Spirituality and Spiritual Health, Like Physicality and Physical Health, Varies for Each Individual

Wisdom is to know when to take which kind of treatment. There is no one pill for all situations or all people.

I saw this quote regarding the various ways to treat similar ailments, but it applies to faith, as well. 

Using this analogy, I would say that my faith is all kinds of substances: entrees, appetizers, desserts, snacks, liquids, painkillers, antidotes, vitamins, nutritional supplements, some junk foods, some fast foods, etc. - and, at different times, I need each of those things, to varying degrees. "Man shall not live by bread alone" has application to faith, as well.

Just like my physical health and what I eat, the key to my spiritual health is finding the balanced faith that produces the healthiest outcome for me - while understanding that different diets work for different people. In general, however, it's as simple as ingesting more of the good stuff and less of the bad stuff, then making sure I burn as much as I consume.

It's when things get out of whack and imbalanced, whatever that looks like for each individual, that things get wonky and unhealthy.

My Friend Just Baptized Jesus: An Astounding, Beautiful Reflection on the Atonement

I wrote something once that addressed how much I love having paradoxes in life, which included the following statement: 

Living in and embracing a world of paradox is hard work. I believe, however, it is worth the effort - especially since our theology teaches such an embrace is a necessary, fundamental aspect of becoming like a Father-God who allows and values such paradox. It is the only way I know to walk one's one way within the Church and allow others the same privilege, let them walk however they may.

A friend responded with one of the most beautiful, touching treatise on grace and the Atonement I have ever read. I get tears in my eyes every time I read it. I hope it touches everyone who reads it the same way it touches me. 

He said: 

I agree with you.  A paradox can be a great opportunity for discovery.  

A few weeks ago, I was able to baptize my daughter.  I moved into a new ward in May, and I've been working with my new bishop with the goal of baptizing her.  He knows fully that I don't believe fully in the doctrines of temples, polygamy, "the one true church", the restoration, the Book of Mormon, etc.  He's a lawyer and knows how to ask questions! But, I've been grateful for the way that he probes in our discussions, because it has given him a very clear picture of where I stand with the church.  

I told him that I'd like to baptize my daughter, but I also would feel like a bit of a hypocrite baptizing her into a church that I don't fully support.  I do believe in the doctrine of baptism, so my goal was really to provide that baptism, but with the mindset that she's baptized as Christ was, to fulfill all righteousness, and not because it's a required ritual to join our church.  

The bishop has been very understanding and supportive.  He said that I probably wouldn't be able to give her the gift of the Holy Ghost (which I was okay with), but that I could stand in the circle when that was done, but he encouraged me to baptize my daughter.  Knowing where I stand, and that it's been a long time since I've taken the sacrament (my decision), worn garments, studied the Book of Moron, etc., he still encouraged me to baptize her.  

So, on the day of her baptism, I found myself in the font, with this sweet little innocent 8 year old stepping down into the font to join me, a flawed and imperfect scoundrel, who was now supposed to perform this baptism.  It made me think of how John the Baptist must have been feeling when Christ came to him to get baptized, and he felt like Christ should be the one baptizing him.  

That little paradox helped me get a little glimpse of the mercy that the real gospel offers. An imperfect person, like myself, is allowed to have flaws and faults.  But, as long as I'm trying to be the best person that I can be, I could still join my innocent little girl in that ordinance.  Pretty cool stuff.  

It's really easy to get weighed down with all of the policies and practices that have been implemented by the church.  But when we strip away 'the church,' and just focus on the gospel, the simplicity and beauty of it really is incredible.  Hey, there's another paradox...the church and the gospel.  They are supposed to go hand-in-hand, but it often feels like they're at odds with each other.

That's okay, too.

Honoring the Faith(s) of Our Non-Mormon Ancestors

Pres. Uchtdorf gave a talk in the April 2008 General Conference called "Faith of Our Father". In it he said:

When my own family contemplates the phrase “faith of our fathers,” often it is the Lutheran faith that comes to mind. For generations our ancestors belonged to that denomination. In fact, my son recently discovered that one of our family lines connects back to Martin Luther himself.

