We Too Often Confuse Belief with Truth

The “truths” we cling to shape the quality of our societies as well as our individual characters. All too often these “truths” are based on incomplete and inaccurate evidence, and at times they serve very selfish motives.

Part of the reason for poor judgment comes from the tendency of mankind to blur the line between belief and truth. We too often confuse belief with truth, thinking that because something makes sense or is convenient, it must be true. Conversely, we sometimes don’t believe truth or reject it - because it would require us to change or admit that we were wrong. Often, truth is rejected because it doesn’t appear to be consistent with previous experiences.

When the opinions or “truths” of others contradict our own, instead of considering the possibility that there could be information that might be helpful and augment or complement what we know, we often jump to conclusions or make assumptions that the other person is misinformed, mentally challenged, or even intentionally trying to deceive.

Unfortunately, this tendency can spread to all areas of our lives - from sports to family relationships and from religion to politics. 

- Pres. Uchtdorf, CES Devotional, Jan. 2013

Knowing a God Whose Ways Are Not Our Ways

I have thought periodically about the tension between the idea that life eternal is to know God and the statement that God's ways are not our ways - as well as the complete and obvious lack of objectivity when it comes to human perceptions and conceptions of the divine.

I have been asked, in one way or another, about how I view God given this paradox, and I have struggled to answer that question concisely - as everyone who knows me will understand.

The following is my attempt to explain how I view God, given my recognition of the competing statements within our canonized scriptures:

I have solved the central dilemma for myself simply by acknowledging that I don't really know God objectively and avoiding any kind of dogmatic definition in the first place. Thus, I am free to take whatever I like from any and all views - even if that means I have conflicting, paradoxical "definitions" operating simultaneously.

It's really liberating to be able to say,

"I love the concept of God being my Father, but I also can see great value in Voltaire's absentee clockmaker God - and that God condescended to become human to know us at the most basic, intimate level - and that God is a condition that allows all of us to be gods - and that god is collective unity - and that God is the spiritual unifying essence of the universe - and that God is a conceptual ideal for which we can strive - etc."

I really don't have "a definition" - or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I accept and embrace an unrestrained definition that allows for alteration through addition as I encounter new views from which I can take something that resonates with me. I tend to reject the either/or constructs and accept instead a both/and framework.

For what it's worth, that is my basic approach to pretty much everything that I can't prove conclusively. It eliminates a lot of angst and adds wonderful surprises to my life.

It Is Better to Be Godly than to Be Merely Religious

I think one of the central messages of the New Testament is that it's better to be godly (spiritual, in the best sense) than to be religious, if it has to be one or the other. I think the ideal is both, but the foundation needs to be the condition of one's soul, not just the actions of one's body. Without the spiritual foundation, what we do is nothing more than "dead works".

I also think this is reflected in the emphasis in the LDS Church on "becoming" over "doing" over the last decade or so.

Simple Belief is OK: or, You Can Stay Even if You Don't Know

I want to share the beginning of a conversation I had once with a friend who was struggling to accept the fact that he hadn't had an undeniable spiritual witness, even though he loved the Church and his life in it.  I hope it helps someone, somehow, who reads it - and I think it says something about our culture that de-emphasizes and even de-values faith in its near obsession with knowing. 

First, his description of his dilemma (bolding is mine):

I joined the church two years ago and I have never really known that the church is true. I was baptized as I believed everything I was taught (It all made complete sense to me) and I wanted so much for it to be true and thought I would get the confirmation as I lived my life as the best member I could. I love the church and I love the gospel, but I have still never had it confirmed to me that this is the true church. I have never felt the spirit, and as much as I want to stay in the church, having now been a member for two years and still not having confirmation is making it difficult to remain and making it difficult to keep lying to my friends.

I don't know what to do anymore. Everyone thinks I am this super strong member with a wonderful testimony, but in all reality I am just following the crowd. I have tried so hard and prayed so sincerely but have had no response. I have taught lessons on recognizing the spirit many times and know for a fact that I have never felt the spirit.

I am still active within the church as I love my life as a member and I love everything that I stand for as a member, but I am struggling so much with the basic fundamentals that I don't know how much longer I can continue lying.

Now, my response:

Just some questions for you to consider personally. Don't feel any pressure to answer them in writing, unless you want to do so. They are meant to cause introspection and challenge what I believe are unrealistic expectations.

1) Why do you need a strong spiritual witness if you love the Church and the Gospel taught in it? I mean that sincerely. Stop and consider why you feel you need something to justify your happiness.

