Agency: Gospel vs. Doctrine (of Varying Sources)

I think it is extremely important to distinguish between the Gospel of Christ ("Good News" of faith, repentance, baptism, Holy Ghost, enduring to the end), the doctrines (teachings) of Christ (as recorded in our scriptures, understanding the "translated / transmitted correctly" caveat), the doctrines (teachings) of the early Christian leadership (which sometimes contradicted the teachings of Jesus recorded in the New Testament "Gospels") and the doctrines of the LDS Church.

They aren't the same thing, and I don't even classify all of the Biblical "teachings of Christ" as eternal and completely binding - since I am not convinced Jesus of Nazareth actually taught all of them. Move forward into the Pauline epistles, the teachings of the "Christian fathers", the teachings of the Popes, the teachings of the Protestant reformers, the teachings of the early Mormon leaders, the teachings of the subsequent Mormon leaders, the teachings of the current Mormon leaders, the teachings of my parents and co-worshipers, etc. and I see generally good people doing their best to understand the Gospel and the doctrines of Christ in ways that help them in their own world. I'm cool with and honor that - but I don't see it as eternal or binding. I also see my own need to "be the source" in my own life for myself - to establish my own "doctrines of Ray" that govern my life - to be, truly, an agent unto myself, as it says in the Book of Mormon.

I'm fine with some compromise (quite a bit, actually) from what might be my own personal ideal in order to work best with my immediate family, my church family, my community, etc - but, in the end, I have to figure out what my own doctrines are and try to live by them. After all, I am told that I can receive revelation (obvious or not) and live by what I believe to be the word of God. Really, that's all I can do - and I won't push that responsibility onto others, even as I default to "doctrines of the Church" when I lack a personal alternative about which I feel strongly. If it doesn't matter enormously to me, I generally will accept the group standard - but I still maintain my right and privilege to change my view about anything if I feel I've gained "further light and knowledge" about it.

I think that is a central tenet of Mormonism and indispensable within the concept of agency and accountability. 

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? 

Sometimes, the Presentation and Attitude Are More Important than the Words

I had an interesting experience in Sacrament Meeting a few years ago, and I have thought about it off and on ever since: 

The first speaker talked about repentance - and, as strongly as feel about how we tend to present only a small, simplistic view of repentance in the Church, I ended up enjoying the talk, mostly. The speaker had a good sense of humor, was self-deprecating and used personal experiences of when he'd screwed up to illustrate his points. "Doctrinally" I had a few issues that could have been bigger - but his approach and attitude overcame those issues.

The second speaker (the High Councilor) talked about the Law of Chastity - and my experience with the first talk was magnified throughout the second talk. There were more aspects for me over which I could have taken issue (and those issues were deeper for me), but, in the end, I was impressed by something that hit me hard - and I mean really, truly HARD:

He obviously was sincere - and trying his best to be compassionate, understanding and empathetic. His delivery method and attitude were humble, even as probably 2/3 of his talk was content I never would have chosen for a talk about that topic - and 1/2 of that content I couldn't have said over the pulpit if I'd tried (like some of his description of pornographic imagery - even not in explicit terms - since I believe that only brings such images into the minds of those who need help the most without actually helping them in any way).

I didn't know either speaker - had never talked at length with either of them. All I had was their words and their presentation of those words - and, in the end, what I FELT about them as I listened outweighed what they actually said. I felt like they were good, sincere people doing the best they could to help others - so the fact that I believed that some of what they said wasn't helpful in the slightest and, in a few cases, actually incorrect, didn't mean as much as that impression. I cut them slack because of what I felt, when I would have been more critical if I had felt differently about them.

It's true that often we overlook things people say if we love them - so I try to learn to love people who see and say things differently than I do. 

What or Whom Should We Follow?

1) I define "doctrine" as "whatever the leadership teaches and most people in a group believe at any given time". There is no such thing as "eternal doctrine"; there only is Eternal Truth; the first (doctrine) is the best collective approximation of the second (truth) - and sometimes that approximation is farther from Eternal Truth than a previous one. (That is a concise description of apostasy - when "doctrine" slides or falls further away from Truth. It happens all the time, everywhere.)

2) My answer to the title question of this post is:

"We should follow God - according to the dictates of our own conscience and understanding."

