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.

No Resolution Post Today: A Tribute to My Daughter

Normally, this post would be focused obviously on my New Year's Resolution this month, discussing the idea that "charity seeketh not her own". (1 Corinthians 13:5) However, my oldest daughter graduated from high school last night, and I am in a fatherly mood right now. Therefore, I am going to mention here how much I have learned about the focus of my resolution this month from my daughter.

One of my favorite scriptual verses is 1 John 4:19, which reads:

We love him, because he first loved us.

This could have been written about Sarah. People accept and love her, because she accepts and loves them. Her heart is open to anyone, and she tries hard to do good even to those who do not love her - since I am not aware of anyone who has met her in person and hates her.

I have watched her interact with people, and despite those times when impatience and emotional mood swings cause her to do and say things she regrets (especially to her younger sisters), I never have seen her act in a hateful way toward anyone. This is not strictly because it is totally natural for her; rather, it is a tendency on which she has focused conscious attention to strengthen. She actively tries to not be hateful, and it is inspiring to see.

I also have seen her consciously include in her life people whom others do not accept, and she does it without condemning those who do not accept. She is one of those people who can have friends from very different exclusive groups. She doesn't like everyone, but she strives to see and love everyone as a fellow child of God - and I am grateful for her example in my life.

I am proud of you, Sarah, and, while I am excited for you to leave home, start college and establish yourself as an independent adult, I will miss the daily lessons you teach me about courage, dedication, humility, sincerity, faithfulness and love.

Management vs. Ministry: The Genius of Mormonism

The LDS Church handles "management" largely from the hierarchical, official, formal Priesthood structure of the Church and the ministering (both giving and receiving) from the more lateral, local lay structure of the Church. The global leadership, after all, is understood primarily to be "witnesses of Christ" - not "ministers" in the classic sense.

I think if you asked the vast majority of active members, they would say that they feel the ministering structure is in place; the real question is whether it actually occurs in any given ward or branch. While there is "doctrinal power" in the centralized and correlated global hierarchy, frankly, I believe most of the "practical power" in the Church resides in the local units. Most of the serious difficulties likewise reside there, imo. The power delegated to the lay ministry - extended throughout and shared by nearly all active membership - is both the genius and the dysfunctionality of the Church, I believe.

For Such Decisions, Time Is Inconsequential

A friend I know through the Bloggernacle made the following comment while talking about her situation. I thought it was incredibly profound and wanted to share it with everyone who reads this blog and might have missed her comment:

I have been investigating for over 2 years now, which seems like a long time, but with the weight of such a decision, well, time is inconsequential.

My oldest son is serving a mission right now, and I hope and pray he doesn't get caught up in a focus on numbers and programs (which incorrect focus, by the way, is NOT encouraged in "Preach My Gospel") - that he realizes and embraces the idea that each individual investigator will have a unique timetable - that one of the responsibilities of missionaries is to encourage investigators to remember, read, ponder, pray and attend in an attempt to expedite experiences with the Holy Ghost, but that, in the end, each and every investigator must take whatever time s/he needs to work it out in his/her own mind and heart. Sometimes, that process can be accelerated, but it NEVER should be forced or pressured - even if a Mission President, an AP or a Zone Leader thinks otherwise.

Truly, in the end, time really is inconsequential when it comes to decisions that affect eternity.

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.)

Being a Bishop is NOT a Step Up Any Kind of Ladder

Is the Bishop Home? - Margaret Young (By Common Consent)

Analytical Belief vs. Skeptical Doubt

I don't mind the term Skeptical Believer, but I make sure I define it carefully and clearly.

I think the heart of being a Skeptical Believer is rooted in belief. I think the skepticism comes from belief - that we believe there is a God (and a way for us to conceive of Him), but we are skeptical of our ability to understand Him perfectly. Therefore, we believe what we believe, but we are always open to more - or to alteration - or to insight from others - or however else someone might want to say it. Perhaps a better term would be an Analytical Believer.

I personally have no doubts about the Restoration and the Church that are serious enough to cause me great angst or make me leave - and I am skeptical that I ever will have doubts that drive that deeply. The very definition of belief I use is such that the things I question or don't understand simply aren't as important as the things I believe. My belief is primary, and my skepticism in my own ability to know it all simply drives my attempts to understand better and more fully.

It's kind of like godly sorrow vs. the sorrow of the damned. One drives someone forward; the other drags someone down. My "skepticism" of my own understanding drives me forward, focused on the future and the positive; the skepticism I see in some others keeps them constantly focused on the past and the negative. I am extremely happy, and I just don't care about tearing down others; some others are not happy, and they seem to find their purpose in negativism and mockery.

