The Fork in the Road

2011-01-29T16:51:00.000-08:00

Epilogue --

I got a reply back from my stake president, and it looks like I'm not going to a church court after all.

It would be inappropropriate to quote the letter without permission, but I'll summarize as best I can. I really disagree with some of his points, which I'll address later.

He apologizes that my spiritual needs are not being met by the LDS church and that I felt I needed to join another church. Based on an interview we had a few years ago he expresses understanding that I have concerns.

Just disagreeing with the leaders or mere loss of belief is not generally a reason for having to hold a church court. Generally when people decide the church is no longer right for you, the right thing to do is to resign. He doesn't encourage that, but if I really feel the church is inconsistent with my beliefs and I'm unlikely to return, it's the best thing. A simple signed letter to my bishop will do the job.

Remaining a member of the LDS church causes others to need to seek me out. My baptismal and temple covenants still remain in force. This may not be what I want, but if I want to keep contact and would welcome attempts to reach out I can keep my membership in the LDS church, regardless of whether or not I am active.

Church discipline is reserved for situations where members openly defy the LDS church, such as publishing articles against the doctrines or leaders or attempting to lead others to adopt incorrect doctrines or leave the church. He doesn't feel this is what I'm doing, nor what he expects me to do.

This situation is my choice and he has no wish to force me, except he would want to keep my fellowship in what he firmly believes to be the church of Jesus Christ in its fullest form.

Regardless of what I decide, he wants to remain my friend and welcomes any opportunity to discuss my beliefs and spiritual journey.

He signs the note,

"Your brother in Christ, H____ M______, Stake President"

2011-01-20T19:14:00.000-08:00

Writing My Stake President--

I sent this e-mail this morning:

President M_____,

I just wanted to inform you that I am now a member of Vintage21 Church in downtown Raleigh.

I have no interest in resigning my membership or severing my LDS connections. Mormonism was and is extremely foundational in who I am and how I look at the world, even as an adult convert. I could just as easily take out my liver as remove the “Mormonness” from my worldview.

I am giving you this information because I am aware that the more recent versions of the Church Handbook of Instruction mention joining another church as grounds for excommunication, although I’m told there is a lot of latitude for local leaders to make their own decisions. I have done what I have done, and if you choose to take this to a church court I would rather just get it over with and not have it hanging over my head as some random event to be worried about in the future.

I am informing you directly because my bishop, Bishop A___, is one of the best men I have known in the LDS church. He has enough problems of others to deal with, without having to decide how to handle this and feeling responsible for any negative consequences. As a Melchizedek priesthood holder you have jurisdiction over this anyway, so you are the best person to decide.

To be clear my “issues” are not with Mormonism as I interpret it from the Book of Mormon and much of the Doctrine and Covenants. Nor have we been offended to any great degree by anyone locally. It has more to do with the institutional church and the oversimplification of the gospel, to include the rich history we have as a people and the breadth of the doctrines preached in the standard works. I cannot sustain a church president who largely remains in Salt Lake City and preaches simple Christian ethics to the faithful and seems to mainly go to temple dedications, as opposed to a lion of the Lord who preaches Christ crucified at every opportunity to audiences both hostile and friendly. And much much more.

Accordingly I can never serve a meaningful role again in the LDS faith community, so I have to belong somewhere I can serve without being considered such damaged goods. Honestly, I feel like Vintage21 Church is closer to the spirit of the Book of Mormon than the current LDS church is, which is why I have taken this step.
Enough about my “issues”, I think. I respect your dedication to serving the Saints in our stake. You have always gone the extra mile in everything you have done, and I think you are truly one of the “good guys” here. Despite everything I have said, I think we have some of the best leaders in this area that can be found in any area of the LDS church. I will respect and abide by whatever decision you choose to make in this matter.

2011-01-19T04:59:00.000-08:00

Crossing the Rubicon --
Well, I did it.

I've been attending Vintage21 Church for about two years, served, tithed, volunteered, attended the required membership class, met with the pastors, etc.

The final step was filling out the on-line membership covenant.

It was a very different experience. When I joined the LDS church I was baptised in front of new friends by priesthood holders who had met with me in my home for a period of months. Previous missionaries came back from other places to share the day with me. I still remember it well.

The process of joining Vintage21 church was much more 21st century. There was a web form to fill out with my personal information, a tithing pledge, radio buttons to click on indicating that I agreed to certain doctrinal and behavioral norms, and finally, at the bottom of the web form, a button labelled "Submit!". Whether that was intentional irony I have no idea. i.e. "submit the form", "submit to the Lord", or all the above.

Since this affected Sarah I wanted to share this with her, so we sat down at the computer together while I filled out the form, we held hands, and I clicked on the "Submit!" button.

The form rejected my entry because I left out a required field. Apparently the angels were not going to descend in rings of flame at this point.

I corrected the entry, Sarah and I held hands, and once I again I attempted to "Submit!".

This time I was successful, and I am now a member of Vintage21 Church, Raleigh North Carolina, with whatever privileges come with that.

The fork in the road has been taken.

Next up: the letter informing my stake president. Will that lead to some kind of disciplinary action, or just become lost in his in-box? Time will tell.

2011-01-16T03:28:00.000-08:00

The Gospel Unchained --
I spent about an hour and a half on Wednesday doing scripture study, basically correlating accounts from different gospels, reading scholarly material on their origins, and writing my own notes and thoughts on what I think it all means.

It's just a blessing to be able to think for myself and to not be constrained by "official" interpretations of what it means. Rather than having the chance to just repeat someone else's opinions or be silent, I can weigh the evidence and make the Gospel mine. I can rely on the Holy Spirit as my guide to figure this out and not some long-dead LDS general authority like Bruce R McConkie or Marion G Romney.

I can draw on any author I choose to expand my understanding, whether it be Billy Graham, Bart Ehrman, or Joseph Smith, and I can acknowledge the truth I find, wherever it may be.

It's great to be unleashed.

2011-01-11T05:15:00.000-08:00

Why Stay, Part 3 --
I was reflecting on this a lot in church on Sunday.

From the LDS perspective I am damaged goods. I cannot pass a temple recommend interview because there's no way I could sustain the current general authorities as "prophets seers and revelators". I think they're entitled to the same inspiration as anyone else who prays to God with real intent, but I don't see them as the Lord's special witnesses, any different from any other preacher, pastor, or evangelist seeking to humbly spread the truth about Christ.

As such I am really not able to be a full part of the LDS community. Most serious callings are off-limits to me, not that I would really want them anyway. I'm forever in a support role, like the Christmas cookie delivery from December, the second banana carrying the plate supporting someone with more credibility. In the LDS church what matters is serving within the church, either presiding or teaching, and I can do neither. The most I could aspire to would be generally made up jobs serving within the LDS community performed under the watchful eye of someone with more credibility.

I contrast this with the opportunities for service in front of me as a member of the church we attend now.

Before the service on Sunday they showed a video about a Boys Club ministry in downtown Raleigh. There are possibilities in front of me for making up packages of food and supplies for less fortunate students at a downtown elementary school. I may go to a meeting tonight for people putting on a chapel service in a local homeless shelter. I can help teach and encourage fellowship in my community group. As a member I could become a deacon and help lead and organize ministries in the church, for example the parking ministry I'm part of now. I can actually make a difference to the less fortunate outside the church and minister in some way to those in it, even if just a greeter helping people find parking spaces and carrying their babies into the building when their hands are full.

I can do something meaningful and not just take notes at someone else's meeting, accompany someone else to a home teaching appointment that nobody wants to be involved in anyway, or haul furniture for people who already have lots of helpers and could realistically afford to pay movers if they chose to.

I can never make a difference in the LDS context. I can make a huge difference in the church I attend now.

Why would I trade meaningful ministry for marginalized irrelevance?

2011-01-07T18:05:00.000-08:00

Why Stay, Part 2 --

I’m part of a community group in the church I’m on trajectory to join. There are three families in our group, because we are the furthest out geographically from where the church meets and there aren’t many others out that far. One family was sick, so that left me and the leaders, a young couple with two small kids. We typically meet weekly.

We read the bible together and talked about the sermon. One of the couple seemed distant and focused mostly on the kids. I finally had to ask, “is anybody mad at me? Am I disrupting something I didn’t know about?” It turned out that this person was struggling with some personal issues and just needed space. We’ve discussed some of these issues before, and we prayed together and went our separate ways.

I had to reflect for a minute on how genuine and honest our meeting had been. We enjoyed each other’s company for the most part. We shared from the scriptures and other related works. I asked an honest question about whether I had given offense, and I got an honest answer back. We prayed together that burdens would be lifted and the pure love of God revealed.

How unlike the similar LDS experience of home teaching this was. We meet because we choose to. Nobody is keeping score. There is no “report” to higher authority. We share. There is no facade that the home teacher is somehow the superior in the relationship and has authority to instruct and to demand accountability (i.e. the quiz the home teacher is supposed to administer about family home evening, family prayer, etc). There isn’t the awkward moment where the home teacher has to give some lesson the family hasn’t had the chance to think about, while the kids either run wild or are forced to sit quietly, meanwhile hoping lightning will strike the home teacher so they can go back to playing normally. We don’t meet out of a sense of dull obligation, all the while checking our watches and hoping the home teachers will shut up and leave. No, this is a mutually satisfying relationship. We meet weekly so we know each other and are honest about our feelings and opinions. Sometimes we share our frustrations about things at church, but not much.

This is just a warm familiar experience, every week.

I have typically been a big fan of home teaching, but this is better because it’s not done out of obligation. It’s done out of the pure love of Christian community.

Why would I trade it for the drudgery of most home teaching visits?

I have no idea.

2011-01-05T16:41:00.000-08:00

Why Stay? --
We attended a great service at our current church on Sunday. I'd like to describe it by way of proving my point, but I know some roll their eyes at listening to others talk about how great their church is. Totally understandable, but please indulge me. If you want, just skip to the end, where I make my point.

The pastor delivered a thoughtful message about defining ourselves. Do we define ourselves by our relationship to those around us? By our relationship to material things? By our relationship to institutions? Or do we define ourselves the way God sees us, by our relationship to Christ? Defining ourselves the way God does allows us to weather a lot of storms at work and in life. Suddenly worldly success doesn't mean that much, so we don't need to stress when job and position and health and wealth are taken away, as they ultimately will be. He tied his sermon to the Bible rather than his own authority, and based his comments on several verses rather than things scattered all over the place quilted together to make a debating point. If you don't believe him, read the words for yourself and see if you see something different.

The music afterwards was phenomenal. Not just the quality, but the response. There was energy in the room, people singing loudly, clapping, raising their hands, and responding with joy at the chance to worship. Not charismatic or anything, but just very enthusiastic and emotional. People were involved in the service.

I just had to contrast this to the times I've attended LDS services lately.

Now, I'm not one who claims that sacrament meetings have to be hugely entertaining. I enjoy listening to talks and generally comparing them to the same talk I have heard dozens of times before on the same subject, considering what I might have said in their place, and singing the hymns. But I fear I'm in the minority. Looking out at the congregation from the stand is usually not much different from sitting in a doctors waiting room. People are not smiling, they look vacant, and they clearly want to be elsewhere most of the time, especially these days when most sacrament talks are just rehashed general conference talks. When the speaker puts themselves into the talk they are hugely enjoyable, but that seems to happen less and less. More and more people just quote large sections of the general conference talk and then bear a short testimony without adding much of their own thoughts.

Regardless of the quality of the content, most people are just not that engaged. They want it to be over. Likewise the singing. I'm embarrassed sometimes to sing in LDS congregations because I sound so loud compared to the few people around me who are singing, especially in the back. In our current church people often sing so loud you have no hope of hearing yourself, no matter how loud you are.

So, here's the point.

I really had to ask myself on Sunday. Sound scriptural teaching and not just somebody's opinion glittered with proof texts from the scriptures or general authorities quoting general authorities quoting general authorities. Energetic emotional worship that engaged the congregation. I was free to be myself and not worry about what other people thought of what I dressed or did during the service. I could just open my heart and respond.

Why would I trade this for an LDS service? Why would I give up this kind of true worship for leaden LDS sacrament meetings where people are just going through the motions? Why would I trade this passionate experience for the equivalent lifeless one?

I really couldn't think of a good reason.

2011-01-01T05:28:00.000-08:00

The Decision Point --
Most of the last few posts I have made here have been leading up to a church service I went to at the church I attend now, Vintage 21 in downtown Raleigh NC. I used to use the phrase "mostly attend", because my wife and I used to divide our attendance between this church and two others: our LDS ward and whatever our current Anglican/Episcopal church was. For various reasons these other churches have kind of fallen by the wayside, and when we attend church we go to Vintage 21.

We went the Sunday before Christmas. There had been a four week sermon series from Isaiah 9:6 during Advent where Christ was elaborated as "Wonderful Counselor", "Mighty God", "Everlasting Father", and in this last sermon "Prince of Peace".

Honestly so far the series was interesting, but not revelational. I've been around the block a few times, and there was not much new to me in the series. It was great to review the names and attributes of Christ, but these were familiar concepts and not earth-shaking.

The last sermon was different.

What I was expecting from "Prince of Peace" was a feel-good sermon about how Jesus will make us get along better with the people around us, love one another, and teach us all to have happier lives by being nicer to each other. We can be happy and just rest from the cares of the world by abiding in the warm glow of his love, sort of like sitting next to a warm fire with a glass or cup of your favorite beverage, with a companion of your preferred gender on one side and a Labrador Retriever on the other. There's a nice picture of Jesus over the fire, portrayed in your preferred ethnic extraction, and he's smiling down at you approvingly.

Except this was not the sermon preached.

Basically our idea of "peace" is the absence of conflict and trials, and that's not a part of the human condition we can realistically ever expect in the long term. In general, even on their best days people tend to be self-centered and difficult, and the human condition is fraught with trials. We are only ever a short time removed from the diagnosis, the suspicious wet spot that appears in the ceiling under the bathroom, the cold morning where it's suddenly 58 degrees in the house, the morning when you check the news and discover that your 401K has dropped 20% in value overnight, the funny little glass pipe you find in your teenager's drawer, the piece of e-mail left up on the screen where your son or daughter is desperately discussing the results of the pregnancy test with someone else. Any other outcome is the world's view of "peace", and it doesn't jibe with reality.

True peace is being reconciled to God, which can only be accomplished through Christ. It's a healed relationship with God, rather than healed relationships with the people around us and with our investments and the house we live in. With a healed relationship with God the other things fall into their proper secondary place. Without it, other things can never compensate, can never paper over the deep crevasse between the spiritual life we want and the one we actually have.

I realized that basically every organization or system I had been a part of before served to focus me on healing my relationship with the organization. I was to align my outward behavior to whatever the leaders dictated or to what the group as a whole expected. There was really no sense of the inner healing described by this sermon.

I don't expect this to necessarily resonate with you, but it did with me. Without getting all preachy, other religious paths were basically closed doors to me for different reasons, and this one was suddenly an open door leading down a path I was being slowly and powerfully drawn to.

The rest of the service was a wonderfully positive experience of pure worship I really can't describe if you weren't there. It just was.

I went up to one of the staff members I had met with before. For the last two years I have been told I can't join this church because of my continuing LDS connection and because my wife and I had to join together or not at all. As a result of the last meeting we had, suddenly the door to membership was being flung open, should I choose to walk through it.

So, all this was going through my mind this past Christmas week. The doors that were closed. The door that was opening to me. Should I walk through it or not?

By the time I got to Christmas Day, the choice seemed clear. I'm walking through it.

2010-12-31T05:58:00.000-08:00

Aloneness and Community --

I found this quote in a book I am reading by Michael Spencer, Mere Churchianity. For some years he was the ringmaster for a website named http://www.internetmonk.com/. He died of cancer this year, but I think this book sums up his philosophy pretty well. Mine also.

A lot of the journey I'm on is described by this quote:

"I want to be one who values relationships and community, but who is not defined by them. I want to have the certainty, confidence, and contentment that come from knowing who I am in the eyes and heart of God, not just who I am in relation to people.

"At the foundation of the Christian life, there is a kind of sacred individuality, a sort of holy aloneness that cries out to be left alone with God. This isn't all of the Christian life. It doesn't erase those parts of a Christian's experience that happen in the context of relationships, but this sacred solitude nees to be discovered, respected, and protected".

Possibly this is a major area the LDS church falls short. So much of the LDS experience is defined by the group that there is really not much structure for establishing a personal relationship with God. Certainly the necessary practices are described, which would be foundational and sincere prayer and scripture study. Yet maybe the end goal isn't laid out very well, nor is a sense of spiritual individualism really valued. Your primary value in the LDS church is your value and relationship to the group, rather than your own intrinsic value. It's not possible to sit in an LDS meeting for more than five minutes without receiving a list of ways to "lengthen your stride" to conform more to the goals of the group.

Alas this is just not who I am as a person, nor is this the Jesus I see in the Bible. The true gospel is about earnestly seeking out the desires of God and conforming to those, as imperfectly as we understand them, and not merely conforming to a group.

2010-12-31T05:52:00.000-08:00

The Christmas Eve Service --
My wife had to work on Christmas Eve, so I went looking for a Christmas Eve service on my own. There's a large Baptist church in a neighboring town that I've been to before. I know a few people there from a Bible Study Fellowship class I was involved in for about three years.

The first time I went to this church's Christmas Eve service it was a real eye-opener. As a Latter-day Saint we are familiar with being instructed, guilted, and exhorted to do more. The idea that Christ has done great things for us is largely presented as evidence that much is expected in return. Very few LDS meetings end without the feeling that you're just not doing as much as you could be doing. They really don't want to encourage a comfort zone, because people need to be busy doing the Lord's work.

The service I went to three years ago was different. Rather than motivating people out of guilt, obedience, or threats, they simply worshiped. The pastor read passages from the Bible and interspersed with that were several devotional musical numbers, a combination of hymns and contemporary worship music. As this church is mixed generational, there was a little something for everyone. It did a really great job of communicating the feelings of hope inherent in the Christmas season, culminating in a candlelight exercise.

They turned out all the lights, leaving one large candle up near the pulpit. It represented the light of Christ. The pastor lit a single candle from the larger one and used this to light candles for a small number of ushers. The ushers went down the aisle and simply lit the candles of the people on the row ends, who lit the candle of the person next to them.

All in all no one did a great work. Each helped maybe six other people light candles, but this produced a wave of light in a room of several hundred people that worked its way back. Before, the room was in darkness. Soon, it was bathed in light, and for the most part all we had to do to achieve that was to share the light with one other person.

Hopefully the message in all this is clear. Generally if we can just share the light of Christ with the people around us, soon our entire surroundings will be bathed in the warm glow of Christian light.

Three years ago it was a beautiful service.

I went the following year, and it was likewise beautiful.

This time was different. Not so much because the service had changed at all, but because I had. As much as I love this church and what they do, I realized that half the musical numbers were the same ones from the previous services. I also noticed that most people didn't really respond much to the performances. Although we sang the hymns together, there was a sense of passion missing.

Probably the thing that hit me the hardest was how comfortable the service was for the people there. Most of the people there (now in a new building seating 600 - 700 people) seemed to know each other. Families sat together. As a stranger sitting by myself I had a boundary of three seats on either side of me until the room just began to fill in completely. The fact that this service was being enjoyed by groups of people, of friends, of families, was not lost on me. The one person who spoke to me was there with her husband and was likewise not a member of this church.

The scriptures were familiar, the songs were familiar, and being part of a family-oriented church was familiar. Although I was a stranger there, were I to join I would know exactly how to play the game, to laugh and make friends and pleasant conversation. There were lots of people my own age, my own race, and my own class. This room was full of people just like me. All I needed to do was to roll the audio tape and put on the mask and I would fit right in. This was a church I could settle right into, know people, come twice a week, get involved in the social groups and Sunday School classes, and would have no need to venture outside for anything.

The one fly in the ointment here is that the gospel was never intended to be comfortable for us. I think we can point to the examples of Jesus and the apostles as confirmation. The apostles were instructed, they were equipped for ministry, and they were sent out. They were never granted a comfort zone, other than the ultimate promise of salvation and the Second Coming. Nor should we expect anything different.

In many ways I think a church should be like a bicycle seat. It should provide a place to sit, yet not be so comfortable that you want to remain there for any length of time. A church is a place of worship and rest from the cares of the world, but it's not a destination. It's a beginning.

The worst thing a church can do is to present an attractive compelling sub-culture that causes you to be a faker to fit into. God made us as individuals, and I think churches should serve to rub off the rough edges that interfere with our ability to be relational with others, yet not interfere with those differences that make us who we are as people.

So, as much as I enjoy the church I attended on Christmas Eve, it was readily apparent that it was not the place for me.

2010-12-29T16:09:00.000-08:00

Addendum: the ward Christmas party --

Another confirming detail for me was the ward Christmas party. I know we had one. I found out because they sent e-mail to the Elders Quorum at the last minute looking for people to do set up and takedown. The one personal invitation I got to it was from the automated notification system on the ward calendar, which showed up two days after the party. It was kind of sad to me that neither my home teachers nor my home teaching companion thought enough of me to invite our family to the party. A trivial thing, and not something I'm really offended by. Just kind of disappointed. An indicator that people really don't care about us that much.

We got some e-mail and a Christmas card from people in our previous ward, but not a single communication from people in our own ward.

2010-12-29T05:27:00.000-08:00

The Dry and Weary Land --

Even though we haven't been to LDS services since July I'm still assigned as a home teacher, companion to someone in a leadership position. I specifically asked to be assigned as a home teacher because I wanted to maintain that connection to the community. Likewise we have always tried to welcome our own home teachers, the missionaries, or anybody else who would like to engage us.

Practically this hasn't worked that well. We're not in the social whirl of the ward, which is a generally young ward, and we are "out of sight, out of mind". Practically folks are busy with their families, and people have been ingrained with the culture of obedience, so that's what the leaders get. Obedience, without a lot of passion.

I went about three months without hearing from our home teachers and finally e-mailed them to set up an appointment in November. We had a nice visit, and they shared a thoughtful message. I didn't e-mail them in December, and we found a plate of cookies with a post it on it wishing us a Merry Christmas on our doorstep. Now, that was a nice gesture, and I appreciated the thought, but our primary phone is my cell phone and I am never more than about twenty minutes from e-mail. I would have really appreciated some kind of personal connection more than cookies and a post it, but we are "inactive", and everybody knows the way you home teach inactives is the non-threatening plate of cookies that will not offend them.

On the other hand, we are friendly, so maybe a message connecting us to the Christmas spirit with the goal of providing spiritual nourishment and maybe even bringing us back?

Sadly we just don't fit into people's pre-defined categories, so too bad for us.

On to my own home teaching appointment this past Wednesday.

We also did the drive-by with plates of cookies, although my companion had segregated the route into people we should make appts with and people we shouldn't (because they wouldn't be home if they knew we were coming). The father of one family in the latter category had a general look of astonishment for the minute we were on his doorstep, like "why are you people doing this?"

The other two families were happy to see us. One family was very active and the other friendly, but not so active. We made really pleasant conversation, and I found myself slipping back into the role of home teacher, telling stories from past visits, talking about "church things", "church people", etc. I can play this part, because I did it well for 20 years. Mostly I loved home teaching and loved the LDS church, but many home teaching assignments are just exercises in getting it over with because the families are either busy or don't want to be bothered. So you talk the talk, touch all the bases (message, "is there anything we can do for you", prayer, and run for the car).

When that was all there was, it was enough.

Now it feels like a dark shell. Although we shared cookies during these visits, we didn't share any of the spirit of Christ. Our mission was obedience. We are supposed to visit, so we visited, but we stayed off of possibly offensive topics which are the true theological reason we are supposed to be visiting in the first place.

I guess the worst thing is that I realized what a fake I am. I can talk the talk of an active home teacher, but I will never fit back into this group again. The signal to noise ratio is too low, by which I mean the ratio of real spiritual experiences and enlightenment to just "busyness", going visiting just to fulfill assignments, sitting through meetings as an act of obedience, hearing the exact same lessons over and over again because of the exhortation for teachers never to stray from the script and follow the Spirit. I don't believe in the absolute authority of the leaders. I believe in the authority of God and of Christ, and trying to hear that message of the still, small voice is increasing like trying to communicate with a Mars probe. Through LDS channels it is still out there, but there's too much intervening interference to get a clear signal.

I can pretend all I want, standing on someone's doorstep with cookies in my hand, but I am really not cut from the same cloth as these people anymore, and we all know it. My perspective is too different, my behavior is too different, what "the gospel" is to me is too different. I will never fit again, even if I wanted to.

I wanted to reference the First Presidency message from January, which arrived in my home just before Christmas, but it's not online yet. I'll add a link to it when it comes up. It was very deflating. I opened it hoping for a Christian message, and instead got a regurgitated exhortation for more missionaries for the LDS church from the church President.

Really the December message was no better: December First Presidency Message

Although it at least references Christ, this is the limpest possible message that could be imagined. It doesn't actually testify of Christ, but instead merely challenges people to think about Christ in the Christmas season. This subject should be a sonnet at Christmas-time, but instead is a little to-do list written on a post it. "Buy milk". "Vacuum the stairs". "Think about Jesus".

One interesting thought is this. Why is the most important message that could possibly be delivered to mankind offered by one of the counselors to the President, while the "Lord's Prophet" instead offers a useless message in January trying to convince people to merely do things? Why wouldn't the Lord's true prophet on the earth take advantage of this opportunity to stand on every street corner, visit every homeless shelter, preach non-stop in the tabernacle, the Conference Center, on BYU-TV, to buttonhole every visitor to Temple Square, to walk through the streets of Salt Lake City, Orem, Provo, and every other populated town in Utah begging people to share the message of Jesus with their neighbors? Why isn't this man acting as Peter, Paul, John, or even Joseph Smith, intent on sharing this message of hope and salvation? As opposed to what clearly interests him most, advocating the institutional needs of the church for more warm bodies filling seats at the MTC and filling the corporate sales force of LDS incorporated?

There is just no content to this any more.

I can do better.

I am going to.

2010-12-28T19:55:00.000-08:00

Choosing a Fork --

This blog has been largely dormant for awhile because I didn't have much different to say. I've been in about the same place spiritually for awhile, kind of stuck between the LDS church on one hand and trying to figure out where I fit into biblical Christianity on the other.

Maybe "stuck" isn't necessarily the best description. I sort of am what I am spiritually and theologically. Functionally I am a star-shaped peg, and what I have available to me are different shaped holes, none of them being star-shaped.

I remain converted to the spirit of Mormonism, or at least that spirit that has so far been most compactly described by Mormonism, which I find exemplified by the first vision story. A 14 year-old boy went into the woods, seeking truth and an answer from God, and he got one. In fact he got a personal appearance from both God and Jesus Christ.

Now, this story has so many versions to it that it's impossible to know what actually happened, or whether anything really happened, but the story itself remains magnetic to me. The prevailing philosophies of the day had "truth" described by authority. Either the authority of a religious institution or the authority of a book that was the physical product of a religious institution. Whether that religious institution was guided by the hand of God is known in the heart of each individual. I believe it was.

But various institutions certainly reserved the right to tell each individual what the meaning of the text was. Did the words empower the apostle Peter, and thus validate the Catholic church? Did the words constrain the aspiring Christian to keep commandments as the pathway to Heaven? Did the words empower the believer through grace so that commandments were really no longer binding? Pick your preferred institution, and thus choose your yoke and your master.

The essence of Joseph Smith's first vision story is that God cares about individuals apart from institutions. Revelation comes to the individual directly from God. The institutional yoke is broken. The heavens are open, to the extent we choose to listen.

That right there is the underpinning of my faith. Whatever we might choose as a church, a creed, whatever, the driving force behind it must be that direct connection to God, achieved through the Holy Spirit. Institutions have value to the extent that they foster that connection, and they are damned to the extent that they impede it.

Modern day mormonism has become everything Joseph Smith's first vision story was supposed to overcome. It has become a large powerful bureaucratic institution that tells people how they must behave, and it supposes to be the conduit through which most meaningful revelation flows from God to the individual.

It has taken its place alongside many other large and powerful religious institutions that choose to use people to serve their institutional ends. It's better than many, if not most, but the fact remains that it impedes that channel of revelation, much as the life-giving waters of the Colorado river are siphoned off, bit by bit, until a mighty river becomes a muddy trickle at its disappointing endpoint, somewhere in Mexico.

So, my star-shaped peg no longer fits into the hole of institutional Mormonism. So where does it fit?

Largely I'm a scriptural Christian. I believe that God has spoken to men in various ways over time, and the most enduring records are found in the scriptures, primarily the books we consider the Old and New Testaments. These books are and always have been the core of my faith. I believe the Book of Mormon reflects a lot of biblical truth, yet there is no shred of historical proof that it is what it claims to be, a record of an ancient people. Nor does the translation process really seem designed to persuade the vast majority of people that a loving God would want to draw to himself. I don't think the Book of Mormon is the cynical fraud that many, if not most, do, because the principles in it reflect such inspired biblical truth. I find it to be a derivative work, inspired fiction, worthy of reading as one of the most influential books of the 19th and 20th centuries, a clear expounder of truth, yet not one that can doctrinally go beyond its biblical foundation.

So, where does all this leave a star-shaped peg in search of a hole to fit into?

Until recently, just sitting on the workbench. I no longer fit into the LDS church. I have a hard-won distrust of denominations and institutional churches. Yet as Christians we cannot stand alone. The core of Christian practice must happen in communities. No church that I felt drawn to would accept me, because my LDS connections and some resulting life circumstances were not acceptable. The points on the star would just not go down the holes.

Thankfully that may have changed.

This has been a pretty influential holiday period, and my direction seems increasingly clear. I'll devote the next few posts to sharing the story, and following that to whatever happens next.

2010-02-14T05:07:00.000-08:00

Why Are You So Afraid? --

Jesus asks the disciples this question in Matt 8:23 - 27. After reading the January 2010 First Presidency Message, (5MB PDF of magazine , illustration on p4) I think he might ask modern day LDS apostles this same question.

So much to cover.

Even the picture associated with the article is shrouded in fear. It shows the appearance of Christ to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, which was certainly the highlight of the Kirtland Temple dedication. Except the actual appearance wasn't out in the open. It happened behind a curtain, so that only they were witnesses to it. The picture in the article only hints at this. Richard Bushman points out in Rough Stone Rolling that there are only 3d person journal accounts of this, Joseph Smith never wrote of it, and few saints at the time were even aware it happened. So, why an illustration that implies it happened in plain view?

It refers to the apostasy in Kirtland following the bank collapses without mentioning Joseph Smith's involvement in it. It moralizes this apostasy as though people just didn't do enough to sustain their faith after all these marvelous experiences, while totally ignoring the flaws in the church leaders that was such a huge factor.

The article itself references D&C Section 88, known as the "Olive Leaf".

What a marvelous section. Fundamentally it recaps a lot of the doctrine on the three kingdoms of glory and gives specific details about the millenium, the Second Coming, the battle of Armageddon, and finishes with some instructions about the operation of the School of the Prophets. It's vast in scope and visionary, turning the mind towards the ultimate victory of Christ and the transformation of the earth into its ultimate paradaisical glory. I'm honestly not sure I've ever read it from that perspective before.

So, where is the fear in this?

I think it points out that the apostles are scared of the gospel.

Rather than using Joseph Smith's vision of Christ and revelations like the Olive Leaf to point to the cataclysmic events of the Second Coming, these are the quotes we are most familar with:

"And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom." (v77)

"Behold, I sent you out to testify and warn the people, and it becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor.
Therefore, they are left without excuse, and their sins are upon their own heads." (v81 - 82)

And of course our perennial favorite:

"Organize yourselves; prepare every needful thing; and establish a house, even a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God;" (v119)

So, we take a miraculous vision to Joseph Smith that was surrounded in mystery and boil out all the nuances surrounding it. We take a fascinating, thought-provoking vision of the millenium and the Second Coming and reduce it to simple pithy aphorisms about behavior improvement. The youth and Primary suggestions at the end of the article (viewable in the PDF version above) solemnly invite the youth to fast, pray, read their scriptures, keep the commandments, follow the Holy Ghost, and remind them that we draw near to the Lord by following Thomas S Monson.

We take a complex period of history in the LDS church from which much can be learned about the flaws of men and the importance of basing our testimony on Christ, and instead imply that if only people had been more faithful their testimonies would have survived?

