eternity, or sees eternity through a glass darkly, prophetic infallibility, scriptural inerrancy, and unquestioning obedience are not elements in my faith.

I believe in Heavenly parents who care about me, but who will not, perhaps cannot, compel me to obey. I have hope in Christ. And I have drawn strength from the comforter of which he spoke.

I see history in terms of human strivings to discover divine realities and follow divine principles. Flashes of prophetic insight have elevated those efforts, and Jesus of Nazareth in his life, death, and resurrection uniquely embodied those realities.

Joseph Smith, a prophet like Moses, Peter, and Alma, gave inspiration and momentum to the gospel dispensation in which, as I've written earlier, I find answers to enough important questions to live purposefully without answers to the rest.

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I have found ideas, opportunities and challenges around which I have organized my life. Next to my family, my church is the most important component of that life. I am proud of its contributions to bettering the human condition and grateful to its contributions to my own. If I were in charge of the church I would make some changes. Since I am not, I must be patient, but I need not be passive.

As a historian, I know that changes have occurred and the 9th article of faith assures me that they will yet occur...

A Woman's Place

2010-12-10T13:53:00.011-06:00

Once during a graduate class we got onto the topic of women having equal rights and opportunities as men. The professor said something to the affect that "if you believe they should, then you're a feminist". She then turned to all the men in the class and suggested that we should be feminists too. She needn't have. I already knew from her description that I clearly considered myself one.

Last year after Justice Souter announced his retirement from the Supreme Court, USA Today interviewed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. At the time, Justice O'Conner had long retired leaving Ginsburg alone as the only woman on the court. In suggesting that the court needed another woman, I haven't forgotten what she said: "Women belong in all places where decisions are being made. I don't say (the split) should be 50-50. It could be 60% men, 40% women, or the other way around. It shouldn't be that women are the exception."

"Women belong in all places where decisions are being made". This rang true with me. I believe that. And it seems our current president did too. There are now three women on the court, along with six men.

There seems to be somewhat of a disconnect, however, when I juxtapose this conviction with the current organization of the Church. Positive changes are already being made, as evidenced by the recent Worldwide Leadership Training broadcast. Women are being given an expanded role, at least on the level of the ward council--a positive change for sure. (President Julie B. Beck of the Relief Society did a fantastic job during that broadcast, by the way). But I can't help but further wonder about a woman's place in the Church.

Just days ago the new lds.org was unveiled and I was immediately impressed with the improvement and even spent some time perusing the site. A prominent article featured on the homepage caught my eye: "Take Oath and Covenant Seriously, Elder L. Tom Perry Says". In the article and accompanying video, Elder Perry of the Quorum of the Twelve spoke of the priesthood as the government of God: “It establishes policy, procedure, and has the authority to perform the sacred ordinances of our Father in Heaven’s kingdom. It has always existed and will always exist….The priesthood gives mankind the power to act as agents for the Lord on earth in performing His sacred ordinances, leading His Church.”

Justice Ginsburg’s words came to mind. “Women belong in all places where decisions are being made.” I thought to myself that women, too, ought to be involved in setting policy and procedure--however high or low. My feminist instinct kicked in further, and I thought: Is there any good reason why it must only be men who are given power to act as agents for the Lord in performing ordinances and leading the Church?

I, for one, do not believe so.

Oregon On My Mind

2010-12-07T12:34:00.007-06:00

I was 14 years old when my dad began taking me to Autzen Stadium to watch the Oregon Ducks. Division I college football in person--especially with the atmosphere at Autzen--was simply incomparable.

It was the 1994 season--a good year to become a Duck fan--because Oregon began a magical ride to the Rose Bowl for the first time since the 1950's. I've been hooked ever since. There's one play from that season which epitomizes the turning point of Oregon football. Known as the "The Pick", it's simply the most famous play in Oregon football history. The Ducks had only beat the Washington Huskies three times in the past 20 years, and now they had a 4 point lead on the 9th ranked Huskies. I was there for that game--in person--but not for the most famous play in Oregon football history.

Washington began driving down the field in the final minutes and they were getting closer and closer to the goal line and to scoring a touchdown. Dad, most likely assuming that the game was about to be lost since Washington was sure to score, decided that we might as well beat the traffic. If only I could go back in time and beg him to stay! Because the next thing I remember is that we made the trek back to the car and arrived just as we heard the entire stadium erupt in cheers. I quickly turned on the radio. Here's what we missed:

Kenny Wheaton returned that interception 97 yards for a touchdown to preserve the Oregon win. I've never left a game early ever since.

The Ducks then began their ascension of improvement, building a solid program with premier facilities (thanks in part to the generosity of Phil Night--founder of Nike and an Oregon alum). In 2001 Oregon should have played in the BCS National Championship game, but inexplicably got left out when a Nebraska team that failed to win their own conference was put in the title game with Miami. Oregon went on to finish that year #2 in the nation with a convincing win over Colorado in the Fiesta Bowl.

Oregon came mighty close to getting to the National Championship game again in 2007. They were #2 in the nation, led by quarterback and Heisman favorite Dennis Dixon. Dixon's season ended abruptly with a torn ACL, and with no solid back-up, the wheels fell off. Oh what might have been.

Fast forward to 2010. Oregon finally did it. They won all 12 of their games, and most of them with flair. Head coach Chip Kelly kept the team focussed on "winning the day" and not looking ahead. They find themselves about to play in the National Championship game. Here's another special call of Jerry Allen, the same radio broadcaster who called "The Pick", as the final seconds ticked away on last Saturday's "Civil War" game:

Anything can happen against Auburn in the National Championship game. Auburn (aka Cam Newton) looks awfully good. But for now, like other Oregon fans, I'm simply excited by how far the Ducks have come. They've played hard and fast. Now we'll see if they can finish what has become a very magical ride.

On the Church and Being Lead "Astray"

2010-12-03T11:55:00.001-06:00

One of the most interesting debates I had recently with a family member concerned our interpretations of the statement that "the prophet will never lead the Church astray."

I like the following from Julie Smith, which she wrote in response to J. Stapley's car analogy:

"I think your driving-the-car metaphor can help us with the meaning of 'astray' (which, as far as I know, has never been officially or adequately defined):

God will not let the car be driven into a ditch. He would remove the driver first.

But that doesn’t mean that the prophet can’t drive a longer-than-necessary route, take a detour, or swerve so hard I throw up out the window, etc.

I can rest assured that I should be in the car, but not that I will enjoy the ride. :)"

Jesus Said Love Everyone

2010-11-29T16:58:00.002-06:00

For whatever reason I've become a lot more sympathetic towards those who don't quite "fit the mold"--whatever that means. I also sympathize much more with those who no longer share in my faith, those of no faith, and those who choose a different lifestyle altogether.

Why is it that even our evolution into becoming less judgmental we are sometimes most critical towards our own people--those closest to us?

There are Latter-day Saints who are indeed Saints, and there are LDS who are judgmental bigots. I must remember that my job is to love them all. I must extend the grace Heaven knows I so desperately need.

The "Naughty" Church of Christ

2010-11-19T14:28:00.005-06:00

A Trip Down Memory Lane...

Years ago the highway from Eugene, Oregon to the coast went straight through a little town called Noti (pronounced "NO-tie"). My younger brother, who was probably about 6 or 7 at the time, provided us all a memory we can continue to chuckle at after all these years. Upon seeing the sign for the Noti Church of Christ (and not realizing it was pronounced "no tie"), he had a surprised look on his face, and gleefully said: "Look! It's the Naughty Church of Christ!"

"Doug Priest"--what a great name for a Minister

Last summer as our family made a visit back to Oregon from Texas, I made sure to stop in Noti and take pictures just for memories sake. I still enjoy the thought of an innocent boy reflecting on the irony of the "naughty" Noti Church of Christ.

Potential for a little "naughtiness" in Noti?

On the Ethics of Faking an Injury

2010-11-18T13:16:00.003-06:00

Feigning injury--clearly unsportsmanlike and unethical--is a tactic I've seen employed against the fast-paced Oregon Duck offense multiple times this year. Cal is taking the most heat since the score was actually close and they managed to slow down the Oregon offense. But just think about the ethical implications if, as reported by a source from inside the Cal program, faking injuries was actually "a big part" of their game plan. Judge for yourself:

Why I Still Belong to the LDS Church

2010-11-16T11:32:00.002-06:00

Spotlighting a post by SilverRain: Why I Still Belong to the LDS Church:

I hear so many accounts of people leaving the LDS Church because they found more spiritual growth outside of the Church, rather than inside with its "boring meetings", "dreadful art", "horrid music" and lack of spiritual stimulation. Other people leave because they can't reconcile the divinity of the Church with its mundane, careless, insulting people. Others leave because the Church asks too much, or too little, or gives too little or not the right way.

I had an experience recently where I was sitting in the foyer of someone else's ward building, waiting for the sacrament to be brought out. I felt very alone and unwelcome.

As I was sitting and fretting about my place in the Church and what others thought of me in it, I had one of those rare unmistakable messages from divinity enter my mind.

"This is not their Church, it is mine. And I say you have a place here."

I had forgotten.

True Dat

2010-11-12T15:19:00.006-06:00

Not too long ago we had a High Councilor speak in our ward's sacrament meeting who asked: "Wouldn't it be wonderful if all [425, give or take, people who are on the records of our ward] were here in attendance every Sunday?" I couldn't help but think to myself "Wouldn't it be wonderful if every Sunday meeting was worth having them all attend?

Jana Riess minces no words in her assessment of dull meetings:

"LDS leaders often wonder why retention is low among new converts, and identify valid reasons for attrition: converts don't have enough of a social network in the ward, or they find it tricky to live the standards of the gospel, or they have logistical difficulties getting to church. All of these are true in my experience, but the elephant in the room is that what passes for worship in the Mormon Church is not feeding these new converts, not at all. And that's a tragedy, because great worship is exactly the transformative missing ingredient that could help them find their place, give them the strength to rise to new behavioral standards, and want to attend church more often. We need to stop giving them--and ourselves--stone for bread." (--Jana Riess at Flunking Sainthood)

A Testimony That Resonates Deeply

2010-11-07T21:48:00.002-06:00

Terryl Givens' testimony has been posted at Mormon Scholars Testify. His is so beautifully and eloquently expressed--it resonates deeply in me--so I'm posting it here in its entirety:

If I have a spiritual gift it is perhaps an immense capacity for doubt. I have long lived in the Mormon Diaspora, growing up in Jerry Falwell’s Lynchburg, Virginia. My closest colleagues for twenty years have been a devout Catholic, an observant Jew, a seminary student turned Buddhist, and a born again Episcopalian. My wife Fiona is a lapsed Catholic, lover of the temple and all things beautiful, and fervent disciple of the weeping God of Enoch. I have, in other words, spent my life in intimate association with devout believers from myriad religious traditions; I hear my own professions of faith through their ears, and examine my own religious presuppositions with an eye to theirs.