3) Of course, I "follow" leaders as a sign of respect for them and their burdens and responsibilities (and because I want that same consideration given to me whenever I am in a position of "leadership") - but I don't do so blindly, thoughtlessly or without exception. Within Mormon theology, that last description is Lucifer's plan - and it's important to remember that always and diligently. Blind obedience "just because" is wrong - and even is classified as the ultimate thwarting of God's purpose in creation. Period. End of discussion. So...

4) I follow God, to the best of my understanding, first and foremost. I follow God by following my conscience - which means (if I have the Gift of the Holy Ghost (a member of the Godhead) and if "the kingdom of God is within you") I follow my own "I am" in my attempt to follow the great "I AM" as a fundamental part of that first and foremost. I "follow" (at the side of) my wife, as 1/2 of my own "I am", as part of that first and foremost. I follow anyone else (and I mean anyone else) second. I respect, value, support and sustain those I follow second, but I still follow them second. 

Sunday School Lesson Recap: Truth and Error, Pure Doctrine and the Prieshood Ban

The topic this month is The Apostasy and the Restoration. There are five potential lesson outlines but, due to General Conference and Easter, there are only two Sundays available to teach about that topic. Therefore, I combined two lesson concepts last Sunday: "How can I recognize the difference between truth and error?" and "Why is it important to teach pure doctrine?"

I started the class by telling everyone that I really struggled to prepare this lesson, because I had felt some impressions about structuring it around something that might be seen as controversial by some members - but which I believe is probably the best example possible of why it is important to focus on pure doctrine, why it is important not to stray into the purely / highly speculative and how we should approach understanding anything in relation to truth and error.

We then read the first scriptural passage in the truth vs. error lesson outline - John 8:31-32. I read verses 25-29 to lay the groundwork to understand the context, focusing on the fact that Jesus started by talking about doing the will of the Father and then addressing 31-32 exclusively to those who "believed on him" - a subset of those to whom he had been teaching originally. Thus, 31-32 was said to believers - those who accepted his statement that he was representing the Father and were looking for a practical answer to what they should do with that belief.

John 31-32 says:

If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

We talked about the most important words in that passage: "continue", "truth" and "free". We discussed the idea that "continuing" means nothing more than "not stopping" - but, in Mormon theology, it also carries connotations of "progress" (which includes an inherent aspect of "growth and change"). It is that continuation of growth and change that, eventually, creates a "new creature in Christ" that is free - specifically from the limitations, restrictions, bonds, etc. that existed prior to "know(ing) the truth". Thus, the ultimate end of knowing truth from error is freedom from ignorance and all of its mortal applications.

We then discussed D&C 9:7-8 (all of 7 and the first sentence of 8), after discussing the context of the section, which reads:

Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind.

I mentioned to them how often we talk in the Church about the confirmation of the Holy Ghost in terms of how we feel (our spiritual/emotional/heart experience) but how little we tend to mention our minds as part of the testimony toolbox, if you will. I explained that I don't take anything as "pure doctrine" unless it speaks compellingly to BOTH my heart AND my mind - that there are things that resonate with my heart or mind but not with the other - that I try not to rely on only one of those things in constructing what I believe - that I only accept it as part of my own faith if I like how I feel and think about it. I told them that when there is a disconnect between the two, I try to dig deeper into the disconnected aspect and understand why the disconnect exists by looking more closely at it - not by ignoring it. I mentioned that problems can occur when either the heart or mind is allowed to dominate - that the heart alone can lead to emotional conclusions that aren't true, while the mind alone can lead to an intellectualism that denies feelings and can allow someone to lose sight of morality and humanity.

Focusing on "pure doctrine" is important in this process, because it explicitly is when we leave pure doctrine and move into speculation that things get all kinds of messed up and we become enslaved (not free) by our mistaken understandings.

I told them that this was the point over which I agonized in the preparation of the lesson. I wanted to use a real example of something that was not "pure doctrine" but which mutated into being seen as pure doctrine due to the mortal inability to distinguish between truth and error and the similar mortal tendency to hold on to false traditions and teachings. The best example I know of this is the Priesthood ban, so I mentioned the Joseph Smith Papers Project and the explanations of various things that the Church has published recently on lds.org in the Gospel Topics section.