Why are we so afraid of our history? Why are we so afraid of the majesty of our doctrine? Why are we so afraid?

2010-01-31T16:15:00.000-08:00

On completing the Book of Mormon for the 17th time, I think it’s timely to apply Moroni’s promise in Moroni 10:3 - 5: “Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.”

Indeed, by the power of the Holy Ghost we may truly know all things.

As I’ve read the Book of Mormon I have continually taken the challenge, and I believe. I believe that the things the BOM testifies of are true.

What does it testify of?

The Book of Mormon is another witness of Jesus Christ, that he was and is the Son of God, and that he is God, with no other God before him. The Book of Mormon testifies that Jesus Christ was the God of Israel, that he appeared to the Israelites in a cloud, and that he led them in the wilderness. It testifies that Jesus Christ was the Father of Heaven and earth, and that he came to earth in human form to pay the awful penalty of our sins.

It testifies over and over again that the way to eternal life is through faith in Christ, repentance, baptism, and enduring to the end in our faith and not turning away from the witness of the Holy Ghost and following Satan instead. In Moroni 6:4 it testifies that when Christ came in 3 Nephi that the people were baptized in faith, being saved wholly through the merits of Christ and nothing else.

It demonstrates that through keeping the commandments we have access to his grace. Obviously if keeping the commandments means perfecting ourselves we would have no need of having sins remitted; therefore, we can rely on Jesus for a definition of keeping the commandments, which means to love God with all your heart and mind and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself.

I believe all the things that the Book of Mormon testifies of and I believe in the power of the many inspirational stories.

There are many things the Book of Mormon doesn’t teach.

It doesn’t teach that salvation comes through LDS temple ordinances. It doesn’t teach that you have to be married to more than one woman in the temple to have eternal life. It doesn’t teach that God is an exalted man.

It is primarily written to gentiles and the descendants of the Lamanites to implore them to come unto Christ for their salvation, and it only indirectly testifies of Joseph Smith. It’s a testimony of Christ and not a testimony of Joseph Smith, any later works he might come forward with, or of the institutional church.

There’s a connection we often make, that if the Book of Mormon is true, then therefore Joseph Smith is a prophet and we can trust everything else he said and did. We also assume that that authority he might receive from our testimony of the Book of Mormon can be transferred to his successors. I don’t think the book itself compels us to make those connections. None of those statements are made anywhere in the Book of Mormon. Its purpose is to testify of Christ and not of Joseph Smith, and we have to be careful not to extrapolate from it things it doesn’t say.

I don’t believe that the Book of Mormon really belongs in the canon along with the Old and New Testaments, because it only has one witness, Joseph Smith. The testimonies of the other witnesses are compromised by later statements and by their support of other supposed prophets like James Strang. In any case the only thing the witnesses can testify of is that there were physical plates, if they actually saw or handled them at all. They can’t testify anything about the content or the accuracy of the translation. It wasn’t written in a language they or anyone other than Joseph Smith could read.

Nowhere in the Bible does anything else rest on the testimony of one person. When Moses received the Ten Commandments there were divine manifestations surrounding this event that were visible to all. The cloud was visible to all by day, as was the pillar of fire by night. Certainly the drowning Egyptians were visible to all. Many Old Testament prophets testified of substantially the same message. We have an entire existing Hebrew culture today that has preserved these teachings and witnessed that, whether or not all the events actually happened, the people involved at least existed and taught these things.

In the New Testament we have the witnesses of four different gospel writers and the doctrinal writings of three apostles, all of whom were personal literal witnesses of Christ in the company of others. We have the witness of the early church that the things they taught were substantially in accordance with what people thought were the core doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Never before is such a substantial body of teaching given in a hidden language, with only one person having the power to interpret that language, with no independent evidence that any of the events involved actually happened.

The Book of Mormon is clearly derivative of a more in-depth work. It builds on top of concepts taught in the Bible in an attempt to summarize and clarify them. Some have said that the Book of Mormon addresses every doctrinal controversy raging in Joseph Smith’s day, and it leaves few doctrinal stones unturned. It continually exhorts us to repent and keep the commandments without being specific about what those terms exactly mean.

It doesn’t contain the depth of the New Testament teachings of Christ, including the parables that help us figure out the nuances of Christian life. I think the stories of Abinadi, Alma the Younger, the mission of Ammon to the Lamanites, the sons of Helaman, and the Anti-Nephi-Lehis are tremendous teaching moments about faith and duty to God, but we miss a lot of the subtle teachings of the rest of the New Testament as we are exhorted over and over again to repent and keep the commandments.

It talks about the Nephites keeping Mosaic law without once discussing any of the specifics of that law.

Especially through 3 Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni the target audience of the Book of Mormon is clearly gentiles who are already familiar with Christian teaching and are being called to repentance. The spirit is a spirit of revival. In that spirit the Book of Mormon builds on a framework of existing teachings.

The book is clearly written to convince.

It comes across over and over again as a summary of thousands of years of Jewish and Christian thought. Moses was given a part of the plan, Paul had a part, John had a part, as did many others, but many of the characters in the Book of Mormon have the whole thing. They understand the trinity. They understand salvation by grace. They understand the complex relationship between faith and works, with works not being saving but being an evidence of faith. They have a clear understanding of Christ coming to earth as both God and redeemer to save mankind from their sins.

The brother of Jared even has the astounding vision of the God of Israel, who spoke to Moses from within a cloud and led them with a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. Christ steps out of the cloud and into a physical body, just because of the unsurpassed faith of the brother of Jared. Jesus Christ reveals himself physically and lays out his redeeming mission in complete detail. In about two verses hundreds of years of doctrinal debate over the nature of the trinity and the connection between the God of the Old Testament and the redeemer of the New Testament are put to rest.

Regardless of the truths taught in the Book of Mormon, there’s an aspect of it that just seems “created”, rather than actually being a historical record.

The Book of Mormon is completely black and white. Other than maybe Laman and Lemuel and Zeezrom and perhaps Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah, people are either good or bad. Entire nations either repent or dwindle in unbelief. When a civil war happens the rival camps gather themselves together and fight to the last man. Nobody deserts. Populations don’t flee the destruction. They fight to the death.

This contrasts to the New Testament where most characters other than Christ have both good and bad in them. Judas is a complex character, leading Christ to destruction and then killing himself in despair. Peter denies Christ and then is himself martyred. Christ doesn’t put on the mass demonstrations of his power in the New Testament other than healings, appearing only to a relatively small number of faithful and leaving his resurrection in doubt to some even to this day.

The New Testament has a complex texture that is completely absent in the Book of Mormon. Like comparing a fine cup of freshly brewed coffee with a soda. The coffee mixes the various flavors of the coffee with the cream and the sugar, while the soda is just sugar and water.

The Book of Ether is a curious addition, and seems to taint the rest of it. It’s kind of a letdown because it seems so clearly manufactured. It’s almost a microcosm of the rest of the Book of Mormon. It’s written in a secret language on plates that require seer stones and a seer to interpret, and thus the content comes from just one source. i.e. the “prophet” that interprets it. It tells the story of a people who were removed from a larger group and sent across the ocean to colonize the promised land. People begin in righteousness and are destroyed through sin. Rival groups attempt to annihilate each other and gather in teams to do so, rather than being scattered as refugees as is the rule in human experience.

Only the Book of Ether is more extreme.

The barges are more magical than Nephi’s ship. Whereas Mormon has an army in the hundreds of thousands, Coriantumr’s army is in the millions. Whereas the Lamanites mostly exterminates the Nephites, the people of Shiz and Coriantumr gather millions of people together and literally fight to the last man. All the women and children are armed. There are no refugees. Everybody gathers day after day with the aim of killing each other to the last man. There are countless sons who rebel against fathers and take their kingdoms, or sons who fight to regain their father’s kingdoms, one after the other, over and over again. It has a prophet, Ether, who witnesses the destruction of his civilization through pride and wickedness, just as Moroni does. The exhortations to the gentiles to repent or suffer destruction are repeated almost verbatim. The Book of Ether has every element of the Book of Mormon, only more exaggerated.

I believe it taints the Book of Mormon in the same way some people try to quit smoking by smoking more, to become sick of cigarettes. The Book of Ether has all the fantastic elements of the Book of Mormon in a much shorter time period, without the inspiring sermons or stories that are the jewels of the Book of Mormon. It makes you think that this fantastic story that came through Joseph Smith about barges crossing the ocean and rival groups destroying each other is hardly believable, and then you realize that the Book of Mormon has all the same elements, and it makes you question the rest of it.

The Book of Ether is wildly improbable and just repeats many of the same themes in the other parts of the Book of Mormon. It’s as though somehow the story of the Nephites and Lamanites was too subtle and we needed something more black and white, more obvious, with clearer alternatives between righteousness and wickedness, with more obvious consequences of turning away from God.

The Book of Mormon contains saving truths, whether it’s inspired or a figment of Joseph Smith’s imagination. Rather than testifying of Joseph Smith and his calling as prophet, which is the way we typically use it, it clearly testifies of Christ. That’s its stated purpose and the direction of the content. It’s clearly written to exhort the gentiles of Joseph Smith’s day and afterwards to repent and trust in the merits of Christ for salvation.

The fact that the Book of Mormon exists would probably keep me from leaving the church. The church itself is as much a receptacle of error as truth, but the fact that it holds the Book of Mormon in such high regard would be the only hope that truth would win out over the idolatry towards the institution.

We have largely gotten away from the principles of the Book of Mormon, yet the fact that we encourage people to read it drives those truths deep within their souls, and there’s hope that truth may in fact win out over the institution. Ultimately truth cannot be contained and will win out. The spark cannot be contained, no matter how dim it might be. The Book of Mormon fosters and nurtures the light of Christ, and the light will eventually win out. I believe this to be true as much in spite of the institutional church as because of it.

2010-01-09T05:35:00.000-08:00

More Book of Mormon journal comments --

27 Aug 2009

I just read through the first 11 chapters of 3 Nephi, and a comment about the nature of the Book of Mormon seems appropriate. In these chapters especially the black/white nature of the book is apparent. People are either righteous or they aren’t. Whole groups of people either convert or they don’t. The Gadianton robbers either infiltrate the government or the judicial system or they don’t. The Nephites either gather against the robbers or they don’t. The main characters like Nephi, Jacob, the Helamans, the Ammons, etc, are either righteous or they aren’t, Laman and Lemuel being exceptions, because as their story begins in 1 and 2 Nephi they are sometimes righteous and sometimes not. Possibly Lehi fits into this category also, because although he is a prophet he sometimes wavers and is confused about things.

Possibly this is due to the abridgement by Mormon, because 1 and 2 Nephi have more developed characters and include women, whereas the parts abridged by Mormon typically are black/white and only one woman, a Lamanite servant if memory serves, is called by name.

Contrast this to the New Testament, where Peter and the apostles are well-meaning but not generally with the program, and the 12 apostles are split 11/1 into righteous and unrighteous. Women abound, and gray areas abound.

We often speak of the Book of Mormon as the most correct book, yet the black/white nature and the absence of women doesn’t reflect our lives that well and the nuanced character of our testimonies. We can identify with Peter and Paul much better than we can identify with Nephi, who is clearly a cartoon character. Possibly Enos is a better fit, and possibly Alma, but the Book of Mormon characters are all firm in the faith and perform great deeds, while we limp along doing our best to figure out matters of faith. The Book of Mormon prophets spring forth fully formed in their faith, while Peter and Paul struggle to figure out the details.

For most people I think the New Testament is something they can relate to better. We can easily relate to Peter’s denial of Jesus, because we do that every day. The uncompromising faith of the Nephite prophets is less accessible.

29 Aug 2009

Having made it through 3 Ne 19 today I went back and re-read the accounts of Jesus’ ministry after his resurrection in the Bible in order to compare the accounts. 3 Ne has always left me kind of lukewarm before, because Christ lacks a certain sense of humility in 3 Ne that is present in the New Testament. I got more insight into that this morning.

In the New Testament Christ has 3 years to get his message across, to heal and to preach. He preaches openly to the multitude in the beginning and then to progressively smaller audiences (in general) because people come for the miracles and fall away because of his hard teachings. Plus it’s not safe for him to appear in public any more because of the opposition of the leaders. By the end of the New Testament he’s had the chance to teach those who will listen, and the only followers he has left is just a small number of disciples. Only the women have enough faith to actually go to the tomb and witness the resurrection firsthand.

By contrast, in 3 Ne the people have been through a whipsaw of faith and apostasy, over and over again. Even the disciples (apostles) need to start over and be baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

By the end of the New Testament Christ is appearing just to small numbers of people, whom he ministers to individually.

In 3 Ne he doesn’t have that luxury, because they haven’t had the personal visitations the New Testament crowd has had. He has to do the mass healings and baptisms because they haven’t had the opportunity to have those things. He has three years of ministry to pack into just a few days. He has to preach himself as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and heal and baptize, because there isn’t the time to toy around with parables as in the New Testament. Much of the flow of the New Testament is a winnowing out process, and this has already been done in 3 Ne. Those that didn’t believe are largely dead. People separated themselves out by belief, and like Sodom and Gomorrah the unbelievers were destroyed. The remainder are true believers.

Of course the difference in response is interesting. In 3 Ne all believe and all fall to the earth. In Matt 28:17 even as the great commission is being delivered some are doubting. Whether the doubters are among the apostles depends on your reading of the text, but it seems likely.

In the early chapters of 3 Ne people separate themselves into belief groups where people are either faithful or not, and the unfaithful are destroyed. This is much more black and white than in the New Testament, where the reaction is mixed. Even the disciples/apostles aren’t uniformly convinced. Jesus doesn’t put on the convincing performance at the end, raining destruction through earthquakes and floods and destroying unbelievers and leaving the rest gasping for breath. He merely says “put your hands into my side and feel my wounds and believe”. The resurrection is the “sign”, so perhaps there’s not the need for the convincing display found in 3 Ne. The wheat and tares are still growing together, whereas in the Book of Mormon the winnowing out is much further along.

2009-12-30T04:34:00.001-08:00

The Importance of Faith vs Ordinances --

It’s interesting to contemplate the discussion of salvation in the Book of Mormon. You have these multiple consistent expositions of faith that are precursors to LDS temple work. Consider the people of Ammonihah, burned for their beliefs. Consider Nephi, Abinadi, Enos, and Jacob, their faith and their testimonies.

Here are some of my favorite selections from the Book of Mormon on salvation:

2 Ne 9 deserves to be read in its entirety, as it's a wonderful sermon.

Many verses in this point to the orthodox Christian trinity, original sin, and concepts of hell, but for my purposes the meat is here: 2 Ne 9:21 - 26. I think this states pretty unambiguously that salvation comes through faith, repentance, baptism, and enduring to the end. All because of the power of the atonement.

Here's another great one: 2 Ne 25:23-30

And how could we not mention the story of Enos? This is a story that warms the evangelical Christians heart. He wrestles with his faith before God in prayer and receives a remission of his sins because of his faith. Consider the elegant simplicity of this statement from God: "wherefore, go to, thy faith hath made thee whole."

Compare that with a more modern alternative: "wherefore, go to, thy faith hath made thee whole. After, of course, you abstain from coffee, alcohol, tobacco, and tea, sustain the apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators, sustain all your other leaders, attend all your church meetings, magnify any and all responsibilities your leaders assign you, get a temple recommend from your bishop, and travel to the nearest temple to receive all the necessary priesthood ordinances".

Consider also the ancient original apostles of Jesus Christ in Israel, martyred for their faith. Consider Peter, Paul, James, their faith and their testimonies.

Consider all the wonderful examples of faith we have considered, from both the New Testament and Book of Mormon, locked outside the door of heaven until a 12 year-old is baptized for them by proxy and a distracted temple recommend holder sits through an endowment session for them, and a gang of temple workers does their sealings. Even Paul, despite his great faith, is locked outside the doors of eternal life without proxy ordinances done by teenagers and distracted adults.

What does that say about the importance of priesthood authority relative to the importance of faith? It essentially says that depth in faith is not that important relative to priesthood authority, considering that the faith of an eight year-old to be baptized and the worthiness of a 12 year-old to go through temple ordinances and the attention of a gang of temple workers doing mass sealings trumps the level of faith of those for whom the work will be done.

2009-12-27T14:04:00.000-08:00

11 August 2009 - Enthusiasm
(This section was written when I was about a third of the way through and reflects a sense of youthful enthusiasm and rediscovery. In many ways this is almost an allegory of most people's journey in the church, when it's still new and exciting and fresh)

Being reintroduced to the BoM after four years of studying other things, I find it to be a jewel. It’s an amazingly consistent exposition of the kind of “processed” evangelical thought not found in the Bible. What you get in the New Testament is the raw pieces. The commandments. Mosaic law including the sacrifices. Jesus’ ethical teachings. Paul’s teachings on the divinity of Christ and the doing away with the law by Christ’s coming, how we are no longer justified by the law, how we are saved by grace through Christ. Paul’s ethical teachings.

The Book of Mormon processes this doctrine and assembles it into a coherent outline, an “elevator speech” if you will, that sums it up. In many ways the Book of Mormon is almost like a series of setups for the speeches of the major characters. It begins with the speeches of Nephi, Jacob, Benjamin, and Abinadi on God coming to earth as a man and paying the price for our sins. The basic plan of salvation, repeated as a consistent theme by each speaker. It then moves on to Alma, who introduces the theme of revival and more fully lays out heaven and hell.

Then we have the opponents, like the horsemen of the apocalypse, each of whom represents a form of evil. Sherem, the anti-Christ. Nehor, priestcraft. Korihor, atheism. Amlici, political ambition.

I find tremendous truth in the Book of Mormon, because it’s the most coherent exposition of evangelical thought found in the scriptures. It most clearly lays out the orthodox trinity, which is not even mentioned in the Bible, and connects up God coming to earth in human form to accomplish our salvation.

One of the most difficult things to figure out in Christian thought is the balance between works and grace. On one hand the Bible talks about grace, and on the other hand it talks about works, but it’s never clear just how our thoughts on the toxicity of sin and the importance of ethical behavior impact our salvation by grace, because the subjects are never really dealt with together in the Bible.

We seem to get that in the Book of Mormon, which is repetitively clear that salvation is accomplished by faith and trust in Christ, repentance, which is a turning of our hearts toward God and away from sin, baptism for the remission of sins, and a process of enduring to the end. Keeping our focus on God and away from wickedness. Keeping the commandments to the best of our ability. Remaining strong in the faith and not returning to our self-centered ways. If your viewpoint is that we don’t have eternal security in our salvation, the Book of Mormon is the clearest, most concise, and most consistent summary of what you need to do to be saved and stay saved and to be a person of faith.

In addition to being a repository of some of the best preaching in the scriptures, outside the Sermon on the Mount, which is mostly concerned with ethical behavior, the Book of Mormon also has the best stories and the most inspiring characters.

Nephi and his persistent faith in the face of opposition by his brothers and the family of Ishmael. Enos and his coming to Christ for the forgiveness of sins. The martyrdom of Abinadi and his lecturing of the priests of Noah. The impact of Abinadi’s one convert, Alma. The radical turnaround of Alma the Younger, which is an inspiration for any father of a wayward son. The martyrdom of the Christians in Ammonihah and the conversion of Zeezrom. The servanthood of Ammon and his mission to the Lamanites, becoming a servant to a bloodthirsty people in order to bring them to Christ. The faith of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis as they are slaughtered by their brother Lamanites, and their example that brings even more of the Lamanites to faith in Christ.

And more will be added to this list as I finish the book. It would be much harder to be a Christian without these examples of faith to look to for inspiration.

As to the authorship of the Book of Mormon, I definitely believe it’s inspired of God. Even with notes in front of them and a reference library of evangelical preaching to draw from, it would be difficult to write a book like this. Imagine having to craft it and then repeat it back to a scribe while looking at a rock in a hat, never going back to correct words or to re-craft a story line. Think about J. K. Rowling having to dictate the Harry Potter books like this, and the Book of Mormon is much more carefully crafted in terms of the themes it teaches than those books. It’s clearly a masterpiece of some kind of revelation.

Is the Book of Mormon historical? I don’t think so. The story lines are too carefully crafted to represent real people. The characters are too perfect, and the crowds are too consistent. When anyone preaches, all are converted. All reform. To a man and woman they all respond, and human nature just isn’t like that. Just where are the women in the Book of Mormon also? The Old and New Testaments are from a very patriarchal Hebrew society, yet women have consistently important roles to play. In the Book of Mormon women are very much on the sidelines, yet personal experience tells us that women are always the first to respond in faith.

There is positively no Hebrew influence on Native American culture or language, nor is there any remnant of the Hebrew or “reformed Egyptian” language to be found, yet people could consistently read the writings on the plates for a thousand years, up until at least 400 A.D. The Nephites and Lamanites had very complex cultures based on trading, they had written language, they had records, and absolutely none of this survives. Not one artifact with Hebrew or Egyptian language survives. Not one word in any Native American language that can be traced to Hebrew.

Does that mean it’s not “true”? Just what is truth, anyway? Does something need to be historically true to be “true”? I think the truth of the Book of Mormon is in its content and the fact that we read the Book of Mormon and come to Christ and salvation as a result. The Book of Mormon is true in the sense that it’s another testament of Jesus Christ, perhaps the most consistent one found in the scriptures. It’s true in the sense that it leads us to greater faith and commitment. It leads us to greater faith and perseverance. It inspires us to endure to the end in the hopes of achieving the salvation that was the goal of the main characters in the Book of Mormon. That is the ultimate truth.

2009-12-27T13:56:00.000-08:00

Intro to Book of Mormon summary --

Over the summer I re-read the Book of Mormon for the 17th time. Typically what I did for times 1 - 15 was to try to read the Book of Mormon over a longer period of time. Say, a year. At least one time was in Spanish, and one time was over a multi-year period as part of our family scripture study, which gives you a window into how regular our family scripture study was at the time.

The 16th time was as part of Gordon B Hinckley's "Book of Mormon Challenge" in 2005, which was extremely appropriate for me because I was beginning my real crisis of LDS faith.

The last two times have probably been the best, because I think re-reading it in a shorter period of time allowed me a broader scope of it. I can still remember the beginning while reading the end, and the themes show up better.

Periodically I wrote summaries of my thoughts at the time.

I wanted to put these down for awhile in order to filter them through more perspective. (Of course involving no procrastination at all. No, not any) I have the time now at the end of the year, so this seemed like a good time to start to post them.

My initial idea was to post one large writeup, but in re-reading my entries they become less positive over the course of the book. In retrospect I think it's better to post them as I wrote them, so my feelings about each section are a little less "processed". So, over the next few days I'll put them up, as I get time to do a little editing.

As always, just my thoughts, worth what you paid for them. I don't include specific citations for much of what I claim. If that was useful I guess I could probably assemble that for the last entry, so as not to distract from the flow of the rest. Let me know if somehow that would be useful.

2009-11-28T05:08:00.000-08:00

The Joseph Smith Manual and the Ellipses--

This is just too good not to post.

From p511 of the JS manual:

“I … hold the keys of the last kingdom, in which is the dispensation of the fullness of all things spoken by the mouths of all the holy Prophets since the world began, under the sealing power of the Melchizedek Priesthood.”

I was intrigued by those ellipses and decided to look up the actual quote from "History of the Church". Now, here's the actual quote in context:

"Shall I, who have witnessed the visions of eternity, and beheld the glorious mansions of bliss, and the regions and the misery of the damned,--shall I turn to be a Judas? Shall I, who have heard the voice of God, and communed with angels, and spake as moved by the Holy Ghost for the renewal of the everlasting covenant, and for the gathering of Israel in the last days,--shall I worm myself into a political hypocrite? Shall I, who hold the keys of the last kingdom, in which is the dispensation of the fullness of all things spoken by the mouths of all the holy Prophets since the world began, under the sealing power of the Melchizedek Priesthood,--shall I stoop from the sublime authority of Almighty God, to be handled as a monkey's cat-paw, and pettify myself into a clown to act the farce of political demagoguery? No--verily no! The whole earth shall bear me witness that I, like the towering rock in the midst of the ocean, which has withstood the mighty surges of the warring waves for centuries, am impregnable, and am a faithful friend to virtue, and a fearless foe to vice,--no odds whether the former was sold as a pearl in Asia or hid as a gem in America, and the latter dazzles in palaces or glimmers among the tombs.

"I combat the errors of ages; I meet the violence of mobs; I cope with illegal proceedings from executive authority; I cut the guardian knot of powers. and I solve mathematical problems of universities, with truth--diamond truth; and God is my 'right hand man.'"

Now, the LDS church is to be commended for providing the citation, but can you imagine the full quote ever showing up in a talk or lesson? I don't know that it's totally different in the actual facts communicated than the original, but the tone is totally different.

I love the phrase at the end: "God is my 'right hand man'". I believe JS needed to keep his ego in a little better check. I provided links to both originals for the curious.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=59f8b00367c45110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD

http://www.kristus.dk/jkk/text.php?id=90253

2009-11-23T10:00:00.000-08:00

Toxicity --

There are some combinations of scriptures and correlated LDS materials that are unpredictably toxic for me, like mixing ammonia and chlorine bleach. Unfortunately I happened to hit one this morning.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%206:25-40&version=NIV

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=3ce8b00367c45110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=59f8b00367c45110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD

This is I believe the key sequence of verses in the John passage:

Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." . . . Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. . . . . For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

This whole section in John should fill anyone who has come to faith in Christ with an exuberant hope. The law is dead, along with the hundreds of commandments required to be reconciled to God. What remains is faith in Christ and throwing ourselves on his mercy for salvation. Not just eternal life at the end of our earth lives, but some measure of relief from our burdens in this life as well, as we come to Christ and seek to lay our cares at his feet, as we trade our imperfections for his perfection and our brokenness for his grace.

Then I had to go and read two sections in the Joseph Smith lesson manual back to back. Big mistake.

The first is a paean to Joseph Smith. This statement naturally caught my attention:
“[The Prophet was] incomparably the most God-like man I ever saw. … I know that by nature he was incapable of lying and deceitfulness, possessing the greatest kindness and nobility of character.”

Of course we know that the entire “restoration” was steeped in deceit about polygamy and many other things such as the reprisals the Saints executed in Far West, the existence of the Council of Fifty, and other things too numerous to mention.

The second was a paean to the entire “restoration” that brought back so many memories of what I used to believe about the LDS church.

For about six years my mother was the smartest person I knew, and the one I relied on for guidance. I thought she was perfect. I wondered how I could ever live my life without her wisdom and guiding hand. That feeling passed in my teenage years. She died in 2002, and I went through those horrible experiences in nursing homes, and finally in an ICU with her head shaved and without her being able to recognize me or anyone else.

I went through that experience once.

By contrast I loved the vision of the LDS church I had for over twenty years, during the formative days of young adulthood. I likewise thought it was perfect and wondered how I could ever live without it. That feeling passed when I used google to refresh my memory on the temple recommend questions and began to learn the truth that had been kept from me for so long. My grief from the death of my innocence about the LDS church was much worse than my grief over my mother. She was old, and it was time to go. By contrast the LDS church was almost my second bride. At times maybe my first, as I knew it would never fail me or desert me. I never cried over my mother. I cried repeatedly over the LDS church.

And often when I read things out of the correlated lessons or the Ensign, that grief comes back. Those visions of a shining city on a hill, those memories of those people dressed in white in the temple that I knew would look just like that in the Celestial Kingdom. It all comes back. Over and over again.

Today was a two Starbucks morning. I needed that much of a caffeine jolt to snap out of the pit of depression I was thrown into.

That, and the lyrics to the following songs from the “Glory Revealed II” album. They were a reminder to me that the true gospel turns us toward Christ and His Father and not towards fallible men and their equally fallible institutions. Placing our faith in Joseph Smith and the deceptions we are told about him now will always cause the world to come crashing down at our feet at some point or another. Only by placing our complete trust in Christ can we have any hope of real peace in this life or in the world to come.

Praise the Lord
============
Praise the Lord, oh my soul
I will praise the Lord as long as I live
I will sing praises to my God
Even with my dying breath

He is the One who made Heaven and Earth
The sea and everything in it
He is the One who keeps every promise forever
He gives justice to the oppressed
And sets the prisoner free

He is the One who feeds the hungry
And opens the eyes of the blind
He lifts up the burdens of those beneath heavy loads
The stranger, He protects

And the righteous one He loves
The Lord will reign forever
Our God is King to all generations
The Lord will reign forever Our God

We will praise the Lord, oh my soul
We will praise the Lord as long as we live
We will sing praises to our God
Even with our dying breath

And this one:

To You Be The Glory
================
Who could hold the wealth of god?
Such treasure found in him
Who could comprehend his heart and mind?
His wisdom has no end
For from him, through him, to him are all things
From him, through him, to him are all things

Chorus:
To you be the glory, forever
To you be the glory, lord, amen
To you be the glory, forever
To you be the glory, lord, amen

Verse 2:
Who has known the mind of god?
Who has counseled him?
Who has given gifts to god
That he might be repaid?
For from him, through him, to him are all things
From him, through him, to him are all things

Chorus:
To you be the glory, forever
To you be the glory, lord, amen
To you be the glory, forever
To you be the glory, lord, amen

Bridge:
In dark and light, in death and life
When hard times enter in
In all things we will worship you
With you there is no end

Chorus:
To you be the glory, forever
To you be the glory, lord, amen
To you be the glory, forever
To you be the glory, lord, amen
For from him, through him, to him are all things
From him, through him, to him are all things

2009-11-03T04:19:00.000-08:00

More of the same --

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=10a8b00367c45110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD

Lesson 38 in the Joseph Smith manual reprints the Wentworth letter.

There were some good things about this lesson.

As near as I can figure they reprint the letter in its entirety and include familiar (yet unfamiliar, if people really consider the words) stories about Book of Mormon translation methods and other things. The footnotes point out that there are multiple versions of the first vision, and that this is not the canonical one found in the Pearl of Great Price.

The unfortunate thing that struck me about it, though, was Joseph Smith's description of the Missouri persecutions. Again he gives the impression that they were peaceful people just trying to live in harmony with their neighbors, who rose up against them out of misunderstandings. All the persecutions are made out to be one-sided, when the historical reality is quite different.

This article IMHO is quite a good summary, based on information I have read before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_War_(1838)

I don't believe that every church class, lesson, or handbook has to present absolutely all the historical details, but I do believe that they should reflect the general tone of what took place. Positioning the mobbings that took place in Missouri and other places as unprovoked persecution is simply not true. It's deceptive, and harmful to people's testimonies when they discover that the LDS church has not been honest with them about its orgins, and that its leaders have not told the complete truth.

As in my previous post I have to ask the question, "why must Mormonism be shrouded in such deception?"

2009-11-01T16:07:00.001-08:00

Why Must Mormonism Be Steeped in Such Deception? --

I was just not going to do this. I was having a relaxed Sunday today and was trying to enjoy a positive Sabbath devoted to the things I believe in, rather than some kind of death spiral with the issues that depress me and make me angry.

I was reading what seemed like such a positive article about evangelical dialogue with Mormons in Christianity Today:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/november/11.23.html

And then I just had to come across this statement:

"The LDS scriptures teach a plurality of gods (in the Book of Abraham, though Mormons reject the label polytheistic) and the millennial prospect that human saints will be "made equal with" God.

Smith asserted other radical beliefs in an 1844 discourse shortly before he was assassinated while running for U.S. President. He revealed "the great secret" that God the Father "was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man," and that humans will progress to "become Gods … the same as all Gods have done before you." His discourse was transcribed by four aides, published by the church, later included in its compilation of his teachings, and officially reaffirmed thereafter.

Mouw believes such thinking "has no functioning place in present-day Mormon doctrine," based on statements from Millet and church leaders. He also noted that in How Wide the Divide?, Robinson said these controversial beliefs are not official doctrine and were never incorporated into Mormon scriptures. But LDS officialdom has never repudiated Smith's tenets."

Now, Richard Mouw is president of Fuller Theological Seminary, and I have no reason to believe that he's either an idiot or has a hearing problem, so I have to take this statement at face value and assume that it's an accurate reflection of what Robert Millet and other "church leaders" have probably told him.