In the course of my spiritual pilgrimage, my innate capacity for doubt led me to the insight that faith is a choice. That the call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true, and have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing to be true. I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief, for only in these conditions of equilibrium and balance, equally “enticed by the one or the other,” is my heart truly free to choose belief or cynicism, faith or faithlessness. Under these conditions, what I choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who I am and what I love. I choose to affirm that truthfulness of the Restored Gospel for five principal reasons.

1. Joseph Smith revealed the God I am most irresistibly drawn to worship.
2. He gave the only account of moral agency that to my mind can justify the horrific costs of our mortal probation.
3. He provided a story of the soul’s origin and destiny that resonates with the truth and the appeal of cosmic poetry.
4. The fruits of the gospel are real and discernible.
5. The restoration is generous in its embrace.

My two literary heroes are Dostoevsky’s Ivan from The Brothers Karamazov, and Mark Twain’s Huck Finn. Confronted with the God of their contemporaries, they chose to renounce the ticket rather than bow to the cruelty or the injustice of an omnipotent God.

I could never worship or adore a God who recoils in jealous insecurity because “man has become as one of us.” I could never desire to emulate the divine nature of a sovereign who does not save all of those who are in his power to save. And I could never love a God “without body, parts, or passions,” who does not himself feel love, or grief, or joy, or gladness. Christianity gave us the only God who was willing to die on behalf of his creation, as my wife has taught me. Joseph Smith added to that conception a God who intends our full participation in “the divine nature,” who will bestow upon every single one of his children all that they “are willing to receive,” and who made himself vulnerable enough to weep at our pain and misery. That is a God I am powerfully drawn to and gladly worship.

To say that without moral independence “there is no existence” is to make agency the essential constituent of our human identity. To my understanding, this means that God’s intervention in our personal and collective destiny is self-circumscribed by his reverence for that fact. And any gift he gives us which we do not choose to receive is an abrogation of that agency. This is the only theodicy or beginning to a theory of human salvation that makes any sense to me.

I sense, but do not know for certain, that the spiritual part of my being has an eternal past. As an explanatory paradigm, this view has awesome power. It provides a compelling reason for the intuitive sense of right and wrong, the familiar ring of myriad truths, friendships that erupt full-blown, hunger for a God we have not known in mortality, and a hundred moments of déjà vu in the presence of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True. And I cannot begin to fathom what it means to “become like God,” but Enoch gave us a glimpse. It means to love with infinite cost, to have a heart that “swells wide as eternity” in order to be filled with joy and sorrow alike. It is a prospect that sobers more than excites, but it is a prospect nonetheless that the pilgrimage of parenthood affirms and foreshadows.

The gospel works. I have seen its power to transform human life. I can affirm, as Gerard Manley Hopkins did, that “Christ plays in ten thousand places, lovely in limbs and lovely in eyes, not his, to the Father, through the features of men’s faces.” New converts and returned missionaries, who in their testimonies unexpectedly speak “with the tongues of angels,” a simple eloquence not of their own resources. Parting words of a beloved friend near death, before whom the veil grew suddenly thin to transparency. Lives redirected and imbued with sudden beauty, to rival anything narrated by a Dickens or a Hugo (whose stories of redemption resonate with their own transcendent power and familiarity).

Finally, the restored gospel is a gospel of liberality and generosity. It took my former-Catholic wife Fiona to teach me that the church John saw did not disappear; it retreated into the wilderness. Joseph Smith saw the Restoration as a bringing of that church back out of the wilderness, a restoration of the “ancient palace” now reduced to ruins, a reassembling of all the good and beautiful in the world and in the Christian tradition, that had been lost or corrupted from Eden forward. The church I love has invisible borders, and reminds me of what was written of Spinoza, that “he rejected the orthodoxy of his day not because he believed less, but because he believed more.” Or as Joseph wrote, “it feels so good not to be trammeled.”

For myriad reasons, but these five principally, I choose and affirm this path in order better to live as what Elder Uchtdorf calls “a disciple of the gentle Christ.”

Provocative Posts (and a negative experience with "protocol")

2010-11-04T11:56:00.005-05:00

I appreciate thought-provoking posts, especially when they tap into topics I've personally been thinking about. Such was the case with Families, Eternal and Otherwise by Brad at By Common Consent, and also with The Irreconcilable Voices in D&C 132 by Caroline at The Exponent.

I told my wife after reading this last one that it stole my thunder. I'd been planning on posting about Section 132 and my concerns that the same tender Lord who tells the Saints earlier in the Doctrine and Covenants that he will lead them by the hand now transforms into the Old Testament voice and tells Emma Smith that she'll be "destroyed" if she didn't get on board with plural marriage.

I read another thought-provoking post yesterday by BIV at Wheat and Tares: Unveiling the 2010 Church Handbook of Instructions. I've been wondering if there had been some recent letter of instruction to bishoprics lately, but new instructions in a new handbook might shed some light on a trend I've been noticing lately. I shared my observations there:

I’ve had several personal experiences lately with being asked to present my temple recommend before participating in baby blessings, and it definitely rubs me the wrong way. (And for disclosure purposes, I have a temple recommend.) But it just kind of seemed wrong-headed to me; doesn’t feel “right”.

And since this recent emphasis (it’s only been in the past few months or so that I’ve noticed) I was also witness to a specific episode of rigid adherence to the letter of the law over the spirit of the law. Arriving 5 minutes late to a Sacrament Meeting one Sunday I overheard a bishop out in the foyer chewing out a young father for not notifying him of the father-in-law’s intention to join in the circle to bless his grand-baby in time to check the temple recommend.

Since the grandfather didn’t have it on him that morning (after traveling a long distance), the bishop had left the meeting to try to call grandfather’s bishop with no success, and when they went back in he chose not to allow the grandfather to stand in the circle.

I had a strong reaction to this. In fact I thought it was despicable. I wished that the bishop had followed the spirit of the law and let the grandfather participate and if there was a problem God would sort it out. (Personally I don’t think the temple recommend should be necessary anyway, and I even question the necessity of having a member of the bishopric present for a father to bless the baby, but that’s another issue. Yet while I’m on that tangent, I will say that I MUCH prefer to do a baby blessing at home with just family (and the member of the bishopric of course) rather than in front of the entire congregation. I’ve done both and it didn’t feel right to me to include all those people on the special family experience; it definitely distracted me from what should be an intimate moment.)

Anyway (and ironically), several weeks after I witnessed that bishop’s decision (and his brusque and uncharitable way of speaking to the young father) a visiting high council speaker shared a quote over the pulpit from an area authority who had counseled this high councilor when he was a young branch president. The money quote was: “Never let protocol or tradition get in the way of the Spirit. It is the Spirit that matters most.”

I love the quote, but I loved it even more that this bishop was in attendance and listening. I couldn’t help but wonder if he took that to heart.

Making Music In The Gallows

2010-11-02T12:00:00.008-05:00

Despite having previously extolled the virtues of looking for the positive rather than constantly criticizing and seeing the negative, I'm worried that lately I've become something of a backslider. While I'm not generally pessimistic, I've definitely become more prone to skepticism, and sometimes I even find myself being somewhat of a (wait for it Geoff J) contrarian.

So it was refreshing, even (and maybe especially) for the skeptic in me, to be reminded of the power of looking on the bright side--the power of optimism--while watching this clip today. Alice Herz-Sommer is a spunky 106 year-old surviver of a Nazi concentration camp. Her life has been prolonged and enriched not only because of the power of music, but because of her refreshing optimism. View for yourself--and have a blessed day.

The Climax Of My Calling

2010-10-24T18:55:00.002-05:00

Several months ago our ward was split and a new ward was created. I can't say that everything about the change has been great, but I can say unequivocally that the calling I received in the new ward has turned out to be great. Although I must admit that initially it was a complete shock and I had my doubts (and admittedly I still miss some “grown up” thought-provoking conversations) it really has turned into a perfect fit—and not without its perks.

I was called as the ward primary music director. And I must say that I was (and am) impressed with the novelty of the choice made by the new bishopric. Yes, I'm male. In fact, when my wife was sustained as the gospel doctrine teacher and me as the primary music director, some people thought they had mixed up the callings! But it was quite easy to work through my initial doubts after feeling the Spirit confirm this as something I needed to do. Now I couldn't imagine a better calling! It requires a lot of energy, but it’s a complete blast.

Well, the climax of my calling came today when our ward put on the primary program in sacrament meeting. The kids did the best they'd ever done before, and I couldn't have been more pleased. As their director, I was also surprised by how much I felt like I was in "the zone." I appreciate that feeling both from a choir background and an athletic background (I was a first team all-conference offensive tackle back in high school when football was life.)

The theme of the primary program this year was "I Know My Savior Lives", and the program was completely Christ-centered. If anyone not of our faith had been in attendance, there would have been no doubt that we believe in Jesus Christ. Among the main songs we sang today were "I Know That My Savior Loves Me" (a new favorite), "He Sent His Son" (a longtime favorite), "Come Follow Me", "I'm Trying To Be Like Jesus" (a favorite ever since my mom--the primary director at the time--taught it to me when I was a kid in primary), and we concluded the meeting with both children and congregation singing "I Know That My Redeemer Lives".

Both the spoken parts and the music sung were a phenomenal testament of the faith we as Latter-day Saints have in Jesus Christ. And even better, this testimony was humbly expressed by the most pure in heart—the children. Because it is often too easy for me to sometimes focus on some of the things I don't necessarily care for about church, today was a wonderful reminder of all that is good; the best in Mormonism. Would that more Sundays could be like this.

"We are to love one another. We are to treat each other with respect as brothers and sisters and fellow children of God, no matter how much we may differ from one another."