2) Why do you need more than what you describe having? What you describe is wonderful.

3) Why do you feel you are lying? Are you saying things in a dishonest way - or do you equate others thinking differently about you than you feel about yourself as lying? If so, realize that nobody sees you like you see yourself, since they don't know you like you know yourself. It's unavoidable; it simply "is"; it can't be changed - and it certainly is not dishonesty for it to occur.

4) Think of this simple statement:

"To some is given to know . . . to others is given to believe . . ."

Why aren't you OK with believing without knowing, if the scriptures of your faith tradition say it's totally natural and acceptable for that to be the case - and go even further by calling your ability to believe without knowledge a "gift" from God?

5) For what it's worth, expectations are two-edged swords. My suggestion: Stop using the sword of unrealistic expectations against yourself. Easier said than done, I know, but at least recognize in hindsight what you are doing, so you eventually can work on letting go in the moment.

I think it would be a tragedy if you allowed yourself to guilt yourself out of the Church over something where there is no "wrong" about which to feel guilty. After all, God is credited as having said that to some is given to believe. Thus, according to our scriptures, you are completely "righteous" (right with God) in that state of simply believing.

Seek Diligently for Truth, No Matter Where It Is Found

I believe deeply in finding truth in everything.  I think that outlook is a fundamental part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (see Moroni 7: 5-19, especially) and Joseph Smith's philosophy that animated the Restoration and his role as a prophet.

I was asked once if organized religion loses potency when it admits there is truth in everything - that a religion doesn't posses or even understand all truth and that "the fulness of the Gospel" doesn't include an understanding of all truth. My response was that it does not, according to Joseph Smith - or the notion of a process called the "restoration of all things" through on-going / continuing revelation.

Part of the grandeur I see in pure Mormonism is the audacity to believe that all truth can be circumscribed into one whole - and that striving to comprehend that whole is worth the effort. Limiting that whole to what we know now, and denying that there still is truth outside our current understanding to be included in the circumscription process (including things that others know of which we are not aware), goes against the very core of the Restoration.

A good friend of mine once wrote the following when he was asked about believing there is truth in every religion, denomination, faith tradition, science, etc.

1. If something is proven to be true, or beyond reasonable doubt, it's simply part of the gospel. As we study the creation, and the processes whereby creation occurred, I come to be in awe of the creator. Scientific discovery does not diminish my regard for god, it enhances my understanding of the absolute miracle of god's inherent power: nature. That god works entirely through nature is part of what Joseph Smith said, at least, in section 88, one of his most important and thoughtful revelations.

2. If something true is in conflict with scripture, then we need to re-evaluate our literal understanding of the scripture. I have to recognize how scripture was written in the mind and heart of the revelator, and thus, it's going to include the revelator's worldview. Obviously, this is controversial to those who believe that scripture is literally and forever true. Scripture is the milk -- it is not the meat of the gospel. As we grow up in our understanding, we sometimes need to set aside childish things.

3. There are a host of things that cannot be proven, and we need to take an attitude of suspended judgment for these things. I don't know if we pre-existed. I think it's a very useful model as part of the Plan of Salvation, but I simply don't know. Is it imperative for me to say "I know we lived with god before this life"? I believe it, I trust in it, but I cannot explain it. I don't know how it works.

4. I should never be afraid of truth. If Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did some pretty whacked out things, then I think it important to understand their humanity. I'm not afraid of it. I can understand how once you know that JS did a number of questionable things, that it's hard to believe that he was also a 'prophet', but I don't have a problem with it. I'm sure some people think I'm intellectually dishonest as a result. Whatever; truth is truth. Judgment is entirely another matter. I think it's true that Joseph did some pretty human things. My judgment is not affected by it -- he's still a prophet. He still facilitated the restoration. I find truth in the restoration, and therefore I can only conclude that God uses imperfect humans to do his work. This should be obvious from scripture. 

In summary, going back to my first thoughts in this post, as I am exposed to the thoughts, beliefs, discoveries, etc. of others, I try hard to make sure my initial response is:

What truth can I learn from this - no matter the source? 

To Feel, Believe, Know, Do or Become

I believe what we DO trumps what we FEEL or BELIEVE or even KNOW when it comes right down to it - and what we BECOME is most important of all.