Now, anybody who has read the latest Joseph Smith manual and keeps up on General Conference talks and reads the Ensign knows that the idea that we have abandoned either the doctrine of exaltation or of God having once been a man is pure fantasy. This is doctrine that we may dissemble about in public ("I don't know that we teach that anymore"), but both are central elements of LDS theology, as much as many might wish that they would go away.

I just have to think about Elder Ballard's commencement address at BYU suggesting we don't practice polygamy and that the question should just go away (we do practice it and it won't go away), and it makes me wonder why Mormonism must always be steeped in such deception about its doctrines, history, and practices. This deception just seems so endemic to everything we communicate, whether it's Joseph Smith and his wives, General Authorities and their "living allowances" (i.e. their salaries as paid ministers), polygamy, the First Vision, Thomas B Marsh and the cream strippings myth, and I could just go on and on. The LDS church was deceptive about polygamy from the very beginning, until the 1850s, and is still deceptive about the extent of post-manifesto polygamy, which continued into the mid 20th century.

Why can't we just tell the truth? Why is it invariably those who are closest to us that are the most deceived? If God is truly behind this work, what is it we are so afraid of?

2009-10-21T04:09:00.000-07:00

Redemption for the Dead, Part II

Tied to the previous lesson from the Joseph Smith manual, which I blogged about before, is lesson 36, “Receiving the Ordinances and Blessings of the Temple”:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=b788b00367c45110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD

Spending most of my time around biblical Christians these days there are some nuances on this subject that are not necessarily that meaningful to most Latter-day Saints. In some ways I was looking for specific things to be offended about and didn’t necessarily find those things, mostly because the lesson wasn’t that specific about them. It tends to refer to “ordinances of salvation” with sort of a broad brush, without being specific about what ordinances might be involved in specific aspects of salvation.

For me, even when I was a believing Latter-day Saint, there were nuances to this subject because of all the various kingdoms involved. From the LDS view “salvation” could be a range of things from just being in “Heaven” to becoming a king and priest unto the most high God to achieving “exaltation”, i.e. godhood. My viewpoint was always that salvation was sort of a graded event with a number of different possible outcomes, depending on worthiness, ordinances, and ultimately what kind of place your faith would lead you to want to spend time and all eternity.

Well, the lesson doesn’t really get into that and just isn’t very specific in that way. Probably representative statements are these:

““The question is frequently asked, ‘Can we not be saved without going through with all those ordinances, etc.?’ I would answer, No, not the fullness of salvation. Jesus said, ‘There are many mansions in my Father’s house, and I will go and prepare a place for you.’ [See John 14:2.] House here named should have been translated kingdom; and any person who is exalted to the highest mansion has to abide a celestial law, and the whole law too.”15

“All men who become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ will have to receive the fulness of the ordinances of his kingdom; and those who will not receive all the ordinances will come short of the fulness of that glory.”16

So clearly to receive the fullness of salvation all the ordinances must be received, which I think we can reasonably assume to mean temple marriage.

So I think any cathartic goal I might have had to rip this lesson to shreds in that way is just going to be frustrated.

I will comment on a few things I found just plain wrong about this lesson, possibly more because of misleading impressions it might give than what it might actually say.

This statement would be my poster child:

“In March 1844, the Prophet met with the Twelve and the Nauvoo Temple committee to discuss how to allocate the Church’s meager resources. In this meeting, the Prophet said: “We need the temple more than anything else.” "

You can probably twist this statement different ways, but fundamentally what it says is not true.

We do not need the temple more than anything else. We need the blessings of the atonement more than anything else.

You might say that the temple is the place we go to get the fullness of those blessings, but this obsessive focus on the temple itself encourages an unhealthy idolatry. It causes us to think about the mechanics. The building, the hoops you have to jump through to get a temple recommend, your personal “worthiness”, the authority of the person who signs the recommend who functionally stands between you and eternal life if you can’t convince them you’re worthy, etc.

To the extent that temple ordinances have any actual impact on our eternal life, the miracle and power behind those ordinances is what Jesus did in the garden of Gethsemane and on the cross, and there is simply no other responsible way to present this subject.

There was one quote from the lesson I thought verged on the bizarre:

“If a man gets a fulness of the priesthood of God, he has to get it in the same way that Jesus Christ obtained it, and that was by keeping all the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord. … “

I find any number of things to be offensive about this statement. It’s odd in general to think of the great God who created heaven and earth, who spoke and brought the known universes into existence, having to be evaluated by some kind of scorecard, just like we are, and having to receive ordinances, I assume directly from the hand of God the Father, as there was nobody else to administer them. I’m somehow imagining God the Father dressed in a white polyester suit standing behind an altar and pushing buttons to roll the film, while Jesus Christ has a little slip of paper pinned to his robe with his name on it. Then I start to think about having to stand in the prayer circle, I assume with Heavenly Mother, and it goes downhill from there.

Probably the thing that is most offensive is that this idea, conceptually similar to the King Follett sermon, brings Christ down to our level. He has to follow the same rules and system we do, which at the same time diminishes the glory and authority of Christ and exalts the scorecard, the ordinances, and the “rules” we have to follow for eternal progression.

I reject both ideas.

Christ is incomparably holy. He defines holiness and perfection. And the “system” we have established for salvation in the LDS church in the latter days is a fraud. Man is created as an imperfect being for reasons we don’t totally understand, and we achieve eternal life through faith and the merits of the Christ and not primarily through our own efforts or ordinances administered by fallible human beings. The New Testament and Book of Mormon are crystal-clear on this. I don’t understand why the LDS church has chosen to twist the foundational scriptures in this way.

In general the problem with lessons like this is not the underlying doctrine or practice, with some obvious exceptions. I think it would be totally possible to present this subject in a balanced way that gave glory to God, reinforced the principles of salvation by faith through the merits of Christ, and helped people to appreciate the power of Joseph Smith’s words and the beauty of the ordinances. Instead the brains behind this lesson choose to reinforce the authority of LDS church leaders and to twist this doctrine and these practices into some kind of weird para-Christian cult, and I find this perpetually disappointing.

2009-10-21T03:58:00.000-07:00

Why do I do this? --

As time goes on I find myself drifting out of the "evaluation" phase of my disaffection with the LDS church and into the advocacy phase. Before we were kind of studying all this out together to try and figure it out. Now I have basically made my decision and am trying to point out things to help clarify other people's thinking.

Why?

To destroy the church or something similar? Not at all. I have no hope whatsoever of influencing the institutional LDS church. I might, however, help alleviate some of the cognitive dissonance people unconsciously feel as they experience the disconnect between doctrine and practice. I think being able to see it for what it is helps people process it in healthier ways.

Another point my wife made is that there are a lot of people trying to deconstruct the LDS church based on historical or cultural issues. There aren't many people out there deconstructing it from the inside based on doctrinal issues, because most people who get to this point just hang up their cleats and leave. So maybe it's useful to approach the LDS church from the truly believing perspective of someone who has actually studied the scriptures, believes them to be generally true, and wants the LDS church to be consistent with what should be its own teachings.

2009-10-17T03:49:00.000-07:00

Latter-day Saint Ethical Life

A link to this showed up in my inbox this morning.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-mormon-ethic-of-civility

I thought it was interesting that several LDS general authorities were quoted, and quotes like this:

"Latter-day Saint ethical life requires members to treat their neighbors with respect, regardless of the situation."

attempt to inspire behavior based on church membership.

Nowhere was Christ quoted, from either the Book of Mormon or the Bible. So, who is our authority in the LDS church? What is our primary allegiance? To the institutional church, or to Christ? Pointing people to Thomas Monson and "the Church" just doesn't have the power of pointing them to Christ and the cross.

2009-10-16T03:54:00.000-07:00

Redemption for the Dead –

Having spent the summer re-reading the Book of Mormon and a loooong book on Systematic Theology from the Reformed viewpoint, I find myself getting caught up on lessons from the priesthood manual. Haven’t been to my ward since May, but I’m still committed to staying up on the priesthood lessons and the Ensign, so long as my name is still on the record books. Some apostate I am, but I digress.

This morning I made my second trip through lesson 35 in the Joseph Smith manual, entitled “Redemption for the Dead”:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=bb78b00367c45110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD

This is an important subject for me. The arbitrariness of one person being saved forever in Heaven because they said a little prayer, while some equally good or evil person being damned because they failed to say a little prayer, is one of the things that drew me to the LDS church in the first place. I found the doctrine to be systematic, consistent, and fair (at least according to my logic).

This is going to be a yin/yang post, so don’t judge the content until you’ve read to the end. I both liked this lesson and hated it for various reasons, so I guess this will perpetuate both the love affair I’ve always had with the LDS church as well as the current road to apostasy, leading straight to Hell, that I’m currently on.

First the carrot.

In general the principles actually articulated in this lesson come closest to what I actually doctrinally believe. I’ve studied this subject and don’t believe that God will arbitrarily condemn some people to a fiery Hell, where the wicked are continually burning but never consumed, because of an accident of birth or circumstance. Joseph Smith says this much better than I do.

Quote:
“The idea that some men form of the justice, judgment, and mercy of God, is too foolish for an intelligent man to think of: for instance, it is common for many of our orthodox preachers to suppose that if a man is not what they call converted, if he dies in that state he must remain eternally in Hell without any hope. Infinite years in torment must he spend, and never, never, never have an end; and yet this eternal misery is made frequently to rest upon the merest casualty [chance]. The breaking of a shoe-string, the tearing of a coat of those officiating, or the peculiar location in which a person lives, may be the means, indirectly, of his damnation, or the cause of his not being saved.

“I will suppose a case which is not extraordinary: Two men, who have been equally wicked, who have neglected religion, are both of them taken sick at the same time; one of them has the good fortune to be visited by a praying man, and he gets converted a few minutes before he dies; the other sends for three different praying men, a tailor, a shoemaker, and a tinman; the tinman has a handle to solder to a pan, the tailor has a button-hole to work on some coat that he needed in a hurry, and the shoemaker has a patch to put on somebody’s boot; they none of them can go in time, the man dies, and goes to hell: one of these is exalted to Abraham’s bosom, he sits down in the presence of God and enjoys eternal, uninterrupted happiness, while the other, equally as good as he, sinks to eternal damnation, irretrievable misery and hopeless despair, because a man had a boot to mend, the button-hole of a coat to work, or a handle to solder on to a saucepan.

“The plans of Jehovah are not so unjust, the statements of holy writ so [illusory], nor the plan of salvation for the human family so incompatible with common sense; at such proceedings God would frown with indignance, angels would hide their heads in shame, and every virtuous, intelligent man would recoil.

“If human laws award to each man his deserts, and punish all delinquents according to their several crimes, surely the Lord will not be more cruel than man, for He is a wise legislator, and His laws are more equitable, His enactments more just, and His decisions more perfect than those of man; and as man judges his fellow man by law, and punishes him according to the penalty of the law, so does God of Heaven judge ‘according to the deeds done in the body.’ [See Alma 5:15.] To say that the heathens would be damned because they did not believe the Gospel would be preposterous, and to say that the Jews would all be damned that do not believe in Jesus would be equally absurd; for ‘how can they believe on him of whom they have not heard, and how can they hear without a preacher, and how can he preach except he be sent’ [see Romans 10:14–15]; consequently neither Jew nor heathen can be culpable for rejecting the conflicting opinions of sectarianism, nor for rejecting any testimony but that which is sent of God, for as the preacher cannot preach except he be sent, so the hearer cannot believe [except] he hear a ‘sent’ preacher, and cannot be condemned for what he has not heard, and being without law, will have to be judged without law.”10

End quote.

Having studied 1 Peter several times, and also having read non-LDS analyses of it, I generally agree with his reading of it:

“Peter, also, in speaking concerning our Savior, says, that ‘He went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which sometimes were disobedient, when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah’ (1 Peter 3:19, 20). Here then we have an account of our Savior preaching to the spirits in prison, to spirits that had been imprisoned from the days of Noah; and what did He preach to them? That they were to stay there? Certainly not! Let His own declaration testify. ‘He hath sent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised.’ (Luke 4:18.) Isaiah has it—‘To bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness from the prison house.’ (Isaiah 42:7.) It is very evident from this that He not only went to preach to them, but to deliver, or bring them out of the prison house. … “

Whether actually scripture or not, I’ve always found the answer to Joseph F. Smith’s heartfelt prayer to be extremely compelling:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/138

When I think of the God who created the heavens and the wonderful earth we live on, with man as his crowning creation, I just can’t believe people would be arbitrarily condemned based on an accident of circumstance. That they happened to be born in China or Saudi Arabia, or in post-Christian Europe for that matter. I have to believe that, if people are really saved or condemned based on accepting Christ, they will get a fair chance to hear the gospel preached and either accept it or reject it, in this life or the next. If we can take John 3:3 – 5 literally and that the ordinance of baptism is really required to go to Heaven, that all will somehow get a fair chance to receive that ordinance.

OK, thus ends the carrot.

If you’re a true-believing Mormon and feel pretty good about Joseph Smith and what the institutional church is teaching, this would be a good time to brew up a cup of Postum and review the First Presidency message for this month and maybe skip the rest of this.

The stick.

Having read through this lesson in the Joseph Smith manual and feeling pretty good about what Joseph Smith taught, this is not what we currently teach as the doctrine of salvation. We do not teach that people are saved merely by baptism, as the Joseph Smith manual suggests.
See a previous blog post on this subject:

http://the-fork.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-must-i-do-to-be-saved-httpwww.html

Current teaching of the LDS apostles is that salvation/exaltation is only achieved through the ordinance of temple marriage, which is not what this lesson from the Joseph Smith manual teaches.

There are a number of things that bother me about this.

First, I’m comfortable believing in baptism as the gateway to Heaven, because Jesus taught that and the Book of Mormon teaches it. This is a salvation based on faith, receiving a simple ordinance as the public expression of that faith.

I just can’t believe in salvation based on temple marriage, because there are too many hoops for people to jump through to qualify for it. Not only being able to pass a temple recommend interview, which is almost completely works-based, but having to pass an interview conducted by two fallible human beings who I will not accept as the gatekeepers to Heaven.

Possibly the main thing that specifically bothers me about this lesson in the Joseph Smith manual is that it does not teach doctrine that’s consistent with what the apostles are teaching. It teaches a warm fuzzy doctrine of inclusion that is at odds with the stark doctrine of salvation for the very few who can qualify for a temple marriage. At its best it’s inconsistent. At its worst its intentionally deceptive, again hiding the true doctrine we actually preach that is going to make many members of the LDS church uncomfortable and most non-LDS Christians angry.
If people are really going roast in Hell without a temple marriage, do us a favor and tell us that and don’t tell us heartwarming stories about Alvin Smith being baptized by proxy, as though baptism would actually do us any good.

2009-09-13T05:56:00.000-07:00

Elder Ballard on Defensiveness --

I read a talk by Elder M. Russell Ballard lately that I wanted to comment on. Some of the turning points in my faith of late are coming not because of the historical details surrounding the LDS church’s founding, but because of things the current leaders are saying. In order to be a Latter-day Saint in good standing I’m supposed to believe these men are prophets, seers, and revelators. Often they fall far short of that mark.

The talk:

http://byub.org/talks/transcripts/byucon/2009/8/byucon2009813-3870.pdf

This talk is certainly not all bad, but I think there are elements of it that completely exemplify my “issues” with the LDS church and its leaders.

This is a BYU commencement address and not just one of the usual firesides. Of all the things he could have spoken about on such an important day, the thrust of this address is on telling the graduates how to promote the LDS church. Even on their special day, it’s not about them. It’s about how they can be of better use to the LDS church.

Although this talk is about not being defensive, the way he frames the discussion is incredibly defensive.

A quote: “First suggestion: Don’t let irrelevant issues drown out the more important subjects.”

Who gets to decide what issues are irrelevant? This is just an excuse for avoiding subjects we don’t want to talk about because they’re difficult.

On polygamy:

“An example is polygamy. This ended in the Church as an official practice in 1890. It’s now 2009. Why are we still talking about it? It was a practice. It ended. We moved on. If people ask you about polygamy, just acknowledge it was once a practice but not now, and that people shouldn’t confuse any polygamists with our Church.”

We’re still talking about it because it was an unusual practice that attracts people’s curiosity, and it’s relevant because it’s still part of our doctrine. It didn’t end in 1890. It hasn’t ended now.

Surely he knows that polygamy persisted unofficially within the church for decades after 1890. Even some of the apostles continued to practice it after that. What he says is factually correct because of the word "official", but it's intentionally misleading.

Polygamy is still officially practiced in the temple in the way sealings to deceased spouses are performed. Two apostles are eternally married to both deceased wives and current wives, and expect to be from now until the end of time. That’s polygamy. They’re polygamists. Perhaps not in the “here and now” legal definition, but from the eternal viewpoint and in their viewpoint they are polygamists. Otherwise why be sealed to a second wife? Marry her for time only instead.

In his discussion about why people might be defensive he places the blame on others outside the LDS church for their reaction to the church and its message, without acknowledging any possible responsibility or provocation on the part of the LDS church or its leaders. Or likewise anything unusual about the events themselves.

He promotes cognitive dissonance by suggesting that members of the LDS church are defensive out of an unreasonable fear of religious persecution, when really they’re defensive because the claims of the church are fantastic and many of its practices what many would consider extremely out of the ordinary. It’s not that the church is misunderstood. It’s very well understood. It’s that most people consider it weird and unusual and its actual practices and beliefs have been shrouded in deception from the beginning.

People are not defensive because they think we're outnumbered. They're defensive because we belong to a church that was restored through an angel presenting golden plates to a man who translated them by looking at a rock in a hat. 99% of the people on the planet are going to see that as just plain weird, and especially when you learn some of the actual history it's hard not to be defensive when all the historical facts just don't add up to what you have been taught. If they want people to quit being defensive the apostles themselves need to take on the issues and explain them satisfactorily and not just skirt around the difficult facts, while at the same time criticizing us for being "defensive".

Comparing the content of the Joseph Smith movie to even what was taught in the church in the 1990s shows that the apostles are just as defensive as we are. They're not going to talk about polygamy. They're not going to talk about Joseph Smith and Hyrum having pistols and firing back at the mob. They're not going to talk about the battle of Crooked River, where the saints fired on a unit of the Missouri State Militia, provoking the extermination order. They're not going to talk about the Salt Sermon, the Council of Fifty, Blood Atonement, the Adam-God doctrine, 20th century apostles' often outrageous statements on race, or dozens of other issues. And at the same time they are going to criticize us for being defensive.

Other examples of "defensiveness".

Gordon B Hinckley’s response to a question by Larry King some years ago, about the doctrine that God was once a man: "I don't know that we teach that anymore". That doctrine still shows up in lesson manuals and continues to show up in conference talks and in the Ensign. He knew perfectly well we still teach it, but didn’t want to discuss it.

The regret recently expressed by the First Presidency about the Mountain Meadows Massacre was not the apology some might have expected. Even though church leaders were at least involved in the cover up of the incident, if not in the planning itself, the LDS church continues to use lawyer talk to avoid any appearance of responsibility in it. They express “regret”, but stop short of anything that might be considered acceptance of responsibility in a courtroom.

The character assassination of Thomas B Marsh and others who left the early church over matters of principle, and not character flaws as we usually teach.

When was the last time a president of the church was interviewed by a journalist in a meaningful way where the issues were engaged? When was the last time you read a report of Thomas S Monson being interviewed the way Gordon B Hinckley was, or participating in any threatening event other than a temple dedication surrounded by the adoring masses? When do you see LDS apostles going out in public and speaking to crowds of non-members? Perhaps offering to address the Southern Baptist Convention with an explanation of why the LDS church is Christian? Renting an auditorium and opening it up to all comers for a discourse on why Joseph Smith can be considered a true prophet of God?

Somehow the Old Testament story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal comes to mind.

The apostles stick to safe situations like stake conferences and large gatherings of members and don’t expose themselves to hostile crowds, or in general to people with hard questions. They invite us to do that instead.

Another defensive quote from Elder Ballard’s talk:

“When all is said and done, the most important thing about you and your testimony is that you base your beliefs on what Jesus Christ taught, and you try to follow Him by living your life in a way acceptable to our Heavenly Father and to the Lord. “ . . . “They are His commandments, and no one is authorized to change them except by direct revelation to God’s chosen prophet.” . . . “We follow Jesus Christ’s doctrine of striving to live the Word of Wisdom,”

He doesn't get into other specifics, but you can already begin to follow this line of reasoning, that every teaching of the church is "following the teachings of Jesus" because the church is led by Christ and a prophet said it. Saying we "follow the teachings of Jesus" is tremendously deceptive, because probably four million people on Earth in total really believe that logic applies to the Word of Wisdom, or many of the other distinctive things we define as teachings of Christ not accepted by the rest of the Christian world. This is an example of deceptively using a term or concept that you have redefined, without expressing the fact that you have intentionally redefined it to mean something different than the person you are talking to understands it to mean. Like earnestly saying we support the marriage of one man and one woman, while at the same time we have two apostles sealed to multiple women. Of course the church still practices polygamy. We just twist the definition so it appears to mean we have renounced it, when really it is still an integral part of our doctrine.

Looking at his examples of “true doctrine”, an even worse problem is that he lists four examples of core teachings of the church, and nowhere is salvation through faith in Christ mentioned. What he talks about are behavioral practices that are part of Christian ethics and not the kind of saving faith required by the actual gospel of Jesus Christ. The most important doctrine is collected under item 5 as just one of the generic first principles of the gospel, which ironically he actually mentions last.

I initially read this talk a couple of weeks ago and found it to be infuriating, because I thought he was encouraging people to be deceptive in the way they presented the church to others. I felt this talk itself was deceptive and harmful because it “blamed the victims”. Us. The people who aren’t surrounded by faithful church members all the time and actually have to explain these things to people. Those of us who don’t have the luxury of hiding behind professional PR staff or speaking from a pulpit where we can carefully shade the meanings of our words and delicately step around things that are uncomfortable.

After some time I came to appreciate that his approach is less intentionally deceptive than it is a reflection of a mindset that infects the members of the LDS church from top to bottom. That mindset is an internal mental compass that steers the thoughts away from unpleasant subjects and towards more positive and uplifting ones. It’s an internal defense mechanism that allows people to be satisfied in the LDS church and to avoid the anger and frustration that plague many of the rest of us. I believe that people in his position don’t even see the issues that make the rest of us defensive. Their mental filtering mechanism tags them as unimportant and their thoughts just don’t even rest there. Plus having been an LDS church leader for so many years he has pre-programmed responses to thousands of questions and issues that no longer even require thought. Just push the appropriate mental button and roll the tape.

To be fair there were some good things about this talk.

The LDS Newsroom quotes about “Big Love” are good ones and promote a positive reaction to questions about the show.

His points about the Mountain Meadows movie itself were likewise good ones. However, the church’s response to the disaster itself has been defensive, as previously discussed.

This is a very nice talk. With some exceptions I think Elder Ballard is probably a nice person. I think he exemplifies the subject he is addressing, though, and causes harm by pushing the blame on a) people with serious and inconvenient questions about the church, and b) people who in my view are more objective and not able to block the serious flaws in the LDS church, its leaders, and its history out of their minds when trying to honestly discuss it with others. Much of the blame for this situation rests with him and his contemporaries, and he accepts none of it.

2009-09-13T05:46:00.000-07:00

Explaining the Hiatus --

I have been on kind of a hiatus for awhile, because I wanted to spend the summer re-reading the Book of Mormon and trying to collect my thoughts about the LDS church. A Protestant church I've been attending quite often is having a membership class in October (was supposed to be in September, hence the summer "Book of Mormon Challenge") and I wanted to re-read the Book of Mormon and get my thoughts and emotions together in case this class turned into a decision point for me. Not so much on leaving the LDS church, because I don't intend to do that for various reasons I could elaborate on if anybody cared. The decision point would be formally affiliating with another church and actually joining it so I could be of more value and accept more responsibility.

Anyway, the summer is over, the BoM challenge is over, and as time goes on I'll begin to post my thoughts and conclusions on some things. Rather than just posting a lot of sarcastic comments about current events in the church I feel it's more useful to post my reactions to official material from the church itself that are not open to challenge. i.e. you can challenge the history behind the first vision accounts, but you can't challenge what Russell M Nelson said about marriage, what M. Russell Ballard said about defensiveness, or the text of the Book of Mormon itself. There are lots of people out there ranting about LDS church history, but few people directly critique the official sources themselves, either out of faith or apathy. Alas I have neither, and most of my issues are with the church leaders themselves and not with the major doctrines that have been taught in the past.

2009-07-22T04:49:00.000-07:00

Jacob and Enos: What Did They Know and When Did They Know It?--

This posting is a little out of order. Although I haven't blogged much lately it's because I've been reading and writing a lot. I want to collect and polish some of what I've written before I put it out here, because my understanding of a lot of things are still evolving and are still kind of unorganized.

I just had one thing I wanted to comment on, though.

This morning I was reading the tail end of Jacob and the Book of Enos in the Book of Mormon. Here they are for your convenience:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jacob/7
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/enos/1

The Book of Enos especially is a wonderful story of faith.

In V3 he testifies of the preaching of his father that has sunk deeply into his soul, which is a concept that warms a father's heart. He agonizes because of his sins, is overcome, and prays all day long, and receives the witness that all people of faith long for, that his sins are forgiven because of his faith in Christ. "My guilt was swept away", as he says. The Lord tells him, "thy faith has made thee whole". Whole, as in complete, like a restored automobile where the damaged parts have been removed, repaired, and replaced. He's not just forgiven, he's completely restored.

He goes on to testify of his longing for the salvation of his estranged cousins the Lamanites. He almost shrugs off the complete destruction of his own people, but his heart aches for the lost Lamanites and prays that in some way the sad story of his own people might save his cousins.

His short story finishes with one of the most eloquent testimonies of Christ in all of scripture:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=enos+1%3A26+-27

I just think these last two verses are the equal of anything Paul wrote.

Now for the point of this post.

I really want to read these passages from two entirely different mindsets.

On one hand, the depth of Jacob and Enos's understanding of the new covenant with Christ is truly astonishing. Their brethren in Jerusalem are still slaughtering bulls and goats and have no remote idea of the mission of Jesus Christ, yet Jacob and Enos might as well have Romans and Hebrews opened up right in front of them. They have already moved beyond the sacrificial law of Moses and understand salvation by faith through the atonement of Christ as well as any 19th century Baptist preacher standing in the pulpit.

It's tempting to wonder whether a) Jacob and Enos were that much more highly favored of the Lord, compared to the Old Testament prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah and others whose published writings only give the barest hints of this, b) maybe these things were clearly taught among the Israelites and are among the plain and precious things lost from the scriptures, c) whether the Lord was clearly working through Joseph Smith to preserve and reinforce these critical teachings by including them in the Book of Mormon, or d) whether Joseph Smith was clearly restating the themes of contemporary evangelical preachers for motives we can only guess at in our day.

It's difficult to read these sections and not wonder why the theology seems several hundred years ahead of its time.

On the other hand . . . .

It's also tempting (at least for the evangelical Christian in me) to set aside all this logical analysis and to just read the words and glory in the story being told, to empathisize with Enos as he wrestles with his sinful nature, and to rejoice with him as the chains of sin fall away and the hope of new life enters in. What a blessing to share with him the feelings of peace and rest and complete faith in Christ, his Redeemer, as his only hope of salvation from the winds of earthly cares in this life and redemption in the life to come.

So I think I'll do that. Obviously today is the day for the analytical mind. Tomorrow I'll turn off the monitor, put away the notebook, and just share Enos's story with him.

2009-05-31T05:54:00.001-07:00

The Joseph Smith manual on persecution. http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=da135f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5858b00367c45110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1&contentLocale=0

As usual the most damning writings about the church come from the official sources. The lesson manual talks about Liberty Jail and other “persecutions” coming because of the saints’ religious beliefs and ignores some of their own acts and statements, like Sidney Rigdon’s “Salt Sermon”, that contributed to their being attacked.

For example, a quote from Joseph Smith himself:

“Our religious principles are before the world ready for the investigation of all men, yet we are aware that all the persecution against our friends has arisen in consequence of calumnies [false charges] and misconstructions without foundation in truth and righteousness. This we have endured in common with all other religious societies at their first commencement.”

But, what about polygamy, which was practiced in secret until the 1850s, what about the attacks on non-Mormon settlers, etc? The thing that actually precipitated the Saints being run out of Far West is that in the Battle of Crooked River, where David Patten was killed, they actually engaged a unit of the Missouri State militia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crooked_River

Regardless of what the facts might have been, the Missourians perceived the Mormons as a threat and reacted accordingly, for reasons having nothing to do with their religious beliefs.

These things in no way justify what was done to the Saints in Far West, but the actual history is not as black/white as the lesson manual says it is. And why do we need to devote an entire chapter to persecution? In what circumstances are members actually persecuted in this day and age, and why would we encourage people to view things that happen to them in this way, as black/white attacks on them because of their religion, as opposed to a more thoughtful analysis of the situation? Mormons are often singled out, but it has more to do with our strange and exclusive behavior than it does our religious beliefs. For example, I was told a story by a member who was invited out to a bar with co-workers and declined, but offered to bring his family to the inviter’s home instead. There is nothing in our religious beliefs that would prohibit going to a work function in a bar. Replying to a fairly non-threatening social engagement with an offer to bring your entire family to someone’s home, where you have to clean up, entertain, maybe have one on one conversation about subjects that are more personal than a work event, have the person’s large family ranging through a possibly childless home, etc, is just unusual.

2009-05-24T06:14:00.000-07:00

1 Ne 8 - 11
These are big chapters in the Book of Mormon. Lehi's vision (which is amazingly similar to a vision received by Joseph Smith Senior), and the Cliff's notes version of the Gospel of Jesus Christ revealed to Nephi.

I'm certainly not going to post about this every day, but it's interesting to consider the "feel" of the Book of Mormon, just starting out. It's a little jarring to ping between General Conference, which focuses so much on modern prophets and micro-organizing our personal behavior, and the Book of Mormon, which is ultimately about our personal relationship with God and how we respond to him. Do we turn towards God, repent, and keep the commandments, or do we go our own way?

These four chapters are vintage "restoration" chapters. Not about the restoration of priesthood authority, as we like to spin it today, but they center on God talking to man through the spirit and through the visitations and teaching of angels. The initial missionary message of the church was on God speaking to man again, the heavens being opened, and the advent of visions and angelic visitations, and we get all that here. God talks directly to Nephi and Lehi with a message of salvation and the big-picture themes of the gospel. He's not concerned with authority, empowering institutions, how many times a day we pray and what language we use, paying tithing, looking at pornography on the emerging metal plate technology, or the wearing of modest animal skins and tunics. The global scope of this whole thing are communicated, and then they can figure out the small stuff on their own.

It's also interesting to consider the clarity with which Nephi is instructed relative to John the Baptist, Mary, and the details of the life of Jesus. It's like, once again, the Cliff's Notes version of Matthew. We get bits and pieces of this in Isaiah and Jeremiah, but nothing like this.

Does that mean Joseph Smith made it up? Does that mean he was inspired to record this as confirmation of the biblical account? Does that mean there really was a guy named Nephi who really had these visions? If so, why don't we get this clarity in the Old Testament? Were the accounts really corrupted in transmission? Interesting to think about.

It's really enlightening to read the Book of Mormon this way, because these are themes I can relate to that I think really do work together with the Bible to increase faith. I still don't think the modern LDS church really presents the gospel this way anymore. Sad, because it's the one I want.

2009-05-23T04:29:00.000-07:00

1 Ne 4 - 7. More interesting themes. So far the message is basic. God commands, through dreams, visions, and the appearance of angels, and Lehi and his family, and by extension the rest of us are to obey. Cut and dried. Over and over again the text reinforces the importance of keeping the commandments, keeping the commandments, without being that specific what they are. In this situation it's specific things like leaving Jerusalem and returning to perform specific errands, like retrieving the plates and Ishmael and his family. Duties are performed that move the drama along. In this day and time, though, it's less specific. Angels didn't appear to us and direct us to go to some city and perform some function. It's more general day-to-day stuff related to our micro-behavior. Read your scriptures, pray, pay tithing, keep yourself morally clean, etc.