We honor and respect sincere souls from all religions, no matter where or when they lived, who have loved God, even without having the fulness of the gospel. We lift our voices in gratitude for their selflessness and courage. We embrace them as brothers and sisters, children of our Heavenly Father.

We believe that it is a fundamental human right to worship “Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

and

As the restored Church of Jesus Christ blossoms throughout the globe—now with more than 13 million members—“the faith of our fathers” has an expanded meaning. For some, it could refer to their family’s heritage in one of the hundreds of Christian faiths; for others, it could refer to Middle-Eastern, Asian, or African faiths and traditions.

I know the rest of that talk was a pretty standard interpretation of the Restored Gospel, but I really love the quotes above. Notice how Pres. Uchtdorf said "faiths and traditions" - not just "religions". We really should honor "sincere souls from all religions" - and I would add, "sincere souls who profess no religion".

When Stories Outgrow What They Are Intended to Teach

A friend of mine said the following a while ago, and I thought it was profound.  The discussion was about the benefits of taking some things literally and other things figuratively, mythologically or symbolically.  I bolded a few things I want to highlight. 

When it comes to religion I've found that the answer to the great question of life, the universe and everything (other than 42) is . . . hymns. I hope you're still with me, I was serious. That's my answer for a lot of the questions I've had (in my life).

So why hymns?

Setting scriptures or gospel principles to music helps us remember the principles better. It's a mnemonic. For instance, I have several hymns memorized but I have a real hard time committing those scripture mastery scriptures to memory.

I think that was the point of all the stories in the scriptures - being vehicles to help us remember the principles they relate. The problem is that the stories grew a life of their own - so much so that the principles the stories teach are completely overlooked or overshadowed.

Noah's Ark for instance. It can be a story about following God . . . or about seeing a job through to completion, planning ahead, providing temporal needs for your family, and doing the right thing despite peer pressure . . . or we can search a mountain range for remains of a boat and try to arrive at the true size of a cubit to see whether there was enough room for the dinosaurs.

Adam and Eve is another one that's trending these days. My facebook feed is filled with creationists attacking evolutionists and vice-versa. In some ways, the story has outgrown the teachings, even to the point of contention.

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.

My Favorite Definition of Religion

Religion is a structured imposition of what can be comprehended and/or imagined on top of the unknowable and mysterious.

In other words, religion is our best understanding of what cannot be understood fully.

In other words, we see through a glass, darkly - and religion is our attempt to explain what we see, darkly.

Religion, Theology and Faith are Very Different Things

The ideal is to be self-sufficient - but groups are organized to deal with those who are not self-sufficient. I believe the following is vital to understand:

Religions, by their very nature as organizations, are designed to focus on helping the non-self-sufficient.

Thus, as individuals become more self-sufficient, they lose more and more their former need for the group that cared for them prior to their emerging self-sufficiency. Their only "need" is if they transfer that former need and help others become self-sufficient, also - if they trade places with those who helped them become self-sufficient and help others become what they've become. Otherwise, the group loses its former potency and benefit and becomes something that limits and restricts, instead.

How do I deal with that?

I separate "religion" from "theology" and "faith".

I attend a religion to be a help to those who once helped me (and still help me, in many ways), and I move "theology" and "faith" into my own, individual sphere.

I attend a religion (in which I "belong"); I construct a theology (that engages my mind and heart - my "whole soul"); I practice my faith (that looks forward to the ultimate end I desire).

I Do Not Have a Spiritual Feeling Orientation

I have never "felt" anyone in spirit in my life. The closest I have come is while doing baptisms for the dead in the temple and feeling choked up while saying someone's name (but it wasn't really feeling a presence) - or when words or thoughts come into my mind that I classify as revelation (and that has happened too many times for me to remember - to varying degrees of strength).

At the most fundamental level, I do not have a "spiritual feeling" orientation - although I do have emotional experiences regularly; rather, I have a "thinking" orientation. Since I was raised LDS in a culture that values "spiritual experiences" highly, I had to come to grips with that different orientation at a very young age. 