Interviewed by a Writer for the Washington Post

I had an interesting experience this week.  I was interviewed by a writer for the Washington Post who is doing an article about "questioning Mormons".  I was referred to her due to my involvement online with members who are struggling with some kind of faith crisis - and as someone who simply is inquisitive and "questioning" by nature. 

I enjoyed the conversation greatly, but I hope she doesn't misquote me in the article - if she quotes me at all.  I'm a "questioning Mormon" only because I question by nature.  In other words, I'm not a doubter or struggling in any way; I just question and want to understand everything better.  I try to be open to "further light and knowledge" regarding everything.  I try to understand how I personally feel about and see things - rather than accepting what others tell me automatically, without question.  The following is a simple summary of my memory of the conversation - not meant to be exhaustive and complete (since we talked for nearly 45 minutes), but meant only to provide the general outline of our conversation:

I think her focus is going to be on Mormons who struggle to be able to express their concerns in the LDS Church - how their questioning affects their membership and why. She mentioned the number of members who wouldn't give their names if they were going to be quoted and how she was struck by that. She also talked about attending church with an acquaintance and observing the general lack of dissenting voices. (I think she doesn't realize a large part of that is because the LDS Church is so participatory in nature that most members don't want to cause contention or problems when they might be the one teaching the class later that day or down the road a few years.  I think we all know that payback can be a . . . difficulty - and none of us want to encourage hard feelings and vocal, obvious disunity.) 

I was crystal clear with her about my situation and why I don't struggle even though I question pretty much everything. (having to accept the fact early in life that I see things differently than everyone else around me and my social capital from not being a threat in any way) I told her I am a fully active, serving, believing, faithful, dedicated member - who just happens to see some things differently than others.  (i.e., I don't question because I'm Mormon; I am Mormon and I question naturally.)  She asked about my background, so I gave her a thumbnail sketch. 

We talked a lot about placing Mormonism into historical perspective. (She mentioned how diverse and tolerant Judaism is, for example, and I pointed out that it wasn't nearly as diverse and tolerant back in the biblical days when it was being oppressed by various empires - and that Mormonism still is close enough to its times of intense persecution that it's unrealistic to expect it to be completely out of the woods in that regard.) I mentioned Pres. Uchtdorf and Elder Wirthlin and how there are top leaders who appear to be trying to move the Church toward a more accepting and less fundamentalist orientation, and I stressed the difference between that and what individual members encounter when they have local leadership that has an extreme protect-the-flock mentality and sees danger everywhere. (I used myself and an online friend as a prime example of the wide differences in local experiences.) I explained my settler vs. explorer analogy - that settlers establish barriers to ward of potential danger, while explorers are drawn to potential danger - that there is an inherent, unavoidable tension between them in most cases - and that neither approach is "bad" or "wrong". They just "are" - and I am trying to be the best "I am" possible for me - to live according to the dictates of my own conscience while allowing others to do the same.

I also taught her a new word - "orthoprax" (living one's life in a traditional manner) - and talked about how the mainstream actions of members generally can overcome non-aggressive heterodoxy (believing differently than the dominant group but not pushing for converts, so to speak).

We talked for a long time, but I'm not sure how much of what we discussed will make it into the article - or how much will be truly an accurate retelling of what I meant. We'll see.

Why I Don't Support "Hate Crimes" Legislation: Individual Worth

We live in a system that has said we can't be punished for what we think and believe, only for what we do. Hate crime legislation punishes people differently based on what they think and believe - for WHY they do what they do. It is that simple to me, so I don't support hate crime legislation.

If my wife or daughter is raped or killed, I don't want a white perpetrator to get a lighter sentence than a black man who was shouting racial slurs because my wife or daughter is a white woman. I also don't want a Baptist perpetrator shouting religious bigotry to be punished more harshly just because my wife or daughter is Mormon.

There is a MUCH deeper reason, however, that I am appalled by hate crimes legislation - and I choose the word "appalled" carefully and consciously.  

I want a lesbian, drug-addicted prostitute of any race or ethnicity to be viewed under the law exactly in the same manner as my wife or daughter - and I want someone who murders that prostitute in order to steal her money punished exactly the same as someone who murders her because she is lesbian or a different race or drug-addicted. None of those things makes her life less valuable or important, and the absence of those things doesn't makes my wife's or daughter's life more valuable or important, either. 
   

I believe they are equal in the eyes of God and should be treated as equal under the law, as well - no matter WHY the perpetrator of a crime did what he did.