It's interesting how the drama of Laban and the plates plays out. Nephi and his brothers are basically commanded to go to Laban and get the plates, either through convincing or direct purchase, and when that doesn't work, to murder him, take the plates, and kidnap his servant. It plays out this way in the Old Testament sometimes, as in the conquest of Canaan, but as often as not the person is convinced to yield to what the Lord wants.

Again, people are given inspiration to perform specific things, but not as much to just set themselves up as authority figures and run institutions.

2009-05-22T04:28:00.000-07:00

I sped read the 1st three chapters of the Book of Mormon this morning, and some things jumped out.

The Book of Mormon, at least this part, very much follows Old Testament themes of God speaking to a willing individual with a message of repentance for society at large. God has a message, people aren’t listening in general, and he finds someone who will to deliver a message of repentance and warning of the consequences if they don’t. There’s nothing special about Lehi, other than he’ll listen and obey. The importance of obedience to God is paramount. Nephi hears what he says and is obedient to both God and his father’s promptings.

Ultimately God has a big message to deliver through Lehi, and it has nothing to do with starting and running an institution. It’s wholly about the relationship of Lehi and those around him with God. Lehi is not empowered to administer anything or to tell people what to do at the micro level. God has already done that. It’s not as much about “follow the prophet” as it is about following what God has already said. If anyone is empowered to be a ruler, it’s Nephi, who is empowered to be a ruler over his brothers because he’s faithful in keeping the commandments.

2009-05-20T04:30:00.000-07:00

"What must I do to be saved?"

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2016:25%20-%2034;&version=31;

As the jailer asked this question above, so should we. Over the last couple of days I was confused by the apparent discrepancy in a couple of general conference talks, so I thought I would do a little research into what the LDS church teaches. Then we can compare the conference talks.

First the basics, from True to the Faith. This manual is ostensibly a youth publication, but it's the most accessible collection of doctrinal descriptions available. It doesn't provide links to the invidual topic headers, just to the entire manual:

http://lds.org/languages/youthmaterials/trueToThefaith/TrueFaith_000.pdf

I'll provide the topic header, followed by the entry.

Heaven

"In the scriptures, the word heaven is used in two basic ways. First, it refers to the place where God lives, which is the ultimate home of the faithful (see Mosiah 2:41). Second, it refers to the expanse around the earth (see Genesis 1:1)."

Kingdoms of Glory (excerpts)

"The celestial kingdom is the highest of the three kingdoms
of glory. Those in this kingdom will dwell forever in
the presence of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ.
The celestial kingdom is the place prepared for those
who have “received the testimony of Jesus” and been “made
perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who
wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of
his own blood” (D&C 76:51, 69). To inherit this gift, we must
receive the ordinances of salvation, keep the commandments,
and repent of our sins."
...
"From another revelation to the Prophet Joseph, we learn
that there are three degrees within the celestial kingdom.
To be exalted in the highest degree and continue eternally in
family relationships, we must enter into “the new and everlasting
covenant of marriage” and be true to that covenant. In
other words, temple marriage is a requirement for obtaining
the highest degree of celestial glory."

From the descriptions above, it seems clear to me that what non-LDS Christians refer to as "heaven" is what LDS refer to as the "Celestial Kingdom", the place where God lives. The highest level is accessed as a result of exaltation through temple marriage.

How do we achieve this place? From the Kingdoms of Glory entry:

"The glory you inherit will depend on the depth of your conversion,
expressed by your obedience to the Lord’s commandments.
It will depend on the manner in which you have “received the
testimony of Jesus” (D&C 76:51; see also verses 74, 79, 101)."

From the Salvation entry:

"Eternal Life, or Exaltation. In the scriptures, the words
saved and salvation often refer to eternal life, or exaltation (see
Abraham 2:11). Eternal life is to know Heavenly Father and
Jesus Christ and dwell with Them forever—to inherit a place
in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom (see John 17:3;
D&C 131:1–4; 132:21–24). To receive this great gift, we must
do more than repent of our sins and be baptized and
confirmed by appropriate priesthood authority. Men must
receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, and all Church members
must make and keep sacred covenants in the temple,
including eternal marriage."

OK, with all that background out of the way, let's get into the actual conference talks, the words of the living prophets.

The first talk is a classic, the one that finally convinced me that I could no longer be a fully believing member of the LDS church.

http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-947-28,00.html

It has so many issues it deserves a separate post, but let's just examine what Russell Nelson has to say about salvation:

"While salvation is an individual matter, exaltation is a family matter.5 Only those who are married in the temple and whose marriage is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise will continue as spouses after death6 and receive the highest degree of celestial glory, or exaltation. A temple marriage is also called a celestial marriage. Within the celestial glory are three levels. To obtain the highest, a husband and wife must be sealed for time and all eternity and keep their covenants made in a holy temple.7"

“In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life. [Heavenly Father’s great] plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.”15

"Our Heavenly Father declared, “This is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”20 The Atonement of His Beloved Son enabled both of these objectives to be realized. Because of the Atonement, immortality—or resurrection from the dead—became a reality for all.21 And because of the Atonement, eternal life—which is living forever in God’s presence, the “greatest of all the gifts of God”22—became a possibility. To qualify for eternal life, we must make an eternal and everlasting covenant with our Heavenly Father.23 This means that a temple marriage is not only between husband and wife; it embraces a partnership with God.24"

endquote.

Now, here's a talk by Elder D. Todd Christofferson

http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-1032-6,00.html

"We enter into covenants by priesthood ordinances, sacred rituals that God has ordained for us to manifest our commitment. Our foundational covenant, for example, the one in which we first pledge our willingness to take upon us the name of Christ, is confirmed by the ordinance of baptism. It is done individually, by name. By this ordinance, we become part of the covenant people of the Lord and heirs of the celestial kingdom of God."

"Other sacred ordinances are performed in temples built for that very purpose. If we are faithful to the covenants made there, we become inheritors not only of the celestial kingdom but of exaltation, the highest glory within the heavenly kingdom, and we obtain all the divine possibilities God can give (see D&C 132:20)."

So, what do we actually need to do to return to the presence of God? After reading these sources I'll admit to still being confused.

Elder Christofferson and the True to the Faith entry on the celestial kingdom represent my traditional understanding and what I have been taught in church before, that baptism is the gateway to the celestial kingdom, which is the dwelling place of God. i.e. Heaven.

The "Salvation" entry in True to the Faith seems to agree with what Russell Nelson has to say, that really to return to God's presence, temple marriage is required.

Why does this really make a difference? I think it gives us some insight into the character of God. Bruce R McConkie gave a talk entitled "The Seven Deadly Heresies" that I won't attempt to excerpt:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/heresies.shtml

in which he's pretty clear that you don't get a second chance to accept in the spirit world what you rejected in this world.

My take on this is that if you rejected the LDS missionaries in this world with a clear understanding of what they were preaching, the door to the "celestial kingdom" is forever closed to you.

Even worse, if you were a baptised member of the LDS church and either rejected initially or at some time accepted and then rejected the higher level of testimony and commitment required to qualify for a temple recommend, the higher level is closed to you as well.

So, if Russell Nelson is to be believed, in order actually live with God forever, i.e. to be "saved", I have to sustain him and the other apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators and accept what they describe as the "restored gospel", which is primarily the exclusive authority claims of the church. I have to do that in spite of all the contradictory evidence about the First Vision, priesthood restoration dates, conflicting claims from the witnesses to the gold plates, concerns about the abuses of polygamy, etc.

Based on these hurdles, heaven doesn't seem like it will contain many people, nor does it seem like a set of criteria put in place by a God who loves his children and wants as many as possible to come back. All in all I hope Paul is right instead.

2009-05-16T17:51:00.000-07:00

"Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail", or "How God and modern prophets teach us of his unfailing love and lesson manual writers take it away"--

Today I studied this lesson:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=da135f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=7148b00367c45110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1&contentLocale=0

If I do say so myself it’s a letter perfect example of why I’m going through this, because what the lesson manual does to the scriptures is quite astounding.

Briefly, this is Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail, much of the record of which is contained in D&C 121 – 3. IMHO the writings in these sections display Joseph Smith at his finest. As a man he rages against the injustice he perceives to have been done to the Saints in Jackson County in Far West. The Lord immediately responds with soothing words reminding him that he is being shaped and tried, and that no experience he could suffer would be worse than what Jesus suffered on our behalf. The abrupt shift in tone from Joseph, the lion of the Lord, and Christ, the lamb of God, have always testified to me of some level of inspiration in Joseph Smith.

The lesson quotes from at least one letter written in Liberty Jail, some of which was later canonized in D & C 121 – 123.

There are some beautiful quotes in here about the love of God and our absolute reliance on Christ, after every other support system we hold dear is stripped away. Here is one of my favorite quotes:

“Therefore, dearly beloved brethren, we are the more ready and willing to lay claim to your fellowship and love. For our circumstances are calculated to awaken our spirits to a sacred remembrance of everything, and we think that yours are also, and that nothing therefore can separate us from the love of God and fellowship one with another [see Romans 8:39]; and that every species of wickedness and cruelty practiced upon us will only tend to bind our hearts together and seal them together in love.”

The text quite properly takes to Romans 8:38 - 39, which reminds us, “ For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

A beautiful lesson. Let’s take a minute and enjoy the chapter headings:

No affliction can separate us from the love of God and fellowship with one another.
Adversity lasts only a small moment; if we endure well, we will be exalted in the presence of God.
God’s power is greater than any evil, and the truths of the gospel will ultimately triumph.
The Savior understands all our suffering, and He will be with us forever and ever.
The still, small voice whispers consolation to our souls in the depths of sorrow and distress.

Certainly nothing to object to here.

Until of course we get to the suggested questions for the instructor, which contain this gem:

“Joseph Smith declared that nothing could separate him and his brethren from the love of God (page 361). What are your thoughts or feelings as you ponder this statement? In what ways can we become separated from God’s love? What are some things we must do to abide in God’s love?”

Now wait just a darn minute. We just had this beautiful lesson that included the words of Joseph Smith and of Paul consoling us that nothing can separate us from the love of God, and then we are asked to list the ways we can become separated from the love of God. Is this a trick question? Of course you would want somebody to requote the lesson material and say “nothing can separate us from God’s love” and there are no “things we can do to abide (remain) in God’s love”, but this is the church, and we know better. The expected answers of sin and disobedience are going to come up, and we’re going to conclude this lesson with the idea that despite what Joseph Smith actually said, God only loves us when we keep the commandments and are obedient to God and our leaders, and rather than walking out of the lesson basking in the love of God as we should, we adjust the ever-present guilt load on our shoulders and trudge out of the room, determined to do better at making God love us.

Simply amazing.

2009-05-16T17:47:00.000-07:00

The canon of scripture.

What should go in, and what should go out? Critical question. On one hand we have the bible as the inspired word of god, complete and sufficient. On the other we have the idea of modern revelation as the continually unfolding word of God, because God leads us along, step by step, line upon line, precept upon precept. We’re not led in a straight line, necessarily. We began with The Law, which was added onto and fulfilled by the words of Christ and his original apostles. People got about two thousand years to marinade in the law of Moses, and it was time for the next step. Likewise people got about two thousand years to marinade in the accounts of Christ’s ministry and in the writings of Paul and others, and then it was time for the next step, the Book of Mormon and the “restoration” of Christ’s true church. Or was it? Is the Bible really full and complete in our age, or should we expect something more?

In the interests of brevity I’m going to focus more on the New Testament and the Book of Mormon here rather than debating the apocrypha or whether Moses or Adam were real people or not, because either way the Old Testament is affirmed by Christ and was fulfilled and largely superseded. It’s not the rock of my faith.

Having read through Chapter 3 of Grudem’s book, here are my thoughts, as they emerge. They are not his thoughts.

There are several bases for the New Testament canon.

One is that the authors were either apostles themselves or trusted associates. They had at most one degree of separation from the eyewitnesses of the actual events of Christ’s ministry. i.e. they were either witnesses and apostles, like Matthew and John, they were apostles or other leaders whose authority was attested to by the other apostles, like Paul and James, or they were trusted associates like Mark and Luke. I think Jude and the author of Hebrews fit into this latter category, although more loosely than the others.

Another is that their theology and message are generally consistent with each other.

From a practical standpoint, probably the most influential characteristic is that the New Testament books are the set of books generally attested to by the emerging church through the 4th century. Over the years books were in and books were out, but this set was generally accepted by the church as authoritative. Whether through revelation or just personal opinion I’ll leave to others to decide.

The important thing is that these books represent the best testimony we have from the most reliable eyewitnesses we have that was generally agreed on as being accurate and authoritative. From that point on in history the works are by their very nature going to be derivative and based on something other than eyewitness testimony.

Now, how does the Book of Mormon fit into this?

For purposes of this discussion I’ll leave questions of content aside and pick those up later. I love the Book of Mormon, because I think that generally it’s a truer witness of the doctrines we have extracted from the Bible than the Bible is itself. I think the orthodox trinity is clearly taught in the Book of Mormon, as is the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith and many other things.

But, does that mean it’s deserving of a place in the canon alongside the Bible?

Whatever your opinions about the origins and truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, it’s a revealed document. We don’t have original manuscripts from the original authors, nor do we have the historical witness of those people. They and their original writings have vanished. The primary witness we have of the Book of Mormon is Joseph Smith. If any actual plates really did exist, the only person who knew what was on them was Joseph Smith. There is no historical evidence of anything contained in the book, nor any other independent witnesses. There are no other testaments of the same events for us to weigh and compare. We don’t have the original plates, and the testimony of those who claimed to have seen and handled them is extremely suspect. Basically what you are left with is to read the Book of Mormon and pray about it, and either you receive a spiritual witness that it is “true” in some sense or you don’t. That’s your only possible confirmation. The spirit either testifies to you of its truth, or he doesn’t.

What if Joseph Smith, with all his human frailties, got it wrong? What if parts of the Book of Mormon are either incorrect, made up, or some critical pieces are somehow missing? Again, we have no independent witnesses to the content or anything else about it, other than gold plates may have existed. We have no independent witnesses of the actual events or to the correctness of the “translation”, other than whatever we get from the Holy Spirit.

Subjectively I don’t think the Book of Mormon meets the same standard the New Testament does.

I think of the Bible as a whole being like the constitution, like the keel of a ship. There’s a huge interconnected depth of support for the New Testament, from its historical background to the consensus-building process involved in the actual development of the canon. Because of that there’s a lot of human frailty we just don’t have to worry about. Is there human frailty in the Bible? No doubt, but the circumstances surrounding its origin give us the best possible basis for it being an accurate reflection of the actual events that happened and the doctrine taught by the church from the beginning.

We just don’t have that with the Book of Mormon. Your only choice is to pray about it and either accept it or reject it based on your spiritual witness of it. It doesn’t have the history behind it, nor does it have the consensus of the community behind it. It’s like a stool with one leg, albeit a very strong and important one.

The sad fact is that the witness of the Holy Spirit is often subject to a lot of interpretation. It’s most useful for more general life questions and not for ferreting out specifics. In general what I think we get from the Holy Spirit is more confirmation than specific word-for-word direction, and given that it’s most useful to have a variety of witnesses that agree. I believe the New Testament meets that standard much better than the Book of Mormon does.

2009-05-16T17:41:00.000-07:00

I haven't posted here in about a year, mainly because I had nothing new to say on the subject. I had generally been wandering back and forth around a faith kind of in the midpoint between orthodox mormonism and a more evangelical, biblically based Christianity.

Well, as a result of some experiences and reading I did early this year, the balance has shifted more towards a more biblically based faith, and it feels like it might just be for good this time. Maybe more on that later.

Welcome to a journal of a journey I plan to take this summer.

I’m not totally sure what to call this. I don’t know whether it’s a journal, a prayer journal, a book report, whatever.

I’m on a four month hiatus from BSF (Bible Study Fellowship, http://www.bsfinternational.org/), a conservative bible study I've been involved with for about two years, and I’ve decided to use this time to study a systematic theology book written by a “Reformed” author in order to try to figure out what I believe. I’ve dabbled in a lot of different sources over the last four years, and maybe it’s time to try to clarify some things and bring this to closure.

I’ll be reading “Systematic Theology”, by Wayne Grudem, re-reading the Book of Mormon, reading the general conference talks that were given this past April, and getting caught up in the Ensign, and maybe other stuff. My deadline for finishing all of this is about the middle of September, when BSF starts up again.

Rather than writing this like a book report, my goal is try to make this compact, so I’m going to focus more on what I believe and the impressions I get rather than debating a lot of chapter and verse or waxing eloquent on the author’s style or anything like that.

An exception to this will probably be General Conference talks. I have a tendency to read those and shred the contents, so I’ll probably be a little more specific there.

2008-05-20T17:52:00.000-07:00

Thoughts on the temple--
This is kind of a weird post for a "disaffected" blog, but maybe it will average out with some other things I have said previously. If you're non-LDS you will probably have no idea what I'm talking about, but I just want to write and not translate right now.

Of late I've developed a real sense of enjoyment in attending the temple. I recognize that the temple doesn't work for everyone. Often it hasn't worked for me, but that's because I went out of a sense of duty. I was supposed to go, so I went. Under those circumstances it was kind of claustrophobic, without windows. I felt sort of trapped. I couldn't get out.

My circumstances are different now. I go because I want to, because I enjoy that sense of peace and separation from the world. I enjoy the symbolism of entering into the celestial room, as though entering heaven.

I had the chance to visit the Mt Timpanogos temple a month or so ago. I hadn't been to a large temple in about eight years, and the grandeur of the celestial room was literally awe-inspiring. The bright light from the windows just made the entire room glow. An entire large room of people dressed in white. They looked like angels.

I guess my thoughts tonight were more on leaving the temple than entering it.

I don't really take the temple for granted anymore, because each visit could be my last. I recognize I barely qualify for a recommend because my activity is about 50-50, and many bishops would start to ask me probing questions about my testimony of the "restoration", and my recommend would end up locked in his desk until I could produce more orthodox answers. I really stand out in the temple, because I have a beard and a ponytail these days. These are going to be red flags to a more strict bishop, and away goes my recommend based on his feelings about my answers. For now, though, I'm enjoying it while I can.

Used to be I walked out of the temple and I was struck by how "unclean" the world was. I earned my recommend by being righteous and by following the rules, and after walking out of the temple I didn't want to touch anything. People just looked dirty and clueless compared to those angels dressed in identical white clothing. The temple was a safe haven from the chaos of the unwashed and uneducated on the outside.

My perspective has changed.

I haven't "earned" the right to go to the temple. It's random chance as much as anything, the luck of the draw of bishops. To the extent righteousness gets me in the door, it's not my righteousness. It's the atonement of Christ that washes away my sins and makes me righteous, not my own efforts. My own "efforts" only count to the extent that I have accepted the grace that has been offered me and done the few simple things asked by the LDS church. I no longer see the world as being unclean. The temple is not a place to hide from the world. It's a place to prepare to engage it. Our mission is out in the world, spreading the message of Christ and ministering to those who need us, not hiding from them because we're somehow "cleaner" than they are and have a membership card to prove it. We're not called to dust off the world as we walk into the temple. We're called to try to take the temple with us into the world. We're not better than anybody else because we can go to the temple. We are the luckiest people in the world because we can.

2008-05-18T14:50:00.000-07:00

Empathy--
Since I've become a less orthodox Latter-day Saint I find I get depressed a lot. I feel bad about things. I feel bad about people. I wish I could fix problems better. I wish I could communicate my faith better.

One of the things I realized yesterday is that I feel bad more because I empathize with people more. Before I used to look at the bad things that happened to people, and I thought "if that person were only a member of the church, this wouldn't have happened". "If only that person were more active in the church, this wouldn't have happened." "If only that person followed more correct principles, this wouldn't have happened". I used to look at entire categories of people as sort of broken and unclean and mostly responsible for the bad things that happened to them. I put an emotional distance between myself and them that didn't involve me in their problems.

I don't really do that as much anymore. I don't apply those silly rules as much, and consequently I hurt for people more, regardless of what they might have done to get themselves into trouble. I just feel bad for their problems and wish there was something I could do to make it better. I tend to think of most everybody as kind of a mixed bag, struggling to make their way in this world as best they can, based on the information they have.

That doesn't mean I actually *do* anything most of the time. I just feel bad for them. I identify with them.

I think Jesus was like that. He looked at people, shook his head, and tried to love them anyway.

2008-04-15T18:56:00.000-07:00

It's always interesting reading old posts in this blog. The last couple of times I have posted, I was pretty disaffected. I guess my heart has softened some since February. I really enjoyed the March issue of the Ensign, which really collected together a lot of doctrine about Christ in one place, where I really needed to hear it. My daughter was out here a couple of weeks ago and I became kind of reconverted to the extended family aspects of the church. Which, granted, don't save us, but it's still pleasant to be a part of.

I read a run of conference talks from the October conference that seemed very shallow to me early in the year, and I just had to put the Ensign down for a couple of months. Lately I've been working on the Sunday sessions from last October, and there were a lot of really powerful talks in that conference. And IMHO a couple of clinkers, but in general it seemed like the right things were said.

I had a nice experience in the temple this evening, plus I listened to an uncut version of an NPR "Speaking of Faith" interview with Robert Millett:

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/insidemormonfaith/index.shtml

He pushes all the right buttons with me. He's open about the fact that he doesn't understand some things, but for him it's more about the process that Joseph Smith started rather than the lurid details about Joseph Smith himself.

I went to the temple with my daughter a couple of weeks ago and had a good experience. Tonight was good because there were some odd disruptions in the session that left me with a lot of time to think. I really enjoy that feeling of separation from the world I get in the temple. I remember reading (really skimming) a book on Heaven once written by Baptists with varying opinions on what it would be like. I realized that I know exactly what heaven will be like. It will be just like the temple, with people dressed in white moving about in quiet reverence. I'm coming to believe that I needed to go through a process of tearing my testimony down to the chassis and rebuilding it, in order to get rid of all the cultural mormonism and to replace it with what the scriptures actually say and what you can find the general authorities teaching. I still don't understand why some of the history happened the way it did and why the church obscures its origins so much, but I guess I just find the doctrine too compelling to walk away from. In many ways I think Evangelical churches do a better job of explaining the bible, and Anglican churches do a better job of pure worship. As a doctrinal package, though, I seem to be stuck with being LDS. It just reflects what I believe and is the best approximation I can find right now of biblical community.

Check back in a couple of months and I guess I'll be disaffected again, but for now I'm enjoying what I have.

2008-03-09T15:38:00.001-07:00

Thoughts on President Hinckley, part 5 --

I thought this was a pretty moving testimony.

http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-4-27,00.html

How different would the church be if the GAs spoke like this about Christ more often?

2008-03-04T04:35:00.000-08:00

Thoughts on President Hinckley, part 4 --

Well, this isn't actually about President Hinckley, but I'm still going through old conference talks as a memorial, so he gets the credit/blame either way.

I listened to this one today:

http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-4-19,00.html

There was something about it that bugged me, so rather than continuing with another conference talk I listened to a sermon from one of the Protestant pastors I follow.

The difference jumped out at me immediately.

His latest sermon series is on the book of Collossians, and in summary the Collossians are overwhelmed by Roman culture and the messages of "Caesar is Lord". Paul preaches the contrary message that "Jesus is Lord". The pastor's premise is that our society is just not that much different culturally from the Collossians. Nike is Lord. Cadillac is Lord. Microsoft is Lord. Etc.. We're bombarded with messages from people demanding to be our Lord, yet there is only one Lord who will save, redeem, and satisfy, and that is Jesus.

Considering President Faust's talk, who is Lord?

I think he sums up his opinion in this kind of weird quote of "Invictus":

"I am the master of my fate:I am the captain of my soul"

Why, we are, of course. The important thing is self-mastery. We are the masters of our fate. We are the captains of our souls. We are in control. We are in charge.

I guess I no longer suffer under the illusion that I am the master of my fate or the captain of my soul. I tried that for a long time, and it didn't work. I think Jesus is a better Lord and master than I am.

As a complete aside I thought this was a particularly unusual thing to quote, for a special witness of Jesus Christ:

"I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul."

Invictus strikes me as vaguely Deist and not very Christian, but I'm no English major.

2008-02-20T04:05:00.000-08:00

Thoughts on President Hinckley, part 3 --

As a sort of memorial I am trying to listen or read all of President Hinckley's conference talks. I guess I am giving him one last chance to try to convert me. So far I would have to admit it's not working terribly well.

I have several years' worth of conference on CD, and while I was grabbing talks for my iPod I also ripped President Faust's talks also, as I always loved his talks and his plain-spoken and gentle way of making his points.

Last night while walking I listened to these talks:

http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-19-1,00.html

http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-19-6,00.html

http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-19-20,00.html

http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-19-22,00.html

It was sort of an interesting view of the gospel. In summary the church is a large and impressive organization that requires a lot of skill and resources to manage. Primarily the gospel seems to be about my behavior. I need to be faithful and obedient and work hard to move the kingdom of God forward. I need to reach out to others and serve. I need to be a moral and spiritual person. I need to work on being perfect, which admittedly I can only completely achieve through the atonement, but there is a long list of things I need to work on.

Additionally, Bishops are caring, capable people and need to be respected and venerated as they carry out their many challenging responsibilities. More than the rest of us they are to be held to an incredibly high standard, serving not only their congregations, but being exemplary in the workplace and not letting their families down either.

By contrast, I also listened to this talk:

http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-19-26,00.html

Now, of these people and these talks, which one is the special witness of Jesus Christ?

2008-02-07T04:20:00.001-08:00

As sort of a postscript to yesterday's entry, I had kind of a trifecta yesterday. I listened to one of President Hinckley's conference talks, I went to an Ash Wednesday service at our Episcopal church, and I listened to a sermon from a local Baptist church while I walked in the evening.

I realized that I spent a lot of yesterday in kind of a funk, which I often do when I get drawn back into LDS church issues.

President Hinckley's talk reminded me that the church is less a congregation of worshipers than a large management training exercise for priesthood leaders. Probably the best thing the church does is to train people who can speak in public, teach classes, and run groups. After all, is BYU known for its school of social work, or for its school of management and its business programs?

The doctrines of Joseph Smith, expanded on by those who followed him, creates an organization that is really one large food chain leading to godhood for those with "demonstrated ability" and being put out to pasture in the telestial kingdom for the lesser.

I am not one with "demonstrated ability". I'm a passable speaker, but at the time of my disaffection I was the oldest person in the Elders Quorum. I'm a counselor, not a presider. When I was 1st counselor in the EQ presidency the president moved, and they called the 2d counselor to be the president. It was hugely embarrassing to me, and a tremendous lesson I won't expand on now.

If the church is really true I will always inhabit the lower rungs of whatever kingdoms are present. I will never rise in the food chain, because of my lack of "demonstrated ability". Thus the closer I get to it the darker my mood.

Despite all that I still want more than anything to belong to the church the missionaries taught me about. That vision somehow won't go away. I was talking to Wife of Bath last night, and I told her that I would go back to full activity and give my heart to the LDS church if it would only do two things: tell me the truth and let me think for myself. If it would be honest about its history and the frailty of its leaders and allow me to follow my own spiritual witness about doctrine and practice, I would go back. I just don't see that happening anytime soon.

2008-02-06T04:11:00.000-08:00

Thoughts on President Hinckley, Part 2 --

This is going to be kind of a multicultural day for me. I started out by doing my Bible Study Fellowship homework, listened to a general conference address from President Hinckley on the way to work, and I'm going to an Ash Wednesday service in an Episcopal church this evening. I should find something Buddhist to do after the Ash Wednesday service just to round things out.

Anyway, as kind of a personal tribute to President Hinckley I decided to listen to as many of the general conference addresses he gave as president of the church as I could find, and read the others from the church website. I have the October 2001 GC on CD, so I started with those.

So far I have listened to his talk from the Priesthood session and the Sunday morning talk he gave. This was the first general conference after the introduction of the Perpetual Education Fund and after the September 11th attacks.

I'm used to listening to podcasts from Protestant ministers, so the differences in content were pretty apparent. In these two talks President Hinckley doesn't really dwell on God or spiritual matters much. His September 11th talk starts on the theme of defending ourselves from evil and the sacrifices involved, and segues into fairly familiar themes of getting out of debt and self-reliance in the face of global economic uncertainty. The PEF talk was designed to boost support for that program and talks a lot about the mechanics of it and gives some vignettes of the participants.

A couple of things that caught my ear were the way he described the two men running it, John K Carmack and another emeritus GA, (Richard ?) Cook. He venerated their worldly accomplishments as an attorney and a former comptroller for the Ford Motor company and described them as men of great ability.

He likewise talked about the beneficiaries of the PEF as returned missionaries of faith and ability who need a little help to get started so they can start careers, raise families, and become future leaders of the church.

You can tell from these talks that he really judges success in terms of character. Thrift. Self-reliance. The ability to work hard. Obedience. He doesn't really describe the PEF administrators as men of compassion. He admires them as good managers and men of ability. Likewise the PEF is not about homeless people or the desperately poor. It's about returned missionaries who need a little help to become successful. Always the scorecard. Those who have, get. Those who qualify, prosper. Those who don't are like the 5 slacker virgins. Unless you make it over the line, the lifeboat with the more worthy pulls away and leaves you behind. Always the church is about venerating the successful.

The talk finished before I got to work, so I listened to a MoTab choir hymn from the same conference, "Nearer My God To Thee". That hymn always reminds me of my mother's funeral. There were six people at the graveside, including Wife of Bath and I, pretty much everybody left in the world who cared about her at all. We couldn't find a minister, we couldn't find an LDS bishop, or anybody else to conduct, so the funeral home asked me to do it. Having been in an Elders Quorum presidency and having spoken in church several times this was not a great stretch. I conducted, assigned prayers, WoB and I picked the songs, I gave the eulogy, and either the opening or closing prayer. I had the skills to do all those things because of the skills the church had developed in me as a priesthood holder.

As I pulled into a parking space I had just a few moments to reflect on the many ways I have been shaped as a person by the church and the many things I have learned. It certainly refined my character and taught me how to speak and preside in religious meetings. I have always been blessed in the experiences I have had exercising my priesthood. I would certainly not be the person I am today without those things.

2008-02-04T04:28:00.000-08:00

I just wanted to record a few thoughts about Gordon B Hinckley.

Wife of Bath and I went to the broadcast of his funeral Saturday, and it was a moving experience. My father died when I was 17, and my mother died about six years ago. I wasn't that close to my father, and my mother was clearly ready to go home. I didn't cry at either of their funerals, and wasn't really that upset at their deaths. Both had had long illnesses, and I was just worn out by the experiences.

President Hinckley's funeral was a very emotional experience for me. He touched me deeply in many ways. His practical wisdom and gentle humor was very endearing. Much of my vision of what it means to be married comes from his relationship with Marjorie. Several parts of the funeral just made me gasp out loud in tears. One was after his coffin was wheeled into the Conference Center and they showed the First Presidency with his empty chair. Another was at the end of the funeral after all the tributes about him, when after having watched his coffin placed in the hearse, without warning they cut to a documentary of him being with the people of the church around the globe, loving them and being loved by him.

I never actually met him, but I saw him in person three times. Once at a regional conference where he spoke with Sister Hinckley and twice at the dedication of the Raleigh NC temple. In all those occasions you could tell he really wanted to speak to and touch each person individually, but time and numbers just wouldn't permit.

At the funeral they recounted his legacy. They talked about the hundreds of thousands of miles he traveled. The growth of the church. The number of temples he built. The number of temples he dedicated. His warm and folksy humor. His love for the people of the church, and their love for him. His testimony of the restored gospel. His accomplishments were numerous.

Having said all that and despite my feelings for the man personally, it just seemed to me like there was something missing.

Given all his personal accomplishments, is all this really what prophets of the Lord are known by?

What does it really mean to be a special witness of Jesus Christ?

The one thing that seemed conspicuously absent to me was much discussion about his testimony of Jesus Christ. He obviously had a burning testimony of Joseph Smith and the "restoration" of the gospel, as we tell the story in the LDS church. His last General Conference talk, his last message before being called home, was essentially a recital of the Joseph Smith story. I counted, and there were 12 references to Joseph Smith and 6 to Jesus Christ. So, at least at the end, who was he a special witness of? He recited facts about Jesus Christ in his talks, and he clearly understood the mechanics of the atonement and Jesus' role as savior. It strikes me that the primary love he always expressed was his love for the church, the "restored" gospel, and Joseph Smith. A few years ago when he was diagnosed with cancer he gave what sounded so much like his eulogy that he included a disclaimer that it wasn't. In it, in his warm personal way, he talked about the many ways in which the church had blessed his life and the inspiring people he had met and served with as a result. Any serious discussion of the nature of his personal relationship with Jesus Christ seemed particularly absent, as though the saving relationship were the one with the church, the one that prepared us for judgment, and Christ was a distant figure we only meet at the end, the one with the scorecard in his hand.

