Why the CES Letter is Utterly Irrelevant

Conscience, Judas, by Nikolai Ge

This morning as we were getting ready for work, I brought up the recent CES Letter excommunication of Jeremy Runnells with my kids. As I was talking to them in under-10-years-old terms about some of the biggest big-ticket items, the reaction of the antiMormon world, and the reaction of the Mormon Apologetics world, my mind started thinking about a friend of mine who is thinking about investigating the Church.

I've not been the best representative of the Church to him. My testimony is more of the "lots of things are really hard about this Church, but God wants me here, it is led by Him, and I believe it," type, less of the "It's true! Everything is awesome!!!" type.

Despite allegations from disaffected and ex-Mormons, I think most of the Church is along those lines. I've not met many people who are of the "believe at all costs" types. Most of us, especially converts, believe because we have received personal confirmation from God. It's people who have been raised in a heavily Mormon world who seem to struggle more with it.

But, as I am a failure in the Gospel on so many levels, I often see myself examining my beliefs and actions from a third-party point of view. Especially as I watch my children begin to form their own testimonies. What, exactly, is the difference between someone who believes and someone who doesn't? It's not knowledge, as most ex-Mormons would have you believe. Nor is it insulation from opposing points of view. Nor is it buying into the lies.

A Call to Repentance: Pants

Okay, ENOUGH. Multiple times, I have been stopped from commenting in any way on those threads which are promoting this Wear Pants to Church day.

But here, on this, I feel empowered to speak.

If people want to wear pants to Church, if they want to co-opt the sacrament meeting for their own agenda, that is their prerogative. So long as they are not interfering with you actually partaking and blessing the sacrament, LET THEM WEAR PANTS. It is a total non-issue.

If you consider yourself a disciple of Christ, if you want to be faithful and exhibit His presence here on earth, if you want His light to shine from your countenance, please, PLEASE stop attacking the people of this movement!

Of course it isn't about pants. Of course the entire movement is a subtle trap, with no winners, only victims. Please don't add to it. Please let it go. It isn't important. It doesn't matter.

What does matter is you allowing your fear, discomfort, anger at the people of this movement to keep you from recognizing them as your Sisters and Brothers. I beg you, please pray for the Spirit to guide you. Please let Him into your hearts on this matter.

Because what you're doing isn't helping. It's only buying in to the Adversary's plan with all this. I can't beg you enough to cease from contention.

Read 3 Nephi 11 and D&C 10. Ponder them, amend your behavior after the pattern they teach. This is your opportunity to invite the Spirit and show forth the Love of Christ. Don't let it pass.

What Love Isn't

In the wake of a failed marriage and two of the most loving children I could ask for, I have had reason to think about love, what it is . . . and what it isn't. I have heard a great deal of rhetoric on love lately, not restricted to but certainly a part of one side of the debate on homosexual marriage.

The recent participation of many members of the Church, some of whom are my friends and acquaintances, in a Salt Lake City Gay Pride march has given me even more reason to think over this eternally debated and perplexing topic. While I sympathize with the efforts these members are trying to make, and also want to communicate somehow to those with a different ideological stance than mine that I care for them as people, though I fear for the consequences of their choices, I have some thoughts that will be uncomfortable for many.

I do not apologize for them, as they are based on experience and wisdom gained through a great deal of personal loss and sacrifice. Before you continue reading, I will remind you now that while disagreeing points of view are tolerated and even welcome on this blog, insults and other forms of denigration are not. I have many more important things going on in my life than your sensibilities, and while I generally try to be patient and understanding, I don't have the emotional resources or the time to deal with immaturity right now.

There are places in the internet for you, this is not one of them.

The Large and Spacious Bloggernacle

There is an interesting little catfight going on as a result of an article about how LDS blogs were started. It really got me thinking about the whys and wherefores of blogging. Hearing the "authorities" of LDS blogs—those who have been around for some time, (and ironically often show dissatisfaction with the way LDS priesthood is run) bicker with the rather younger, more vital (and arguably more mainstream) "Mormon Mommy Blogs" over who played in the playground first has been illustrative.