(I also should note explicitly that I chose the above characterizations strictly because of the way they are viewed by many people in society.  I am NOT equating being lesbian with being a drug addict or with being a prostitute.)

Charity Believeth All Things: The 9th and 13th Articles of Faith

As I have continued to consider what Paul might have meant when he said that "charity believeth all things", I have found myself focusing this week on the 9th and 13th Articles of Faith. They apply differently to this idea, but I believe each application has merit and insight - so I want to address both of them in this post.

First, the 9th Article of Faith:

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

What I take from this statement is that we believe whatever God reveals, whenever He reveals it - and, in conjunction with my post last week about being open-minded, no matter the source to whom He reveals it. This implies that charity includes a willingness to set aside all natural arrogance and accept the idea that God can and will speak to ANY of His children - and then believe what He has said, no matter if it comes to "our own" in the past ("has revealed"), in the present ("does now reveal") and in the future ("will yet reveal") or to "others" at any of those times.

This is a part of charity specifically because it blunts the natural arrogance that assumes God chose, chooses and will choose a particular people to be the exclusive beneficiaries of His word - which almost always (if not always) includes the accompanying assumption of higher worth, worthiness or inherent value. This is not a conclusion that applies only to those who do NOT accept on-going revelation and living prophets. It also applies to those who DO accept the general premise of past, present and future revelation - if they ascribe a lack of revelation or worthiness to those outside "their own", generally. (That is perhaps the most pernicious effect of many of the justifications for the Priesthood ban, for example - the fact that some members used worthiness as a reason for the ban and, thus, were not truly charitable toward those who were not able to be ordained and endowed for that season.)

Next, the 13th Article of Faith begins with the following:

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men.

This listing of things we believe focuses on godly characteristics and actions, rather than philosophical, intellectual or doctrinal concepts or ideologies. It also is not focused on understanding these characteristics, but, rather, it is focused on internalizing and living them - becoming or being them. Again, with the fundamental caveat that I believe we are talking about all good things, this seems to emphasize that truly believing something includes a commitment to act - rather than simply understand intellectually. Much like "faith without works is dead, being alone", belief without becoming / being is dead.

Thus, charity believing all things might have specific reference to believing in striving to become Christlike (believing all things that He taught, including the need to become like Him) - and the attendant acceptance of both faith AND repentance.

Charity Believeth All Things: Being Open-Minded

In my New Year's Resolution post last week, I included some thoughts from previous posts in my initial contemplation of the idea that charity believes all things - and I asked for input about how I might take that idea the rest of the month. As I have considered how to organize my thoughts, I have decided to start with two statements by Presidents of the LDS Church (Joseph Smith and Gordon B. Hinckley) and an excerpt from the Book of Mormon.

First, the very last thing Joseph Smith wrote in the 13th Article of Faith was:

If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Next, Gordon B. Hinckley said more than once, in echoing another famous statement by Joseph Smith, that Mormonism should encompass all good:

“To anybody who is not of this Church, I say we recognize all of the virtues and the good that you have. Bring it with you and see if we might add to it.” (Ensign, November 1996, p.48. - From a General Conference talk in October 1996)

Finally, the Book of Mormon includes the following wonderful statement and counsel in Moroni 7:13-14:

But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God. Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.

I believe the point of Paul's message that charity believeth all things is encapsulated in these statements - with the caveat that I'm certain he meant believeth all "correct/true/ennobling/virtuous, etc." things. I think that such a qualifier is both obvious and important, so I simply want to mention it in passing here to be explicit.

My main point tonight is the link between "charity" and the ability to "believe all things". The epiphany that hit me hard only now as I was typing and editing that last sentence is that the ability to be truly and fully open-minded is central to the ability to believe all things - since it is impossible to believe anything unless one is willing to consider it first. Likewise, the ability to grant that others might have something that can enlighten us - that we don't know everything and what we do know we don't know fully - is the heart of charity. Thus, the truly charitable are the people who are most likely to be open to being taught by those with whom others reactively disagree - since they are the ones most likely to seek for ways to understand without judgment and reflexive rejection.

I have never considered that perhaps ONLY charity believeth all things, but I really like the way my mind is being led.

Charity Believeth All Things: A Few Connected Thoughts

My New Year's Resolution this month is to "believe more things" - taken, as has been the case all year, from 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 where it states:

Charity believeth all things.

As I contemplated this resolution, some connected yet autonomous thoughts that ran through my mind. Rather than write a typical post this week, to start off the month I want to record those thoughts and ask everyone who reads this post to offer your thoughts about my thoughts. I'm not sure exactly in what direction I want to take this particular resolution this month, so I would appreciate any help anyone wants to give.