In the Baptist bible study I go to we discuss the concept of saving faith. Their definition of saving faith is an understanding that we are saved by faith in Christ alone, and works are an inevitable byproduct of that faith. Unless we truly understand that we are saved through the atonement and not as a reward for our own works, we don't understand Jesus as our savior and we are not truly "saved". At this writing I'm not totally sure what I think of that, but it's an interesting concept to think about.

During the funeral, despite the love I have for Gordon Hinckley as a person, I found myself wondering whether he really thought he was saved by the atonement, or whether in his heart he felt saved by his relationship to the church, through the doctrines expounded by Joseph Smith, and through the ordinances performed through the priesthood authority of the LDS church. Did he really have "saving faith"? Only God knows for sure.

Gordon, God be with you until we meet again. I pray you had saving faith in Christ. Give my love to Marjorie, because I'm sure that wherever you are, she is there also. The alternative would be hell for you, whether it was the highest degree of celestial glory or not. Tell Jesus how much we love him, even though we don't show it very well or very often. Help him understand how hard it is to sort all this out sometimes, and encourage him to have compassion on us sinners who are just trying to figure all this out. Thanks for everything you did for us. Thanks for doing your best to lead us down the road you thought led to Christ, even if it was a long and circuitous path at times.

2008-01-06T17:14:00.000-08:00

The latest --

I haven't posted in awhile, so I thought I would provide a short update.

The last few entries I made here were pretty positive about the church, but since September/October I have been trending the other way pretty substantially. In summary I have been attending a non-denominational bible study, and the contrast between how other churches teach the bible and how the LDS church approaches it is stark. This bible study basically talks about the bible and Jesus and not much else. It serves to illuminate just how much of what we do in the LDS church is focused on promoting the church and reinforcing the authority of the leaders. The study is held in a large Baptist church and most of the people in the class (200+) are Baptists, yet they never talk about the Baptist church, quote former Baptist leaders, etc. Just the bible and Jesus.

One of the things we covered a couple of months ago was the concept of "saving faith", which is basically an understanding that we depend on Jesus for our salvation and nothing else. Not ordinances, not our works, etc. I can't hope to do this subject justice in the space I have here, but it again helped me to appreciate how much we do in the LDS church is designed to convert people to the church rather than to Christ. Basically other churches try to convert people to Christ and then hope they find a church. The LDS church converts them to the church first, and then hopes they find Christ.

I'm also disheartened by the way they are handling the media issues surrounding Mitt Romney and some of the uncomfortable doctrine being exposed. i.e. whether Jesus and Satan are brothers, whether polygamy actually did take place after 1890 when it was officially abandoned, etc. Rather than being upfront about these things they are resorting to mealy-mouthed PR responses which are technically correct but not really truthful. These are questions that should be addressed head on and not obfuscated.

Recently Mitt Romney said he doesn't believe God has spoken to prophets since Moses, which totally disavows Joseph Smith and every other LDS prophet. Granted he doesn't speak for the church, but I think this is a representative approach. Officially, instead of standing up for what we believe, they are trying to blur the very distinctions we should be the most proud of, if this is really God's true church on the earth.

In summary I am not in a good place with respect to the LDS church right now. I love the people. The culture is my adopted heritage. Much of the unique doctrine Joseph Smith taught may well be true. However, I have difficulty giving my heart to a church that doesn't teach what I consider saving faith and that continues to be deceptive in public about its doctrine and practices.

It's hard to say where I will be a year from now, but before, I was unsettled by my concerns. I wasn't sure what to do. I was torn between the good and the bad in the church. Now I understand why things bother me, and I can easily separate my love for the people from my disdain for the institutional church. I understand that the "restoration" merely restored priesthood authority, and I just don't think that's important anymore. I have trouble sustaining leaders at the general level who are not totally honest in what they present to the public.

2007-06-14T04:47:00.001-07:00

Returning to the Temple --
I had a really good interview with my stake president a couple of nights ago. I re-iterated all my concerns, as well as the fact that despite all that I feel called to stay in the church for whatever reason. It's too much a part of my outlook on life to do anything different. For some reason I have been planted in the LDS church, and I feel like the right thing to do is to work out my salvation within that context rather than elsewhere. I mentioned my evolving understanding of what "worthiness" means, and how I used to think it was mostly up to me to be worthy, but now I appreciated that as long as I was doing my best I was worthy, because the atonement makes up the difference. Instead of 99% being on my shoulders, I can rely on Christ for that 99% through the miracle of grace. He told me he wished he could bottle that and give it to most of the members he meets with, who are crushing themselves under the weight of perfectionism. He felt I was ready to return to the temple and signed my recommend.

I went to the temple for the first time in about a year last night and had a good experience. Nothing really earth-shaking in the presentation of the endowment. I realized that I put the temple in a different context now. Before I went because I was supposed to, because it was ward temple night, because we are supposed to go once a month in order to more fully use the temple, etc.. It was time to cut the grass, throw on a white shirt, race out the door to the temple, race home, and get ready for the next day. I no longer subscribe to that approach. I should go from now on when the spirit dictates and not cram other activities around it.
I am very "different" in the temple, since I have a beard and haven't had a real haircut since September. I think I will progress to the ponytail stage next month, and it will be interesting to see what kind of reaction I get to that.

As I entered the Celestial Room I realized how much I missed that sense of peace that can be found there. Our temple is right next to a busy road, so you can almost always hear faint traffic noise outside. I guess that serves as a reminder of the intrusion of the world outside and the inevitability of having to make our "re-entry". For me I appreciated that the temple is truly a holy place, and temple worship is something I need to hold onto and not let slip out of my grasp again.

I guess another major difference I realized is that I don't see the temple as the only "holy" place. I am looking forward to visiting the National Cathedral with Wife of Bath sometime, and I realized also that there are probably other "holy places" in the city where I live that I have overlooked. For me, though, the temple still has a great deal of meaning.

As I sat in the Celestial Room I thought of a scripture, and went got a bible and looked it up: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%203:14-19;&version=31;
I guess that's what the temple means to me now, rather than being a "good conduct" award as I viewed it before.

All the other concerns I had before are still out there. The church oversimplifies its history to the point of being deceptive, maintains an almost cult-like reverence of its leadership, and focuses way too much on works and conformity to the point where it chews some people's self respect to pieces, when it could serve as a poignant reminder of the love of God, who gave his son as a sacrifice for sin and to exemplify what it means to lead a moral and meaningful life. Somehow those concerns seem secondary to me now, with the most important thing being working out what God has called me to do despite all those things and to live the Kingdom of God in whatever faith community I'm supposed to do that in.

2007-06-08T04:52:00.000-07:00

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Bishop's Office --
I've had a number of really positive experiences with the LDS church over the last several weeks. I was involved in a move project for a sister with no able-bodied males around the house, pneumonia, a handicapped mother, and a two-story house literally packed from floor to ceiling with dusty stuff. Dolls, fabric, books, clothes, etc.. She was using an "owner's suite" sized bathtub as a laundry hamper, for example. Clothes everywhere. I think we moved at least seven full containers worth of stuff out of that house. She was in trouble, and the ward bailed her out.
During the project one of the high priests from our ward, who happens to be a high councilman, called me aside and asked me to help give a blessing. Now, I probably haven't been in church more than half a dozen times this year and he knows that, yet he called on me anyway. I was just really touched by his faith in me and by the simple faith of the sister involved, who is going through a nasty divorce and has seven kids at home.

Then I had my PPI with my EQ president, which was likewise a positive experience, full of Christ-like concern for me and the families I home teach.

As I pulled out of the stake center parking lot I stopped to look at the temple (which we share a parking lot with), and I came to the realization that despite all my concerns about the church, I couldn't imagine not being able to worship in the temple.

I reflected back on some of the thoughts I had about the PBS special on the church.

I realized while watching that documentary that for better or for worse the church is part of my heritage, even though I'm an adult convert. The way I view religion is through the paradigms I have been taught. Tithing, sabbath observance, scripture study, the desire for true Christian community, and many other things are just part of who I am now, and I can't deny it. I was touched by many of the stories, both by Marlin K Jensen's "conversion" story on his mission and by Margaret Toscano's story of her excommunication.

For whatever reason the Lord led me into this church. I don't claim to know all the reasons why. It just is that way. I don't understand all the historical issues, the Book of Abraham, post-manifesto polygamy, etc., but despite all that I continue to feel a spiritual witness that I'm supposed to continue to be a part of it. At least for now.

Anyway, given all that I felt like the time was right to meet with my bishop to find out what the roadmap was to get my temple recommend back. I haven't paid tithing to the church in over a year, my attendance has been spotty, and I have had some word of wisdom issues, all of which he knows about. I was expecting some kind of metric I had to meet, like being fully active, paying tithing, and holding a meaningful calling for six months or something like that.
He basically looked at me and said, "do you think you're ready to go back to the temple?". I said I did. And he just whipped out the recommend book and we went through the questions. My understanding of what those questions mean has evolved a lot over the last several months. Based on my understanding of what I think they mean, along with my commitment to fix the things we both knew were broken, he handed me a signed temple recommend.

It was a very moving moment for me, mainly because of the level of trust my bishop showed me. He told me what a good person I was and how happy he was that I had reached this point again, and he actually cried. As a former Air Force pilot he told me he would be happy to have me as his wingman anytime, and from a pilot who flew in Viet Nam that meant something.
Another funny thing happened also. Since then I have had a lot of trouble getting worked up over all those irritations with the church that used to just push me over the edge. I was reading some statements of Brigham Young's just yesterday about how women could essentially "trade up" to a priesthood holder with a higher office without needing a divorce, much like you would shop for a nicer car. Things like that used to just push me over the edge, but I just can't get worked up over something Brigham Young may have said 150 years ago. It just doesn't seem relevant to me right now.

Well, this process is ongoing. I am not and will not ever be TBM again. I am probably too broken to ever do missionary splits again, or to teach Sunday School in any fashion other than maybe Elders Quorum lessons. I know too much. Although I can sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as prophets, seers, and revelators, that is probably more because I have dumbed the title down more than anything. I think lots of religious leaders are prophets, seers, and revelators. God works through lots of people and lots of churches, even non-Christian ones. If you asked me if the Dalai Lama was a prophet, seer, and revelator, I would probably say yes.
At this point in time I guess I am seeing the church sort of like a marriage. You enter relationships with people mostly on faith, and they disappoint you. Mature, committed people try to work through relationships rather than just ending them and moving on to the next one, carrying the same baggage that doomed the previous one to failure. For whatever reason I think I am supposed to stick with this and try to work it out, at least for now. Naturally your answer will be different, and that's how it should be. I recognize that many people are damaged by their experience in the church, and I am not trying to say that you are not "mature" somehow if you have decided to quit or stop participating. Only that this what I feel like am being called to at this point in time. More later, no doubt.

2007-05-07T04:31:00.000-07:00

The Bearing of Testimony --
I got out of bed yesterday morning with the realization that I was going to bear my testimony in church.
This was a little unusual for me, since in 23 years in the LDS church I have only borne my testimony in fast and testimony meeting twice. Also, I haven't been to a sacrament meeting since about the second week in March. Nonetheless I knew that I had a message to deliver on the subject of joy.
The 1st counselor in the bishopric went first and bore a stirring testimony about the reality of God and Christ and talked about his wife being able to be in Utah when her mother died of cancer. As I listened to that I realized that I wanted to follow him, before somebody else got up and spoke about a family vacation, the knowledge that their dog was going to be resurrected, etc..
Basically what I said, to quote from a Chris Tomlin song, is "the joy of the Lord is my strength", and that joy is our birthright. Romans 8:16-17 tells us we are children of God, and if children, then heirs. If being an heir to everything God has, including possibly his very nature, is not a source for joy, I don't know what is. The problem is, we let things get in the way. Sin, materialism, and most commonly filling our lives with too many good things that distract us from being able to ponder and feel the spirit and remind ourselves of that joy that should be ours.
In summary I bore my testimony that I knew the church was true. My understanding of that was evolving, but I knew it was true. I testified that Joseph Smith was a prophet who translated the Book of Mormon. My understanding of that was evolving, but I knew it was true. More than all that I bore my testimony of the risen Christ as not only the example of perfect morality, but perfect compassion.
Of all the times I have ever spoken from the pulpit, this was probably the most "on" I have ever been. It couldn't have really come out better if I had written it out. The interesting thing was that despite feeling the Holy Spirit like a rushing wind, I was a little hung over from the night before. :-)
I rarely drink alcohol anymore because one drink is enough to give me a headache the next day, along with an upset stomache. I haven't had beer in nearly 20 years, but I was at a going-away party for a co-worker and kept eyeing the kegs in the corner. Finally curiousity got the better of me and I had two cups of beer. After that my boss immediately pigeonholed me about a change in top-level management for about half an hour, and the beer made it a lot easier to listen to him go on and on about a tedious work situation at a party.
I paid for it a little bit Sunday morning, but it wasn't too bad.
Over the last couple of months I have come to some conclusions, especially after listening to the PBS special on the church. Despite my many concerns, the Lord led me to the LDS church for some reason and refuses to lead me totally out of it. It's my cultural heritage, even though I'm an adult convert with no real pioneer heritage. The stories of Jackson County, Far West, Nauvoo, and Kirtland are my stories. The community that was functionally pushed outside the United States because of their religious beliefs and practices is my community. I look at the world through Mormon eyes, at least for right now. Having been away from my ward for over a month, even having attended another church, I miss the conviction and the sense of purpose. I miss people so moved by their testimonies of Christ that they cry over the pulpit. I don't deny the historical coverups, Mountain Meadows, dissembling statements by President Hinckley that "I don't know that we teach that", etc., but for all intents and purposes this is my church and my heritage and I can't walk away from it just yet. Neither can I be fully a part of it, because the spirit that I carried into my meetings yesterday is not totally sustainable in church. There's a real spirit of worship in my Episcopal congregation, and I could never stay away from the celebration of the Eucharist for too long. It's just too moving. For the most part my ward is in need of an infusion of worship and joy. It doesn't produce it. It's too full of tired young couples trying to manage their kids and callings and careers, just putting one foot in front of the other and slogging through the lessons and talks and trying to keep the programs running.
I come to this position especially in light of some of the interviews that were posted from the PBS special, especially http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html and http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/jensen.html. Elder Holland made some fascinating comments about how the issue of Blacks and the priesthood was handled in the past, and he acknowledged that many people have issues with the historicity of the Book of Mormon without being run out of the church. I thought Elder Jensen made some interesting comments about opening up the archives of the church to foster a second type of history. The church's area is faith-promoting history, while at the same time allowing others to pursue a more balanced approach. There is more going on here than just the correlated product that is the public face of the church right now, and I sense sort of a tacit permission to go beyond that. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the future. We actually spent about 5 minutes talking about the Mountain Meadows Massacre in priesthood opening exercises yesterday, so real history is beginning to slowly work its way through the membership.
Anyway, that's how it looks this month. :-)

2007-03-25T10:06:00.000-07:00

The Smell of Death –

I make no secret of the fact that I tend to bridge the LDS and non-LDS doctrinal worlds. I find witnesses of both things. Some say I have to choose. I’m not sure I do. When I go to a library do I have to pick books by only one author, or do I have to read books by different authors from different perspectives in order to find truth for myself? You probably have your own opinion on this question, and whatever it is, if it’s right for you I won’t disagree with it.

Anyway, I’m reading the Spencer W Kimball lessons out of order and read this one this morning:

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b3bc55cbf541229058520974e44916a0/?vgnextoid=da135f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=9629862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1&contentLocale=0

I found it very disturbing. Not so much because it isn’t true. For all I know it may be true, and I am disturbed because I have wandered too far from the undeviating course leading to eternal life.

No, I read this and was disturbed, because I knew I was dead. I think President Kimball makes it quite plain that my salvation is in my hands. Faith alone won’t save me. Ordinances won’t save me. My church membership won’t save me. The only thing that will save me is a constant and diligent attempt to perfect myself. This life is a real-world game of “Survivor”, and only a few will make it to eternal life, those with the knowledge of the restored gospel who make all the correct choices.

"The Lord Jesus Christ, our Redeemer and Savior, has given us our map—a code of laws and commandments whereby we might attain perfection and, eventually, godhood. This set of laws and ordinances is known as the gospel of Jesus Christ, and it is the only plan which will exalt mankind. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the sole repository of this priceless program in its fulness, which is made available to those who accept it."

"The treasure house of happiness is unlocked to those who live the gospel of Jesus Christ in its purity and simplicity. … The assurance of supreme happiness, the certainty of a successful life here and of exaltation and eternal life hereafter, come to those who plan to live their lives in complete harmony with the gospel of Jesus Christ—and then consistently follow the course they have set."

“We are deeply grateful that we have his definite promise that where there has been sin and error, they can be followed by sincere and sufficient repentance that will in turn be rewarded with forgiveness.”

“The glorious thing about the whole matter of repentance is that the scriptures are as full of the Lord’s assurances that he will forgive as they are full of his commands for us to repent, to change our lives and bring them into full conformity with his wonderful teachings.”

“Why will only a few reach exaltation in the celestial kingdom? Not because it was not available to them, not because they did not know of its availability, not because the testimony was not given to them, but because they would not put forth the effort to pattern their lives and make them like the Savior’s life and establish them so well that there would be no deviation until the end.”

Of course I can repent, but in my case repentance is like bailing out a leaky rowboat with a teaspoon. I can’t repent fast enough to keep up. I’m short-tempered and self-centered at times. Times? Like when the second hand on the clock is moving. I provoked a fight with my wife last night just asking what time she wanted to leave for church and trying to take her car out to fill it with gas for her. That phrase "sufficient repentance catches me up. We are taught that true repentance means to forsake the sin and turn away from it. Returning to the sin is evidence that repentance wasn't sufficient. We are commanded to change our lives in "full conformity" to his teachings. I've been trying for 23 years, and I still can't do it. At the pace I am going I would need to live to be 300 to get even close, and I don't have it in me.

No, if I have to do this on my own effort, I am lost indeed. Jesus may have marked the path and showed the way, but I am buffeted about too much by my own short-comings to be able to reach the gate and enter in to his rest.

I was actually planning to attend my ward today, but after this message I couldn’t. Attending my ward would have been like throwing two more cinderblocks to someone who was already drowning. I went to our Episcopal church instead, where one of our readings was this:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%203:3-14;&version=31;

Imagine this. Even Paul, the super-righteous Pharisee, wasn’t good enough based on the law. He felt what qualified him was his faith and his willingness to share Jesus’ suffering and to press on. Maybe I can do that. Maybe I can throw myself on the grace of God and rely on Christ’s merits, and so win the prize and eternal life.

For those who can be like President Kimball and do it on their own, I’m happy for them, much as I glory in the successes of athletes in the Olympics. For the rest of us, thank goodness we have Jesus.

2007-02-11T15:12:00.000-08:00

Worldwide Training –
I need to say in advance that if you’re not LDS much of this is probably going to go over your head, because you don’t have the cultural context to understand it.

This is going to seem like a lot of rambling, but I promise it all ties together at the end. Trust me on this.

It’s been an interesting few weeks. This year Wife of Bath and I have been on the “one Sunday a Month” plan in our ward. Otherwise we have attended our Episcopal church. One Sunday we played hooky because we just needed to talk more than we needed to be in church. So most of my exposure to the LDS church has been either the Ensign, conference talks, or the DAMU (aka the Disaffected Mormon Universe).

In general the Ensign has made me mad as hell.

I’ve been reading in the New Testament with a new enthusiasm, starting in 1 & 2 Thessalonians and James, because they appear to be the oldest books. I have developed a real love affair with coffee over the last month, because I have been trying to quit drinking so much soda and was looking for a caffeine replacement so I didn’t get headaches. Caffeinated coffee and scripture study are a marriage made in heaven. In the mornings I get a lift, a sense of focus, and a general sense of well-being from a freshly brewed cup of coffee that I spend the rest of the day looking forward to. The writings of the New Testament are elegant in their subtlety, inspiring us to faith while at the same time reminding us of the perils of falling back into putting our own wants (i.e. sin) ahead of a simple love of God.

On the other hand the Ensign and most conference talks are extremely simplistic “gumball” theology. It’s all about you and your choices. God punishes disobedience. God rewards obedience. Sacrifice brings the blessings of heaven. Worthiness brings the influence of the spirit. Unworthiness drives it away. Just one absolute statement after another. Good or evil. Obedience or disobedience. Worthy or not worthy. The funny thing is that experience teaches us that real life is not really like that. Most situations are shades of gray in which both elements of good and bad may be found. God’s will is not always our immediate happiness, and the spirit doesn’t always flick on and off like a light switch based on our most recent choice. Good behavior is not always rewarded in the way we might expect, and bad behavior is not always punished in the way we might expect. That’s why they call it “faith”. We don’t usually get that kind of “red light” “green light” feedback.

The Ensign makes me mad as hell lately because this kind of oversimplification just confuses people and guilts them out. It forces them into a great deal of stress trying to convince themselves that what their mind tells them must be true because of what the Ensign says and what their eyes and actual experience show them are actually happening are actually in agreement. In the physical world this type of experience produces motion sickness. The eye says “I’m not moving”, and the inner ear says, “yes you are”, and vomiting results. The Ensign may affect some people this way also.

In the meantime I have been listening to the Richard Bushman podcasts on www.mormonstories.org, and it has been fascinating. I have learned less about Joseph Smith and much much more about how someone like Richard Bushman, who knows more about Joseph Smith than any anti-mormon alive, manages to maintain his sanity, let alone his faith. In summary I believe Bushman manages to maintain his faith because he sees the church at many levels. His foundation is a feeling that the church is a force for good, and that is solid granite. Built on top of that is his historian’s training, which teaches that facts can often be assembled into more than one story, depending on the bias of the teller, and all tellers are biased. There’s no such thing as an absolutely true interpretation of history, because even eyewitnesses to the same event may differ on what actually happened. I don’t think he really takes the history of the church as seriously as he takes his basic belief that the church is a force for good. Whether or not Joseph Smith used seerstones, propositioned 14 year-olds by promising their parents eternal security, actually translated the Book of Mormon from any sort of plates, whether the three witnesses actually physically saw anything, etc., is just not important relative to that foundational truth that the church is a force for good.

Likewise his understanding that the official church history is more of a public relations effort than an attempt at real history. It just seems obvious that the church has to tell it in such a way that it doesn’t shatter the faith of the members, while at the same time not going so far afield that people are shocked by some of the actual details.

Fast-forward to yesterday.

I attended the Worldwide Training meeting broadcast by satellite from Salt Lake City at our stake center.

The subject was basically on teaching, primarily in the classroom setting, but also in the home.

It consisted of three basic parts: a “conversation” between Elders Packer and Perry, a generally unscripted teaching demonstration by Elder Holland, and a wrapup talk by President Monson.

I thought the unscripted class part with Elder Holland was the most effective training coming from church headquarters that I have ever seen. He had a "class" assembled of about 15 people, some GAs, some in the auxiliary presidencies, and a few younger folks who I guess are from the area, work in the office building, etc.. He taught them a class on teaching, basically by example. Here's an "apostle of the Lord" up there, yet he got the class to answer most of the questions, encouraged them, brought out people who weren't saying much. Members of the class challenged him a little on some points and sisters from the presidencies actually admitted *they didn't know things* and asked for real answers to their questions. He didn't say one thing I remember about obedience, modern prophets, etc.. His basic message was communicating the love of Christ to our classes by the spirit. He cried a few times during his lesson, and I did too. One thing he said that broke him up while he said it was, "if you can't teach them, at least show them you love them, and maybe you'll be able to teach them later", referring to difficult students.

By contrast President Monson gave the closing speech, a typical scripted rehash of stories we've all heard before, standing behind the podium in the conference center reading from the teleprompter.

On one hand you have Holland living on the edge (so to speak) and trusting the spirit in front of a worldwide audience. On the other hand there's Monson, afraid to turn loose of the old forty year old formula and share a little bit of himself.

In trying to bring all of these experiences together, I realized that to a large extent the church is what you want it to be. To another extent it resembles an onion with many layers. Bushman makes a similar point. If you want to believe in modern prophets and that God has an orderly plan for the universe, you’ll probably believe in the Book of Mormon. If you don’t, you won’t. He explicitly said that the facts by themselves don’t draw you absolutely to one conclusion or the other.

I believe Elder Holland was speaking to a mature audience, and as such assumed we could handle a certain sense of unscriptedness about not only him, but the luminaries in his “class”. In order to invite the spirit he had to take some risks and abandon some structure and allow us to see a more personal side of not only him, but his class. He spoke quickly and animatedly, jumping from one thing to another, a restless intelligence. Julie Beck seemed a little slow, like she had had some kind of brain trauma at some point. Kathleen Hughes broke down and cried during Elder Holland’s summary. They were real people, just like us, with emotions and questions and imperfections.

On the other hand, President Monson obviously felt that the men and women of experience and maturity in the worldwide audience were not ready for that kind of informality. What we needed was an authority figure behind a lectern reading simple and easily understood platitudes.

In general the LDS church is trying to present a very complex and subtle organization and doctrine in simple, easy to understand ways. It does that by dumbing down the doctrine and the history. The idea is that this works fine for most people and is very soothing and comforting. Eventually some people break out of that level, much like finding out that the stars we see above are really just a painting on the ceiling, and we break through the shell and find something else beyond. I think most leaders at the bishopric level and above have broken through that ceiling. They know the leaders are just people, sacrifice doesn’t always bring forth the blessings of heaven, maybe Joseph Smith had a little drinky once in awhile and cast an approving glance on a fine specimen of womanhood, but fundamentally they’re going to perpetuate the simple story the general membership and the public can understand and not confuse them with details.

I guess maybe the realization I came to is that the leaders don’t really believe the simple story, any more than we believe that Primary lessons encapsulate the entire gospel. They can sit through dumbed down Gospel Doctrine lessons, seminary lessons, and priesthood/relief society lessons, knowing that there’s a deeper truth out there because they’ve found it on their own. Since they don’t believe it, maybe it’s OK for us to not believe it either and not feel somehow unfaithful, apostate, or somehow morally wrong.

Put another way the church teaches a very simplistic view of Sabbath observance, with stories about Joseph Fielding Smith walking past a corner grocery store to patronize one that was closed on Sundays. Yet really the General Authorities don’t believe this, because they eat in restaurants when traveling away from home on church business on Sundays, and many church-owned businesses function on Sundays. They are more than happy to have people standing by to collect offering reports on Sundays, the church websites will take orders on Sundays, etc.. They teach something simple the members can understand, yet practice something much more nuanced. They have broken through that painted ceiling, so maybe we can too.

What church do you want to believe in? The one where a 14 year-old boy went into the woods to pray and saw two personages, or the one where a boy somewhere between 14 and 16 may have had a spiritual experience that evolved as he grew older and his understanding grew and what he was trying to communicate evolved?

What church do you want to believe in? The church where God always answers the prayers of the faithful and punishes the wicked, or the one where sometimes children of full tithepayers get cancer or fall into swimming pools and drown while their parents are distracted.

What church do you want to believe in? The one where modern prophets speak to God and will never lead the church astray, or the one where they pray and sometimes get answers, and other times are completely fooled by document forgers just to remind them that they are only reflectors of divine light and not the sources.

The thing is, it’s all the same church, and you have a choice as to which view to use, just like the General Authorities do. You can either view what’s put in front of you, or you can break through the painted ceiling and see what the real immensity of the universe looks like, unscripted and unpredictable in all its glory.

It’s OK to sit through a lesson on Jesus choosing the original apostles that morphs into “follow the current leaders and you’ll be blessed”, like I did today. Or a priesthood lesson on the Atonement that tells us that all we have to do for God to love us is to keep the commandments (except if we could do that, why would we need the atonement?) The leaders know these things aren’t completely true, and it doesn’t bother them. It’s OK to break through and see the truth. It’s OK to stay where it’s safe and simple. Ultimately it’s up to you which view you want. Either is OK.

2007-01-14T17:04:00.000-08:00

I haven't posted in awhile, so I thought it might be time for an update.

I just re-read my last entry, and it was better than I remembered. :) I can't say things have changed much in what I covered.

I realized a few weeks ago that I was actually getting a little flat in my spirituality, which hasn't happened to me since my de-conversion from being a "True Believing Mormon" began a couple of years ago. I trace it to a couple of things. I mentioned last time that I have been reading a lot of "liberal" stuff. My latest books are "Mormon Origins: Hierarchy of Power", which shows how the control structures of the LDS church evolved and the "revelations" backdated to make it look like it had always been that way. His claims are pretty easy to verify, because you can go online and find copies of the 1833 Book of Commandments and the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants and see the changes. Basically most of the story we tell nowadays evolved through the mid-1830s, with accompanying changes to Joseph Smith's revelations.

The other book I was reading was "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman, which describes some of the changes to the New Testament over its early history. Some were copying mistakes, and others appear to be intentional changes in order to grind some ideological ax or another. Most are minor changes. Some are not.

After all this I found myself wondering just who I could trust anymore and what from the scriptures could really be believed. I still had my core belief in God, but I was starting to wander just a little bit on just who Jesus was and just what the point of this whole thing was.

I honestly don't see Joseph Smith and many of the early Christian apostles as being that different in the nature of their writings. Generally I think they were recording what they thought God was telling them, and their stories don't necessarily always agree in detail and message. I think there's some level of inspiration in there, but not to the degree we say sometimes. With the documented copying changes, the difference in historical details, the difference in basic theology, I can hardly consider the scriptures inerrant in any degree. I think they primarily witness what the authors thought God was telling them, and our challenge is to figure out what God is trying to tell us through these divergent sources.

Given all that I just found more meaning and joy in motorcycle riding than in studying all this and doing all the writing I had been doing. Maybe it was all just a mysterious crap shoot anyway. I was tired of being blown this way and that in my faith. I'm tired of being the sheep for every self-appointed sheep herder out there who wants to tell me what to believe and what to do. The world is full of Eveready energizer bunnies wanting me to do my home teaching, give blood, rescue the poor, go fight and die in Iraq, buy their product, work my tail off to produce some product they can sell, and about a million other things. Everybody wants me to sign up for their cause these days, join their church, believe their version of the Christian story, spend money on their consumer product, and the list goes on. I'm tired of being herded by people like a sheep. I'm tired of junk mail and TV advertising. If I'm in any meeting with a person up in front with any other message than what they can unselfishly do for me, I've had enough of it.

All I really want to do these days is ride. Just ride. Engage in the real world, in small towns and farms and people living in the real world and not in a fantasy land they want me to believe is real so I'll invest my time and blood and treasure in it.

Well, you can tell I was pretty dead flat this week.

I decided to do something a little different in my morning scripture study routine, because I was beyond flat and into depressed. I ditched my study of the Doctrine and Covenants, LDS Church magazines, and LDS conference talks for a few days and just immersed myself in a parallel bible where I could compare things and see any translation differences, copying differences, whatever. I ran across something really startling to me:

Hebrews 10:10-24

The interesting thing is that this doesn't appear to be a disputed passage. It's pretty consistent across all translations. The writer of Hebrews is unknown, but the book can be dated to before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in AD 70, just because the author doesn't mention it. The book is referred to by several early Christian writers. What all this says to me is really more the consensus of the early church than God appeared to the author and said, "write this".

I learned, or rather was reminded, of a couple of things. First, although Ehrman points out many things that were changed, there are a lot of core things in the New Testament that no evidence exists have been changed substantially. Whether what the author says is actually true or not is a matter of faith, but it seems to have been reliably transmitted, anyway, and generally accepted by the community as being doctrine. Otherwise it wouldn't have made it into the New Testament.

What it said was illuminating to me also.