There is an obvious theme of balance between feeling and thinking in our religion (or completion including both thinking and feeling), but individuals tend to emphasize what is natural to them - which is ironic, given what we say about the "natural man". I think a huge part of giving up the natural man is seeking and finding balance (ideally, by acquiring a characteristic and/or ability not naturally possessed) - and balance between experiencing God in one's heart and mind is a great example of that. However, I don't think that kind of balance needs to be a 50/50 mathematical split - or a combination of classic, common experiences in either category. I believe it can be different in practical terms for different people, even as nothing more than an openness to experiencing something in the future never experienced previously.

To bring this full circle, that means that I need to recognize my own thinking orientation and my own lack of feeling a spiritual presence but maintain the belief that it could happen to me, if necessary.  It also means I need to accept and value the experiences of people that I can't understand fully because they have not occurred in my own life - and I have to accept and value those experiences for others as much as I do my own for myself. 

Religious Tolerance and Exclusive Truth Claims

I think it’s interesting that religious tolerance often is weakest in those who demand it for themselves the most vocally. They cry out for tolerance and acceptance, but they turn around and stereotype others - condemning them to Hell without really understanding their beliefs. The “tolerance of condescension” still is better than the “intolerance of competing conviction”. Given the stereotyped attitudes of the irreligious liberal and the evangelical conservative, I’ll take the irreligious liberal any day - and, ironically, twice on Sunday. 


We walk a fine line between the type of tolerance Joseph Smith preached so passionately (allow all men everywhere the same privilege, let them worship how, when or what they may) and the claims of truth he made simultaneously (the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth). Unfortunately, it is far too easy to cross that line and allow the claims to temper our tolerance.

We Call Good Evil Far Too Often

Article of Faith 12 (excerpt): 

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

I think we nearly always define this too narrowly. If I make a mistake, I want to err on the side that says, "If there is no over-riding negative, it is a positive."

Moroni 7 (excerpts): 

"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. And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged. Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ."

I understand that the verses I did not quote in Moroni 7 add an elemental focus on Christ which can be problematic for some, but the basic point appears to me to be that we need to fight the natural tendency to label good as bad - thereby missing an expansiveness that can add richness to life and unite rather than divide. The admonitions about calling evil good are important, but, in this chapter, they appear to be a necessary subordinate to the overall objective of avoiding getting narrow-minded and exclusionary.

1 John 4:18 (excerpt): 

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear."

Again, I think we err far too often on the side of rejection (usually out of fear of the result) and end up calling evil that which is good.

As a minor, fairly non-controversial example (with many more possible examples that are more controversial): 

I served my mission in Japan. The issue of ancestral shrines came up regularly. One of the bishops where I served said the following, to the best of my memory:

"'Ancestor worship' is a terrible translation of what our shrines mean to us. We do not 'worship' our ancestors in the way that foreigners usually assume. We honor them for their influence on our lives - for their dedication and love and service - for the connectedness we feel long after death. Our shrines are like our personal temples, places that show our desire to turn our hearts to them and recognize that their hearts are turned to us. How much more Mormon can you get than that?"

Individual Adaptation within Collective Norms

 I have a friend who has struggled with body acceptance issues for a long time.  She is working on coping mechanisms to help her overcome this difficulty, but wearing garments exacerbates seriously her struggles.  I can't understand those struggles fully, since I have never experienced them personally, but they are real and, at times, can be damaging and even dangerous.

With reference to the garment, she said something to me once that I thought at the time was very powerful - and I have thought about it off and on since then.  She said:

It's difficult for me to see how a loving Heavenly Father could require something that makes us feel this way.

I had the chance to communicate with her again a while ago, and the topic arose one more time.  Having thought about it since she first shared her frustration, I answered her in the following way:

I don't believe he requires us to do things that make us feel that way - but, if you accept his existence and the foundation of communal rules in any way, he does require some people to do things that aren't "ideal" for those people. There's no way to have communal laws, rules, regulations, suggestions, cultural practices, etc. that are going to be "right" for everyone. They are approximations of what works generally for the good of the collective group.