2010-10-12T16:45:00.005-05:00

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued the following statement through a spokesman following the delivery of a petition by the Human Rights Campaign:

My name is Michael Otterson. I am here representing the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to address the matter of the petition presented today by the Human Rights Campaign.

While we disagree with the Human Rights Campaign on many fundamentals, we also share some common ground. This past week we have all witnessed tragic deaths across the country as a result of bullying or intimidation of gay young men. We join our voice with others in unreserved condemnation of acts of cruelty or attempts to belittle or mock any group or individual that is different – whether those differences arise from race, religion, mental challenges, social status, sexual orientation or for any other reason. Such actions simply have no place in our society.

This Church has felt the bitter sting of persecution and marginalization early in our history, when we were too few in numbers to adequately protect ourselves and when society’s leaders often seemed disinclined to help. Our parents, young adults, teens and children should therefore, of all people, be especially sensitive to the vulnerable in society and be willing to speak out against bullying or intimidation whenever it occurs, including unkindness toward those who are attracted to others of the same sex. This is particularly so in our own Latter-day Saint congregations. Each Latter-day Saint family and individual should carefully consider whether their attitudes and actions toward others properly reflect Jesus Christ’s second great commandment - to love one another.

As a church, our doctrinal position is clear: any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and we define marriage as between a man and a woman. However, that should never, ever be used as justification for unkindness. Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down.

Further, while the Church is strongly on the record as opposing same-sex marriage, it has openly supported other rights for gays and lesbians such as protections in housing or employment.

The Church’s doctrine is based on love. We believe that our purpose in life is to learn, grow and develop, and that God’s unreserved love enables each of us to reach our potential. None of us is limited by our feelings or inclinations. Ultimately, we are free to act for ourselves.

The Church recognizes that those of its members who are attracted to others of the same sex experience deep emotional, social and physical feelings. The Church distinguishes between feelings or inclinations on the one hand and behavior on the other. It’s not a sin to have feelings, only in yielding to temptation.

There is no question that this is difficult, but Church leaders and members are available to help lift, support and encourage fellow members who wish to follow Church doctrine. Their struggle is our struggle. Those in the Church who are attracted to someone of the same sex but stay faithful to the Church’s teachings can be happy during this life and perform meaningful service in the Church. They can enjoy full fellowship with other Church members, including attending and serving in temples, and ultimately receive all the blessings afforded to those who live the commandments of God.

Obviously, some will disagree with us. We hope that any disagreement will be based on a full understanding of our position and not on distortion or selective interpretation. The Church will continue to speak out to ensure its position is accurately understood.

God’s universal fatherhood and love charges each of us with an innate and reverent acknowledgement of our shared human dignity. We are to love one another. We are to treat each other with respect as brothers and sisters and fellow children of God, no matter how much we may differ from one another.

We hope and firmly believe that within this community, and in others, kindness, persuasion and goodwill can prevail.

It's All About The Heart

2010-10-08T21:58:00.003-05:00

I've gradually come to believe that God cares a lot less about the tangential things we mortals make such a big deal about and much more only about US--our hearts specifically.

Some take a very legalistic approach to living the gospel. I don't view God as this ultimate Lawgiver ready to take offense anytime we slip up. Rather, I look at God as one who simply wants our hearts--who loves us enough that He sent His Son to FREE us from the requirements of the law, and institute a new deal--a new covenant.

The legalism was only meant as training wheels to bring us to Christ. And then when that happens individually, the law is fulfilled.

"And behold, I have given you the law and the commandments of my Father, that ye shall believe in me, and that ye shall repent of your sins, and come unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Behold, ye have the commandments before you, and the law is fulfilled."
--3 Nephi 12:19

Thus, I don't see God as one who takes offense very easily, because he is long-suffering with our endless mistakes. I'm also grateful my wife is long-suffering. She doesn't give up on me or take offense even though I surely give her plenty of opportunities. She still loves me and she's patient with me because she knows where my loyalties are--that I'm FAITHFUL--and my heart is with her and no one else. That's how I believe God is too--it's all about our heart.

A Compact Conference Conglomerate of Contemplations

2010-10-05T13:13:00.011-05:00

Okay, so forgive me for wanting to go overboard on the alliteration. I just miss Elder Maxwell. :)

It does seem sometimes like certain blog posts just tend to write themselves. But this isn't one of those posts, so read only at your own risk. Just wanting to add to the conversation, here's a very brief conglomeration of thoughts from this past weekends General Conference.

Two highlights:

Jeffrey R. Holland's talk was very touching, and one of my personal favorites. (Ditto that to Elder Juan Uceda's talk.)

Dieter F. Uchtdorf gives suburb talks, both in content and delivery--and to do it in a second language nonetheless! Here's one of my favorites.

Two low-lights:

*The repetition (twice) of the Fourteen Fundamentals talk. I've long had some misgivings about this speech and the way some things are interpreted (both by LDS and non-LDS). I'm not alone, of course, and even the prophet at the time (Spencer W. Kimball) had some misgivings about it--especially how it seemed to promote an almost unthinking "follow the leader" mentality. Despite the controversy it generated when it first appeared, it managed to slip into General Conference, now to be accepted uncritically by the masses since it came from the mouth of two witnesses--surely it's a sign from God! (Excuse the sarcasm.)

Parenthetical insertion: President Kimball’s reaction to Elder Benson’s 1980 BYU talk can be found in “Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball” by Edward L. Kimball (Deseret Book, 2005) pp. 160-161.)

*Boyd K. Packers talk concerned me on several levels. Thus, I also had some misgivings with some of his remarks. [**Relevant update: see "Departing the Text: Changes to Elder Packer’s Conference Talk"]

But all in all, speaking of the conference "collectively and not individually", I can say I was well pleased. Naturally, there was a lot of good stuff mixed throughout--too much to comment on in one short post. But of course one of the best parts about conference for me personally was spending more time together with my wife and kids (a rarity during the weekly block) and watching it comfortably from home.

Signing off with a favorite Brigham Young quote:

"You may know whether you are led right or wrong, as well as you know the way home; for every principle God has revealed carries its own convictions of its truth to the human mind. . . . What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him.

"I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually"

-Young, Brigham. Journal of Discourses. 9:150-151

Go Ducks! (aka: "The Quack Attack")

2010-10-04T12:37:00.008-05:00

Well, as they say, if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. So it's looking like I won't be posting much about my BYU Cougars this year. But I'm excited I still have my Ducks! Up to #3 in both major polls and about as exciting of a football team as you're going to see--seriously.

Here's to hoping for Alabama vs. Oregon in the National Championship game. Go Ducks! (For those that don't know, I'm from Eugene and grew up going to the Duck games in Autzen Stadium--so I bleed both blue (BYU) and green (Oregon.)

"I Love My Ducks (Return of the Quack)":

Oregon vs. Stanford Highlights:

Home Teaching: Mission Impossible?

2010-10-01T13:53:00.000-05:00

To be or not to be? Public/Private Priesthood Session

2010-09-29T19:19:00.003-05:00

So I know I'm not the first to ask this question, but desiring further knowledge, I'm asking anyway:

Why isn't the Priesthood session of General Conference broadcast over television (e.g. BYUTV) similar to the Relief Society general meeting and the other general sessions?

(Especially since they're all later published together publicly anyway....)

Inspiration to More Fully Live Charity

2010-09-28T10:08:00.013-05:00

Spotlighting Papa D's post: "Charity Seeketh Not [Only] Her Own [People]: Those Who Hate You"

While the phrase "Be in the world but not of the world" is sometimes used as justification to avoid interacting with others who are different, Papa D reminds us that applying the Sermon on the Mount means we "must interact with others to do good to them."

Simply put, the "do good" clause knows no boundaries, even among those we might prefer to avoid:

"We can't become truly charitable in isolation, and we can't become truly charitable through only an intellectual understanding of it. At some point, we simply must LIVE it."

Also, an insight on "abstain from all appearance of evil":

"Perhaps one of the most misunderstood scriptures in the entire Bible. In its original usage, it does not mean to avoid anything that even looks like evil - that appears to be evil. Rather, it means something like the following: "Abstain from evil no matter its appearance - no matter how it looks."

"...The focus is not on avoiding anything that someone else might perceive to be bad, but rather to avoid that which truly is evil."

"Gospel Principles"--An Instant Classic

2010-09-23T22:44:00.000-05:00

A conversion story that inspires the soul: Gospel Principles, by Tracy M.

In Honor of Constitution Day

2010-09-17T14:05:00.012-05:00

For many weeks now I've been following (with great fascination) the journey of Ray Brown, a much beloved but recently retired U.S. history teacher. He's literally walking across the United States of America--in part to fulfill a personal dream, but also to raise public awareness of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and support for American history. So today, America's second "birthday" (September 17th, 1787), please allow me to introduce you to his blog--A Son of Liberty's Walk Across Ameria.

He updates the blog everytime he gets to a town and stays in a hotel. In between towns he camps in the tent he carries in his custom made "handcart" trailer. He began in June 2010 on the Oregon Coast (Florence, Oregon) and this morning he left the town of Ogallala, Nebraska. He'll end up by walking through Philadelphia (birthplace of the Declaration of Independence as well as our Constitution) before reaching the Atlantic Ocean near Atlantic City. He's now walked over 1600 miles, crossing the continental divide in Yellowstone National Park, and has distributed countless copies of the Bill of Rights along the way. I'm completely enthralled. I'm just surprised some major news network hasn't already picked up on his story.

Youtube interview:

My thoughts for now

2010-09-10T16:10:00.002-05:00

I've had an extremely busy and wonderful summer. Before you know it, over a month goes by before a new blog post goes up. I have some thoughts on the back-burner. But I have much less time to write out those thoughts. I've also had much less time to read other peoples' thoughts. But I keep a Google Reader feature on my iGoogle homepage, and this post caught my eye today: Follow the Brethren and Never Fall.

For better or for worse, it sparked my first comment in weeks:

"Personally, I'm more comfortable with this scripture as a metaphor to follow Christ with exactness--'our prophet, priest and king'--marching onward as Christian soldiers.

"I'm generally less comfortable with an intense mantra of "follow the prophet" only because I don't believe that a fallible prophet is necessarily synonymous with following Christ. While there are obvious virtues for both, such a militant intensity of focus/zealousness to any mortal might actually lead to looking past the mark--or The Mark."

And those are my thoughts for now.