First, I asked the students who was allowed to be baptized when the Church was established in 1830. They all answered that anyone of age could be baptized, regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, etc. I asked who could be ordained to an office in the Priesthood and attend the temple. They said all worthy members could attend the temple and all worthy men could be ordained, except for black men. (My daughter wasn't allowed to answer, since we have talked about all of this in the past.) I told them that answer was wrong - that, originally, there were no restrictions based on race and that a handful of black men had been ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood and endowed in the temple. I then summarized the lds.org explanation and talked about the prevailing "philosophies of men" and how they worked their way into our teachings - and how uniquely Mormon justifications arose when people tried to explain why the ban was in place. I mentioned the belief in a curse of Cain, the idea that the Church couldn't ordain black men in the political environment of the time, the belief that black men and women had been less valiant in the pre-existence / fence-sitters, etc. - and how those justifications allowed white people to think they were better than black people. I explained that every reference we have in our scriptures that might seem to support those conclusions to any degree occurs PRIOR to the life and death of Jesus - and that there are verses in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon that state, clearly, that, as of that time, ALL people were alike to God - including both black and white, explicitly.

We talked about how we all tend to explain rules, policies, commandments, counsel, etc. in order to justify them - in school, at work, in church and everywhere else. I mentioned Elder McConkie's statement in 1978 after OD2 and the rescinding of the ban about forgetting everything he and anyone else had said about the reason(s) for the ban - that they had spoken with limited light and knowledge and now had increased light and knowledge that repudiated everything they had said in the past. I stressed the importance of not holding so tightly to anything that they might lose the ability to let go when further light and knowledge appears, as I'm sure will happen in their lifetimes.

In the context of the lesson topics, we talked about how the entire thing might have been avoided if the early saints (including Pres. Young) could have let go of their bias against inter-racial marriage, focused solely on "pure doctrine" and been open to new understanding of truth and error. I told them that they never have to accept or believe something FULLY, without question or concern, simply because it is taught in the Church - that, ultimately, they have to receive confirmation in their hearts and minds about anything and, if necessary, hold onto hope and faith that what they can't accept or believe fully at the moment will change in the future - either the thing they can't accept or their personal understanding of it.

A Deeply Personal Post about Stillborn Children and Differing Beliefs

(NOTE: I don't share the following very often, especially publicly, but . . . I will try to do so now, hoping what I type doesn't hurt anyone in any way but helps someone, somehow, and is inspired in that way.)

My mother was a very good secretary before her marriage to my father. She was one of the youngest Church Headquarters secretaries in the history of the church at that time - during Pres. McKay's presidency. (I have no idea if that still is the case, but it wouldn't surprise me.) She has a personalized letter of appreciation signed by the First Presidency given to her when she got married and stopped working. (totally her choice, not policy in any way)

She really wanted to have children and stay home with them, but her first three pregnancies ended in miscarriages. Her fourth went full-term, and she gave birth naturally to a stillborn girl.  My parents had no idea; the stillbirth came as a complete shock. Obviously, they were crushed.

I've written here previously about my parents' decisions after those four pregnancies and how they almost gave up and adopted instead, and I've written a post here in tribute to my father and the choice he eventually had to make for her sake. What I want to share now, however, has nothing to do with those subsequent decisions.

My parents understood that the Church's official position with regard to stillborn children is, "We don't know." It was intensely painful for them, but they (and I) understand that position. It is the best position to take, in my opinion - since anything else would open up all kinds of other issues that are best left closed. My parents knew the official position - and, since it is, "We don't know," they were free to believe they have nine children instead of the eight whom they raised. That was very important to them. It meant and means the world to them.

For me, however, it's strictly academic - since it all happened before I was born. Honestly, I struggle even to type her name or write "my sister". Since it's academic for me, and since that gives me the detachment to think about all the implications of different views, I have a hard time intellectually believing what my parents believe. It's hard for me to type this paragraph in a way in which I am comfortable, as it raises all kinds of emotions, not the least of which is a degree of consternation and even pain that I don't feel more strongly about it. It hurts my heart a little to know that, to me, I have five sisters (not six) and two brothers - and, to me, it's different than if it was a case of an older sibling dying some time after birth.

In that way, I am very different than my parents - and I wouldn't dream of saying that to them or challenging their view in any way. I'm not sure they would understand, and I think they might be hurt greatly. It is my own reality, however - and so I think I understand both views, at least to the extent possible for someone who hasn't experienced it personally.

I honestly am not sure why I felt like sharing that in this post today. This has been the most difficult post to write since I started this blog - since I really struggle to find the "right" words, both for others and myself. In the end, I simply am thankful that the "official position" of the Church allows me to feel differently about such a personal, emotional topic than my own parents do without any "doctrinal" guilt for either of us.