Why blog? It seems that there are a few reasons. First, some blog because they think they have something important to share. They believe their perspective is important, and others should hear it. This tends towards "scholarly" sort of blogging. Or, maybe they just want to share their testimony with any who care to read it. Second, networking. Many blog because they want to stay in touch with friends and family. Blogging is a great way to go about it. Mommy blogs are largely of this sort. As another type of networking, some may have business networking blogs. I have one of this sort, which I've not yet used. Third, chronicling. Some may merely want to record events in their lives, whether good or bad. I have one public, but little-publicized journal-blog of that nature, and one private one. Fourth, a blogger may want to get his or her ideas out there so they can be discussed and mulled over. Maybe a person thinks better by typing, or maybe they want feedback on what they are thinking. Fifth, some blog for support. They are seeking for a community they can't find offline. This is a sort of offshoot of networking, but backwards. Rather than keeping track of those they already know offline, they are seeking others of like mind, often to get to know later.

I think I fall somewhere in the discussion and testimony-sharing categories for this blog. I don't get a ton of readers, but that doesn't particularly bother me. The ones I have are quite high-quality (in my opinion!) and willing to discuss gospel topics which are on my mind. I know some people read this who disagree with me, and I welcome those other perspectives (so long as they respect mine.)

The biggest pothole in the road of blogging is pride. It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that because you have your own little realm of control on the web, you are somehow better or worthy of notice. Take the catfight which spawned my thoughts lately. It has gotten to a contest of who has been here longest, or who has the most readers. Realistically, it doesn't matter in the least how long you have blogged or who reads your words. If you have something of value to blog about, that is independent of recognition.

So, why the emotions and controversy? I guess deep down, we are all still just little children wanting to be loved and accepted. Me included. But, in the end, does it really matter in which wing of the Large and Spacious Bloggernacle we have decided to set up camp?

"And the large and spacious building . . . is vain imaginations and the pride of the children of men. And a great and a terrible gulf divideth them; yea, even the word of the justice of the Eternal God, and the Messiah who is the Lamb of God. . . ."
1 Nephi 12:18

Priestcraft and the Modern Mormon, Part II

I'm finally getting to a continuation of my previous post, which proved to be too long in one piece. In my last post, I described characteristics of Nehor's teachings and behavior, and drew some parallels to modern thought. I believe this recounting of Nehor and his final fate is shared as a warning to us.

Third, the actions of Nehor's followers:

1. They respected the law because they were afraid of being punished.
2. They taught for honor and riches.
3. They pretended to believe the things they taught.
4. They persecuted those of the Church with words.

I find it interesting that Nehor's followers were law-abiding citizens, but only insofar as they would not get caught or punished. It seems they were continually testing the bounds of the law, weaving their way through loopholes and exceptions. Their purposes for teaching others their beliefs were not to share something which had brought them joy, but were to gain honor and riches. This meant they said what people wanted them to say and reveled in the attention it got them. It's easy to see how televangelists might fit into this characterization, but there are those within the Mormon church who might find themselves bearing testimony during fast Sunday or giving a talk who are doing so to gain attention. Such "testimonies" rarely share truths the speaker feels, but might give a recount of the week with a sort of "the Spirit helped me here" or "I was in tune when this happened" or "I know the Church is true and President ________ is a prophet of God, amen!" tacked on the end. (This doesn't mean you, as part of the Congregation, should be critiquing others' testimonies, just that you should pay attention to your own and share what the Spirit wants to you share, keeping extraneous self-gratifying information out of it.)

The second half of the characteristics of Nehor's followers intrigues me the most. First, as a group they pretended to believe what they were teaching. They didn't actually believe it. Perhaps they "believed" it because they wanted to believe it, but in their heart-of-hearts, they knew that what they taught wasn't true. They taught it because it sounded good; it was logical, reasonable and comfortable.