Christ is a great Savior

2010-08-04T11:59:00.003-05:00

Sometimes I struggle to figure out what it is "I know" and what it is "I believe". But to paraphrase one of my favorite movies, Amazing Grace, there are two things I know for certain: I am a great sinner, and Christ is a great Savior.

I have hope in Christ. I have hope he can even help me overcome myself. And that's a sincere testimony. There's a lot of truth to the saying that Christ's Church is not a museum of Saints, but rather a hospital for sinners.

What affect has blogging had on you?

2010-07-28T01:15:00.005-05:00

After talking matters of faith with an elderly man and explaining (by his request) what a blog is and why I blog, he asked me an excellent question: "What affect has blogging had on you?" I had only a split second to think of a satisfactory answer.

Off the cuff I answered: "It has deepened my commitment to believe things that are true, and it has weakened my commitment to believe things that [I now feel] aren't true."

All in all, I actually feel pretty satisfied with that answer. While at the time I kind of felt like I was on trial, I still appreciate the question and I'm interested in hearing from others. In a non-interrogative way, what affect has blogging had on you?

An Amen

2010-07-14T16:38:00.002-05:00

Every once in a while I read a comment with which I so completely and heartily agree that I feel like shouting "amen". Here's my latest "amen":

"Like a few others here, I am troubled when other Latter-day Saints try to explain their speculative beliefs as “normative” LDS thought. I’m LDS by every definition but I do not endorse any idea of spirit womb gestation or any idea that Jesus ever was something less than God. I acknowledge that some Latter-day Saints hold these views, but I do not see them as normative. And I am grateful that we do not have an all-encompassing “normative” theology."

--ji, comment #35, on "Oh brother, where art thou?"

"Perseverance and spirit have done wonders in all ages"

2010-07-07T15:40:00.004-05:00

The Prayer at Valley Forge

From the recent editorial, "Arnold Friberg — An enduring gift to the nation":

"President John Adams was famous for writing to his wife about Independence Day: 'It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.'

"Americans are fairly good about the second part. Across the nation this weekend, there will be parades, baseball games, outdoor concerts and fireworks displays. People will hang flags in front of their homes and get together with family and friends for barbecues.

"But the first part — the 'day of deliverance' for which Adams and other founders, not to mention a nation of people who had fought and suffered deprivations and loss, felt such deep appreciation — has been diluted through the years. Relative peace and a prosperity unimaginable 234 years ago have led to an attitude that things in this country are as they ought to be and that the current condition is as natural as the grass and trees.

"Friberg's 'The Prayer at Valley Forge' will stand forever as a poignant reminder that this is not so. Freedom and liberty came at a huge cost that must be renewed from time to time. Washington faced odds so enormous that faith became the biggest arrow in his quiver."

Not So Clean Cut

2010-06-27T17:51:00.004-05:00

Something has been bothering me for a number of weeks now. A good friend of mine was recently called into a bishopric after a ward split. (No controversy there; I'd sustain him in a heartbeat. I'm just a little perturbed by what followed.) After successfully being interviewed and sustained in sacrament meeting, the stake president's counselor pulled him aside and said that the stake president had requested that he shave his mustache. And that's it. That's what bothers me. Now some might make this a matter of obedience to authority. To that I say "horsefeathers". Of course, feel free to agree or disagree.

Now for some background. My friend had only shaved his mustache once since he started growing it as a teenager--and that was on accident. He's now a [very youthful] grandfather. I sympathize with him; it meant a lot for him to keep his mustache. Adding to the irony was the fact that his well-trimmed mustache was never an issue when he’d previously served in a bishopric, and it was never an issue with his employer--the LDS Church. Yet somehow it's a big enough deal in the eyes of LDS ecclesiastical leaders who’ve now called him to serve in the bishopric.

Deep down he was actually afraid that somebody, someday would ask him to shave it off. Apparently when [then] Elder Uchtdorf came around a few years ago, a local ecclesiastical leader asked him what he could do to improve and was given counsel to shave and remain clean shaven--I guess you could even say "clean cut". I see no problem with giving such counsel to an individual who asked for it. The problem I see is when such "counsel" is then interpreted as a requirement or a commandment, and requested perpetually of others, rather than let each individual choose how (or if) this will personally be applied.

I realize that some familiar with my blog name might find a small irony in the fact that I'm the one who is bringing this up. But while I personally choose to keep a clean-shaven face and a clean-cut haircut, I’d be the last person to suggest this has anything to do with personal worthiness. Quite simply, my wife suggested “Clean Cut with a Coke” and I liked the play on words and the alliteration. For the sake of simplicity I shortened the name, while also enjoying the irony of my apparently "orthodox" appearance belying my sometimes less than orthodox views. In reality, I despise rigid rules and legalistic, dogmatic approaches to the gospel.

To come clean on this issue that is anything but clean cut, I confess that in a previous life I may have judged more by appearances. (And to my brother-in-law, when I gave him a hard time for growing a goatee immediately after his mission, I say sorry. I'm a changed man. And to complete my repentance, I admit now that I was wrong to even make it a big deal.) I've long since become more liberal--and charitable--in my religious views.

While I don’t fully know or understand the rationale behind this specific request, I’d still prefer personal application of gospel principles and free agency. “In essentials let there be unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity”. Suffice it to say I believe this is a “non-essential”, and probably leans more towards “keeping up appearances”.

I'm quite a fan of Hugh Nibley's position. Nibley, who was simultaneously loyal and critical, has been described as being “bothered by what he saw as the unthinking, sometimes almost dogmatic application of some portions of BYU's honor code. Nibley had no objection to requirements of chastity or obeying the Word of Wisdom, but he thought the often intense scrutiny directed at grooming (hairstyles and clothing) was misguided.” In 1973, he said:

"The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism... the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances."

Without reservation I add a “clean cut” amen to Brother Nibley. I'm not sure how ubiquitous these kinds of requests are in the Church, but the whole situation seems all too pharisaical for my liking. The gospel is not a gospel of guilt, or rigid obedience to authority for that matter. After all, Jesus himself was quite the iconoclast. But I'm curious how others' see this. What would you have done (or said) in both the “counselor” and “counseled” roles? What other thoughts or insight might you have?

On Compassion And Potential For Mutual Understanding

2010-05-25T09:43:00.011-05:00

From today's op-ed piece in the New York Times: "Many Faiths, One Truth", Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and most recently author of: “Toward a True Kinship of Faiths: How the World’s Religions Can Come Together":

"Granted, every religion has a sense of exclusivity as part of its core identity. Even so, I believe there is genuine potential for mutual understanding. While preserving faith toward one’s own tradition, one can respect, admire and appreciate other traditions...

I’m a firm believer in the power of personal contact to bridge differences, so I’ve long been drawn to dialogues with people of other religious outlooks. The focus on compassion...strikes me as a strong unifying thread among all the major faiths. And these days we need to highlight what unifies us...

Harmony among the major faiths has become an essential ingredient of peaceful coexistence in our world. From this perspective, mutual understanding among these traditions is not merely the business of religious believers — it matters for the welfare of humanity as a whole."

Whose Spirit Are You Feeling?

2010-05-20T15:03:00.003-05:00

Have you ever stopped to think about whose spirit you're feeling when you "feel the Spirit"? The question is if you're feeling the influence of our Heavenly Father's spirit, Christ's spirit, or the spirit of the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit. Since we maintain that they are physically separate we also maintain that they have separate spirits. Can we, or should we, even figure out whether we're feeling the unique influence of either of the three?

After posing this question and thinking about it for some time, I've decided that perhaps it's not wise to try and subdivide the influence of the Godhead. Perhaps us Mormons are already too guilty of trying to separate the Godhead too much whenever we emphasize their "threeness" more than their "oneness". They are infinitely more one than they are separate.

I'm content with the idea that I can feel the united and interconnected energy/influence/spirit of the one God/Godhead we worship. With that in mind, I now perceive the phrase "the Spirit of God" differently. I like thinking of it more as the Spirit of the one God/Godhead. By any means, it would be foolish to try and limit either of their influence on us.

During the sacrament prayer, in exchange for our promises to follow and remember Christ, we're “promised that his Spirit, meaning the Spirit of Christ, will always be with [us]. This is no small matter, because the Spirit of Christ is the Light that radiates from God to fill the immensity of space and uphold all of creation. It is the light that enlightens the eye and the light that enlightens the understanding. ‘The Glory of God is intelligence, another scripture says, and this great light—intelligence can flow into humble communicants through the covenant of the sacrament prayer (D&C 93:36)". (Richard Bushman, "A Very Short Introduction to Mormonism").

I also like how Blake Ostler described a loving interpenetration of freely cooperating wills. He once wrote: "I assert that both the Father and the Son are eternally divine. However, there is a priority of the Father in the sense that the Father offers his love to the Son, and in each moment of eternity the Son has freely chosen to fully return that love. They both offer their love to the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost has freely chosen in each moment of eternity to return that love. "It is in virtue of this loving interpenetration of freely cooperating wills that these three are one God and also have been eternally one God. Now they are inviting us into this same relationship."

So in short, the question of "whose spirit are your feeling?", while interesting, perhaps isn't as important as some might think. Instead of trying to understand which spirit we're feeling (whether that of the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost), we ought to recognize what our scriptures assert--that they're "one God". And perhaps we're never more "at one" with them than when we're filled their love.

Triumphalism is For the Birds

2010-05-10T14:14:00.006-05:00

My grandma always used to say that "growing old is for the birds". Obviously she didn't think much of all her growing health issues. In that same spirit, I say that triumphalism is for the birds. Unfortunately, it came out strong at times with our early church leaders. Exhibit A:

"And this is the gospel which God has commanded us to preach to all people, once more, for the last time. And no other system of religion which is now organized among men is of any use; everything different from this, is a perverted gospel bringing a curse upon them that preach it, and upon them that hear it."
—Parley P. Pratt ("A Voice of Warning" 1838)

Find me someone who still believes that and I'll find you a fool. And this deeply offensive rhetoric certainly doesn't help our cause. Small consolation is the fact that it's out of step with the majority of modern-day Mormonism, not to mention our thirteenth Article of Faith.

The smugness of superiority, however, still comes out from time to time. Yesterday in our priesthood lesson it was implied that having a prophet clears up doctrinal confusion and chaos, as if the rest of Christianity finds itself in a doctrinal maze and yet Mormonism is crystal clear. Of course anyone who believes that is not only ignorant of traditional Christianity but oblivious to the concerns of Mormons and non-Mormons who find plenty of doctrinal uncertainties that the living prophet hasn't seemed to clear up much.