That means a lot to me, actually - and I don't think I've ever thought about it quite in that way previously.

Some People's Mountains are Other People's Molehills (or even Plains)

Sometimes, mountains for some people really are molehills (or even plains) for others.

For those who struggle with any particular aspect of church culture or doctrine, it does nobody any good to take what is a natural molehill for someone else and turn it into an artificial mountain. 

Likewise, different people have allergic reactions to all kinds of different things, and the same is true of reactions to various types of food.

For those who don't struggle with any particular aspect of church culture or doctrine, we might love something very much (and it might even be our favorite), but it would be silly to try to make someone else try it if they were allergic to it or would have some other type of negative reaction.

Learning to celebrate differences, even ones that we don't really understand or think are not ideal (as long as they are not highly destructive of community), is very liberating - and it's the type of Zion I envision.

"Doctrine" Does Not Equal "Truth"

I have learned through the totality of my experiences, in all aspects of my life, that rules, commandments, laws, doctrine, etc. are absoltuley necessary for group survival - but also that they only can be general guidelines that apply to the majority of the people in the group. Often, they apply to the VAST majority - even 99+% in some cases, but, still, they are generalities - not absolutes.  (I believe that conclusion is supported fully by our canonized scriptures.) 

The danger in this recognition is that it is easy after that realization to start rationalizing one's superiority to the rules, commandments, laws and doctrine. There is a fundamental place in any organization / group for sacrifice of self-determined individual idealism for the practical good of the collective whole. Many rules, commandments, laws and doctrines are true, good and right for the community without having to be so for every individual if s/he were isolated from that community. It is a truism in the legal world that nobody can set themselves above the law - but it also says in Romans 2:14 that those who don't know the law but live the spirit of it anyway become a "law unto themselves". Even without "doctrine", those who live righteously can become "doctrine unto themselves". Again, however, the danger is that this recognition can lead people to cut themselves off and/or set themselves apart from the community that in all other ways can provide tremendous blessings. 

Therefore, to me, "doctrine" is whatever the prevailing wisdom outlines as the best collective vision for the group at the time. I simply don't equate "doctrine" always with "truth" - and that makes all the difference to me. In the end, I'm willing to accept a lot of "group doctrine" that doesn't match my own "individual understanding" - for two reasons:

1) My own understanding might be wrong, so I like to keep an open-mind;

2) I don't live alone. What works for the group (my tribe, if you will) is very important - and I have a social and familial responsibility to support and care for and protect my tribe. I won't do so in ways that I feel are destructive (careful choice of words) to others outside my tribe, but I will do so in ways that others might not understand easily.  

Much of life is a balancing act of competing demands - a practical application of the idea that there MUST be opposition in ALL things. I think that applies to "doctrine" as well - and that only can be if doctrine does not equal Truth.

I'm totally fine with that.

"Reframing" and "Pruning" in the Church: The Priesthood Ban As an Example

I read the final part of Jacob 5 (the allegory of the olive tree) as the pruning of the modern church. That's the only way that it makes sense to me. Therefore, I have no problem accepting that "the bitter fruit" is part of the Restored Church. I don't want it to be there, and I pray it gets pruned out as quickly as is humanly (and divinely) possible, but it is interesting to contemplate that the Lord doesn't do the pruning; rather, his servants (we) do it.

To me, that means that much of the process of eliminating false doctrine and simple, social stupidity depends almost entirely on how ready and willing the membership is to participate in that process. "Servants" can be read narrowly as "prophets and apostles", but it also can be read more expansively as "all who have covenanted to serve" - and, given my upbringing in orchard country, the latter makes more sense to me in the overall context of pruning.

In that light, I am completely in support of "reframing" and "pruning" issues within the Church - on both an individual level AND an institutional level. I just believe the institutional reframing has to move more slowly than the individual reframing, since the institution has to be aware of the possibility of moving too fast collectively and damaging "good branches" that might survive and produce good fruit with slower, more cautious pruning. That "awareness" can be conscious on the part of the leadership, but it also can be an issue with the leadership needing to become more aware of what needs to be pruned.

I see Pres. McKay's unsuccessful efforts to end the Priesthood ban as a sort of preparation to prune (the digging about and dunging) - working tirelessly to get the tree ready for the pruning that Pres. Kimball eventually was able to initiate formally.