That's an important, even critical, distinction - and I believe it's vital to understand. "We" don't get everything that would be "ideal" for "us" when we agree to be part of any group. An essential part of learning charity - true charity - is acceptance of that fact. The key is to step back a bit, see the benefit for the collective group, make whatever sacrifices are possible for the group, make individual adjustments and adaptations that are important to you personally and find peace in that balance between serving the collective good and honoring what is vital to yourself.

It's not easy - this embrace of paradox and complexity. Simple extremes are easier - but they also are more destructive. Worship according to the dictates of your own conscience, but find a way to do it within the community you choose as your own. It might take a while, but it's worth it in the end - since the faith you carve out will be your own, and it will allow you to continue being an active part of your own tribe, so to speak. 

In the specific case of the garment and her body issues, I have NO problem with her not wearing the garment in the same way most Mormons who wear it do so.  The Church Handbook of Instruction actually leaves how she does so in her hands, and I love that policy.  If adapting in healthy ways means wearing it only for specific things (like when she attends the temple) - or only for a short period of time each day and/or night - or only one day per week or month - or even not until she has a better handle on her body acceptance issues, so be it.  I would rather have her be working on getting to the point that she can wear it without real damage than be damaged in a very real way on a regular basis.  The key, I believe, is not to wear or not wear but rather to face the issue head-on and strive to find a way to do whatever is possible in the present while working on making the future better.

I think that is a good outline for most things in life. 

It's Not about Jesus; It's about You and Me

Jesus, from the view of a hardcore non-believer, was a complete failure. Some of his followers perpetrated some truly horrific, evil things.

Jesus, from the view of a hardcore believer, was a complete success. Some of his followers have done remarkable, marvelous, great things.

What separates a "faithful" torturer during the Inquisition from Mother Teresa? After all, both of them claimed to be doing the will of God, via Jesus.

It's not really Jesus that is the key, in any real, material, practical way. It's the specifics of the devotion of the different followers - the path each took in crafting their devotion, if you will. It's not the founder; it's the follower. In other words, at the most practical level, it isn't the "founder" of the religion that is paramount; rather, it's what followers individually and collectively make of the founding in their own lives.

There is plenty in Mormonism for someone to make himself be damned - but there's plenty in Mormonism for someone to be given exaltation.

One of my favorite questions when it comes to discussions of culture, practice, doctrine, etc. is:

"Lord, is it I?"

"We" are "The Church" - in every way that matters, and, I believe, it is up to each of us (as an individual "I am" within the collective "we are") to own that question - not to "outsource our sin" by blaming others for what "we are" but to model the devotion we hope to see from others. It really isn't about Joseph Smith, since there are good and bad "Mormons" sharing his heritage; it's about me - so I need to ask myself regularly:

"Lord, is it I?"

The Only Religious Constant in Scripture Is Change

Although God is the same yesterday, today and forever, the structural, moral, social and symbolic has changed multiple times throughout scripture. Baptism replaced circumcision; animal sacrifice was discontinued; genocide no longer is seen as the will of God; the Jewish dietary system was modified in the early Christian Church; women in one society were told to remain silent, but almost no Christian denomination still follows that prior constraint; Paul dictated comparative hair length (again, at least in one society), and that has been abandoned in our day; polygamy was practiced by many Old Testament prophets but not by later societies; understanding of the very nature of God has evolved over time. The list goes on and on and on.  Eternal principles (which I believe are far fewer than most people assume) might not change, but the practical lives believers have led throughout time have changed in nearly innumerable ways. 

I understand the difficulty of many in accepting the changes that mark the history of Mormonism, but I am struck by the double standard this imposes on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Every other Christian denomination that has been around for as long as our church has some aspect of its current practice and belief that is different than when it was founded - and different than what is described in the Bible. The fact that change occurred (even major change) is not the issue; whether or not we are open to change, even radical change, is. 

The Atonement Is All-Encompassing, Not an Event

I think perhaps the biggest practical theological "failure" among the membership of the Church is that too many members have bought into the idea that the Atonement is an event - or the time period between two events: Gethsemane through Golgotha.