Just because "the morning breaks" isn't a guarantee that the rest of the the day contains a perfect forecast. Pinning down Mormon "doctrine" with any degree of certitude is still quite a challenge.

Richard Bushman has written: "Our covenant with God is to bless the people of the earth. That should be our motto. Establishing Zion does not mean sweeping vast masses of people onto our membership records but creating a people of God dedicated to blessing others. Joseph and his early followers came forth with lots of triumphalist rhetoric, but I think we need a new voice, one of humility, friendship, and service. We should teach people to believe in God because it will soften their hearts and make them more willing to serve."

That "new voice" is already strong and growing in today's Church. But it would certainly help if we can remember to not keep shooting ourselves in the foot.

Ponder It In Your Hearts

2010-05-04T13:04:00.003-05:00

Patriarchaic

2010-04-29T15:46:00.007-05:00

Spotlighting: The Trouble with Chicken Patriarchy

My summary in a nutshell:

Patriarchy (wives "submit" to husbands) + Egalitarianism ("husbands and wives are equal partners") = PATRIARCHAIC.

Patriarchy: "a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe."

Egalitarian: "asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, esp. in political, economic, or social life."

Archaic: "marked by the characteristics of an earlier period; antiquated"

Yes, I'm channeling my inner feminist. And yes, I think some change is called for.

Another Reason I Appreciate Candor

2010-04-22T15:47:00.004-05:00

On the back of Henry Eyring's quote I recently shared, here's one more reason I appreciate candor:

Richard Bushman:
"We put ourselves in a precarious position if we propagate a view of Joseph Smith that conceals part of the man. When a young graduate of BYU learns for the first time about Joseph's plural marriages or his temper, disillusion can set in. If all this was hidden from me in my religious courses, the graduate asks, can I trust what I have learned? To be credible we must be candid."

--From Bushman's Response to Nate Oman's post: "RSR: What Hath Bushman Wrought?"

Are Mormons Christian?

2010-04-19T20:07:00.008-05:00

I know we ALL have seen our fair share of posts addressing that question, but here's one more worth reading: LDS Newsroom Blog: "Are Mormons Christian?" by Nate Nielson. Well done, Nate.

One "Reflection" From a Scientist: Seek a Happy Balance

2010-04-14T16:40:00.003-05:00

If you haven't read "Reflections of a Scientist" by Henry Eyring, you're missing a gem from one of my new favorite Mormons. (Thank you Jake [friend in my ward who occasionally reads my blog] for letting me borrow it! I enjoyed it thoroughly!) Even though Henry Eyring's son serves in the First Presidency and Elder Maxwell once opined that he was "the most distinguished Mormon scientist of this dispensation", I'm convinced that he is very much under-appreciated by the masses.

I'm completely fascinated by him. He's both insightful and hilarious--even at the same time. He shares his insights on topics such as truth, the Church, Church leaders, science enhances religion, warts and skeletons, the age of the earth, and even organic evolution. There are plenty of quotes worth sharing, but here's one of a more serious nature from the "Warts and Skeletons" chapter:

“We should be willing to enjoy a full picture of our heroes, leaders, and history. I believe that when we ignore the “darker side” we leave ourselves unprepared for the revelation of some unhappy deed or event of past or present. We might be better off if we leave the warts on and let a few of the skeletons out of the closets ourselves for open examination. On the other hand, there are dangers in debunking everyone and everything that is a little above the ordinary. We ought to seek a happy balance of letting the truth flow forth without either hiding or digging for problems.”

Debating the role of "official LDS media" in establishing certain teachings as correct

2010-04-12T16:31:00.006-05:00

The following is a comment too long to include on R. Gary's blog, since my comments there were already getting a bit long. I thus post a response here:

Gary, I appreciated getting to understand your viewpoint better. It seems, however, that we indeed disagree on the role of "official church media". Take the Bible Dictionary, for example. It is part of "official LDS media", but its introduction states: "It is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth". Therefore, simply because the drafters interpreted a couple of scriptures as teaching that there was no death before the fall, it still isn't an endorsement by the Church on that doctrine.

As an aside, even though I agree with Elder Talmage, I would not prevent other views from being published (whether taught by Woodruff or Lee) because that's what they personally taught. But I also recognize that just teaching something and publishing it doesn't automatically elevate it to "truth" , nor does it canonize one "right" position simply because it gets included in a manual. Of course, this touches upon The Challenges of Defining Mormon Doctrine-another important conversation.

I certainly would not assume, as you seem to imply, that President Eyring in the current First Presidency disagrees with his father's published views about death before the fall simply because President Eyring "could" have prevented teachings to the contrary from being published but did not. If I understand your position correctly, then the lack of statements in church manuals or the inclusion of statements from old church manuals in current church publications demonstrates (according to you) an implicit endorsement by everyone in the current First Presidency and the Twelve on those positions. This makes absolutely no sense to me, and here is why:

1. Not everything published in official LDS media becomes an official LDS position.
2. But even if we take your view, it cuts both ways.

For example, Joseph Smith taught that "God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all" (p. 210 in the printed version of "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith" (2007). It is significant that this was published without any comments, footnotes or clarifications by Harold B. Lee, Joseph Fielding Smith, or Spencer W. Kimball. The manual does not include Joseph Fielding Smith's interpretation in "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" on how to read Joseph Smith. It is clear that the Church wants people to read Joseph Smith on his own terms. The fact that the First Presidency and the Twelve decided to publish Joseph Smith's teachings without Joseph Fielding Smith's interpretation is evidence that the the First Presidency and the Twelve all agreed and were united that it is better to publish Joseph Smith's teachings without Joseph Fielding Smith's commentary.

Another point. The editors of the Ensign approved an article containing Elder Talmage's words in the Sept. 1987 issue of Ensign. In fact, according to your logic, the First Presidency approved this because they are the ultimate editors of the Ensign: "We can only conclude, as Elder Talmage did, that “the whole series of chalk deposits and many of our deep-sea limestones contain the skeletal remains of animals. These lived and died, age after age, while the earth was yet unfit for human habitation."

Now, how could the Apostles and Prophets allow the Ensign issue to go to publication if they disagreed with that statement? Unless you want to admit the fact that not everything published in the Ensign has been unanimously endorsed by the First Presidency and the Twelve. Because according to your logic, the fact that it was published in 1987 without any opposition by the First Presidency or the Twelve shows that they didn't disagree with it. If they disagreed with it, they would not have published it. That article was published twice--Sept 1987 (Ensign) and April 1988 (Tambuli)--which gave the Church two chances to reject the article but instead it was published twice in an official LDS publication.

The Ensign for Sept. 1987 lists the admin and staff as follows:
The First Presidency: Ezra Taft Benson, Gordon B. Hinckley, Thomas S. Monson
Quorum of the Twelve: Marion G. Romney, Howard W. Hunter, Boyd K. Packer, Marvin J. Ashton, L. Tom Perry, David B. Haight, James E. Faust, Neal A. Maxwell, Russell M. Nelson, Dallin H. Oaks, M. Russell Ballard, Joseph B. Wirthlin

All of these apostles and prophets allowed this September issue to be published and none of them rejected the article that quoted Talmage, including the current President Monson, as well as Packer, Perry, Nelson, Oaks and Ballard who are still current apostles.

Follow the...

2010-04-04T20:52:00.006-05:00

I have to admit that I am a little cautious about how much my own primary aged daughter comes home from church singing "Follow the Prophet" ("follow the prophet...don't go astray...he knows the way"). Don't get me wrong, there's great value in following the prophet. It's just that following the "prophet" is no sure road to infallibility, and beyond that, I want my daughter to know the true Source. Considering the fact that we have a perfect Savior and not an infallible prophet, I thought it might not be a bad idea to add some new verses that simply express a child-like faith. I thought it would be perfect to post them today, since they go so well with the thoughts expressed at General Conference:

Extra verse #1:
Follow the Savior, follow the Savior, follow the Savior
Don’t go astray
Follow the Savior, follow the savior, follow the Savior,
He is the Way!

Extra verse #2
Follow the Savior, follow the Savior, follow the Savior
Don't go astray
Follow the Savior, follow the Savior
Follow the Light, the Truth, and the Way!

I think they go quite nicely with President Monson's parting words today:
“My counsel for all of us is to look to the lighthouse of the Lord. There is no fog so dense, no night so dark, no gale so strong, no mariner so lost but what its beacon light can rescue. It beckons through the storms of life. The lighthouse of the Lord sends forth signals readily recognized and never failing.”

A Patheos Plethora

2010-04-01T20:38:00.004-05:00

When the Mormon portal at Patheos began I remember thinking that it had potential, but that I might need to check back later. The content was a little meager at the time. Not so much anymore. One might even say they have a plethora of excellent articles. If you haven't checked them out, you'll be surprised at the quality. They don't need my endorsement, but after reading the following articles recently, they've certainly earned mine:

Mormon Trinitarianism: Not So Heretical by Clark Goble

Getting it Wrong, Kinda Sorta by Nathan Oman

Thinking Myself into Mormonism by Sam Bhagwat

The Challenges of Defining Mormon Doctrine

2010-03-23T15:17:00.004-05:00

I have to give major kudos to Loyd Ericson and his article "The Challenges of Defining Mormon Doctrine," which was published in Element (Spring and Fall 2007 edition, although it lists 2009 events)--thanks to Matt W. for loaning me his published copy after seeing my last post about Differing Definitions of Doctrine.

It's an excellent, and important article--link to it for yourself. Ericson nails some of the key questions that I've personally been asking myself--tough questions that people in the know haven't spent much time addressing. I hope that changes now.

Differing Definitions of Doctrine

2010-03-10T10:44:00.011-06:00

It has been said that trying to nail down what constitutes our doctrine is like trying to nail jello to a wall. (Great post on that, by the way, by evangelical Bridget Jack Meyers at the Mormon group blog "Times and Seasons": "Why We’re Confused"). Apart from the diversity of beliefs within Mormonism which can make it hard to pin down concrete doctrine, there is a tendency to be loose in our definition and understanding of the word "doctrine" itself.