Lastly, they persecuted the Church, not by physically harming them (as that was against the law) but with words. I believe I'm rather familiar with the form these persecutions would take. They likely labeled them with things such as "blind obedience" "illogical", saying things like "you cannot know there is a God" because you can never be certain of it. They ridiculed their faith as being ignorant and provincial. They probably attacked the Church leaders as money-grubbing men (since the only thing they could understand is a desire for money.) They probably figured members of the Church were out of tune with modern thought. In short, they were probably much like many of us today. I would bet that not all the followers of Nehor were outside of the Church.

Fourth, the actions of those in the church:

1. They contended with them, both verbally and physically.
2. For those who contended, their hearts became hard and they left the Church.
3. Some did not contend back and were patient with the verbal abuse.
4. They taught the doctrines of the gospel humbly and without pay.
5. They gave to those in need and did not wear expensive clothing, despite prosperity.

This is a pointed warning against getting entrapped in contention with those who criticize the Church. According to the account, those who were otherwise faithful became involved in debating points of doctrine, which debates eventually became physical. When they debated, they became filled with anger and frustration, which drove out the Spirit, causing their hearts to be hardened and them to leave the Church. If you look back at the previous post on Nehor, you will see that their behavior began to mirror Nehor's - they banded together in fighting and contention, eventually turning physical. Essentially, those who practiced priestcraft were able to draw others into the same practice by gendering debate and contention. Only those who did not contend back, humbly took whatever abuse was given them and simply offered their testimonies without pay, remained faithful and in the Church. They put their emphasis on helping those in need, whether in or out of the Church, both temporally and spiritually.

So how do we combat priestcraft in ourselves? I have a particular struggle with the aforementioned temptation to indulge in contention right now. Where is the balance between sharing testimony and avoiding contention? How can you draw the line between explanation and debate? I have difficulty taking verbal (or written) abuse patiently without lashing back or at least trying to defend myself, particularly when I'm (pridefully) aware of how good I can be at dealing it back. Truthfully, however, those attacking you or the Church generally do so for the express purpose of getting you to attack back. So long as they can get you riled up, they can justify their own behavior and don't have to change. So long as they can twist your words to something they can argue against, they can ignore the part of your meaning that would encourage them to soften their hearts to the Spirit. I long to find the balance between "bearing down in pure testimony" and contention. I want to be able to be patient during abuse, but still firm in expressing my convictions. I suspect that within that delicate balance lies one step closer to Godhood.

Blog Comments - Not Worth the Trouble

When I first began exploring this strange new world of LDS blogging, I almost never commented on other blogs, preferring to get the lay of the land. I became excited about the prospect of intelligently and respectfully discussing topics which bothered me, or which I had thought a lot about, or which were entirely new to me. Then I started commenting profusely, whenever a topic interested me.

After time, I realized that blogs do not necessarily represent an opportunity for intelligent and respectful discussion and that they more often resembled verbal food fights. I never did like food fights. Realizing that what I say makes little real difference, I stopped commenting altogether for a time. After some prayer and pondering, I felt guided to continue to comment despite the frequent disappointment in doing so, but to comment more judiciously.

Now, I use the Spirit as a measuring stick. I try to never comment without first asking the Lord if I should. If I can't comment with feelings of the Spirit in my heart, I pass on the chance, no matter how interesting the topic seems to me. I've found that this makes commenting a far more pleasant experience for me. Though I read many posts cross-sectioned from many blogs, I rarely comment. Sometimes I don't comment because I don't feel I could add anything to the conversation. Sometimes I don't comment because I'm not yet sure how I feel about a topic. Sometimes I don't comment because I don't think it will do any good. There is no point sharing an opinion that will only offend people without any hope for positive influence on them or on myself. Sometimes I don't comment because of the blog the post is in, and the history of commenting dynamics I have observed on that blog.

So, what inspires you to comment? What keeps you from commenting? Why do you blog/comment on blogs in the first place? When you comment, do you have any rules for yourself?

Angry at Myself

I guess this shows that progress can often be two steps forward and one step back. After having spent several weeks doing much better on blogs, not getting involved in any pointless disagreements, I find myself once again embroiled in a discussion I wish I had never entered.