1) I remembered a quote I cited earlier this spring in a post that deals with the idea of believing regardless of "truthfulness" - and I'm sure it will factor into how I approach this resolution:

"If you want to believe in something, then believe in it. Just because something isn’t true, there’s no reason you can’t believe in it. Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things that a man needs to believe in the most: that people are basically good; that honor, courage and virtue mean everything; that power and money mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; that true love never dies. It doesn’t matter if they are true or not. A man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in." - from the movie, "Second Hand Lions".

2) I wrote the next thought almost exactly a year ago, and it also deals with the same general theme I am starting to develop as perhaps the core focus of this month's resolution:

“To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.” (D&C 46: 13-14)

If some have to "believe" something as fundamental as that Jesus is the Son of God, then it seems logical to assert that even more are going to have to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet - and myriad other uniquely Mormon teachings.

I have no problem with saying, "I know” about a lot of things - but there also are things that I still believe without yet knowing. I would love to hear more people stand in front of the congregation and say, “I believe . . .”- or even, "I want to believe . . ."

3) I wrote the following just over two years ago:

A friend once said to me, "I see you as an academic believer." My response follows:

I like that term, since the primary emphasis is on being a "believer" rather than an "academic". I am inquisitive by nature; I try to see everything from every side and reach my own conclusions; I do so, however, from a foundation of faith - because I have found that it is such a foundation that brings me the most joy.

This means that I always try hard when I read or hear something for the first time to see if there is a way I can see "correctness" within it - even if that ends up being only a very small portion. Often, I end up rejecting 10%-90% of something - but my approach, I believe, allows me to gain something from most of the things to which I am exposed. That is true sometimes of things I have considered carefully previously - if the perspective is somewhat different than what I have considered previously.

I am not an "academic believer" if that means someone who only accepts what I can understand. (I would term that type of person to be a "believing academic".) I certainly am an "academic believer" if that means someone who tries to think about and understand everything but who, first and foremost, believes. My heart and experiences are bound rock-solidly to the Restored Gospel, but my mind is looking constantly for ways to understand it better.

I am leaning on tackling this month's resolution from the standpoint of the need for faith in world I see through my glass, darkly - but I would love to have input into the quotes above and any other thoughts about the idea of charity believing all things.

Leaving is Only Temporary; Loving Lasts Forever

I didn't write a New Year's Resolution post last night, because I had been at a professional conference most of the week without access to the internet (don't get me started) - and when I got home, I went with my family to the Nauvoo Pageant last night. We had gone twice already this summer (opening with our oldest daughter's boyfriend and our extended family when they were here for our youngest daughter's baptism and later with our children and our son's girlfriend), but some friends from Cincinnati (Jungkunzs) were in Nauvoo yesterday - so we decided to go again to see them, especially so our kids could see their daughter again. It was great to see them, but it also reinforced how small the Mormon world is.

We were walking into the area where all of the pre-pageant activities occur (the stilts-walking, the sack races, the dancing, etc.) when we started to pass a young boy in period costume. As they are taught to do, he asked where we were from - and, for some reason, Mama mentioned both MO and OH. He told her, "I live in Ohio." She looked more closely at him and realized she recognized his face. His family attends the ward (Hamilton) that meets with our old ward (Fairfield); we know his parents well (mother sang in Christmas programs with us and father served on the High Council with me before being called as the Bishop of their ward just before we moved); I've mentioned his father on this blog in a post about when the former Bishop died unexpectedly.

This young boy took us to where his parents were setting up to run the youth sack races, and we were able to talk with them for a few minutes before the pageant started. It was wonderful to see them again, and the thoughts that struck me immediately were two-fold:

1) What were the chances that we and their son would have crossed paths like we did last night, since we never would have realized they were there otherwise?

2) What were the chances we would have been there a third time this summer, since I have no motivation generally to see or attend the same event even twice within a few weeks?

We finished talking with the Foisters and moved on to find the seats that Jungkunzs had saved for us, placed our stuff on the chairs, and everyone else left to enjoy the activities. As I was standing there looking around (people watching as I often do), I noticed another familiar face - and the white shirt, tie and missionary name tag that accompany his current calling. It was Elder Moore, a full-time missionary who had served in our ward in Quincy, IL. He saw me at the same time, so he came over and talked for a few minutes. He is leaving to return home today, and his parents had come out to pick him up and drive home with him. They decided to attend the pageant before leaving, and his Mission President gave him permission to do so. We were sitting within about five rows of each other, so we had seen each other right away.