One the one hand, doctrine can be defined as a set of “beliefs” that are held by and taught by a church. On the other hand, within the Church, there is a tendency to speak of "doctrine" as unchanging. "The policies may change but the doctrine never changes" is an oft heard phrase. So in short, we have two differing definitions of doctrine. "Currently accepted beliefs" on the one hand (which can change) and "eternal unchanging truth" on the other.

Using the first definition, one can say that plural marriage was indeed “doctrinal”–at that time–and that it no longer is doctrinal today. This must be how President Hinckley was defining doctrine when he told Larry King that polygamy is no longer “doctrinal”. Obviously, certain 19th century LDS beliefs are no longer believed the same way now. Various dictionary definitions agree that doctrine is understood to be a set of beliefs held or taught by a church. Teachings have and do change over time. Of course the flip side of using this definition means that doctrines, as well as policies, do in fact change.

President David O. McKay must have had the second definition in mind when he emphasized that the priesthood restriction was "a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed." President McKay clearly differentiates between current policy on one hand and doctrine on the other. The context and definition is important to take into consideration with both examples. "Eternal unchanging truth" and "present doctrine" are not necessarily one and the same. While they may overlap, perhaps we too often mistake the former for the latter.

With the forgoing in mind, how do you typically understand/define "doctrine", "truth", "policy", "principles" and the relationship between them?

Something Old, Something New

2010-03-07T16:08:00.009-06:00

Just trying out a new blog header:

Old Header--hard to part with:

Borrowed Camera:

Wishing I Were There...

2010-02-26T12:36:00.010-06:00

If only I still lived in Provo. I'd drop everything to attend the Church History Symposium today. Just look at who's speaking! Like the Olympics, I wish they had sponsors for these kind of things! Instead, I've decided to check out some books on Mormon History from my local library.

I'm already intrigued by the preface to The Mormon Experience:

“Both authors of [The Mormon Experience] are believing and practicing members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints…To the non-Mormon reader, who might believe us unduly favorable to the Mormon point of view, we can only say that we have tried to be fair and have called them as we have seen them. To the Mormon reader, who might be surprised at our frank recognition of problems within the faith, at our willingness to assign blame to Latter-day Saints, and at our sincere goodwill to the historical opponents of Mormonism, the answer is really the same."

Looking forward to some good reading...

Major Kudos

2010-02-17T09:19:00.009-06:00

Major kudos to both SmallAxe and aquinas for blogging (much better than I could) about topics I most certainly had in mind when I wrote my last post. Dave has already spotlighted both of these posts at the Bloggernacle Times, and I'll simply pass on the recommendations.

In Joseph Smith’s Revelations on Preexistence and Spirits, aquinas lays out an important foundation about the doctrine of spirits which I would argue the modern Church membership has largely forgotten, or in some cases unwittingly rejected. (More on how and why will be forthcoming in a series of posts--so stay tuned to the Pierian Spring.)

SmallAxe, in Imposed Openness, shares great insight into "how the LDS Church can have a theological approach that welcomes 'a variety of viewpoints', yet have manuals and a membership that is inclined to suppress diversity and openness in most discussions of most topics." (Well said, Dave. And great post SmallAxe!)

I also cannot agree any more than I already do with SmallAxe's later comment (#50), quoted below. I give it a word for word "ditto":

[For what it's worth], I agree that [Sunday School] is not the forum to deride the manual; nor is it the personal soapbox of the instructor. I do think, however, that one can tactfully present alternative views in [Sunday School], even those that disagree with the manual. The text for SS is the scriptures and if a passage of scripture could be or has been understood three different ways, I see no harm in presenting each of them as well as the arguments for and against each reading. In personally teaching SS this way, a number of students have expressed how “nourished” they felt because they realized that it is okay to believe in either of these readings and still be faithful members of the church.

I would argue that any approach that latches on to one reading, dismissing other legitimate readings, actually does more harm than good, even if it follows the reading provided in the manual. Creating the appearance that LDSs must believe a certain way in issues that do not require such uniformity of belief does damage equal to not nourishing our students with the good word of God. To follow the Packer analogy above, it would be like forcing people to have a diet constituted of bread and bread only; and man cannot, of course, live by bread alone.

Wide Latitude of Possible Beliefs In Mormonism

2010-02-10T15:46:00.005-06:00

Last night I finished reading an excellent article by Blake Ostler entitled: "The Idea of Pre-existence in the Development of Mormon Thought". It's a fascinating glance at how varied the ideas have been within Mormonism concerning the nature of spirits. (Another excellent and enlightening article on this topic is "The Development of the Doctrine of Preexistence, 1830–1844" by Charles R. Harrell). Whether people realize it or not, there is a richness and diversity within Mormon thought. I've been a Mormon all my life and I feel like I'm only now beginning to scratch the surface. I like how Blake Ostler put it at the end of his article:

Many Mormons, and probably most non-Mormons, have failed to grasp the wide latitude of possible beliefs which can be tolerated within the tradition of Mormon thought. Although many view Mormon thought as restrictive, it is in fact more inclusive than exclusive, more thought-provoking than thought-binding.

For instance, an individual member's beliefs may range from an absolutist view to a traditionally heretical, finitist view of God and man and still remain well within the bounds of traditional Mormon expressions of faith—a latitude far beyond the tolerance of Protestantism or Catholicism. The Church's reluctance to clarify its theology on an official level has left it up to individual members to think through and work out their own understanding of and relationship to God. In short, the burden of a consistent theology and vibrant relationship with God in Mormonism is not a corporate responsibility; indeed it cannot be. Rather, it is an individual burden that reflects the unique relationship of God with each member. And each member must be willing to face the implications of his or her beliefs.

We Can Do Better

2010-02-04T15:44:00.007-06:00

And now for some gentle (hopefully) reprooving with sharpness: Latter-day Saints can and should do better in trying to not misrepresent traditional Christian beliefs. We often express how it feels when we're misunderstood and caricatures of our beliefs are perpetuated. But there is indeed two sides to every pancake, and we can be guilty of this too--even unintentionally.

Now it must be said that I think we generally do a pretty good job at this. Our current general authorities in particular not only strive to represent our own beliefs well, but whenever they do address other faiths, they overwhelmingly do so responsibly and charitably. Nevertheless, two recent public examples caught my attention and made me recognize that there is one matter in which we could (and should) do better.

Like many other Christians who quite unintentionally misunderstand the doctrine of the Trinity, many Latter-day Saints also often misunderstand, and therefore risk misrepresenting it. Although it happens quite often, it's somewhat understandable (and even forgivable) since this is a complex doctrine for anyone to get quite right. Nevertheless, if we expect others to be careful in understanding our doctrine, we too must be careful (especially when addressing a public audience) to make sure we most accurately represent traditional Christian beliefs.

Recent example #1: a BYU-Idaho fireside where Elder Ballard spoke. He said that "it always bothered [reporters] when we would say that we just don't believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was praying to himself when he often prayed to his Heavenly Father for guidance."

Implying that other Christians believe that Christ is praying to himself has the potential of bothering any informed Christian. Because that's not what informed Christians believe. According to actual trinitarian doctrine, Christ wasn't praying to himself. (See, for example, "That They May Be One As We Are One").

Recent example #2: At the last General Conference--while making some otherwise great points--Elder Callister didn't quite accurately portray the doctrine of the Trinity. (Although I was actually more concerned with his line at the end that seemed to suggest that salvation is found in the Church, rather than in Christ--now that's asking for misunderstanding).

Far more common, however, is an almost mocking attitude about the Nicene Creed--and this despite the fact that the only part of the Nicene Creed that Mormons would not agree with would be the statement that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are of "one substance".

While the nuances of the current doctrine of the Trinity (developed even more at the later Council of Chalcedon) are not particularly easy to comprehend, Mormons have nuanced doctrines too. More respect is called for, in both cases. The more I've learned about the doctrine of the Trinity, the more of a healthy respect I've developed for it. If we want respect from others--and better understanding--we have to reciprocate. We can do better.

We have a perfect Savior (not a perfect Church)

2010-01-28T10:04:00.006-06:00

I recently enjoyed listening to an interview with Jeff Lindsay on a Mormon Expression podcast. I have a lot of respect, not only for what he says, but how he says it. The following is an excerpt from his concluding remarks that are worth spotlighting. I'd like to add my own hearty "amen":

“This is a very important thing Latter-day Saints need to understand. If you want to be a faithful Latter-day Saint and you want to explore the intellectual issues of the Church and Church history and your own faith, you need to be ready for a world that has a lot of fuzzy elements in it. Issues where there are human errors and human flaws and imperfections at every level. Prayers that go unanswered. Miracles that don’t occur. Tragedies of justice that occur…

…Any time humans are involved you have problems. And it’s so important to me for people to understand our claim is not one of infallibility, and it’s not of a perfect Church and its not of perfect leaders. We have a perfect Savior, and its our responsibility to learn who he is and to recognize that in spite of all these imperfections there is a restored gospel of Jesus Christ that’s there to help us come unto Christ and that’s ultimately what it’s about. But otherwise we’ve got to learn to live with this tension between our expectations and the natural disappointments and failures that come in this very human world.”

Spotlight: "Do We Let the Church Get in the Way of the Gospel?"

2010-01-25T20:14:00.016-06:00

One of the nice things about the Niblet Nominations (who would've thought that people would be voting for me?!) are that you are alerted to some great posts you might have missed the first time around. Here's one that resonated with me: Do We Let the Church Get in the Way of the Gospel?:

"Like an orange whose peel becomes too thick, drying the fruit and sapping its sweetness, the church that unduly centers its members’ attention on itself rather than on the nourishing fruit of Christ’s message will leave its members spiritually malnourished and feeling “burnt out.” This general concept can be found in the Book of Mormon’s Allegory of the Olive Tree, where the showy branches of the tree outgrow its roots, the unseen source of its nourishment, resulting in bad fruit...

...Accordingly, it seems Mormons might do well to critically examine ourselves by taking an honest look at whether we unduly dwell on “the peel” of the Church (i.e., its institutional structure and forms of worship, its hierarchy and claims to exclusive divine authority, its leaders past and present) at the expense of savoring to a greater degree the nourishing spiritual fruit of Christ’s teachings...