I realized I had been immersing myself too much in LDS writings, which always have you doubting your worthiness and your relationship with God. God loves you based on how exactly you keep the commandments, and all these blessings are out there for those that do. Inspiration, guidance, a celestial family, etc.. The implication I think many people get is that, since these promises are so certain, if you're not feeling and receiving these things you must not be doing it right, and you need to clean yourself up more. You're always just one mouse click and one Victoria's Secret ad away from blowing it. The gospel is not about God's love for mankind, it's a massive filtering-out process, a game of "Survivor". We're tried and tested in this life to see who is worthy of godhood and who will eternally be a washroom attendant, serving those that get a higher score and make the final round in the quiz bowl of life. Plus I mentally fill in so much of the backstory about the organization's relentless push to reinforce its own authority and to bolster its legitimacy by sanitizing its founding history. It's just draining.

Anyway, verse 18 reminded me that Christ has paid the price for these sins I can't seem to get away from, once and for all. I think verse 22 was the real motivator. Drawing near to God with full assurance of faith. How often are we ever inspired to have full assurance of faith in the LDS church? It's always the refiners fire with angels, silent notes taking. Taking the deliberate path into sin is pretty damaging, but in absence of that I have that full assurance of faith and the hope of a fair deal, in this life and the life to come. God loved me enough to send his Son, and is not just waiting for me to screw up so he can give all my blessings to someone more perfect. At least that's what those who knew Jesus personally and those who received their witness seemed to think. Maybe that's what I think, too. It's at least one basic truth to hold onto.

Anyway, I've been studying in Hebrews and 1 John this week, and life seems a little better. The love of God seems more tangible to me than it did before and more accessible. There are promises I think I can trust a little more than I did before. If you weren't convinced before, you probably aren't now, but that's my witness, anyway.

2006-11-26T13:30:00.000-08:00

Weekend Update--

It's been a long time since I posted anything here, so I thought it was time for an update. Since the last time I posted a lot has happened. I've had a lot of experiences and a lot of time to pray and study and think.

I haven't posted much for several reasons. Not much has really changed in my outlook, although I'm becoming more settled in what I see and how I think this all fits together.

Over the last year and a half some actual living of life has been sacrificed to web surfing and a lot of cathartic writing. I've gotten a little behind at work an in family time, and I've had some things to catch up on. Sometimes I think a well lived life has to be a blend of study and action. Some periods of life will focus more on study and contemplation, and some on living out the conclusions reached. Lately I guess the pendulum is swinging more into the "action" category.

So, after all this time and this wordy introduction, where do things stand?

In general I find that my faith in God and in Jesus Christ is as strong as it was before. I've been reading some of what you would call "liberal" books that attempt to tear down the historical and doctrinal foundations of Christianity, and for me they just don't hold up. Details available on request. I would be more than happy to see this blog spend more time articulating what I do believe rather than focusing so much on the things I don't.

I think it's possible to quibble over the historical details as recounted in the New Testament, but the primary event has to be the mission and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and my faith in those things stands firm.

On the other hand my faith in groups of people collectively has probably suffered irreversible damage. I have become mostly cynical about large churches, political parties, corporations, charities, etc.. As these organizations reach a certain size human nature seems to take hold. The primary focus of the organization seems to become its own survival and expanding its own power and influence rather than blessing its own members. The truth becomes secondary to the public image of the organization. People become secondary to growth and expansion of influence.

In this regard I see the LDS church as being no better or worse than any other organization.

Generally what I come around to is that the LDS church is just not that much different from the organizations around it. The people are no better or worse than most other Christians I come in contact with. Their focus just happens to be more on public morality issues that are more visible. IMHO the true mark of a Christian is probably their charity towards others rather than their personal morality, but this is a characteristic that is much less visible to the public eye. Put another way, other Christians are just as good as Latter-day saints, just in ways that are less obvious.

I spent a week and a half in the Salt Lake City area a couple of months ago. We made three visits to Temple Square, and I made it a point to see the films I hadn't seen before, like the new Joseph Smith film and another related film called, I think, "The Restoration". I went through both Visitors Centers, and I think for the first time was able to actually walk up and touch the outside of the Salt Lake Temple. It was really neat to be able to touch the doors and the doorknobs and to contemplate the pioneer craftsmanship that went into that magnificent building.

We also went to visit the Mt Timpanogos temple (the outside), and it is a wonderful and inspiring building. The pictures I've seen just don't do it justice.

Our visit to the Salt Lake area was extremely positive for me. The only downside was the sister missionaries on Temple Square. They're very nice and mean well, but they invariably pounced on me as soon as they saw me. I went into the South visitors center and was immediately engaged in pleasant conversation that quickly sequed to missionary work and a request for a referral. I was really there to see the visitors centers and not to be put on the spot to come up with a name to give to the missionaries. I told her I would pray about it and let her know.

I was confronted with a presentation on families, which was very nice, but I would expect to be introduced to the worship of Christ, not the ideal middle class suburban family.

The other end of the building was a nice exhibit on the construction of the temple, which was clearly visible through a large glass wall. I was again impressed with the faith, commitment, industry, and skills of the pioneers in building the temple, but I was still looking for some meaningful mention of Jesus Christ.

I then met my second sister missionary, who went through almost the exact same pattern as the first, asking me how the temple made me feel, sequeing to missionary work, and asking for a referral. I mentioned I had already been asked for a referral before and would let her know, and then just walked away to end the discussion.

I paused for a bit to contemplate the temple, and it was truly a wonder for me, once I could escape the sisters.

The North Visitors Center was a lot better. There was the presentation on Christ I was looking for. Only one sister missionary went through the commitment pattern looking for a referral. I ran into another who just talked about the things available on Temple Square and gave me what I was actually looking for, schedules for the films. She was very helpful and seemed guilty somehow, I'm guessing because she didn't ask me for a referral.

You can only view the Christus statue as part of a presentation now, and two sister missionaries pleasantly manned a velvet rope to block the way. I asked when I could go up, and she explained why I needed to wait. I stood there for awhile, and the sisters looked at each other and just let me go up.

The Christus statue is pretty impressive, and the sum total of all the exhibits in the North visitors center more than made up for the absence of much related to Christ in the other one. I just hope folks don't go to the South Visitors Center and then leave, thinking they have seen it all.

I got awhile to contemplate it all before the "official" group arrived and the Asian sisters bore their testimonies in broken English and then whisked those interested off to another presentation.

On a later visit I got to see the Joseph Smith movie at the Joseph Smith Memorial Building. Some have been offended because the movie plays fast and loose with several historical details. The official First Vision account is shown, to no one's surprise, there's no hint of polygamy, and the context behind all the persecution is completely eliminated, making it look like it was only their religious views that made them targets. The well-known fact that Joseph and Hyrum had pistols and fired back at their attackers is not present either. Joseph runs to the window and appears to be assumed into Heaven rather than being shot and falling into the street, which is what actually happened.

Many people in the theater were crying. I wasn't one of them. The movie was obviously not a documentary or designed to convey facts, so the selective storytelling didn't bother me much. I had a running chronology running through my head most of the time, noting what they depicted and what they sort of filmed around.

After the movie I had my chance to get up close and personal with the Salt Lake Temple. Before I don't think we could touch it, either out of security reasons or because of weddings. I got the chance to run my hands along the walls and doors and to contemplate what an achievement it was to build it. I was really moved by it in a way I can't really express and don't really completely understand. The closest I can come is that temples, especially the Salt Lake one, are probably the supreme monuments in existence to the faith of the Latter-day Saint people. I guess I am moved more by that faith than by the actual ordinances that are performed there.

After an entry this verbose some kind of summary seems to be required, but I wanted to be sure to include some of the experiences that have led me to where I am now.

Which is basically where I was before.

I am re-reading the Doctrine and Covenants along with Michael Quinn's book "Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power". I continue to find inspiration in those early prophetic works like the Book of Mormon, while at the same time being aware of their thoroughly human origins and the extent to which the LDS church has gone throughout its history to obscure those origins.

During my visit to Utah I was continually impressed with how nice the people are and how focused they are. Or at least appear. LDS chapels everywhere, and Sundays were a sea of minivans and white shirts. I attended church twice in one of the BYU wards, and they were some of the best LDS meetings I had attended in a long time. The speakers and teachers testified with power about both the Savior and about the "restored" gospel in a way I haven't seen in years. It was magnetic.

Having said that, the LDS church has always been surrounded by clouds of deception. Retroactively changed revelations. Secret marriage ceremonies not publically acknowledged, even to the members, for decades. Secret organizations like the Council of Fifty. Even today the General Authorities of the church, including the President, publish historical information that everyone who reads unofficial sources knows to be false and denies publicly doctrine we teach openly in the church.

As much as many get stirred up about this, I can't bring myself to see it as evil. Merely human, much as any other organization resorts to dissembling to maintain its public image.

My spiritual center has become much more personal, rather than relying on any human organization for ultimate guidance. I'm in church somewhere every Sunday, yet I treat what I'm presented more as input and perspective rather than fact.

I've come to the conclusion that most people's views on religion are based more on their biases than on the facts. Regarding Christianity, the facts and statements are contradictory, even within the same books of the Bible at times. We all filter out what we don't believe based on our biases, and what remains determines our religion.

God has left us a puzzle to figure out, with the basics in plain view and the details in turmoil. Just to confuse things further, the pieces can be put together to form more than one puzzle, much like a jigsaw puzzle with a different picture on each side. My puzzle may be different from yours, and it's intended that way.

Of late I am much less tortured by having to figure this out than I was before. I am much less hurt and disillusioned by the deceptions of LDS church leaders than I was before. They're only human and doing the best they can to keep a leaky ship afloat, and if I had given my heart and soul to an organization for as long as they have I would probably feel compelled to maintain the illusion also.

The spirit seems to be leading me out of "shock and betrayal mode" and into just living life to the fullest. For me that involves prayer and scripture study, seeking out ways to serve others and Jesus did, learning to love others as Jesus did, and seeking to worship my creator in every way possible.

I bought a motorcycle last month, and I feel blessed by God every day I get to ride it. It's an incredible privilege to just live life on this earth at the time I have been placed here. I don't want to miss a thing. Not one opportunity to revel in God's glory or to reflect that glory to others as best I can.

As far as "which church is true", none of them are and all of them are. Ultimately I'll be judged on my relationship with Jesus rather than what pew I chose to sit in on Sunday. Keeping the commandments or performing charitable acts are merely a reflection of that relationship rather than a substitute for it and are strictly secondary. Churches just enable us to gather together for worship, instruction, and service, and are strictly secondary also. Churches are inevitably repackaging of the source material by fallible human beings, and as such can only be trusted so far and no further. Churches are run by people with normal fears and ambitions and imperfections, and as such can only be trusted so far and no further.

Joseph Smith presented some truly amazing and revolutionary doctrine. Is it completely true? I have no idea. The apostle Paul presented some truly amazing and revolutionary doctrine. Is it completely true? I have no idea. In a way, each was inspired by God in ways normal people don't understand, and they did their best to communicate what they thought God was trying to tell them. Did either get it completely right? Probably unlikely, yet the basics of what they were trying to get across are probably pretty reliable, so the trick is to identify those things that are central and what things are just peripheral details and focus on the central things. To me Jesus said it best. Love God first, and then love thy neighbor. The rest is just commentary.

As Joshua said, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord". I expect to spend the rest of my life figuring out exactly what that means.

2006-09-24T15:11:00.000-07:00

Whose Church is it, Anyway? -

Wife of Bath and I spent pretty much all day cutting the grass and edging the grounds at our Episcopal church yesterday. "About two hours", the guy said. Well, if you've used a riding mower before, and you don't do the edging, and if you don't mow half the grassy parking lot, and get out a blower to clean up the clippings in the street . . .

While doing this we were basically the only members of the parish around, so we were running in and out of the building. Rather than a key lock they have a combination lock, because it's expected that most members of the parish will have access to the building. This was my chance to explore. Not a single room or office was locked, other than the AV room in the balcony. Not even the office or the rector's office was locked. The library was unlocked. I had access to all of it.

I couldn't help but contrast that to my experience in the LDS church. I'm in the presidency of a stake-level auxiliary, and I haven't had a key to the building in years. Even when I had to teach a weekly class I had to wait for someone to let me in. Even as ward clerk I didn't have access to the library. It was easier to get into Ft Knox than our ward library.

One way we know who has "the power" in the LDS church is by who has keys to the building. There are some things in our current building only the stake presidency has keys to. Heaven help us if we need to get to some of the lights and nobody from the stake presidency is there. Yet another thing that reinforces the authority of the leaders. I've begun to notice how much of what we do in the LDS church is designed to reinforce the authority of the leaders, but that's a tangent for another time.

So, whose church is it, anyway? Obviously not mine. I can only get into the building when somebody in authority grants me permission. Even then I'm restricted by whether the person has the right authority for the library, the kitchen, etc. So it's not really my church. It's the leadership's church. I only have the access privileges they give me.

By contrast our Episcopal church is my church. I can get in the building any time I want to. They trust me to use good judgment in what I do with my access.

It feels weird to be trusted, but in the end it's a good feeling.

2006-09-08T04:54:00.000-07:00

Progress Report –-
It’s been awhile since I posted anything here, because we’ve been sending our youngest child off to college and taking some extended vacations.

What I initially conceived was a detailed description of the last few weeks, but I’m not sure I have the time to write it or you have the patience to read it. Details available on request, but I’ll provide the Readers Digest condensed version under the impression this is a better fit for both of us.

I haven’t attended my own ward sacrament meeting for four weeks now, and we’ve been away from church for three, due to visiting other churches and traveling. Frankly I haven’t missed it much. The local Episcopal church we have joined has provided spirit-filled worship experiences, and the church we visited in Indianapolis preached an inspirational sermon. His subject was basically throwing ourselves into the arms of Christ as children throw themselves into the arms of their fathers when they come home from work. The scriptures teach us that we are secure in our salvation once we make the leap of faith, so we don’t need to doubt our worthiness or our status continually. We don’t need to live in a state of fear about the state of our relationship with Christ. We just need to throw ourselves into it and look forward and up rather than inward and back.

Nobody in our ward seems to have noticed our absence, although I think people are aware we have been traveling. No phone calls telling us we are missed, nobody asking about how our trip was, etc.. E-mail about submitting my home teaching reporting, and somebody wanted a recipe from Wife of Bath. We haven’t heard from home or visiting teachers in months, although our leadership knows we have a “testimony” situation.

I have been playing “garment roulette” over the last few weeks. Sometimes I wear them. Sometimes I don’t. I can’t tell the difference. I’ve had a couple of glasses of wine with Wife of Bath, and I can’t tell the difference in my spirituality there either, other than a suspicious mild headache the next morning sometimes.

Today I wore my garments for the first time in a few days and read the latest Ensign. Surely I should have been filled with the spirit and inspired to return to a life of orthodoxy.

Basically it was the worst morning I have had in awhile. President Faust quoted a collection of men who have been dead for thirty years about how the father should be returned to a position of authority in the home. Elder Perry talked about what I’m sure must have been a truly inspiring family activity where he took them on a tour of Logan UT. At every stop he quoted a scripture and related a moral lesson from his upbringing, thus teaching that the most important role of fathers and grandfathers is to reinforce their own authority by imposing rigid programs and lecturing their family members. Much as we do in the church. One wonders if senior church leaders run their personal lives like a series of conferences and meetings, where family members are gathered to listen to them preach from the scriptures and personal time is scheduled like a temple recommend interview, as we are counseled to schedule personal interviews with our kids, schedule Family Home Evening every Monday, and “date night” every Friday, except when we can get a “twofer” by taking our wives to the temple on ward temple night as a date, thus freeing up a Friday night for preparing a talk or lesson.

A divorced woman talked about how she got through the divorce by relying on the programs of the church and the temple and applying a series of practical steps, similar to what might be found in Ladies Home Journal. I believe Christ was mentioned somewhere near the end of the article, but I’m not sure.

I find myself drifting out of an interest in activity in the church. It just doesn’t seem that relevant any more. What I find I need is to be brought into a close and personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and then patiently led back into that relationship when my human tendencies cause me to drift away. I need to be brought into an awareness of who Jesus was and how he lived, taught, and served, and I need opportunities to be connected with other people with whom I can share those experiences and learn to serve. I need to be led to people different from me so I can practice loving as Jesus did, aware of their faults yet offering unconditional love and personal acceptance. Jesus had a way of accepting and supporting people who were failing, without necessarily condoning their behavior. He could tell a woman taken in adultery that he didn’t condemn or judge her, while at the same time encouraging her to turn away from her sins.

Basically what I see the church doing is striving primarily to reinforce its own authority, involving us in programs and teaching experiences where we don’t have to think or rely on the spirit, and then talking about Jesus as the wellspring of where the authority of all these people telling us what to do comes from. He’s out there somewhere, and during our free time from all these other things we’re encouraged to find him.

I remember reading somewhere that the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. What I generally feel towards the LDS church right now is not hostility. With some exceptions everybody is doing the best they can to magnify what they have been taught. They have been taught the church is the Kingdom of God. The general authorities need to cover up the history to keep the weak in the fold, and the stake and ward leaders need to keep people anxiously engaged and busy in the church to keep them connected to it, so they don’t wander off on their own and drift away. Basically the earth is flat, and people who wander away from the mainstream of the church fall off the edge and are eaten by horrible sea monsters and dragons. They have to prevent that at all costs, and the “truth” will work itself out later in the millennium.

No, I’m just indifferent. Good people doing their best, but it doesn’t lead me to Jesus. It leads me to a closer relationship to the church and its leaders. I guess that works for most people. It doesn’t work for me.

Aren’t you glad this was the condensed version?

2006-08-06T12:55:00.000-07:00

Tender mercies --
I met with the stake president Saturday, and it proved to be a lot different than I expected.

Rewind to Friday. After going to a potluck dinner for a returned missionary we're related to, I headed home with the idea of going for a long walk. Typically I listen to music, but I felt kind of a dark spirit about listening to music.

"A talk", I thought. "How about an interview with a Catholic nun, Joan Chittister, that I read about on the internet".

So I downloaded it to my mp3 player and went out on my walk. She brought up a number of very interesting points in her interview. The ones that caught my attention related more to the commonalities of religious experience she has encountered among the world's religions in her travels. An interesting question was raised in her interview. When one begins to appreciate the elements of truth in other faiths, is that infidelity or the beginning of spiritual maturity?

She says the latter. She co-chairs a peace organization with women from several major world religions. Although, for her, the path for her is the one marked by Jesus Christ, she sees God drawing people to himself through many religions. Thus they have essential truths that should be appreciated.

Interesting stuff to be listening to the night before the big interview with the stake president.

Then my mp3 player went to the next recording, and it was one of my favorite songs by MercyMe, with the lyrics "where you lead me, I will follow". This was extremely surprising, because this is not the next song on my mp3 player. For some reason it reset itself and started at the beginning of the song list.

I took this to be one of the "tender mercies" referred to by Elder Bednar in one of his previous conference talks, those small things sent to us to strengthen us in times of trial.

I could have felt prompted to listen to a conference talk and some contemporary LDS music, which I also have recordings of, things that might have inclined me back to orthodoxy. But instead I got things encouraging me on the path I am on.

My actual interview was Saturday morning at 9:00am, and I was sweating it. My stake president comes across as being rather stern at times, and he's a scriptorian. Virtually every time we have any kind of stake meeting in the chapel he rearranges everyone to fill the front rows and the middle sections, under the theory that people sitting in front are more engaged in the meeting.

I was expecting to be challenged, admonished, and corrected.

I would really like to include some verbatim remarks, but I've given enough details in this so that my stake is not that hard to figure out, and I want to respect his confidentiality.

In summary he was aware of basically all the historical information I brought up, including some of the theories about the translation of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. He has reached his own accomodation with it, and his counsel to me was to help me do the same.

I mentioned my concerns about the leaders of the church covering up information. As evidence of trying to pursue this in good faith, I also mentioned that I had given three talks from the pulpit since starting to learn about these things and hadn't said anything about my issues. He made the point that what I was doing was no different from what the general authorities were doing, trying to uplift people without unduly upsetting people with details that many would find confusing.

He counseled me to do the following: 1) Consider the sources of the information I'm coming across. Are they conveying actual historical information or wild speculation? 2) Pray about Joseph Smith and his calling. Seek to understand his motivations and his imperfections in light of what God was calling him to do and in light of the revelations he produced. 3) Stay grounded in the Standard Works rather than other books. Make them the center of my reading. 4) Stay balanced. Don't read things from only one point of view. 5) Stay close to the spirit and remain worthy of spiritual promptings and inspiration. Don't let my doubts lead me into behaviors that will push the spirit away. 6) If/when called upon to preach and teach, bear testimony of those things I know to be true that will uplift others. He told me that these internal struggles would eventually make me stronger, and that the testimony of those things I knew to be true would eventually grow to push out those things I was unsure about.

I was expecting to be released from my stake calling, but he felt confident in my ability to continue to serving if I wanted to. He trusted me not to try to lead the youth astray with my "issues", and I trusted him not to put me in a position where I was forced to teach things I didn't believe in.

We spent over an hour, and I had a lot to think about. I walked out of his office, and right behind me walked in a prospective missionary waiting to be interviewed. I tried to imagine being in the stake president's shoes, dealing with one member after another with difficult problems to work out, and my respect for him grew.

I walked across the parking lot to the temple that shares parking with our stake center. There was a wedding party coming out, and I wandered around to the street side and sat down, looking up at the angel Moroni and the words, "Holiness to the Lord". I sang as much of "The Spirit of God" as I could remember, and my mind went back to the early days of the church and the Kirtland temple. I thought about my own daughter's wedding in this same temple just a year ago. I felt a very strong spiritual confirmation of the validity of this path for some people, while at the same time feeling confirmed in the diverging path I'm on.

After awhile I realized that I was actually having a spiritual experience in front of the air conditioning unit rather than the front door, but I guess they have to put it somewhere.

What I had really hoped to get out of this meeting was an opportunity to choose one way or the other. In a way being rebuked and driven out of the mainstream of the LDs church would have made the choice for me. It would have pushed me in a certain direction without me having to continue to work this out. I was not so lucky in this respect.

I continue to feel very lucky in the ward and stake leaders I have. It looks like there's not going to be an ugly scene or confrontation. We will not be marginalized against our will. We will be given the freedom to work this out however it works out without being labelled as "bad people", "apostates", "ungrateful", "unworthy", etc..

I drove out of the parking lot feeling liberated, free. It looks like we will be able to make our own choices without having them made for us. We can pick our own balance point for right now.

2006-07-31T04:36:00.000-07:00

Obedience –
After mostly writing the previous entry last night I listened to a talk from a non-LDS church on the way to work this morning. When I heard his subject was “obedience” I almost turned off my mp3 player. I had had enough of obedience in the last 24 hours. Here comes the to-do list and the guilt trip, I thought.

His take on obedience was quite interesting. He quoted from 1 John and pointed out that obedience can be summed up by 1) love God and 2) love your neighbor, and spent about thirty minutes on #2. He didn’t say a thing about personal morality, standards, or serving within the church as directed by the pastor. What he talked about was reaching out to others with whom we come in contact and simply loving them as Jesus did. He used the example of a man who spent three months serving the poor in India and then came home and began taking in the homeless, in his own house.

What a breath of fresh air. It was a blessing to finally hear some true Christianity.

Here’s a link to the sermon:

Obedience

2006-07-31T04:27:00.000-07:00

The Five Hour Block –
I have had many good Sundays in church lately. Today wasn’t one of them. It started off with the youth speaker in Sacrament and went downhill. His first sentence somehow related to having to perfect ourselves in order to feel the spirit, and I was glad Wife of Bath was not there, because I believe she would have headed for the door. The next speaker presented an eight point program for achieving something. I couldn’t figure out what, other than it was a lot of work to get there, involving scripture study, prayer, and the usual “do”s, other than actual contemplation. The concluding speaker talked about how the family was the foundation for our nation. I basically consider the extreme emphasis on the family in many conservative Christian churches today to be a modern idolatry, merely because we seem to place our focus on the family ahead of our focus on God. We try to lure new people in by talking about families instead of God and put them up on the pedestal that properly belongs to Christ. Our families are not the ultimate source of happiness or salvation. That would be our relationship with Christ. But I digress.

Sunday School was on Elijah and Elisha and covered the healing of Namaan the Syrian from leprosy. Through the lens of correlation this became a lesson on “follow the prophet”, no matter what small thing he says. Somebody in the class protested against blind obedience, and the class agreed that blind obedience is bad, and we should do everything the prophet says with our eyes open. Okay . . . and this differs from blind obedience how?

Priesthood was a pioneer day lesson from the Wilford Woodruff manual on the pioneers, including familiar stories of Joseph Smith raising people from the near-dead.

After the three hour block I had to wonder if we had talked about God at all, let alone Christ.

Later on I attended stake priesthood meeting, where we talked about the importance of performing our duties and obligations, returning and reporting, and the evils of pornography (which was quite appropriate, FWIW). The lone substantial reference to Christ was from a 16 year-old who talked about how serving in the church brought him closer to Christ and helped him feel the savior’s love. The rest of it was duty, obligation, and the importance of worthiness.

By and large it was a draining day. I found myself wondering if there was a morning worship service during the week at any local church, just so I could feel a spirit of group worship rather than being instructed on more things to do, while being reminded of the importance of doing them in order to remain “worthy” of the spirit, my eternal reward, etc..

I found myself wondering just how much more of this I can take. My main reason for staying in the LDS church is that most churches just don’t teach morality and commitment anymore, and I think that’s important. Even Baptists teach about sin and morality without the guilt load the LDS church imposes. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is quite simply not one long to-do list, however well intentioned this might be. Even if we load ourselves down with this to-do list for fully altruistic reasons, I don’t think this is what Christ really intends.

My impression from the scriptures is that Christ did not over-program himself. We don’t see Jesus racing from place to place trying to heal everyone, trying to convert everyone, trying to pack just one more thing into a crowded day like we do. Christ focused on relationships, both with his Father and with his people, and relationships take time. True relationships and being excessively schedule-driven and task-driven are at odds with each other. I knew a stake president once who bragged about planning his family home evenings a year in advance. In what way does this allow for the still small voice to suggest a particular message needed right now? Likewise our packed schedules. A day full of work commitments, family commitments, and church commitments does not lend itself to being interrupted by someone who either needs our help or needs us to listen. Jesus paced himself and focused on the people in front of him, and maybe we can learn something from this. He balanced rest, service, prayer, and worship. So should we.

I’m coming to believe our concept of worthiness in the LDS church is very destructive. It’s like a cartoon where the dog has a stick tied to his head with a bone on the end, just out of reach. As he moves towards the bone it moves away, because it’s attached to the stick which is attached to his head. No matter how hard he tries the dog will never reach the bone.

Likewise worthiness. It’s always “lengthen your stride”, “stand a little taller”, “do a little more”, “be a little better”. Based on what we hear from the pulpit we will never be good enough. We will never be “done”. We will never be able to satisfy all the obligations laid on us from the pulpit, thus we will never feel “worthy” of the companionship of the Holy Spirit.

2006-07-24T04:41:00.000-07:00

Youth Conference Report –-

Wife of Bath and I were heavily involved in stake Youth Conference this weekend as a result of my stake calling. We were also a host family for five young men. The combination kept us going pretty much constantly from 5pm Thursday to the end of the testimony meeting Saturday evening. We drove kids, we cooked hot dogs, we served food, we painted blocks, we sang songs, and generally handled a lot of behind the scenes logistics.

The theme was “I walked where Jesus walked”. Given my current state of mind this conference had a lot of potential to sway me either way. Last year’s conference was basically a tribute to Joseph Smith, so something a little more Christ-centered was definitely in order.

This was a good conference. The presenters did their best to present their messages about Christ, there were inspirational murals of the empty tomb and the city of Jerusalem, the food was good, and the youth were almost uniformly spiritual and well-behaved.

A couple of things really jumped out at me, though. Christ’s message was very complex in character, sometimes talking about social justice, sometimes talking about worship of God, sometimes talking about sin. His role was multi-faceted, subverting the political/religious hierarchy and teaching us how to express our love for God as well as our love for each other. He exemplified obedience, love, service, and personal righteousness, as well as taking upon himself the role of sacrificial lamb for our sins.

Almost uniformly the presenters at the conference focused on the atonement to the exclusion of other things. We have a tendency to see everything in the gospel through the lens of personal righteousness and morality, which reduces Jesus’ role to mainly paying the price for our sins. I think this tends to elevate the consideration we give to sin way out of proportion to the emphasis Jesus placed on sin. The gospel is not just about our personal behavior, keeping ourselves free from sin, and our righteousness. It’s mainly about relationships. Our relationship with God, and our relationships with others. Especially our relationships with the poor and those who suffer in other ways. This aspect of Jesus’ life went largely unexamined in the sessions I went to. We basically reduced Jesus’ life to a laundry list of things to do. Obey. Refrain. Serve. Be ye therefore perfect.

Another thing that struck me was the testimony meeting at the end. After two and a half long days, the testimony meeting is the payoff. The depth of the testimonies of the youth of our stake is always inspiring. Sitting on the stand you can see their hands shaking and their heavy breathing as they walk the long walk up to the microphone. Their strength is always inspiring.

I thought it was interesting that, after two and a half days of talking about Jesus, they rarely mentioned him in their testimonies. They bore their testimonies of the church, of President Hinckley, of the Book of Mormon, and Christ got a couple of sentences at the end. Only one young man really centered his remarks on Christ’s love and how the conference had helped him appreciate that better.

This reinforced my feeling that the members in general have a knowledge of Jesus and an appreciation for the atonement, but most of their loyalty and their attention goes to the church and church leaders, because that’s what’s in front of them most of the time. Rather than putting Christ at the center of our worship, I think we really have “the restoration” at the center of our worship much of the time, with Christ as kind of a component part of that. If you asked most of our youth who their hero was and who they wanted to emulate, I bet President Hinckley would edge out Jesus Christ.

In their defense I think most members consider it one package, and that their devotion to the church encompasses devotion to Christ, but I believe this is a dangerous lack of discrimination. We have elevated our leaders, our founders, and the organization of the church to a level where it seems to be on a par with Christ and the events of his historical ministry, and this is a big problem.

2006-07-17T04:52:00.000-07:00

The Ensign Moment That Wasn’t—

Wife of Bath and I went on a backpacking trip this weekend with an old friend from church. I was his home teacher for about eight years, through the death of their third child and some very tough times. James used to be the only person I could really discuss the LDS gospel with, because he was and is infused with the spirit and was serious about it. Most LDS shy away from spiritual discussions (at least men) because the subjects are considered “private” and people just don’t open up that much. At least not with me anyway. James was different, because he lived and loved the gospel.

One of my consistent prayers through all this is for intervention. “Lord, if I am on the wrong path, send me a sign. Have my bishop call me in for an interview. Have my elders quorum president schedule me for a PPI and ask me how I’m doing in a way that suggests he really cares, i.e. by allotting more than 10 minutes for the meeting. Send me a friend to ask me how things are going.”

As of yet, nothing. I have met with my bishop several times about mundane administrative things and tithing settlement, and he has never had a clue, other than our last meeting where I laid it all out. Since the evolution of my belief I have only had one PPI from my quorum presidency, which was last month after I had already decided to talk to my bishop.

This weekend was another “intervention” opportunity. Two days in the woods of Kentucky, with nothing to talk about but God, angels, and the restoration. James has been a seminary teacher for years, and is probably the most doctrinally knowledgeable person in my circle of acquaintance. He has pulled at least one person back from apostasy that I know of. Would this be my turn? Would he be prompted to reel me back into the fold?

Apparently not. Gospel subjects really never came up, other than he repeated a standing joke between us about me being called to be a bishop, which WoB and I found to be kind of grimly amusing, considering what is actually going on.

I have to believe that 1) if the LDS church was true, 2) if those around us are blessed with a spirit of discernment 3) if we have a father in Heaven who wants WoB and I to remain as fully active members of the LDS church, and 4) if we have a father in Heaven who answers really important prayers, that somebody around us would be inspired to stop us from going down the path we’re headed.

Instead, the spiritual witness I keep getting is that there is a God in heaven who loves us and wants us to look after each other, and that a good portion of what the LDS church teaches is legalistic pharisaical bullcrap. In some ways it leads us to God in ways that we might not otherwise be brought there, but in many ways it causes us to get caught up in the minutia of details and structure and human organization in ways that obscures a fuller and more nuanced relationship with the divine.