Again, the same two questions popped into my mind as I mentioned with the Foisters - with the first question modified to be:

What are the chances that Elder Moore and his parents would be sitting within a few rows of us - directly in front of us - and able to see us amid the crowd?

If they or Jungkunz's had chosen almost any other location, we probably would have missed each other completely.

Now, I'm not saying there was any kind of divine intervention in the course of these events - particularly since I do not believe in a micro-managing, puppetmaster God. All I'm saying is that it made me stop and think about things that naturally appear to be random accidents - coincidences that defy statistical probability - and realize that they occur more frequently in a small, tight-knit community where strong attachments are common. There might or might not have been a bit of Spirit-directed activity at play last night, but it is instructive that we met a family and an individual we knew well and loved largely because we belong to a religious community that promotes such close ties and creates ways for us to make deep, lasting friendships outside of "Sunday worship" services. Our ties to the Jungkunzs, the Foisters and Elder Moore were not forged in church on Sunday; they were created in extra-Sunday associations - musical events, Stake callings, visits to our home, etc.

That is powerful - much more powerful, in my opinion, than merely believing (generally) the same core principles and doctrines and sitting near each other each Sunday. In fact, it emphasizes something I believe strongly - that the importance of the exact nature of the nuances of our individual beliefs pales in comparison to the ties that we create through the lives we live. It is FAR more important to me to share unity in the activities of our lives (to be unitedly orthoprax, if you will - living alike) than to share unity in the small details of our faith (to be unitedly orthodox, if you will - thinking alike).

I would be bored to tears in a world where everyone thought exactly alike (and it would be a pretty good approximation of Lucifer's ideal, imo - since there would not be an opposition in all things); I find great joy and peace and enlightenment in a small community where people live in unity and love even while thinking and believing quite differently about almost everything imaginable. That, to me, is Zion - unity of purpose and shared living despite differences, not exact unity of thought and the elimination of differences. Zion also is reuniting with those we have loved and left - and realizing the leaving was only temporary, but the loving lasts forever.

This Is Not a Relativistic Post

I have full confidence that what I believe is "true" for me. Therefore, for myself, I know it to be true. I have no confidence that what I believe is "true" for anyone else, since they have to discover what they feel to be true.

That's not a relativistic stance, as it sounds initially. I just look at it like Nephi did: I know what I have seen and felt and experienced. It's truth "as I understand it". I'm not a bit perturbed that my current "knowledge" differs from my earlier knowledge - or that it differs from what my future knowledge will be. I'm not concerned at all that others will read this and say that I don't "know" anything, but that I merely "believe". It feels like knowledge to me, so I accept it as knowledge for me. If I explain it to others and they translate it as "belief" for them, fine; if they feel what I feel and translate it as "knowledge", fine.

Some have the gift to know; others have the gift to believe those who know. For what it's worth, everything I have read on all the blogs I frequent convinces me that such a distinction pretty much covers everyone - those who follow what they feel they know and those who follow whoever is the most convincing to them. I'm fine with both, and I try not to force one on the other.

I just think that many people are too stuck on quibbling over definitions that they want to impose on others and not open enough to letting individuals self-identify as honestly as they can on a personal level - and that "natural man" tendency is alive both inside and outside the Mormon Church. It certainly is alive and thriving in the Bloggernacle.

In 50 Years, I Will Be Proof the Church is True - and False

Everything was more black and white when I was younger - and I see that in the Church, as well.

Everyone was a convert in the beginning, even Joseph Smith in a very real way, and I believe much of what drives some people nuts about the way that early Church leaders taught things that we no longer teach is no more than the maturation process that is unavoidable in mortality as we learn and grow and realize how much we really don’t know. (or, at least, that I wish was unavoidable - I have known some people and organizations that simply refuse to mature.)

All of you who read this blog probably realize I don’t see our changing understanding over time as a bad thing, but I also should make it crystal clear that I also don’t see any great, seismic shift in the CORE principles and doctrines of the Restoration. We still believe in a Great Apostasy, the restoration of the priesthood that can administer eternally binding ordinances for all of mankind, the reality of multiple prophetic sources and on-going revelation - both collective and personal - in all its messy glory, the centrality of Jesus in the Plan of Salvation as our Savior and Redeemer, the primacy of obedience (fruits) over work-less belief, the importance of establishing and serving in the Kingdom of God on earth, the eternal potential to become like God, and on and on and on. I don’t think we have abandoned - or even altered significantly - any of the Articles of Faith. How we express each of these core principles and doctrines has vacillated from time to time as we struggle to see through our glass less darkly, but the concepts themselves haven’t changed in ways that I would classify as significant.