I am an Analytical Believer; they are skeptics.

Charity Seeketh Not [Only] Her Own [People]: Those Who Hate You

Thus far this month, I have focused on charity not seeking her own in the sense of being willing to serve others rather than pursue her own desires. I discussed the ultimate example of this by examining the statement of Jesus that says, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

I want to shift gears slightly and discuss seeking not her own in light of a passage in the Sermon on the Mount - and discuss a paradox when considering that passage and two common statements quoted often in the LDS Church.

The first passage is Matthew 5:43-47, which says:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

This passage talks about loving, blessing and praying for enemies - and those aspects are quoted and discussed often in the Church. However, the part that is not quoted or discussed nearly as much is the part that tells us to "do good to them that hate you".

There is an important distinction between the first category and the second command. Loving, blessing and praying for are things that can be done alone, away from those in question - those who are enemies, those who curse you, those who hate you and those who misuse and persecute you. Doing good to someone is different; it cannot be done alone. It must be done WITH those whom you would avoid naturally. In other words, you must interact with others to do good to them.

This flies in the face of two other common statements:

Be in the world, but not of the world.

Abstain from all appearance of evil.

The first quote (which, by the way, is not scriptural as quoted) generally is used as a justification to avoid sinners. My only point is that all of us are sinners, so this usage, in practical terms, is to avoid sinners who are different than we are. Obviously, this has particular application to those who curse, hate, despitefully use and persecute.

The second quote is perhaps one of the most misunderstood scriptures in the entire Bible. In its original usage, it does not mean to avoid anything that even looks like evil - that appears to be evil. Rather, it means something like the following:

Abstain from evil no matter its appearance - no matter how it looks.

I bring this up specifically because I have heard it used to justify all kinds of things that keep us from doing good to our enemies - and even to those who are nowhere near our enemies. The focus is not on avoiding anything that someone else might perceive to be bad, but rather to avoid that which truly is evil.

If I am a Home Teacher, and if one of the people I Home Teach is only "available" when he is in a bar, should I go into that bar to visit him? If a woman is walking home in the pouring rain and I have the ability to help her, should I refuse to do so simply because someone might see me and jump to an incorrect conclusion? If someone has misused me in some way, should I refuse to interact further with him? Can I really be in the world and not at least "appear" sometimes to be "of" the world - doing good to my enemies if I never interact physically with them?

In conclusion, I believe that if we are to internalize charity fully, at some point we must be willing to step out of our comfort zones and interact directly, in some way, with those who fight us, curse us, despitefully use us and persecute us. We can't become truly charitable in isolation, and we can't become truly charitable through only an intellectual understanding of it. At some point, we simply must LIVE it.

"I saw two Personages"

I have had some extremely powerful spiritual experiences in my life, and I share them rarely and with hesitancy specifically because of how I have seen people respond to others who share extremely personal, spiritual experiences. I have seen the way people nit-pick and obsess over the tiniest, most irrelevant aspects and reject entire experiences for what amounts to nothing of significance.

How do I say I have seen God weep for the sins of His children, without making it seem like I am claiming to have had a vision? How do I encapsulate a conversion story from my mission into a concise narrative without making it seem shallow and formulaic - like I simply copied details and descriptions from other stories? How do I describe a deeply, intensely spiritual experience in such a way that someone who has never had such an experience will "get it" - and how in the world do I share it in a short enough narrative that readers don't lose interest as the story drags on and on and on? Finally, how do I summarize an experience with the Holy Ghost in such a way that someone who knows little or nothing of the Holy Ghost will understand what I mean?

Take my struggles and multiply them exponentially to encompass a vision of or visit from deity. The account Joseph wrote of his First Vision wasn't for the Christian world; it was for humanity at large. It was told in a tone of awe and astonishment - in a way that describes inexpressible wonder. "I saw two personages" is a PERFECT description of what initially must have hit Joseph's brain - BEFORE he had any idea of who the personages were. There is no indication anywhere that Joseph expected to see God, the Father, and Jesus, the Christ, when he entered the woods. There is no reason to insist that, upon seeing them, he immediately thought, "Cool, this is the Father and the Son." Again, "personages" describes perfectly what he must have seen and thought as they appeared. It only was AFTER "the first [Personage] spoke, calling me by name, and said, pointing to the other, 'This is my Beloved Son. Here Him,'" that Joseph must have begun to comprehend what was happening to him. Given my own experiences with overpowering spiritual experiences, I'm fairly certain he walked out of that grove with his head spinning - literally reeling from what had happened.

Never Put a Period Where God Has Put a Comma

Dude, where's my pew? - Rebecca J (By Common Consent)