So, another chance to pull us back from the brink of apostasy passes without incident. Onward we continue into the unknown . . .

2006-07-09T15:39:00.000-07:00

Service --

Our Elders Quorum had a service project yesterday. A member had three trees taken down in his back yard, and he needed the wood hauled away. The Elders Quorum President talked to the bishop and got the name of a needy sister in the ward who needed the wood.

When we went to deliver the wood, I was surprised. I expected to find an older sister living in a rundown small home somewhere. What I found was a single sister living in a modest home in a nice subdivision. The thing that got me is that she's in the process of building a pond in her back yard.

In my experience we rarely render what I would consider meaningful service in the church. We rarely serve the truly needy, even in our own community. Most of our service goes to each other. I.e. it stays within the church. We are not as concerned with relieving the plight of the poor and hungry as we are helping widows with their landscaping.

I don't doubt that the sister in our ward was needy relative to others in the ward, but I hardly think somebody putting in a pond is on the edge of survival. We can do better than this. Jesus did not call us to merely look after those within our own group, no matter how comfortable that might be.

Meanwhile, the Episcopal church we visit sometimes had a meeting today totally devoted to the Appalachian Service Project mission trip the youth took. They spent a week in Kentucky repairing people's houses. They were hot, sweaty, dirty, and tired for a week, but they rendered what I consider meaningful service for people who are unable to help themselves. These kids came back with the light of Christ in their eyes.

And I bet not one house needed a pond built.

2006-07-06T04:19:00.000-07:00

Meeting with the Bishop --

I had a very positive discussion with my bishop last night.

I didn't really intend to do this, but I ended up pretty much unloading all the historical issues, from the 1832 first vision to the mysterious disappearance of the pistols from the modern rendition of the Carthage Jail story. He didn't really attempt to deal with any of that, but I didn't really expect him to. He didn't attempt to argue or try to discredit the information. He allowed as how our church leaders aren't perfect and have never been perfect, and he bore his testimony of the humility of the apostles, their inspiration, and that they do what they feel is in the best interests of the church. We don't always have the big picture or understand the circumstances behind those decisions, but in his case he had faith in the Brethren to make the right choices most of the time. I reiterated that my issues aren't with the events themselves as much as the intentional deception of the membership. I mentioned that it was a punch in the gut to get blindsided with information like the Council of Fifty, Helen Mar Kimball, and the use of seerstones in translating the Book Of Mormon when we had never been told any of this before, and I expressed my feelings of betrayal at not having been told these things.

He reiterated that I was a good and honorable person and was grateful for my forthrightness in wanting to make him aware of my situation. He felt comfortable with what I was doing in my callings and trusted that I wasn't going to teach false doctrine to the youth or members, seeing as how this has been going on for over a year right under his nose and he wasn't even aware of it. I mentioned I could no longer sustain the 1st Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve as prophets, seers, and revelators. I continue to believe they are inspired, in the same way that the Pope, Billy Graham, Mr Rogers, etc, are inspired, but I don't think their actions in misleading the membership about our history meet the standard for prophet, seer, and revelator. i.e. inspired by God to lead the One True Church. I mentioned I believed the church was true, but there are many sources of truth out there, and the church is not the exclusive, or even the best, dispenser of wisdom. Despite having said all that he left up to me whether I qualifed for a recommend, and if I had asked for one he would have whipped out the book and given me one.

He mentioned his sadness, not that I was being unfaithful to the church or anything, but that I was going through this, and he understood my position given the information I had been exposed to. We both agreed that this should be discussed with the stake president. He asked me to say a closing prayer, and after an hour and a half we parted on an extremely positive note.

So, round 1 is complete. I'm not expecting an interview with my stake president to be so touchy feely. He's more stern, and being raised in the church he's a scriptorian. We'll see what happens next.

2006-07-03T04:30:00.000-07:00

The Road Taken --

I thought about titling this "Coming Out", "Kicking Over the Ant Hill", etc., but this seemed more classy.

I sent this e-mail to my bishop on Saturday. Here we go . . .

==================

Bishop X,

I currently find myself in a place I never expected to be, nor really sought out.

In summary, over the last year and a half of prayer, study of the scriptures, and study of church history, I have developed some serious problems with the foundational history of the church and the way it's presented, as well as with many of the foundational doctrines. It seems unlikely to me that I probably still qualify for a temple recommend.

It really hurts me to have to say this and to place this burden on your shoulders, but given that I hold positions of responsibility at both the ward and stake level, I have to be honest and up front with this.

I have no desire to leave the church or anything like that, but you have a right to know where I stand, and I have a need to quit hiding my concerns.

At this point we can proceed however you feel is most appropriate. Maybe this is sufficient to establish my situation in the ward. If necessary we can meet, or I can lay my concerns out via e-mail so you have something to forward to President Y if you so choose. I'm assuming he will need to be involved because of my stake calling. My emotions about this are extremely mixed, and I can probably express this better in writing, but that might not be the best use of your time. I can lay this out in whatever level of detail you're most comfortable with, as these are not pleasant subjects for anyone who has devoted the best of their adult lives to the church as we have.

One of my goals in this is to make this as easy for you as possible. I'm conscious of laying a burden on your shoulders, but I'm not sure what else to do at this point. It's time to get this out in the open.

Please let me know how you would like to proceed from here.

At this point Wife of Bath is fully aware of my concerns, but I have not shared them with [DS], [DD], or [DD’s husband]. One condition I would request is that I would like this to remain between us, President Y, and your counselors, until [DS] has left for school the middle of August. I don't want any hint of this coming out through the rumor mill. i.e. PEC, the high council meetings, etc., until he has left for college. At that point you can tell whoever you want. It would be unrealistic to expect it to remain a secret.

Thanks for your loving service to our ward,

CF

2006-06-12T05:17:00.000-07:00

Dateline 06/12/2006 –
Sometimes this blog functions as an essay repository, and other times it functions more as a journal to record what I’m thinking on a given day. Today I guess it’s a blog.

I was on the “five hour block” schedule yesterday as a result of my stake calling. I attended sacrament and Sunday school in my own ward and then drove across the county to attend ward conference for another ward. The preaching and teaching in both wards was nothing less than inspired and inspiring. The thing I continue to love about the church is the commitment of the leaders and members to the “restored” gospel. I just can’t help but be moved by it. The second talk in my ward and the bishop and stake president’s message at ward conference were very moving and Christ-centered. The concluding speaker in my ward pled with us to reach out to those who see themselves as second-class citizens in the church, due to marital status or other things. The SP in particular reminded us that the purpose of the church organization is to bring souls to Christ, rather than to have nice facilities for us to congratulate ourselves on how well we’re doing.

However . . .

I thought one talk in my ward was quite indicative. The second speaker gave a twenty minute talk reprising Elder Holland’s Sunday message from last conference on Jesus Christ. Unfortunately she gave a twenty minute talk in about fifteen minutes, reading it so fast it was hard to process. It was especially hard to tell when she was quoting Elder Holland and when she was speaking for herself.

The indicative thing was her testimony at the end.

After speaking for fifteen minutes on Jesus Christ, she expressed her thanks for the church, the ward, her calling, her family, and the temple. The temple was the thing she was most thankful for. The temple. The temple? Nothing further about Christ, his sacrifice, the atonement, his example, the resurrection, the second coming, or anything else. She was willing to speak about Jesus Christ by assignment, but the things she was truly thankful for came from the institutional church and its claims to authority. Jesus Christ didn’t make the list.

Fast-forward to the youth meetings of ward conference, and again the youth of the church are tremendously inspiring. Their testimonies and their devotion to what they have been taught are truly remarkable, given the things going on around them.

Our stake theme for the year comes from D&C 115:5 – “Verily I say unto you all: Arise and shine forth, that thy light may be a standard for the nations;”

Four youth were invited in advance to testify about the ways in which they have let their light shine forth. Following their testimonies the stake YM and YW presidents were asked to come up, and a member of the stake presidency closed the meeting with his own testimony. All spoke eloquently and from the heart about their commitment to the gospel. I was thinking about their comments as I walked out to the car.

And then it hit me.

All but one of the youth and all of the adults talked mainly about the Word of Wisdom, with some comments about personal standards.

The way they let their light shine forth was by not drinking alcohol or smoking, by not using profanity or looking at pornography. All they talked about was their personal standards. Nothing about service, love, tolerance of others, charity, relieving the wants of the poor, or any of the myriad of things Jesus actually taught. Nothing about exemplifying the life of Jesus Christ in any way. Primarily about following the Word of Wisdom, and secondarily about exemplifying standards of morality.

I keep coming back to John 13:35 – “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”

We should be known as followers of Jesus Christ, not for our superior morality, but for our sacrificial love for others. I have trouble believing that Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross to pay the price for me drinking a cup of coffee or smoking a cigarette. The Word of Wisdom wasn’t even strictly observed in the church until the early 20th century, yet it and our standards of morality and dress is the centerpiece of who we are for most people, in and out of the church.

I have to wonder if I want to continue to be a part of a church that encourages people to focus on such a skewed version of the gospel.

2006-06-12T05:15:00.000-07:00

Monkey in the Middle –-

I often find myself torn between conflicting influences as I try to figure out where the Lord is trying to lead me. One day last week was indicative. I started my day out with the latest Ensign as my morning scripture study. I listened to an inspiring sermon from the pastor of an evangelical church I follow. I was uplifted by a spiritual thought sent to me courtesy of the Episcopal News Service.

I sometimes see myself at the crossroads of three distinct influences these days.

The focus on morality, personal cleanliness, and devotion to God from the LDS church resonates with me strongly. The sense of mission of the members is very compelling.

In my inner mind, I tend to express myself mostly like an evangelical Christian. I made the decision to commit my life to Christ on 29 April 2005, and that decision was transformational. Jesus is my savior, and I am a broken vessel. I owe him everything, and I place absolutely all my hopes for future happiness on his grace and forgiveness. Not on my own righteousness, priesthood ordinances, temple marriage, or anything else. My entire hope for the future comes from Jesus Christ and not on my own strength or righteousness.

The one challenge I have with the first two paths is that I am suddenly no longer a biblical fundamentalist or primarily a moral or social conservative. I believe the bible to be a record primarily of what people thought God was trying to tell them, with the inherent inaccuracies of decades, and in some cases centuries of oral transmission. I believe the bible message to be inspired, but not inerrant. There are too many internal contradictions for me to believe that it’s literally word-for-word inspired. There are too many cultural things like women keeping their heads covered in church mixed in with more timeless messages for it to be totally obvious which is which. That’s where the openness of the Episcopal church comes in. For me the Episcopal church seems to establish a framework of worship centered on the Book of Common Prayer and elements of an almost Buddhist mysticism that turn our hearts towards a connection to the divine, while allowing wide latitude for interpreting what the scriptures say to us. This is a framework I can operate within without having to clench my teeth at many of the messages from the pulpit. This is a faith community where I can speak my mind without looking over my shoulder for the doctrinal inquisition.

Imagine a road intersection with three roads coming into it, like a wheel with three spokes, and you’ll get a good idea how I feel most of the time. Accidents and emergency vehicles seem inevitable.

For awhile I had the idea that I would be led to choose between one of these paths. Now I am beginning to wonder. I draw so much strength from all three that my testimony feels like a 12 cylinder engine some days. Maybe where I am being led is to remain in the middle, drawing from the strengths of all three traditions . . . but how to keep from being pulled apart – that’s the critical question.

2006-06-07T05:33:00.000-07:00

I just can't help but find this hypocritical, considering Elder Nelson is married to two women "for time and all eternity". I don't necessarily take a position on celestial polygamy one way or the other, but how does he stand there and defend marriage as being between "a man and a woman" knowing he'll have one woman to rub his feet and another to rub his shoulders for time and all eternity? One to cook and one to do dishes? One to wash and one to iron?

Stand up for what you believe in, man! Defend your harem in front of God and country and the media, but don't make like an Evangelical monogamist.

http://lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,4028-1-23503,00.html

2006-06-07T05:05:00.000-07:00

I Want to be a Fundamentalist –-

My son graduates from high school this weekend, and we attended a baccalaureate service this past weekend. It was held in one of the two largest megachurches in our county.

What a beautiful building! It was like being in a hotel. Dark wood paneling, carpeting, chandeliers, the whole nine yards. The main sanctuary was large enough by my estimate to hold well over a thousand people. It had a hard-wood floor large enough for two full-size basketball courts side by side with plenty to spare, populated by comfortable stackable chairs. The choir seats were generous in number, the lighting and sound system were professional and well run. Wife of Bath pointed out that this wasn’t even intended to be the main building. It was an auditorium, with the main building with permanent seats yet to be built.

There were racks of literature out, and everything about this church radiated confidence. There was a small bookstore featuring study materials for a wide range of biblical studies.

The students who spoke were wonderful, talking about the results of giving their lives to Christ in hopes he would make more of them than they could. Their faith was strong, their testimonies resolute, and their countenances shining with the light of the Lord.

I felt instantly at home. These people expressed themselves the way I think and am sometimes able to express. They didn’t believe, they knew as a result of many personal experiments with faith and with the Word. They just radiated joy and faith. It was so, so reminiscent of the best of the LDS people.

I picked up a statement of faith from a brochure rack, and I was immediately hit by the following:

“We believe that the Bible as originally written was verbally and plenary inspired, is the product of spirit-controlled men and therefore, is truth without any mixture of error. We believe the Bible to be the center of true Christian unity and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions shall be tried.”

And I found myself struck out on the first pitch.

Even as true believing as I ever was in the LDS church, I was aware of inconsistencies in the bible. I don’t think it’s possible to claim the bible as being free from error, when even the resurrection stories between the four gospels don’t match. Jesus’ own words are not consistently rendered between the gospels. Does that mean the bible is without worth? Absolutely not! But I don’t see how it’s possible to claim the bible is free from error and word-for-word inspired, when its issues are obvious. I think the general themes are obvious, but we can’t allow ourselves to get hung up on the literal correctness of individual sentences taken out of context.

The thing I have really lost in my journey out of the mainstream of the LDS church is that sense of confidence in the absolute correctness of what we have. For so long my testimony was built on that confidence that God had one plan and one church, and I was a part of it. There was a sense of plain truth there that inspired me and those around me with a sense of mission, much like the students at the baccalaureate, and I’m sure much like the members of the church I attended this past weekend. I loved that sense of surety, of building the Kingdom of God on the earth.

I don’t have that any more, and I want it back.

My faith in God and in the redeeming mission of Jesus Christ is as strong as it has ever been. I can stand up and testify about giving my life to Christ, about Him as the way, the truth, and the life, and I can do that with confidence. Much beyond that, and I’m in trouble. The details often seem shrouded in mystery these days. Which passages of the bible really reflect what Jesus said, and which ones reflect the best efforts of oral tradition to preserve them until they could be written down? Which things are timeless, and which things are cultural? Was Jesus really trying to start a single church, or was he transmitting religious, moral, and ethical values that could be incarnated in many different ways?

I want to be a confident fundamentalist again, to bear testimony of a single doctrinal statement, of a single people, of a certain way of building the Kingdom of God on earth. I want to be rock solid sure about what God wants me to do. I want to be free from doubt about the details.

And I just can’t do it . . .

2006-06-06T05:18:00.000-07:00

I include this mainly because of the title of this blog. I got this via the Episcopal News Service. Why don't we talk about things like this in General Conference, and instead choose generally to focus on things that reinforce the authority of the church? Should I choose a path that fills my heart with Jesus' teachings, or the path that binds me ever more tightly into the earthly organization?

Grow in Love
by Sarah Knoll-Williams

A smart young mother did a very smart thing. After she poured a full glass of milk, she set it before her daughter. As her daughter reached for it, the mother stretched out her hand and knocked it over. Milk was everywhere; all over the table, onto the floor, making a puddle. The daughter looked up at her mother in complete shock. The mother smiled down at her daughter.

"What happened?" she asked the little girl.

"You spilled the milk!" the daughter replied.

"The milk?" asked the mother in mock confusion. "Why didn't juice come out of the glass?"

"There was no juice in there! You put in milk!" the daughter squealed.

"Ohhhh!" the mother laughed. "You mean, whatever we put in the glass is what comes out when the glass is spilled?" As they cleaned up the spill, the mother spoke to her daughter. "We fall down, too," she said. "When something goes wrong, whatever is inside us is what comes out. If you are angry and someone pushes you down, your anger will spill out like the milk. If you are full of love, love will spill out instead."

Jesus says, "What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart" (Matt 15:18).

The last time someone pushed you down, what came spilling out?

It is hard to fill our own glass with love. When I draw near to God in scripture and prayer, God fills my glass with good things. I have known people whose glass was filled with love, and it often overflowed into mine. If my glass is already full of selfishness, impatience, or anger, there is no room for love from God or anyone else. Have you looked in your glass? What's in there?

Our heart is like our own roots. Our lips, our hands, our feet -- these are like leaves on the stem. You can tell the roots by how the leaves look. You can tell the state of my heart by what I say to you and do for you. In Ephesians we learn to pray for each other "that Christ may dwell in our hearts through faith, as we are being rooted and grounded in love" (Eph 3:17). If our roots are planted and watered in love, if love fills our glass, we will not be afraid of falling down. When we do fall, our good things from God will spill out.

Ephesians urges us to grow in love because we invite God to tend the garden. Jesus says, I am the vine, and my Father is the vinegrower. He removes every branch in me that bears no fruit. Every branch that bears fruit he prunes, to make it bear more fruit" (John 15:1-2). I urge you to offer your branch to be pruned, and see what fruit God makes through you. Let's offer ourselves to God with an empty glass, that we would be filled with good things. If we grow in love, we grow in God. Out of God's great love, "my cup overflows" (Psalm 23:5).

As long as we are living with others on a daily basis, we will fall down. Some may push us; we may push others. Prepare with me to fall down and spill a full glass of love. Prepare with me to have a cup that overflows for others.

2006-05-26T07:46:00.000-07:00

Two Temples --
I attended two temples on Wednesday, and the experiences were very revealing.

I went for a long hike in the woods with a 50 pound pack to get ready for a backpacking trip next month. I had my MP3 player with me, and the weather was glorious. For me, hiking is like a temple experience. It's a place of revelation. This day was no different. The glory of God was all around me, everywhere, in the blue of the sky, the green of the leaves, the blue of the lake water, and the gentle rhythms of the trees. No words of counsel manifested themselves, nor angels with flaming swords. None were needed. God was telling me in loud visible terms, "this is the glory and greatness of my creation, and you couldn't reproduce a particle of it on your own. Behold my glory, and be a part of it. Work with it and not against it. I hold you in the palm of my hand as the pinnacle of my creation. You are at my mercy in all that you do. Be still and know that I am God. Exult in my love for you and behold this earth I have created for my glory and for your sustenance during your short time there." The power of God was almost tangible, visible. I felt my part in his creation as one of his created.

I finished the hike, went home, and got cleaned up for an evening temple session. As this might be my last I approached it with a heightened level of awareness. What would it be like? What messages would God send? How would the revelation I felt in the temple compare with what I felt in the woods?

One of the downsides of the smaller temples is that I invariably try to pack too much in to a temple visit. I am always squeezing it in around other things, and I am almost always rushed. This was a little different, but not much.

One thing I felt as I drove the twenty minutes to the temple was a feeling of release. Like a great weight was lifted off of my chest.

Often what should be a place of worship is for me a place of failure. I'm running late. My shirt isn't white enough. It's wrinkled. I should be doing more genealogy and bring my own names. I'm not attentive enough. My mind drifts when I should be focused on the ceremony. I sweat visibly anticipating the transition to the celestial room. What if I forget something? What if the temple worker is disgusted by how sweaty my hand is as I am tested? Why don't I see angels and get more revelation? Why don't I come more often? I should have polished my shoes. I'm just not good enough to really be there.

There was none of that this time. With a more discerning attitude towards the church has come a sweet release from most of those feelings of inadequacy. Paradoxically, since I don't put things associated with the church on such a high pedestal anymore I enjoy them hugely more than I did before. My identity in Christ gives me everything I need, and we're all sinners. What other people in the church may think of me is of lesser consequence. I am justified by my faith and my relationship to God and Christ and not by how well I fit into church programs or "look like the propets" in how I act or dress or speak.

I have felt for awhile that the thing that we are blessed for in temple worship is our faith, not merely performing the ordinances. The value is not the ceremony itself, but as an expression of worship and faith. There are many other expressions of worship and faith. Do the dead need these ordinances? No. We need them as a way of worshiping and in feeling those tangible connections to those who have gone before. Temple ordinances create mystic ties to both the dead and the living.

I think I had one of my best sessions ever. The references to the atonement and the resurrection came through more clearly than before. The feeling of progressing in devotion to God and in sanctification came through more clearly. The doctrines about achieving godhood and of God having progressed from his own Garden of Eden were there, but inconsequential to me. I almost brushed them off.

I suffered my usual sweaty palms, but made it to the Celestial Room, perhaps for the last time, without incident.

Once in the Celestial Room I was left to ponder. What does it all mean? If the temple is a place of revelation, Lord, bring it on. I need some. This could be my last shot at this. If I'm supposed to repent and return to orthodoxy, send me a flaming arrow of revelation. If I'm supposed to tear off my temple clothing and start singing "Amazing Grace" and call the others in the room to repentance, give me a sign.

I closed my eyes as usual, preparing to launch into a tortured prayer, and the witness I got was to open my eyes, look around, and take it all in. So I did.

I perceived the symbolism of the temple ceremony as a process of cleansing and sanctification rather than exaltation. It seemed more about personal purification than an increase in power and status and authority. I appreciated the Celestial Room as a quiet place of contemplation and separation from the cares of the world. One of many places. Not the only place. One face of God was revealed to me in the woods earlier. Another was revealed in the temple. God has many aspects, many roles, many ways being perceived. The temple is an important one, but just one.

I looked around at the joy in the faces of some of the other people in the room and felt warmed by their faith. There was a young couple desperately in love. There was an older lady holding hands with a young woman, the both of them crying about something. I appreciated the beautiful white and gold furnishings and decorations and the flowers and the chandelier. It was truly a beautiful place that wholly reflected what I brought into it. It wasn't a source of light, but a lens through which the faith within me might be focused in a positive way.

Finally it was time to go. My gaze and my touch lingered on everything near me as I walked back to the locker room. I touched the wood work and looked in the sealing room as I passed. I wanted to remember everything, since I might not pass this way again.

I was one of the last people in the temple, and of course the only other person in the temple was using the same locker space, so I paused to put my immediate family on the prayer list, as well as all the members of the New Order Mormon web site.

On the way out the door I wanted to visit the sealing room where my daughter had been married, just one last time, but the smiling temple president and the smiling matron were there to gently guide me out the door so they could lock up, and I didn't fight it.

So, after all that, what about renewing my recommend? I felt at peace with myself. It was out of my hands. It's largely up to the bishop and stake president at this point to decide whether my heretical thinking puts me outside the fold or within it. I have no transgressions to worry about. Keeping the Word of Wisdom is not a problem, if I decide to. It might be a question of whether I want to keep that current on my tithing, but the central questions are the doctrinal ones. Once those are settled I can worry about the behavioral ones.

Another angle on this, which I felt in the temple, is that there are other beautiful houses of God in which we can worship. Are there not cathedrals to pray in? Woods to hike through? Mountains to climb? There are. One aspect of what I felt in the Celestial Room was to look around, mark the feelings I had, and search out other like places in which I felt close to God. Also, losing a temple recommend is not permanent. If my circumstances and faith issues change, I can work through getting it back.

In summary my temple experience was a great one, and it motivated me to seek out like experiences. Either in the temple or elsewhere . . .

2006-05-22T05:03:00.000-07:00

Adult Beverages, Part II –-

I wanted to continue the experiment from last week, basically pitting Ps 104 against D&C 89 to see which one would win out. I was on my own last night, as Wife of Bath was out of town and my son was at work. I sat down with dinner in front of “The Gospel of Judas” on the National Geographic channel and a couple of glasses of wine. I’m obviously not in practice with this drinking thing, because I got a little fuzzier than I was expecting, and it lasted longer than I remembered. I’m not sure I felt that much more relaxed. Just fuzzier, although I was trying to pay attention to biblical scholars and archaeologists tell the story of a 2000 year-old manuscript, which is hardly a “good times” experience.

My son came home from work two hours earlier than expected, and I was in trouble. He wanted to go out and throw the lacrosse ball around, and I could hold it together in conversation, but there was no way I could play lacrosse. It requires a lot of coordination to throw and catch with a lacrosse stick, and I had had a little too much wine for that.

We went out to the back yard, and it was pretty humble. I couldn’t catch a thing. Once the ball hit me in the chest and I stumbled trying to pick it up. My son looked at me and said, “Dad? Are you OK?” He’s used to people drinking from his restaurant experience, and he asked me if I had been drinking, and I had to admit I had. He was very disturbed, and he went into the house and called the bishop . . .

OK, that’s the Ensign version, where I am caught in my transgression, am called to repentance by a member of my family, caused to confess to the bishop, and thus begins my return to the strait and narrow path.

What actually happened is that I had no problem playing catch. I’m not sure how, because I couldn’t think fast enough to actually throw and catch, but the stick somehow ended up in the right place, even when his throws were off and I was stretching to make the catch. Some subconscious part of my brain was able to make it work, even though the conscious part was a little dizzy.

After we got done playing catch he put some music on, shoveled a path through his room so I could get to the bed, and we listened to music together for awhile and joked around. A very companionable evening.

So, for whatever reason the Ensign version didn’t happen, and I wasn’t called to repentance for my transgression. In fact I felt kind of sustained and confirmed.

I’m not sure I’m going to repeat this experience for awhile. Drinking seemed more relaxing when I was in my 20s, probably because I wasn’t trying to hide it. Sort of like eating pepperoni pizza also. In my 40s, I have much more of a sensation of a foreign substance in my system that the body is not happy with.

Probably drinking is more of an accessory to relaxed, intimate conversation and listening to music rather than watching documentaries and trying to play sports.

This morning I have a headache, too. I wonder where that could have come from . . .

2006-05-15T05:02:00.000-07:00

Why don’t we get drunk and –-

talk about the scriptures? (Apologies to Jimmy Buffett)

I’ve been intentionally having “scorecard moments” lately, where I try different experiences to see how they make me feel. I will arbitrarily not wear garments and see if I notice. I don’t. I will undress for some reason and be surprised not to find them.

Wife of Bath and I had a nice Mother’s Day dinner last night, and we shared the equivalent of a bottle of wine between us over dinner. How did it make me feel?

I am not what you would call a relaxed person. I am always seeking to “lengthen my stride”, always picking apart personal philosophies to see if they still hold water, always doing something. There is always laundry to do, things to pick up, books to read, etc..

It was nice to just sit on the couch and relax and talk, without feeling driven to get up and do something. We talked about Ps 104 and what it says about wine gladdening the heart. I shared things from a book I’m reading about less fundamental approaches to Christianity. In short we had a warm, relaxing experience. Often I’m too busy to listen, not only to those around me, but to the Lord. I felt the sort of warm glow that leads me to the scriptures to worship the Lord. I felt grateful for all I have been given.

I felt the sense of something from this world being used for a worshipful purpose, and thus being consecrated in a way. While this experience in this context felt OK, splitting a 12 pack of beer in front of a hockey game would not have been OK. It would have just been a drunk.

As Joseph Smith enjoyed a bottle of wine in his last moments in Carthage Jail, I felt uplifted in following the prophets in this way also.

2006-05-15T05:01:00.000-07:00

Revelation --
in the LDS church is like the Colorado River. Most of it is siphoned off upstream from you.

Let's see, the inspiration I've received lately:

The Word of Wisdom is pharisaical.

The KJV is cryptic and should be dumped.

LDS are too inwardly focused on the clean people and not outwardly focused on people you might find in bars, homeless shelters, etc., where the LDS dare not go.

I find a better worship experience in the Episcopal Church.

God loves me and sends me spiritual promptings even when I commit sins.

I could go on. How much of this is "authorized" revelation? 0. All of it is contrary to things on which church leaders have spoken, so it's off the table.
The only authorized revelation for most people is how to accomplish what the church has told them to do. What to do and what not to do is not on the table. Only how to do it.

Basically "modern revelation" only applies to leaders. We don't need a personal relationship with God, because our leaders have told us what to do. All we need to do is to be obedient and we'll be saved. God may be consulted about minor implementation details so you don't need to bother the bishop.

2006-05-14T12:07:00.000-07:00

I'm such an idiot--

I got dressed yesterday and was looking for a t-shirt. I picked out the one my daughter and son-in-law gave me for Christmas, largely because it was on top.

One of my errands was to go CD shopping. I listen mainly to contemporary Christian music these days, and my favorite store is the local Lifeway store, which is a franchise operated by the Southern Baptist convention. This one is a really nice store, and the people behind the counter are just nice, nice, nice. I always enjoy shopping in there.

Just before I walked into the store I realized I was wearing a Brigham Young University t-shirt into a Baptist Christian bookstore. I got a few strange looks, some glares, but nobody said anything. They were probably more confused than anything. Apparently our local LDS bookstore gets a lot of Baptists, because they sell modest wedding dresses you can't get anywhere else. Maybe it's good to return the favor.

2006-05-10T04:45:00.000-07:00

Joseph’s Ladder –
In most orthodox Christian churches salvation is basically like throwing a light switch. If you believe, you’re saved.

Not so in the LDS church. For us, salvation can best be compared to a ladder. Everybody starts at the bottom, and you have to climb your way from being a spirit to being a God. Some people make it further than others. It’s recognized that most people will not make it all the way to the top. General Authorities of the past have told us that most people will be “terrestrial”, and thus not qualify for Godhood.

Even God himself started at the bottom, as a man on another planet. Through his worthiness and intelligence he climbed the ladder. General Authorities have indicated that even Jesus had to prove his worthiness. Yes, Jesus. The Son of God and member of the Godhead. Even he had to face some entity with a clipboard and a checklist who would decide whether or not he was good enough to take upon him the sins of the world.

What is the psychological impact of “the ladder” on the members of the church? I can’t speak for all of them, but for my family it has been tough. During her teenage years my daughter held our family up to the “ideal” families in the ward and pronounced us as strictly second-rate. My son just turned 18, without either his eagle scout award or his Duty to God award. He will be forever a second-class citizen in the church, and will have to listen to others extol the virtues of the “eagle” for the rest of his life, and know that he didn’t make it. He is fully active in seminary, but only fifty-fifty on Sundays, because he has trouble getting to sleep. He goes to seminary most mornings running on a few hours of sleep and ends up sleeping until noon most Saturdays to make up. He just has trouble getting up on Sundays for 9am church. Accordingly he misses many of the activity announcements, and when his priest’s quorum 1st assistant was asked to help him stay informed, he replied, “he should have been in church on Sunday”. So possibly salvation is only reserved for those able to get up for 9am church. More than any of us, I hurt for him, because he is just not one of these quiet focused people who get to climb the ladder and are rewarded with status in the Kingdom.

As a convert I didn’t serve a mission, didn’t go to seminary, and thus didn’t get the early imprinting of gospel knowledge others did. Accordingly I’m the 2d oldest person in the Elders Quorum, watching the guys younger than me being called into bishoprics and to the high council. Not really callings I want, but I’m conscious of being left on a lower rung of the ladder compared to those with the “high” priesthood.

After 22 years of this I’m tired of the ladder, of being told by my own child that our family isn’t good enough, of the implications that my son is a second class citizen because of his lack of full participation in a non-church program, of having to put up with being basically graded on my worthiness by my quorum membership. We talk about the church somehow being “restored”, but somehow I don’t remember Jesus establishing criteria for perfect families, establishing graded priesthoods, or establishing some kind of awards program for young men. What I remember Jesus saying was, “by this shall men know ye are my disciples, if ye have love, one to another”. Not whether you got your eagle scout rank, had family home evening and passed the daily prayer checklist, or managed to get promoted to the right priesthood quorum. We are to be evaluated by our love for others.

Whose ladder is this anyway?

2006-05-07T12:00:00.000-07:00

I hope they call me on a mission –
There are a lot of positive things I have gotten from the LDS church. I think the church teaches people to immerse themselves in the scriptures in a way few churches do. Unfortunately we're also given specific ideas about what they mean in the correlated lessons, which discourages people from searching the scriptures with an open mind. There only seem to be a few well-trodden paths down which the Lord sends people. I.e. education, temple, mission, temple marriage, leadership positions, etc.. The idea of joining the Peace Corps, starting a homeless shelter, etc., don't generally seem to be on the list, but I digress.