...Although we may be tempted to disclaim responsibility when one of our fold is dissatisfied with his or her Church experience, I think we need to recognize that the mode of worship and instruction laid out in the Doctrine and Covenants vests us with the responsibility to edify one another. Not only does this require thoughtful preparation of our talks and lessons, but perhaps most importantly, requires us to focus on “the fruit” of the Gospel by approaching every discussion topic from a Christ-centered perspective that inspires participants with ways to better live the humble, graceful life exemplified by the Savior. And hopefully, if we each do our part to edify one another by focusing on the nourishing fruit of Christ’s Gospel rather than unduly focusing on the protective peel of the Church, the claim that “we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ” will indisputably deserve an exclamation point, not a question mark."

It's a wonderful post by Andrew Ainsworth, with some excellent probing questions. Reading it saves me the time from writing something very similar!

The Purpose of the Book of Mormon

2010-01-21T19:45:00.008-06:00

From Mark Brown's "On Re-reading Scripture":

"The title page announces that the purpose of the book is to convince its readers to believe in Jesus Christ. It seems to me that this obvious point nevertheless gets overlooked, even by believing latter-day saints. The book can be understood in many ways, yes, but the more time we spend looking for modern day parallels to the Kingmen, for instance, the more we will miss the message of Christ’s grace and the hope and redemption that he offers.

That is the central message and it is so huge that everything else must be seen as something of a sideshow. Sideshows can be interesting and instructive, but they can also be distracting. The book consistently seeks to persuade us to believe and repent, and we just as consistently want to talk about something else. We cannot blame other Christians for missing the point of the Book of Mormon when we Mormons often seem intent on missing the point, too."

Conviction Must Be Undergirded By Love

2010-01-14T19:58:00.005-06:00

Regardless of what others may take away from Ravi Zacharias' 2004 sermon at the Tabernacle, here's one of my favorite lines:

“I’m very aware that there are differences in our belief systems and some of them are pretty deep. But we find the common ground on which to meet and talk. Because conviction that is not undergirded by love makes the possessor of that conviction obnoxious and the dogma possessed becomes repulsive. And so whatever our differences may be…it is wonderful that in a world torn by strife and so on, that we can come together, especially on a subject so vast, that at the end of it we are bound to walk away and say we know almost nothing of this, because we are dealing with the loftiest of all personages—our very own Lord Jesus Christ, whom we follow, and before whom one day every knee shall bow.”

The quote begins at minute 3:07 here:

The entire broadcast (well worth the time) can be viewed here:

In Appreciation of Amazing "Good News"

2010-01-07T14:44:00.003-06:00

I deeply appreciated this well written and spot-on column by Jerry Johnston yesterday--Humility only real response to salvation.

Johnston juxtaposes Stephen Robinson's Parable of the Bicycle with Brad Wilcox's take from his book "The Continuous Atonement". I haven't read Wilcox's book, but I like this much:

"I think of the Atonement more like this: Jesus already bought the whole bike. The few coins he asks from me are not so much to help pay for the bike, but rather to help me appreciate it, value it and use it correctly."

Johnson goes on to write that "Wilcox -- like Robinson -- shows that humility and gratitude are the only honest responses, since we have so little to do with redemption. More than that, I like the way Wilcox pulls the emphasis from our 'contributing' to salvation to our 'appreciating' it."

I like that too. After all, "we're not so much partners in salvation as beneficiaries. Being asked to keep the commandments isn't about 'chipping in.' It's about learning to value and put to work what has already been done for us."

The entire column is excellent--but I especially loved the last line: "The old Protestant hymn had it right [all] along: grace, however one defines it, will always be amazing."

While some may initially think this sounds evangelical, I hope they reconsider. Emphasizing "Christ reliance" over "self-reliance" ought to resonate among humble Latter-day Saints. I, for one, could certainly stand to hear more of it. And more often.

A Responsible Critique (and Brief History) of the Gospel Principles Manual

2010-01-05T16:10:00.008-06:00

We had our first lesson from the revised Gospel Principles Manual last Sunday. I was overjoyed that we actually had a lesson rather than focusing the "first Sunday" Elders Quorum hour yet again on Home Teaching. I loved the chance to think about the material and the way it was presented in the manual. But while I am pleased with the new formatting, I have generally felt a little underwhelmed at the lack of significant revision.

One exception could be the concluding chapter on Exaltation. I was greatly pleased when I saw that a couple of personally troublesome quotes were removed from that chapter. There were some statements which had greatly bothered me because I felt strongly that assertions were made which were unsupportable and which may not even be true at all. I was pleased to see them disappear in the new version. Despite my occasional underwhelming feelings with the way the manual presents the gospel, I felt these revisions were a step in the right direction.

Now lest anyone think that the Gospel Principles manual was intended to be the "end all" or the "one true and living" official presentation of the gospel, I recommend aquinas' post: Gospel Principles Manual: A Brief History. It shares some insight into who wrote it, its original purpose, and its original intended audience.

He also provides an excellent and responsible critique of the first chapter in the manual here: Gospel Principles Lesson 01: Our Heavenly Father. While I hadn't personally thought of some of the points he brings up, they are most definitely worth considering. I highly recommend the post as a great place to discuss the manual and for faithful but critical thinking.

My Last Post

2009-12-31T22:10:00.004-06:00

This will be my very last post. Of the year 2009, anyway. (I've got a deadline of two hours before 2010 rolls around). In reality, however, and independent of Urban Meyer, I actually have considered taking a "leave of absence" from blogging. Life has been a bit cluttered lately. Blogging time has been reduced. But I'm not quite ready to start printing the "How's it going to end?" buttons.

I've now been blogging here for two years--though to me it seems much longer than that. Notwithstanding, it has been a very rewarding two years. My motto remains "Whatever I am...trying to be a good one". But that's probably the only thing that hasn't changed in two years. I still can't say for certain what it is I'm becoming or all the ways I've changed.

Perhaps one of the ways I've changed the most is that I'm much less certain in general. The more I learn the more I realize how little I actually "know" for certain. My personal faith has certainly evolved. I've become more and more philosophic and less and less dogmatic.

More and more I find myself relating to the sentiments expressed by Benjamin Franklin at the close of the Constitutional Convention: "I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others."

Thus, the end of 2009 finds me not quite jumping at the opportunity to write an Oprah-like "What I know for sure" type of post. As it stands now, I'm still questioning what it is I know for sure.

Maybe I'll feel more up to it next year.

2009-12-26T07:54:00.000-06:00

Reading Abraham 3:22-28 through new eyes

2009-12-17T14:09:00.004-06:00

Abraham 3:22-28 is a narrative which clearly involves multiple persons. Yet readers often unwittingly place Christ into all roles simultaneously. The following is my attempt to identify and make sense of them all. I especially look at verse 27 differently now:

Verse 22, Abraham as narrator: Now the Lord [Jesus/Jehovah/God the Son] had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

Verse 23: And God [the Father, or "Head God"] saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: ["]These I will make my rulers["]; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he [the Lord or God?] said unto me: ["]Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born["] [on earth].

Verse 24: [Abraham as narrator] And there stood one [Lord Jesus] among them that was like unto God [God the Father], and he [the one like unto God/Jesus/God the Son] said unto those who were with him: [Jesus as narrator now] ["]We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

Verse 25: And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God [doesn't matter to me if here he's referring to himself in the future in the third person or the Father, either one works for me] shall command them;

Verse 26: And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.["]

Verse 27: [Abraham again, briefly, as narrator] And the Lord [Jesus/Jehovah] said: ["]Whom shall I send?["] [to be the first to experience the next estate] And one [Michael/Adam] answered like unto the Son of Man [Jesus, Son of Man or Son of God]: ["]Here am I, send me["]. And another [Lucifer] answered and said: ["]Here am I, send me["]. And the Lord [Jesus] said: ["]I will send the first.["]

Verse 28: And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him.

This reading seems to be more in line with the fact that God the Father delegates much of the responsibility for the work on this earth to the Son/Jesus, and that Jesus is usually the one giving all the revelations. It's also in line with Hugh Nibley's insight below (particularly the bolded part in the second paragraph):

"Our temple drama began like the book of Job, the Gospel of John, and Goethe's Faust, with the 'Prologue in Heaven.' In the temple today the prologue is spoken offstage, that is, in another world far removed from our present one. We hear the council in heaven discussing the plan to organize a world like other worlds that have been formed. They will 'take of these materials, and . . . will make an earth whereon these may dwell' (Abraham 3:24). The definite pronoun these plainly points to or indicates something, showing that the drama is in progress. Then they appoint two others from among those who stood 'among those that were spirits' (Abraham 3:23). Again the definite pronoun that calls our attention to parties who are not mentioned but are obviously indicated by gesture—these are stage directions.

"Things being thus decided, the Lord said 'Whom should I send?' Here we should note that thirty-three of the forty-two verses in Moses 1 begin with the word and. This in our narrative is the so-called wÃ¥w-conversive in Hebrew, which converts the past to a future tense, giving it the sense of stage direction: 'The Lord shall say.' To his question, 'one answered [or one shall answer] like unto the Son of Man,' obviously stepping forward: 'Here I am, send me' (Abraham 3:27). The action is clearly indicated, but why 'one like unto the Son of Man'? Why not simply the Son of Man? Because plainly this is not the real character but an impersonation of him, one taking his part: 'like the Son of Man'" (Abraham's Temple Drama).

This reading also gives new insight to the fact that Michael (whose name in Hebrew means “Who is like God”) serves as a "type" of Christ, or shadow of things to come. And in my opinion, what a significant way to get this mortal drama kicked off!

Christmas Lights "Ditto"

2009-12-17T12:50:00.001-06:00

Make a Heaven out of Hell

2009-12-14T10:42:00.003-06:00

Last week I read The Blind Side — mostly a true story. (While I haven't yet seen the movie "The Blind Side", I'm looking forward to it.) Turns out that there's an interesting BYU/Evangelical Christian connection that wasn't mentioned in the film:

"In the film, "Oher needs a 2.5 grade-point average and ekes out with 2.52. The part about a 2.52 is correct, but in fact he needed a 2.65 average. He was able to raise his grades to that average by getting high school credits through a remote-education program sponsored by Brigham Young University. 'The Mormons may be going to hell. But they really are nice people,' Sean Tuohy is quoted as saying in the book excerpt."

Yesterday I read the following quote by Joseph Smith and couldn't help but think of Sean Tuohy's statement. The two fit quite nicely together! It also happens to be the ultimate of "turning lemons into lemonade":

..."let me be resurrected with the Saints, whether I ascend to heaven or descend to hell, or go to any other place. And if we go to hell, we will turn the devils out of doors and make a heaven of it. Where this people are, there is good society.” ("Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith", Chapter 45, quote #21)

So there you have it, Sean. We'll simply make a heaven out of hell!