I see the concept much more expansively than that. I see it as the entire core of Mormon theology - the idea that God can take something that is not "like God" (intelligence - whatever that means) and recreate God from it. The Atonement is the Alpha and the Omega - the beginning through the end. It's taking us from a state of not being "at-one" and, through a creative process, making us "at-one". It's "eternal life" - from start to finish. It's the entire purpose of creation and existence.

With that foundation, I accept totally Jesus of Nazareth's role as Savior and Redeemer - again, since I can view it in any way that makes sense to me. The view of "atonement" I described above is too expansive to be contained within one interpretive model; it bursts the bonds of that sort of intellectual constraint, if you will, and can be described by differing people with differing experiences and differing paradigms. The concept itself can be the core of multiple world religions, with just the details differing (including the detail in question here - the identity of the central figure in it all).

The Mormon view of the atonement is a fascinating mixture of Christian terminology and East Asian myticism and ultimate destination. It's not one or two events to which centuries of Christian dogma limited it. I can accept it totally, particularly since it still amazes me sometimes when I get a glimpse of something new now and again.

We Can Be "Wrong in Our Heads" as Long as We Are "Right in Our Hearts"

I've said multiple times in lots of places that our general inability to accept the truly "liberal" parts of our theology is the single biggest reason for much of the misunderstanding we experience from other Christians - and the idea that people outside of the LDS Church can have a "mighty change of heart" and a "true conversion" is one of those "liberal" aspects of our theology.

It's not hard to understand why other Christians get mad at us when the message they hear is,

"Your beliefs are wrong, and your conversion isn't real."

since we get upset at them when they say the exact same to us. 

I think we can believe the first part of that statement and still reject the second part - or, as Joseph Smith once said, I don't think anyone should or will be condemned for erring in doctrine. I believe, as our Article of Faith implies, that we will be judged by the intent of our heart and sincere efforts (for Christians) to "exercise faith in God, the Father, and Jesus, the Christ" - not by the specifics of our understanding of theology and doctrine. In other words, I believe we can be "wrong in our heads" as long as we are "right in our hearts" - even as I believe it is important to try, to the best of our ability, to be right in our heads, as well.

"We claim the privilege of worshiping almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow ALL men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may."

I believe we will be judged primarily by how truly we worship according to the dictates of our own conscience - and that God probably sighs in exasperation over our collective inability to be more charitable toward those who worship / believe differently than we do, especially since all of us "see through our glass, darkly".

Why Mortal Suffering?: or, We Are Meant to Be the Gods of This Earth

Adam and Eve were told they would be "Lord of all the earth" - and "Adam" and "Eve" are generic terms for "man" and "mother".  Thus . . .

I believe we have been given the power and authority to "be God" on this earth - that our decisions and actions (our allegiances - whom we follow and emulate) determine who is the God of this earth.

So, why does God allow terrible suffering and abuse?

Maybe it's because we aren't willing yet to step up and assume our intended roles - and we allow it to continue and be so pervasive. We like to blame God, but we aren't willing to see ourselves as the God we are blaming. In my own sphere of influence, I am that I am - but it's easier to shift the blame to the great I AM and not tackle what goes on around us in our own kingdom of embryonic gods.

Yes, there must needs be opposition in all things, so suffering is inevitable.  How we deal with it, however, is up to us.  If we know someone is being abused and do nothing to stop it . . . if we know people are starving and do nothing to feed them (or simply over-consume and keep resources from them) . . . if we know women and children are being forced into prostitution and sit back without trying to stop it . . . if we know of evil and don't fight it . . .

We can believe that such things are a result of the Fall and part of the Plan, so, in a way, we can say God is responsible for their existence - but WE, collectively, are responsible for the degree to which these things flourish, and we have examples of peoples who banded together and simply refused to allow them to continue within the spheres of their own influence.  They stepped up and represented God, in a very real way - and they changed the world around them.