From the time we joined the LDS church Wife of Bath and I have talked about serving a mission together. The idea of setting aside 18 months in full-time service to the Lord has always been appealing.

Even though it seems unlikely that the LDS church would send us on a mission at this point, I still have that desire to serve, planted through dozens of GC talks on the need for senior missionary couples.

The nice thing is that now we can pray about what the Lord wants us to do and pick one of many available agencies to volunteer for. We could serve international missions, or we could just pack up and move to, say, Spartanburg SC and be full-time volunteers for any number of relief organizations. We get to decide after much prayer and contemplation, rather than based on the ten seconds or so of inspiration sent to the President of the Church.

I hope they call me on a mission!

2006-05-07T11:11:00.000-07:00

Stake Conference --
We attended stake conference today, and it was a typical NOM moment. The focus was a satellite broadcast directed to 41 stakes in our area. We had opening and closing prayers and hymns at the stake center, and the rest of the content was the broadcast from Salt Lake City.

I could write a two-page summary of the talks, but I'll spare you by just summarizing their major themes.

The first speaker was Sis Kathleen Hughes, of the general RS presidency. She shared some personal insights about going on a mission. She and her husband plan to serve missions once her current calling is completed, and she shared her fears of inadequacy, that she will not be up to being able to share the gospel with people. She reminded us that we are not sent to do the Lord's work without the Lord's help, and that we rely on Him in everything we do rather than in our own strength. All in all a really good and inspiring talk. I found myself wondering, though, about an organization in which one of the senior leadership was caused to doubt her own worthiness and ability. If she is not up to the job, the rest of us are probably hopeless.

The second speaker was Bishop Richard C Edgely of the Presiding Bishopric, and he gave a riproaring talk on the healing power of Jesus Christ. He talked about counseling a couple whose young child had just drowned and were angry with God. He talked about holding stake conference in a prison and having a non-member thank God that he was sent to prison and found the gospel, and his feelings about being freer than he had ever been in his whole life. Just a wonderful, wonderful talk on the power of Jesus Christ to make things right.

At this point I was having that familiar feeling. Why am I so disaffected with this church again?

Then came Elder M Russell Ballard, who reminded us in a good way about the importance of being obedient to the doctrine of the church and about the ordinances. All have divine worth, and we need to go out and bring them into the church so they can benefit from the church programs and ordinances. In short, a talk about the church and the structure, rather than about Jesus Christ.

We sang "Praise to the Man" and worshipped Joseph Smith for four verses.

The concluding address was President Monson, who presented a familiar laundry list from the Kirtland temple dedication about how it should be a house of order, a house of prayer, a house of fasting, etc., and presented many stories I had heard before to illustrate his points, including a story he used during the last regional conference when he was here. His talk really seemed to be kind of a prefab talk constructed of recycled pieces, not really linked together very well. For example he spoke powerfully about Jesus last words on Golgotha, words of forgiveness. "Forgive them, for they know not what they do". Then launched *immediately* into talking about the humorous letters children send to the First Presidency. One revealing thing was being asked by Elder Harold B Lee about his favorite hymn when he was first called as an apostle. "The old priesthood hymns", he said, with "Praise to the Man" being his favorite. So, one of the chief apostles on the earth, called as a special witness of Jesus Christ, and his favorite hymn is a tribute to Joseph Smith . . .

In closing he blessed with a bunch of things related to temporal blessings and nothing of a spiritual nature.

In summary the dichotomy present in the way general authorities see the church was ever present. To two of the speakers the gospel is apparently about Jesus Christ as healer and our primary source of support. To the other two the gospel is about priesthood, programs, and ordinances, about callings and modern revelation, about the physical mechanics we see as the church does its business.

It struck me that President Monson said absolutely nothing new, nothing different, nothing that really seemed to be from the heart. Just a familiar multi-point talk illustrated using the usual stories we've all heard countless times.

This was a regional conference. Did the Lord having anything special to say to our 41 stakes outside the strength of the Church? About preparing for hurricane season? About healing racial issues? About getting along with the flood of Spanish-speaking immigrants we're getting? About President Hinckley's well-known declining health? About immigration reform? About anything? Apparently not.

So I will take to heart the lessons of the first two talks and pretty much file the last two in the "been there, done that" category. All in all the conference was a positive experience, and I got more out of it than not going, but I find the mixed message between "the church is founded on Christ" and "the church is founded on priesthood authority" to be quite illuminating.

2006-05-04T05:01:00.000-07:00

Virtual Reality –
I spend a lot of time hanging around the DAMU lately, and it’s easy to become focused on all the things going on in the LDS church “out there”. Bishops and stake presidents doing dumb and abusive things, people’s mission presidents who were jerks, stuff GAs said twenty years ago, etc.. Likewise it’s easy to get wound up about things Brigham Young said 150 years ago, Bruce R McConkie said 30 years ago, President Hinckley said 10 years ago, etc..

As we consider what the LDS church means to us, it’s important to be aware of those other things, while at the same time staying centered on the church we actually belong to. i.e. the ward we attend, the bishop and stake president we have, as opposed to the ones people elsewhere have, etc.. The people we know, and the experiences we have personally. With the internet it’s possible to hear all the off the wall stories happening in 20 or 30 wards while overlooking the perfectly normal things happening in the other 25,000 or so every day.

Rather than getting wound up over what Brigham Young said, focus more on what the current GAs had to say at the last conference. This is the church we actually belong to, not Brigham Young’s church.

Which is not to say there aren’t objectionable things happening today. There are. The modern church is way too focused on obedience and institutional survival rather than dealing with the diverse issues the membership is increasingly going through. It’s just a question of dealing with our personal issues and not the vicarious issues of other people, which may actually be exceptions to the rule and not situations we face at all.

2006-05-02T04:30:00.000-07:00

The Faces of God—
After reading the Wilford Woodruff lesson I quoted before, I drove to work and listened to a sermon from the evangelical church of my roommate from college. His insightful preaching is what finally got me to wake up and appreciate the many gifts of the spirit available outside the LDS church.

I find myself drawn to the message of sin, personal inadequacy, grace, and forgiveness preached by evangelical churches. Probably because I am very conscious of my own weaknesses and my inability to measure up to the cultural standard set by the LDS church. Evangelical churches tell you that your faith is mostly all that matters, and I can do that.

I find myself drawn to the gospel of social justice and relief of the poor found in the Episcopal church and other mainline denominations. Mostly this is what Jesus exemplified. I also find myself drawn to the tradition of thoughtfulness and tolerance for others’ interpretations of scripture. Because I can read the scriptures and see many different viewpoints most of the time, depending on what you choose to focus on.

I find myself drawn to the organization and commitment of the LDS church, that feeling of being part of a worldwide body that generally speaks the same language where faith is concerned. I find myself drawn to the idea of a plan of salvation as articulated by Joseph Smith, and that view of eternity as a timeline with a well-defined beginning and ending.

I often feel somewhat torn between these things. Should I stay LDS? Should I be Baptist? Should I be Episcopalian? Which one is right? What should I do?

The thought I had this morning is that the creation and plan of God is so rich and diverse, what leads me to believe that any man-made church can actually hold it all? The best any one church can do is to try to make sense of a little corner of it. No church has any hope of articulating the whole thing, without driving its members into madness trying to fit the whole thing into their brains.

Rather than feeling like I have to pick one or the other, maybe what I am called to do is to be blessed by whatever value I find, wherever I find it. I remember hearing somewhere that “all truth may be circumscribed into one great hold.” Maybe these artificial man-made divisions just don’t matter that much after all.

2006-05-02T04:07:00.000-07:00

What I Love About the Church –
This is the conclusion of lesson 7 in the Wilford Woodruff manual:

Through the merits of the Atonement, we can be perfected in Christ.

There is no being that has power to save the souls of men and give them eternal life, except the Lord Jesus Christ, under the command of His Father.
It should be our chief study to treasure up the words of life that we may grow in grace and advance in the knowledge of God and become perfected in Christ Jesus, that we may receive a fullness and become heirs of God and joint heirs of Jesus Christ.

Brethren and sisters, are we not the sons and daughters of God, and when he shall appear, if we are faithful, shall we not be like him? Yes; and when the glorious day arrives we shall once more have the privilege of standing upon this earth and meeting in joy and thanksgiving … thousands of others who have washed their robes white in the blood of the Lamb, and who, through the merits of His atonement, are anointed kings and priests unto God, and with Him reign exalted in His kingdom. May we all be found worthy of this reward; and now, while we travel through this world of change and sorrow, may we take pattern by the lives of the worthy … and, above all, follow in the steps of the great Exemplar of all righteousness, our Lord Jesus Christ, whose grace be ever with you all.

Endquote.

Within the LDS church can sometimes be found some of the most eloquent and insightful testimonies of Jesus Christ and his mission available anywhere. I remember thinking when I went through the temple for the first time that I had learned more from my endowment than the previous two years I had been in the church.

In general orthodox Christian theology is like looking through a porthole onto the ocean. It focuses on a narrow visible piece of ocean. By contrast Joseph Smith managed to extend our vision beyond the narrow piece of eternity visible in the bible to our origins and to our destination. He presented not one, not two, but at least three additional creation stories. He took the simple question of “what happens when we die” and created a universe of kings and queens, priests and priestesses, gods and goddesses, reigning over worlds without end. The porthole becomes the panorama camera. The dot that represents our time on earth on the eternal timeline becomes the line stretching to infinity in both directions, backward into our past and forward into our future.

All of it, when properly expounded, based on the atonement of Jesus Christ as Wilford Woodruff presents.

Is it all true? Or is it just inspiring metaphor? I’ll just leave this where it rests right now.

2006-05-01T04:21:00.000-07:00

How Did I Get Here? –
It’s interesting to contemplate sometimes how the Lord leads and guides our lives. Two years ago I was in a calling I considered the most important thing I had ever done, shaping young men into Aaronic Priesthood holders. It required weekly contact with ward members and lots of coordination. Then my father-in-law died, which caused me to re-evaluate a lot of things. I began to realize that my testimony was my most precious possession, and I immersed myself more in the scriptures to strengthen it.

Through a chain of events I am now in a stake calling that basically requires me to go to weeknight meetings a few times a month, and I’m in a ward calling that requires minimal contact with ward members. Because I sometimes have to visit other wards on Sundays, my stake calling gives me the freedom to visit other churches in the mornings and do my stake visits in the afternoons. Our long-time faithful home teacher was reassigned, and now we have a home teacher that comes sometimes, but is obviously just fulfilling an assignment. Our previous Elders Quorum president used to conduct home teaching interviews monthly, but our current one does so rarely.

If the Lord really wanted to keep me active in the church he has picked a funny way of doing it. My connections with my ward have been reduced to an absolute minimum, and I’ve been given the freedom to explore that I never would have had before. Much of my “support system” has been ripped away. I am much less busy than I was, so I have the time to read and ponder. I’ve had occasion to meet with the bishop a few times over administrative things, and he has yet to ask me any of “the right questions” that would bring my concerns out into the open.

I have prayed periodically for intervention if I’m on the wrong path, and as of yet no priesthood leader has ridden to the rescue. No one has shaken my hand, fixed me with a piercing stare, and led me into a classroom to ask me about my testimony. No new callings have shown up that would have caused me to have to lay out where I am right now. Nothing out of the ordinary has happened.

If we believe that there are no coincidences, what direction am I being led in?

2006-04-30T13:13:00.000-07:00

Walking Where Jesus Walked –
Saturday we went to a fundraiser at the Episcopal church we visit for a ministry named “Appalachian Service Project”. Basically teams of youth and adults go into poor parts of North Carolina and rehab houses. The youth sleep on the ground for a week, do most of the work, and the adults mostly mentor.

This sounds like one of the coolest youth programs I have ever heard of, especially for kids in an overprivileged area like we live in. Apparently the kids love it.

The comparisons between this activity and what my stake is doing is inescapable. We are sending our boys to scout camp and our young women to Young Women’s camp, where they will be surrounded by middle class white kids just like them, and will learn valuable skills like making baskets, cooking baked potatoes wrapped in foil in a campfire, making leather belts, etc.. The theme of our youth conference this year is “Walking Where Jesus Walked”. The kids will spend two days being lectured about Jesus, will go to two fun dances, will spend an afternoon outdoors playing fun games, and spend not more than a few hours on a nice safe service project for people they will never meet. They will stay in nice large comfortable homes and be fed abundantly.

In short, the kids from our Episcopal church will, in a small way, walk where Jesus walked. The kids from our stake will spend two days being talked to about walking where Jesus walked, in between fun safe activities.

I wonder which will be most effective. If the Second Coming were to happen this summer, where would we expect to find Jesus? In Appalachia, or in the air conditioned stake center?

2006-04-27T04:41:00.000-07:00

Why I Hate the Church –

I want it to either be true or not true. I hate being stuck in the middle, where some of the time it seems true and some of the time it doesn’t.

I spend much of my day being kind of disaffected. I study the scriptures at least 30 minutes a day after getting my son up for seminary. Most mornings I try to have a short devotional and prayer time. (Some apostate I am). During the day I take short snatches to surf the DAMU, just to keep up on the topics du jour. This week it’s been the high teenage suicide rate in UT, the existence of a “second anointing” in the temple, making people’s calling election sure if you’re high up in the church or well-connected. This tends to bolster my faith in God and Christ in general and make me wonder in specific how I ever got myself involved with the LDS church.

Then I have to go and read the latest Ensign this morning, and there were three wonderful faith-promoting articles reminding me of what I love best about the church.

Family Proclamation

I Needed to Know

Finding What Was Lost

It truly does teach a connection to our spiritual origins as children of God and our ultimate destiny as heirs of all that God has for us in a way I seldom find elsewhere. It teaches those concepts of “forever family” that I believe are more universally true than we appreciate most of the time. The temple ordinances suggest a connection with our extended families that are extremely powerful and comforting in time of need. The cultural connections with friends and family are extremely powerful.

I found myself thinking about what an idiot I am for considering throwing all this away over the doctrinal and historical concerns I have. I thought about my son’s eventual endowment and temple marriage, and I envisioned myself sitting out in the waiting room while some other more “worthy” male was there with him.
I wanted to coordinate with my wife and make a temple session appointment right away.

Then I realized that the things I was thinking about were all about me and what I want. I had to remind myself that I didn’t “think” and “study” myself into the place I am now. I prayed myself here. I’m here because the spirit led me here. The spirit that bears witness to me of the truth of those family connections the temple helps us focus on. That same spirit also bears witness to me that while the example of Christ leads us out into the world to bear the burdens of the afflicted, the church leads us into the family history center and behind a microfilm reader to focus on the dead, who are largely beyond our help.

And I found myself stuck in the middle again, remembering why I hate the church.

2006-04-25T04:56:00.000-07:00

I am very disaffected today.

I’m in my stake young men’s presidency, and our president is a corporate VP. Since he’s on the road a lot he takes care of all the business by e-mail, which means as a counselor I usually have no idea what’s going on. Ward members tell me about stake budget cuts, ward members tell me about stake aaronic priesthood programs that have been changed, cancelled, etc.. I can’t remember the last time we had a presidency meeting.

For our Aaronic Priesthood/Young Women’s meeting last month he was in Asia. This month he’s in London. Usually the stake young women’s president is the one with the questions and the agenda items. They have presidency meetings and are generally informed about what’s going on. I’m embarrassed at my lack of awareness of stake issues most of the time, even though I don’t consider it’s my fault.

It’s just frustrating sometimes. I guess the good thing about having an anonymous blog is you can whine sometimes, and this is pure whining. Our YM president is a great guy, and I’m sure a much better person than I am. I just hate being in a position where I look stupid and out of touch most of the time.

2006-04-24T12:35:00.000-07:00

Sitting at the Crossroads --
Sometimes the good days in church are harder than the bad ones.

Yesterday was a good day. I found myself reflecting on the fact that the time spent singing the sacrament hymns are for me the most worshipful experiences found in any church. I love the quiet contemplation found in singing congregational hymns, as opposed to the chirpy "Jesus is my buddy" songs I have found in contemporary worship in other churches. By that I mean specifically the sacrament hymns, not odes to Joseph Smith, our mountain home, angels silently notes taking, calls to serve, counting my blessings, etc.. Hymns specifically about Christ and the atonement.

After sacrament I steeled my self for the expected talks on missionary work, obedience, standards of morality, tithing, priesthood, the restoration, etc.. Much to my surprise the 1st was on agency, and managed to avoid "to do" lists generally. The second was on taking upon ourselves the name of Christ, and quoted heavily from Robinson's "Believing Christ" and some of Covey's thoughts on the economy of scarcity and abundance, where we tear others down out of a mentality of scarcity and need to consider the infinite abundance of the atonement and God's love. They were both great talks.

Sunday school was pretty good, basically focusing on how the experience of the Israelites in the wilderness exemplified the importance of gratitude and our dependence on God. Only a slight "follow the prophets" detour.

Elders Quorum was a great lesson on Christlike forgiveness.

Nobody said a thing about Joseph Smith, the restoration, or worthiness all day.

These days can be hard, because I ask myself, "so exactly what is so bad about this church again?"

I have to remind myself that the topics that have always resonated with me, even when I was TBM, were those centered around Christ. Those that tended to set my teeth on edge were those centered on the restoration, quoting sanitized historical information, and those that basically abandon the atonement in favor of beating us up about our worthiness. As well as those who try to force us into one model of evangelism. And those preaching the oversimplified gospel of "the righteous will be blessed and the wicked will be cursed", and implying that keeping the commandments binds God through covenants into giving us blessings of some kind.

I also have to remind myself that the church is different things to different people, even in the ranks of the GAs. Some GAs can preach sermons on Christ that will bring tears to my eyes, while others are firmly pharisaical in their approach to the church. For some the LDS church is a Christian church of almost evangelical Protestant proportions, while to others it's more about restoration of authority than about Jesus.

All of which tends to reinforce my belief that there is much truth in the church, but it is not the only, or even the best, receptacle of gospel truth. As long as I can find truth in it, I will find difficultly letting go of it, even if I find myself straying other places at times in order to get the dose of true Christian grace that is often lacking.

2006-04-21T05:13:00.000-07:00

Sacred Loneliness –
Sometimes being caught between two opinions is not easy. I found myself sitting behind two lovely sisters from my ward at a youth sporting event earlier in the week. Although they were certainly not aware of the gulf between us, I was. I know things they don’t about church history and current policy. My view of the church is and forever will be tarnished by things that they have no idea whatsoever about. While they’re able to go about their busy lives in innocence, a dark cloud hangs over my relationship with the church that will never dissipate. In fact it can probably only get worse. I can never relate to people in the church with the same degree of innocence, because I’m not like them any more. At least not on the inside.

I sat through an adult scout meeting last night feeling very alone for much the same reason. All around me are the Eveready Energizer Bunny types that make scouting work (non-LDS, as most LDS scouters just go through the motions), and realizing that these people also are converted to an organization in a way I can never be again. The church was it. It was the Kingdom of God on the earth, and when the house lights came up and the church was just a manmade organization, my ability to give my heart to another group of people died.

I often sit in groups feeling very alone. I can’t be like them anymore. I know too much. I’ve eaten the apple. My innocence is gone. My only salvation is that, when all is said and done, I can count on the terrible price Christ paid so that my soul can go home again. With that knowledge, I think I can make it.

2006-04-21T05:09:00.000-07:00

The Cost of Discipleship –

Our Elders Quorum presidency was replaced last weekend while I was playing hooky at Episcopal services. Our new presidency is a fine group of men. The new president is about 30, a reserve pilot in the Air Force. His wife is extremely pregnant with their second child, and he just quit his day job to start a computer consulting business out of his generously sized home, bought no doubt in anticipating the church’s cultural imperative to raise large families.

The first counselor is about the same age, and his wife just gave birth to their fourth child.

The second counselor is a recently reactivated returned missionary who is coming back to church after probably 20 years of inactivity.

The thing I have to wonder is why in the world these men are being called to an Elders Quorum presidency. The first two clearly have enough family and personal responsibilities to occupy their lives, and the second is just getting back on his feet. I can probably see the calling of the 2d, but I just wonder how we can consider ourselves a family-centered church, while at the same time we burden eager young men trying to raise their families with time-consuming callings. Their first calling should be to the raising of their children, not running the programs of the church.

Can we not find older men with their child rearing days largely behind them to take on these responsibilities? Oh, wait, because their faithfulness in earlier assignments they're high priests, and thus ineligible to preside over the Elders Quorum.

I’m in a unique position to appreciate this, since I am months from being an empty nester. When the kids were little, church callings and activities came first, despite our best attempts to balance family life. Near the end of this pipeline I found the best years of my kids growing up were spent in church meetings and other well-intentioned civic activities, when I should have been at home enjoying these precious moments.

Bitter payback came all too quickly. The last priesthood session I would attend with my son before leaving for college was this past April. He had the choice between attending the priesthood session with me, or responding to a crisis at work. He chose work, and I realized I taught him too well.

2006-04-18T04:24:00.000-07:00

One thing I will mention, probably more than once. The purpose of this blog is not to try to bash the church or to prove it's not true. I believe the church is true with all my heart. I believe that it's led by inspired leaders. I believe in some way that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is inspired.

What I have come to believe, however, is that the LDS church is not an exclusive path to salvation. I believe the Lord puts many possible ways up the mountain out there, because we are all created with different personalites. The LDS way will work for many people, and it will not work for many people. The Catholic way will work for many people, and it will not work for many people. Etc.. We have a God that loves us so much and values diversity so much that he has given us a multiple choice test with more than one correct answer.

Where I believe the LDS church errs is in its claims of exclusiveness. The Lord has given us manifest evidence that the LDS church is not perfect, and in their zeal to pretend otherwise the leadership tries to obscure that fact. In fact, we pretend with all our might that the church is true, that the leaders are always inspired, that sacrifice brings forth the blessings of Heaven, etc., until we crack under the weight of self-deception or just permanently lose touch with reality.

I honor and respect the church and its leaders and hope to continue my association with it for the rest of my life. However, I can no longer ignore its imperfections in a schizophrenic attempt to pretend a sows ear is really a silk purse.

2006-04-18T04:02:00.000-07:00

Happiness --

2 Ne 2:25 -
Adam fell that men might be; and men are that they might have joy.

In many ways the restored gospel has never brought me joy. Not consistently. I have had many good times and short periods where I felt like I was with the program, but for the most part I have felt inadequate. I think most people feel the same way. There are a few people who manage to rise above perfectionism, and there are many who are smugly self-righteous, but most people in the middle feel like they just can't do enough to "lengthen their stride".

The sad thing is this is largely cultural rather than doctrinal. The Book of Mormon is full of imperfect people relying on grace. What I have read of early church history reminds me of a people working through tough situations, with no illusions of their "worthiness".

I think the creeping perfectionism most LDS suffer from is a creation of the modern church. The church is run by overachievers who have bubbled to the top, and they are trying to drag the rest of us with them, despite the fact that most people are not overachievers.

One of the things I realized yesterday is that I have not been happy most of my life. I have been part of systems that reinforced the fact that, in a deep fundamental way, I have not been good enough. From the military to the church, I just didn't measure up.

As I have stepped away from trying to be the person the Ensign wants me to be, I think I'm finally learning to be happy. I have come to appreciate that God made me with the imperfections I have. They're not necessarily weaknesses. In many cases they are design features, regardless of what others may say. Just because I don't express my feelings the same way or feel the spirit the same way doesn't make me inferior.

I have a great sense of satisfaction in knowing that the Lord cares more about my faith than about whether I stumble over my words trying to tell people about the church, or whether I make a decision in my calling that I should have referred to someone else, or whether I remembered to bring my copy of the stake calendar to a meeting.

I don't have to be perfect enough to be considered for major callings in order to have value in his eyes, because I am what he made me to be. I am a child of God, not a part in a celestial parts bin, only of value to the extent I contribute to the functioning of the Mormon machine. I can glory in the risen Lord and in my relationship with him, regardless of my relationship to those in the church, or even in my own family. Together, Christ and I make up a complete whole.

2006-04-17T04:58:00.000-07:00

I decided to pay attention to Lent this year, which is something I have never done before. The LDS church doesn't use the traditional church calendar, other than Easter and Christmas, so we ignore the other days like Ash Wednesday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, etc.. I wanted to pay more attention to those this year in order to deepen my spirituality and my appreciation of Jesus.

This involved several things. We attended Episcopal services on the major days, beginning with Ash Wednesday. I found a book with daily Lenten devotionals which I kept up with. I also tried to fast once a week. Usually these were not complete fasts, because I was open to the spirit on many things. Many times I would make it until lunch time and end up eating a roll or a piece of bread, as a reminder that Jesus is the bread of life. One exception to this was Good Friday, which was a complete fast. I thought about breaking it, but the symbolism I felt was not Jesus as the bread of life, but Jesus absent from the world because of the crucifixion. For once I was on my own. There was no one to rescue me from my fast. I had to go it alone and not eat.

Rather than abstaining from water as the LDS church teaches, though, I drank as much water as I wanted. For whatever reason this eliminated much of the real discomfort I usually experience with fasting. I was hungry, but not so weak, and I didn't experience headaches. In fact I mowed the back yard on Good Friday, not having taken in any calories for 22 hours.

During my weekly fasts I would also set aside 30 - 60 minutes for prayer and contemplation, based on the book I was reading.

I also picked two things that give me great pleasure, and I chose to give them up: caffeinated sodas in general, and drinking sodas at work, which I do as a means of stress reduction.

How did this practice work out? It was a tremendous spiritual exercise. No matter what happens in my relationship with the LDS church I will definitely participate in Episcopal services and do Lenten devotionals next year. I'm not sure I learned anything I didn't know before, but I felt it a lot deeper. To a small extent I appreciated some deprivation and tried to translate that into a hunger for Christ in my life. I reflected a lot more on my need for a savior, rather than on my ability to perfect myself. I contemplated more on how Jesus wants us to be involved in the world and with the temporally and spiritually disadvantaged, rather than on what I should be doing to sustain my ward and family, who are already comparably well off. To a small extent I empathized with the poor and tried to see them as children of God more. I spent a lot of time thinking about why God made gay people and what that means for us. I came to appreciate that God created me with my weaknesses to help me feel my dependence on Jesus and my need for a Savior, rather than playing some game where I am born with these weaknesses and then have to overcome them all and perfect myself in order to be "worthy" of his love, like some sort of perverted Survivor game.

In some small way I participated in the deprivation Christ did during the forty days in the wilderness and in the real personal sacrifices he made for us. As he was tempted by the good things of the world he forsook, I was tempted. I felt hunger and deprivation, as well as a sense of anticipation for the end of the cycle, much as we feel anticipation for the Second Coming. I felt a sense of doing without in the present as well as the sense of coming fulfillment in the future.

One thing I came to appreciate is that, although the LDS church is Christian, it is not Christ-centered to the degree many other churches are. While we are focusing on modern prophets, priesthood, restoration, and separateness, they are focusing more on the person of Christ and his mission to the rest of the world. I find the LDS messages and practices to be somewhat hollow compared to the Christ-centeredness to be found elsewhere.

We are so focused on the Gospel and the life of Jesus Christ as some kind of checklist for things to do that we miss the mysteries and joy of the season. The mystery for me is how God could love me and the people around me so much that he created me and sent a Savior on my behalf. And why he chose such a sorry lot as human beings in order to display his glory. The joy is that he did.

In the Episcopal services of Saturday night and Sunday morning we reviewed the stories of the creation, the flood, the exodus, and the resurrection. The thinking person can easily see the pattern of creation and redemption in this as God creates us for his own purposes and then establishes the pathway to eternal life.

We spent four consecutive days remembering the creation, crucifixion, and resurrection, whereas in the LDS service we would have spent about forty minutes, including the youth speaker, and then moved on to our study of the Old Testament and the teachings of Wilford Woodruff.

I also wanted to include some my thoughts on the major days of the Lenten season, based on the Episcopal services we attended. We skipped Good Friday out of respect for my son, but we made the rest of them. The Ash Wednesday and Maundy Thursday entries are cut/pasted from things I wrote on the internet.

Ash Wednesday.

We went to a service that included these words, "Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return." as the sign of the cross was made with ashes on our foreheads. Not something I've done before, but it seems to put the current subject into perspective. We have just one life to live, and it's a relatively short one, so we need to choose wisely what we devote it to.

Maundy Thursday.

My wife and I wanted to do something different this year to celebrate Easter, so we have been visiting a local church that does follow the calendar. Last night we went to a Maundy Thursday service, the first I had ever been to. One of the interesting aspects of that service was that, as part of telling the story of the Last Supper, they set aside some time for foot washing. The priest washed the feet of the deacon, the deacon washed the priest's feet, they washed two other's feet, and then each who had had his feet washed proceeded to wash the feet of another.

I wasn't at all comfortable with foot washing, so I sat and watched and contemplated. Before they had told the story of Jesus and Peter, where Jesus had basically told Peter that he was not really a disciple unless he allowed Jesus to wash his feet. The sermon had also emphasized the importance of being a follower of Jesus, and not merely a worshiper.

So, given all that, why was I unwilling to participate in the foot washing? What about it made me so uncomfortable?

As I thought about it, I realized that washing somebody else's feet wasn't the problem. After 22 years as a parent, as a former Marine, as a dog owner, I will stick my hands in about anything.

My problem was that I was unwilling to allow somebody else to see how nasty and dirty my feet might be. I hike a lot, and that messes up my toenails. I might not have been careful about scrubbing my feet that morning, and there might have been actual dirt on them that somebody might see. They might see what my feet look like and think less of me. I was basically unwilling to allow myself to be served, because somebody might think I was less than perfect in a way that I would find embarrassing.

The very nature of the gospel requires us to open ourselves up to others and to reveal our weaknesses. Often our greatest ministry to others is through sharing our weaknesses rather than our strengths. By sharing our weaknesses with others, we make them feel comfortable sharing theirs with us, and thus we are able to lift up another and build true Christian community. Also, true service to others is a chain. Others serve us and show us how its done, and then we in turn can serve, and the cycle of service is born. Refusing to allow ourselves to be served breaks the chain, out of mere personal pride and fear of revealing our weaknesses.

Jesus is quite clear that we have no part in him if we don't humble ourselves as little children, and this includes swallowing our pride and allowing ourselves to be served.

Sometimes the deep lessons available in something as simple as foot washing are just awe-inspiring.

Holy Saturday.
This was a long service involving chapters and chapters of reading, recapping the major biblical stories of our human history. My wife and I were possibly the only people in the congregation not involved in either the singing or reading or the eucharist in some way.

It definitely got the point across, though, of the death and resurrection of Christ as the climax of the story, rather than as isolated events. It helped us to remember where we came from and to appreciate God's grace and involvement in our lives.

Easter Sunday
Easter Sunday was an experience of real exultant joy. The other services were attended by a relatively smaller group of the faithful, but the building was packed for Easter. The music was exuberant, the singing was loud, and the joy in the resurrection was tangible. The sermon recapped the previous night's sermon, focusing on the meaning of the empty tomb in our lives and the resulting defeat of death and sin. The message was one of hope, joy, and the Good News of Jesus Christ.

In summary Lent was a wonderful season for me this year, and I look forward to the continued spiritual growth of exploring other faith traditions.

2006-04-16T11:26:00.000-07:00

Out of the mouths of babes -

My wife and I were planning to attend Easter services at our favorite Episcopal church today, because we wanted to hear a message about Christ and the resurrection. Sometimes we get that in our ward, and sometimes not. Last year the talks were about the atonement, which is not really the same thing. More about our sins, rather than the hope we find in the resurrection of Christ.

Anyway, I woke my 18 year-old son up for church, because we were going to go to our ward sacrament meeting first with him before dodging out. He came downstairs and said, "I don't feel like going to church today." Why not? "I don't feel like going." Why not? "This is Easter, and they're not going to talk about Jesus. They're going to talk about stuff to do. All we ever talk about is do, do, do." And he went back to bed. I'm not sure I could have put it any more succinctly.

I just hope we can get him energized about something so he doesn't become inactive in Christianity entirely.