I think it’s interesting that when I was most active on multiple Mormon-themed blogs I was classified as a skeptical believer on Mormon Matters, a conservative generally on Feminist Mormon Housewives, mostly conservative on By Common Consent and Times & Seasons, simply verbose on Trash Calls, insightful but occasionally heretical on Mormon Momma, a token male at Mormon Mommy Wars, etc. I think I am classified in each case in comparison to the general tone of the blog, which I believe is relevant to this post in an important way.

I don’t really care how I’m classified, since I know I am a “faithful, believing member” - and that’s all that really matters to me. I accept that 20-50 years from now members might read what I have written and agree, disagree, laugh or have any other reaction. My words might be dissected, if anyone even reads them, to prove how wrong the Church is - because someone in my position of local leadership was so badly mistaken; they might be read to show how right the Church is - because someone like me was correct. I have no idea how my words will be used, if they are used at all, but, if they are used at all, I’m fairly certain they will fill both roles - as “proof” that the Church was right by some and wrong by others. That’s just the nature of the human beast.

I’m just doing my best to explain (and evaluate) my own muddle in the middle as I make my way through life.

Are You a Skeptical Believer or a Faithful Doubter?

Personally, I would put the "line" between a Skeptical Doubter and a Faithful Doubter as the emphasis on the adjective/noun relationship in each phrase. In other words, a skeptical believer is a believer, first and foremost. The skepticism is a characteristic of the believer. A faithful doubter, on the other hand, is a doubter, first and foremost. The faithful is a characteristic of the doubter.

To make this real and practical, try the following:

If someone makes a claim or a statement that sounds different than what you believe, what is your first reaction - your "gut instinct"? If it is to accept that there is some validity in it and then look for that validity - even if you have to discard some of it to find it, you are a skeptical believer. You believed there was good in there somewhere, and you were willing to exercise skepticism to sort through the incorrect to find the good.

If, however, your immediate reaction is, "That's a bunch of crap," you are less likely to search through it for a nugget of gold. You still are "faithful" to what you believe, but you aren't very open to finding insights among the ashes - to wade through the grime to find the sublime. Your "faithfulness" keeps you anchored to your current truth, but it keeps you anchored away from any other truth.

(Btw, I think you can be a temple-recommend holding Mormon and be a faithful doubter - or an atheist and a skeptical believer. Neither title automatically endows one or the other with any degree of "truth". That is a completely separate discussion.)

True or Not, Some Things Simply Should Be Believed

"If you want to believe in something, then believe in it. Just because something isn’t true, there’s no reason you can’t believe in it. Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things that a man needs to believe in the most: that people are basically good; that honor, courage and virtue mean everything; that power and money mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; that true love never dies. It doesn’t matter if they are true or not. A man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in."

- from the movie, "Second Hand Lions".

I'm OK with Seeing through My Glass, Darkly

Part of my testimony is due to my study of other theologies and religions. Frankly, I don't "desire to believe" any of them like I desire to believe what is taught within "Mormonism" and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It really is my foundational desire (what I want), so I've chosen to pursue a deeper understanding of it - to reconcile what I can reconcile and gnaw on what I can't reconcile for now, with an understanding that much of what we believe is our best attempt to understand a little better what can't be understood. It works for me.

It also has given me a bit of perspective on "the alternatives" - again, enough to realize that I just don't want them. They won't give me any more joy in the here and now than I already have, and they don't give me the hope for a continuation eternally of what brings me joy in the here and now. I feel what I believe is true; I want it to be true; I don't want any radically different "truth"; I accept the concept of continuing growth and revelation (the evolution of understanding that will continue to change my perspective) - so I accept the difficulties inherent in the history of the Church as a natural result of mortality, and I pursue the joy I want and for which I hope.

I could make religion a very complicated thing if I chose to do so, and I could get all wound up in knots about it if I chose to take that route, but I have SUCH joy and peace and wonder in my life without doing those things that it would be folly to do so. I also am just humble enough to realize that I always will see through my religious glass, darkly, no matter how hard I try - and, at the core, foundation level, that is a fundamental principle of Mormonism. It might get lost in the natural tendency to want to know it all RIGHT NOW far too often, but it's there, nonetheless.