Learning from People in Other Religions

I drove in rural Southeastern Ohio years ago on a regular basis, and the only radio options were farm-related stock exchange rates and religion - so I listened to the religious program. There was a Protestant minister who regularly preached openly about "Mormon cultists" and mentioned occasionally that nothing good ever comes from such devilish sources. Most of what he preached was stuff with which I disagreed, but some of it was inspired and made me think about and see some things in a new light - for which I was grateful.  At the risk of sounding dismissive (which I don't want to have happen), I had to sort through a lot of what I saw as doctrinal garbage to find the pearls of wisdom - but I really enjoyed the beautiful pearls when he presented them. 

I had to laugh one day as I heard him tell his listeners about a wonderful idea that James Hobson (Focus on the Family) had been inspired to teach. It encouraged Christians to set aside one evening each week to spend with their families - to share the Gospel, testify and engage in fun activities in order to strengthen the family and bring Christians closer to God. He said it obviously was prophecy for our time, and he thanked God for inspiring Hobson in such a manner - and he had no clue whatsoever that the idea was modeled after the Mormon program of Family Home Evening.

We certainly can learn things from others, but they certainly can learn things from us - even if they can't attribute those things to us.

To Rock the Boat or Not to Rock the Boat

Rocking the boat is great - IF it is "successful" and accomplishes good in the end. However, rocking the boat sucks for most people in real time, since most people get seasick and even fall overboard if the rocking is vigorous enough. Thus, rocking the boat generally is seen as a bad thing. 

This is one of the central paradoxes of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, since not harming others is important - but so is not stagnating by resisting necessary change (particularly through continuing revelation).  Jesus of Nazareth certainly rocked the Jewish boat during his ministry; Martin Luther rocked the Catholic boat vigorously; Joseph Smith rocked the Protestant boat just as vigorously; the examples go on and on and on. 

So, in summary:

"Rock the boat; don't rock the boat, baby. Rock the boat; don't tip the boat over (or cause undue, dangerous sickness to those in the boat)."

Sorry, couldn't resist.

My Favorite Definition of Religion

Religion is a structured imposition of what can be comprehended and/or imagined on top of the unknowable and mysterious.

In other words, religion is our best understanding of what cannot be understood fully. 

In other words, we see through a glass, darkly - and religion is our attempt to explain what we see. 

Feel free to add any definitions that resonate with you. 

Does Religion Need Evidence?

[First, just an administrative note: This posted at 12:12 AM on 12/12/12.  Now, back to our regularly scheduled blogging.  *grin*] 

Evidence is really tricky, if for no other reason than "evidence" is filtered and constructed through our own minds. Even what I see as an individual is not "objective" - since I certainly might interpret what I see differently than another person standing next to me and seeing the exact same thing.

In courts, many people assume eye-witnesses are the holy grail of evidence - but, in many cases, there are conflicting eye-witness accounts. The classic example is when three very different people see the exact same thing - but then, a couple of days or weeks later, each of them describes a very different event. If a black man, a young child and an elderly white woman see a group of black teenagers congregating, talking quietly and passing something around by a neighborhood store, then if those same people hear that the store was robbed 30 minutes after they saw the group there, generally speaking they are likely to draw different conclusions - and, after a bit of time has elapsed, one or more of them might "remember" seeing the teenagers entering the store or distributing stolen goods. In actuality, the group might have been looking at photos of a friend, but the evidence presented by "eye-witnesses" could be quite damning - especially if only one of those witnesses is identified and testifies.

So, as to the question of the post title: Yes, ideally, any claims should be backed by evidence. However, I just don't feel comfortable imposing scientific, evidenciary requirements on anything that already is as subjective and internal as religion. After all, the traditional definition of "faith" includes "the evidence of things not seen". 
 
It is what it is, and super-imposing artificial requirements that just don't work in that field doesn't do any good, in my opinion. I still want as much evidence as can be gained, especially with regard to historical or scientific claims that are open to evidenciary requirements, and I don't want authentic scientific evidence dismissed simply because it doesn't match religious belief (since scientists have discovered truth that has changed religious belief significantly in the past and will do so again in the future, I believe), but I also leave the interpretation of most "religious evidence" up to the individuals - since I want that same consideration for myself.