When Church Is Boring...

2009-12-08T12:50:00.002-06:00

...remember this:

So is that the Church I want to join?

My Kind of Christian

2009-12-02T16:44:00.004-06:00

I recently came across a blog run by a Christian man who said that the book "How Wide the Divide?" was "key" in changing the way he related to Mormonism. I was impressed by his newfound understanding of the importance of talking "with individuals about their faith, rather than relying exclusively or even mostly on what their denomination 'believes'".

But I was even more impressed with a beautifully written and wonderful statement in his "About Me" profile introduction:

"First and foremost, I am saved by God's grace as manifested most clearly through the atoning death of Jesus Christ-- and thus, adopted into His family. As a result, I increasingly seek to extend His grace to others in my daily life."

My heart truly resonates with that statement. It also causes me to have a little bit of "holy envy." I wish I could hear, and experience, more of this kind of talk (and conviction) in my own ward and greater LDS Christian/Mormon tradition.

[Mormon] Faith in the Public Sector

2009-12-01T10:54:00.007-06:00

On CNN.com, David Frum has written an excellent and intriguing article entitled: "Should Romney's faith be an obstacle?"

Obviously I don't think his faith should be a big deal, but I understand the concerns of those who think it is. It certainly seems to complicate things. But should complexities matter?

I believe a healthy and robust dialogue becomes imperative to reach better mutual understanding--especially when it involves religious nuances. People must also be willing to suspend their own personal biases and strive to see things from the "other" perspective.

While I think most people tolerate a little faith in the public sector, it's vexing to see religious bigotry come out (whether soft or hard) when Mormonism is made an issue. Somehow, it then becomes a different ball-game.

I recommend people judge Romney as an individual and not by his Mormonism--what does that even mean anyway? Take him on his own terms. At least that's what I would want for myself.

2009-11-30T15:44:00.001-06:00

Spotlight: Why Pornography is Wrong (It's Not Really About Sex)

2009-11-30T14:12:00.004-06:00

There's a lot of depth to this post. Not only is it beautifully written, it's insightful and powerful:

Why Pornography is Wrong (It's Not Really About Sex)

A sample:

"In normal, healthy, husband-and-wife sex, two people have to work together to find mutual pleasure and joy in physical expression. That's why it is such hard work, and why so many people struggle with it. It is not that there is anything wrong with the individuals, it is that divinely-sanctioned sex is not meant to be easy. It is not meant to be about fulfilling one's own needs, it is meant to be about seeking ways to meet a spouse's needs. When two people attempt this, there is bound to be missteps along the way. However, when this is done, husband and wife form strong bonds of love as they seek their spouse's needs before their own (very powerful) ones. Sex should be a form of charity held sacred to be performed only between husband and wife, so there can be a bond between them that no others share..."

"...Is pornography wrong because it exploits women? Undoubtedly. But it also exploits the viewer or reader, teaching them that joy comes only from control. In the end, that is far more damaging."

Reactions to Family Armor?

2009-11-20T08:47:00.009-06:00

2010 Update: "Family Armor" was not picked up by TLC.

While it was interesting to see the business side of Texas Armoring, I was a bit uncomfortable watching the family aspect of Family Armor. I found myself wondering if any ordinary person would assume that that is how all Mormons are. The family approach just wasn't my cup of tea. Or hot chocolate. Whatever.

Camera's in every room? "Someone is always watching". Seriously?

I don't know about other Mormons, but I know that "obedience" shouldn't come out of fear, pressure, or coercion. It should come out of love and gratitude for what God has done for us in providing a Savior.

One more point of criticism. The father of the niece (who wanted to come home to her own family) basically told her on the phone that while they want her to come home, she would essentially stay there forever if she didn't shape up. (I know I'm paraphrasing, but it still seemed odd--too strict--and something I would never say to my daughters.)

Perhaps the TV show didn't really portray reality (or maybe it did), but I found myself thinking about how I don't live the gospel like that. I even found myself saying at one point: "If I weren't Mormon and I was watching this, I'd probably think to myself 'I'm glad I'm not a member of that church'". Sad to say.

Am I being too harsh? Any other reactions? (Positive or negative?)

"Family Armor"

2009-11-17T14:25:00.003-06:00

As a Mormon in San Antonio, this show is especially intriguing to me. I've set the DVR to record Thursday night's premier of "Family Armor", and I'm looking forward to it. Regardless of my faith, it just seems like it would be a fascinating show on multiple levels. Even better that it takes place so close to home!

On A Personal Note...

2009-11-05T09:34:00.007-06:00

Guess it's time for a new blog header! Our family has now grown by one--a boy. Jericho Bryven (after his grandpa's Bryant and Steven) was born Monday, November 2nd--8lbs 1oz, 22 inches long. Both he and his mom are doing well.

Bound to the Lord

2009-10-28T12:20:00.004-05:00

Spotlighting an excellent post: I the Lord Am Bound, by Sam MB at By Common Consent.

Some of my favorite lines:

“When I think about binding God, this is the image that fills my soul with light. That God has adopted me, that he will claim me–bedraggled, bemused, bedeviled me–as his son, that he will allow our relationship to be the tender and overwhelming and often ineffable relation of parent to child. This to me is the great promise and reassurance of the possibility that God is willing to be bound to us.”

“God is not a vending machine”

“In my times of yearning and struggle, when I most hunger for God’s presence, it is the promise of a 'bond and covenant that cannot be broken' that buoys me up.”

Accounting For The Book of Mormon

2009-10-13T13:57:00.008-05:00

Jeffrey R. Holland's recent sermon and testimony has put a spotlight back on the Book of Mormon. It was a powerful and moving address. Three great commentaries on the talk can be found here at Mormanity, Dave's Mormon Inquiry, and Life on Gold Plates.

While his primary audience obviously consisted of believers in the truthfulness of Book of Mormon, it once again piqued my curiosity about how non-believers account for the Book of Mormon. I've been curious enough to try and step into others' shoes to see how they account for it. And while I often find myself being able to empathize with their position, I also repeatedly find their explanations frustratingly insufficient. Perhaps that sentiment goes both ways.

Nevertheless, for those who do not believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God, explaining it away presents a serious and difficult challenge. Most do not step up to the challenge at all, and dismiss it far too easily. Those who so quickly dismiss it never seem to convincingly articulate why, or at least how they do account for it. It's one thing to question various pieces of a puzzle, but to dismiss this puzzle without examining so many significant and important pieces seems reckless and irresponsible.

After examining any and all of these alternative explanations, it's still more improbable for me to believe that Joseph Smith, and those witnesses who saw and felt the plates, were lying the whole time. Not that people don't lie; people lie all the time. But in this case, look at what was at stake! And what would have been the motive for even attempting to pass off a "19th century hoax" as a sacred record and ancient witness of Jesus Christ? These are not unreasonable questions. And I think they demand good and reasonable answers, especially if I were to be persuaded to change my mind regarding the Book of Mormon--that it truly is what it purports to be.

I most certainly would need someone to do much better in making a case than regurgitating the same explanations that have already been brought forward. That Joseph thought it would be fun to get involved with magic, produce a hoax, and then live the unrelenting and persecuted life he lived in defending that lie--even eventually giving his life for it--just doesn't work for me.

As Elder Holland recently pointed out, why would Joseph and Hyrum turn to a fabricated hoax for spiritual strength and comfort right before they were killed? Meanwhile, there still cannot be found a reasonable and good explanation for how it was fabricated in the first place. Either Joseph was a genius who wrote it himself or he improbably got help from some other ghostwriter(s). And if the best someone can do is connect a few verses of Alma 40 with similarities from the 32nd chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith, or say that Joseph just copied from some other manuscript, then an explanation has been attempted for only a small portion of the book. But how was the rest of it written? What of the rest of Alma, or Mosiah, or the vast majority of the rest of the Book of Mormon? Certainly there are many other complicated books which have single authors (J. R. R. Tolkien comes to mind), but what of the Book of Mormon's powerful, moving, and convincing witness of the divinity of Christ, our Redeemer? After all, Christ is the central character and focus in the Book of Mormon from beginning to end. Was Joseph Smith really capable of that?

So far the "best" explanation I've been given by a thoughtful critic of the Book of Mormon is that it's simply a "hodge podge of various common 18th century themes, sources, and religious controversies combined into an imaginative and compelling story." But even this explanation doesn't give the entirety of the Book of Mormon and all it represents the amount of thought that it demands. And besides, didn't Alexander Campbell already say essentially the same thing while calling Joseph an impostor back in 1831? Such a flippant explanation does indeed seem a little pathetic for someone familiar with the totality of the Book of Mormon, let alone the abilities of Joseph Smith or the unbelievable help (aka: vast conspiracy) Joseph would have needed to pull off such an amazing scam.

It's actually harder for me to believe these alternative explanations than to simply believe that God and angels were involved. And as crazy as that can sound to a non-believer, it shouldn't be that crazy for any believer in the Bible, which also describes angelic visitations. Knowing what I know, it would require a greater "jump of reason" for me to conclude that the Book of Mormon wasn't brought forth by the "gift and power of God".

The Book of Mormon continues to be a marvel to me. I continue to be amazed at its relevance in my life today, as well as the great wisdom and power I find in its pages. And while I'm open minded about the actual translation process and even the presence of seeming anachronisms, those points all seem to miss the point. The Book is of God. I feel similar to Blake Ostler, who recently wrote on another blog: "The Book of Mormon is like breath to me. I love its teachings and passages so much that they are like a part of my soul."

And even I fail at fully accounting for all that it has meant for me.

Capturing Conference

2009-10-06T15:10:00.010-05:00

Conference was wonderful. There were many highlights, but Elder Holland blew me away. It reminded me of his testimony of the Book of Mormon in "Christ and the New Covenant", only delivered orally and aimed at preventing Latter-day "hearts" from failing. I'm looking forward for the printed texts to become available. In the meantime, I've downloaded the audio of Elder Holland's address.

Something else new and exciting is that the music from each conference session is now available for individual download. Looks like you can download the individual songs back to October of last year. I've currently got "O Divine Redeemer" in my iTunes on repeat. Moving, powerful, and right to the heart of the gospel. Capture your favorite Conference highlights for yourself!