Knowledge Should Not Be Over-emphasized: To Others It Is Given to Believe

“To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.” (D&C 46: 13-14)

If some have to "believe" something as fundamental as that Jesus is the Son of God, then it seems logical to assert that even more are going to have to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet - and myriad other uniquely Mormon teachings.

I have no problem with saying, "I know” about a lot of things - but there also are things that I still believe without yet knowing. I would love to hear more people stand in front of the congregation and say, “I believe . . .”- or even, "I want to believe . . ."

Are Liberal Mormons Real Mormons?

I believe that the practice of our religion doesn't have to vary as much as our perceptions can and do. I really don't care in the end if the person sitting next to me in church is a "liberal Mormon" or a "conservative Mormon", as long as they are practicing Mormon - even if they are unbaptized but practicing - even if they are hanging on by the skin of their teeth and not fully active but striving to reconcile their own dissonance. (For example, I would rather worship in our pews and learn in our other meetings and associations with an excommunicated gay man who lives the Gospel to the absolute best of his ability than with a baptized member who is a hypocrite and doesn't even try to live the Gospel.)

I am one of those who drives many skeptical intellectuals nuts, since I am so adamant in my ability to say, "I know." On the other hand, I also drive some conservative members nuts, since I am so adamant in my inability to say, "I know" about some things - and my inability to expect others to be able to say "I know" about anything. Frankly, however, I admire those who can't be comfortable saying they "know" the Church is true but live the precepts and attend faithfully every bit as much as those who can make that claim based on powerful, miraculous experience - since, in the end, it is by our faith and our fruits (not our stated beliefs) that we shall be known. ("Not everyone that sayeth unto me, "Lord, Lord . . .") Also, I have a deep admiration for anyone who can live the life they want to believe but struggles to do so, since I believe that is the ultimate example of true faith ("the substance of things hoped for").

"Are liberal Mormons real Mormons?" Certainly, as long as they are trying their hardest - to the best of their ability - to "Come unto me," "Keep my commandments," "Take my yoke upon you," etc. I'm just saying it's not my place, since I currently am not a bishop, to make that judgment about anyone else - even by slapping a label on them, since it's true of ALL Mormons regardless of label.

Internal Opposition in All Things

In college, I had a Comparative Religion professor who used "literalist" and "interpretist" when it came to "historical religion" - meaning "one who takes religious statements and stories literally" and "one who looks for interpretations, allegories or morals and, generally, ignores questions of historicity". I really liked that distinction, since it removes the condescension and negative connotations inherent in quasi-political terms like "liberal" and "conservative". I also like the "black and white" vs. "gray" description I've heard from lots of people. The first one tends to see everything clearly (or at least believe they see clearly) - which qualification shows my own perspective, the latter. One tends to state things as absolutes; the other tends to use words like "tends", "most", "many", "I think", "I believe", etc.

Frankly, I am a combination of the two - and it drives some people nuts on both "sides". I am a hardcore parser, since I hate defending what I don't say or believe just because someone assumes what I don't say. That tends to be associated with literalists and black-and-whiters, but it's just common courtesy to me. (Golden Rule) I live a VERY conservative lifestyle, and it leads many people to assume I have a strictly conservative, literalist view, but philosophically I am very interpretive and see gray in most things. There are certain things that I feel totally comfortable claiming to "know", while there are many things I simply believe, accept or don't worry about understanding for now.

Ironically, both extremes legitimately can be called "lazy" by the other. Those who see in black and white (literalists) can be said to be copping-out and avoiding the pain of nuances and contradiction; those who see gray (interpretists) can be said to be endlessly avoiding having to make a firm decision by eternally wandering in the middle.

Summary: I believe in moderation / balance in all things, including terms like liberal, conservative, intellectual, orthodox, literalism, interpretive, etc. I think if you can be characterized too easily as one thing or another, you probably aren't thinking enough - that if there is no "internal opposition in all things", you probably are too sure of yourself. However, I also believe there are certain areas, concepts, principles, commands, etc. that really can be grasped as universal and undeniable - that really do constitute absolutes. It's figuring out individually what those things are for me and allowing others to reach different conclusions for themselves that is the central issue, imho. That is inherently a painful process, but it's where I think the real growth occurs – the muddle in the middle.