In other words, I believe Pres. McKay, especially, started to "reframe" the issue for many of the leading brethren - moving it from being seen as "doctrine" to being accepted as "policy", and then Pres. Kimball took over and finished the reframing. Once it was reframed collectively, the pruning revelation followed immediately.

Church-Wide Vanilla; Individual Flavoring

“Is it the Church’s duty to create a list called “dirty laundry” and then say, “These are troubling issues that some people have, and here is our best take on them”?

No, not “The Church” at the top leadership level. Their duty is to preach Jesus resurrected and His Church restored. If people want academic treatments, they should turn to academicians to provide them; if they want scientific answers, they should turn to scientists to provide them; if they want historical perspective, they should turn to historians to provide it; if they want “witnessing” answers, they should turn to witnesses to provide them.

I don’t want “The Church” to reincarnate Bruce R. McConkie expressing personal opinion on non-Gospel topics as official doctrine. I want Kevin Barney and Ardis Parshall and Armand Mauss and Richard Bushman and Jan Shipps and Bill McKinnon and Henry Eyring and Hugh Nibley and others to “explain” Mormon history and science and scriptural exegesis and other topics. I want the apostles and prophets to preach and minister and administer.

I don’t want “The Church” to spoon-feed me everything I should eat, pureed to a consistency any baby could digest. I have no problem with generic presentations and statements for the general membership, but I want to figure out how to digest the full feast in its complex form - or to put aside some of the food temporarily and not even try to digest it. I don’t mind if others help me decide what to eat raw, what to boil, what to grill, what to puree and what to discard, but I don’t want “The Church” turning everything into a blended shake that someone thinks should go down smoothly and not cause any indigestion. I like the diverse flavors and consistencies of my food too much to want pablum.

The Danger of Religious Speculation

Speculation within religious discussions is fun and intellectually stimulating, but it also can be very dangerous. By "speculation" I simply mean guessing about something (or putting forward one's personal belief) when there is no clear revelation - when the "speculation" is merely an interpretation of something else.

For example, in the past, Brigham Young's and Bruce R. McConkie's conclusions about why the Priesthood should not be conferred upon Black men in the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times was not backed by any explicit revelation stating so. Rather, they were founded on cultural perspectives and scriptural interpretations. Although Elder McConkie repudiated all former justifications of the ban after the revelation (OD2) was received (30 years ago), and even though modern Prophets and apostles have spoken forcefully about perpetuating the former justifications, the result is that some members still hold to that former speculation. That is both frightening and instructive.

The idea that we can become like God is, I believe, a central thread that runs throughout the entire Bible. It isn't addressed much, if at all, in the Book of Mormon, but it is foundational to the Bible. Thus, "As God is, man may become" is not "speculation", in my mind. "As man is, God once was" is based on an interpretation of one biblical verse, however, and is not a concept that is supported by our body of scripture generally - including our modern scriptures. It might or might not be true, but it's not grounded in multiple scriptural passages. In many ways, it's like taking Oliver Cowdery's answer as to how **he** would feel the Holy Ghost (burning and stupor) and extrapolating that to all - essentially telling all members and investigators, for example, that they too can have that same burning and stupor. There simply isn't anything in the body of scripture that justifies that extrapolation - that speculation.

The Church's statement "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" (published in 2007) makes the point that the isolated statements of individual apostles (or even a number of them) should NOT be taken automatically as "official doctrine". I believe that is true retroactively, as well, and applicable even to scripture. If one prophet said it, take it with a grain of salt - and especially be careful of stretching it beyond what actually was said by that prophet - of "speculating" past the initial words. If such a statement is not supported by an extended body of scripture, it might be valid and true - but it also might fit the former jusitifcations for the Priesthood ban. It might be nothing more than the natural inclination to guess or rely on one's own best understanding to make sense of the unknown.

Elusive Mormon Orthodoxy

With a foundation of continuing revelation, I believe there is relatively little "immutable orthodoxy" when it comes to Mormon doctrine.

Perhaps there is Smithodoxy (Joseph and Joseph Fielding), Prattodoxy (particularly Parley P.), Youngodoxy, Talmageodoxy, McConkiodoxy (makes me laugh just pronouncing it as I type), Nibleyodoxy, Hinckleyodoxy, etc. - but there is almost no orthodoxy on which all "good Mormons" will agree. Things change too much to pin down almost anything as orthodoxy, unless it is defined specifically as what is taught generally at a particular time or by a particular person.

I LOVE THAT; it flummoxes others; it really, really torques off some.