How is it that something that begins as an attempt to have a gentle discussion so quickly becomes highly emotional? How is it that I move from discussion to feeling defensive so quickly? Perhaps it is once again time to adopt a more strict commenting policy for myself. I get indescribably frustrated with myself when I try to communicate with caring and fail so spectacularly.

Am I also the only one who gets into a discussion and tries to empathize with the other's viewpoint to the point where I get confused and unable to articulate?

The Light That Has Been Given

I have been doing a great deal more reading than writing in the sphere of LDS blogs, lately. Primarily, I have not had time to write, or even to post as much as I would like. Also, however, I have lost the desire to contribute comments to posts. I don't feel that my comments really matter. People seem to be pretty cemented in their views, and quite hostile if you disagree with them.

One such view that has recently struck me is an overall tenet or argument against belief. Those using this argument have repeatedly suggested that no one can claim a knowledge of the truth because someone else could claim knowledge of a truth that is different or opposite to the original claim. Not only is this argument disingenuous, it is a religious belief disguised as reason used by many agnostics and atheists.

First, to examine a claim to knowledge of the truth. From a secular standpoint, knowledge is the act of knowing something. Know, by the word's very nature, indicates an understanding of something through reason or experience. If one is to claim that it is impossible to know the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for example, is true, one would have to claim that it is impossible to know anything. Though true in its most basic sense, that conclusion is useless, leaving one in a state where learning is meaningless, since one can never know if they are learning absolute Truth. Since we are imperfect beings in an imperfect world (something even atheists can probably agree with) we are bound by that imperfection, and must learn to function within its bounds. If we are to reject all learning and knowledge on the basis that it may not be true, we stagnate in a state of self-satisfaction and voluntary ignorance. Therefore, the claim that someone cannot know the truth of anything is a useless statement. I find it interesting that those who summon this relativistic reasoning are almost always blind to the correlation that they cannot know that the other person doesn't know!

Secondly, let us look at the faults in the supposition that a seeker of truth must take others' answers into account. Let's say, for example, that I have sought for truth by seeking out a true religion. I have found a church, studied its tenets, earnestly prayed for confirmation from God and have received my answer that it is true. With some variation, this is the method religious texts have submitted to find truth over thousands of years. Many have claimed to find truth through this method.

Now, let's suppose another person does the same thing and receives an answer that the same church is not true. The argument would claim that the first person's confirmation of truth is invalid because the second person had the opposite experience. I would first ask myself why the first person should be expected to doubt his experiences based on the experiences of a second? The first person can't judge the sincerity of the second truth-seeker. The first person can't know God's motives in giving the second person their negative answer, assuming that the second person really did receive that answer from God. Most importantly, the second person's answer is not the answer the first person received. That may seem obvious, but think about the implications. Those claiming that truth cannot be known would seem to be telling the first person that they should believe another's answer over their own. When examined this way, it seems obvious that this is nothing but a ploy to cast doubt on an individual's own ability to seek and understand truth.

We are all human, with the same ability and responsibility to seek light, knowledge and truth. We have the same potential to receive spiritual confirmation. We have the same "chances" of finding the truth. In the end, we will be judged on the answers we have sought and received from the Lord, not on another's. In other words, If it seems stupid to you to claim a knowledge of a truth, if it seems necessary to believe that you can never know what is true and what is not, do what you will, but as for me, I choose to seek the light by the methods I know to be right.

Difficult Confession

As a warning to those who may not want to know about my personal life, this is going to be very personal. I have been reading The Divine Center by Stephen Covey and have come to a realization. You see, I am depressive. That is the first time I have typed that out. I've never even said it before. Always before, it has been "I have depression" or "I am depressed," if that. In reading this book, I have come to see that I am depressive because my focus is in the wrong place. As much as I've tried to center myself on God, and though I believe that once I did, I have lost that center. Now, I have realized that I center myself on others' opinions of me.

My usual pattern of depression begins with a confrontation of one kind or another. It can be a fight with my husband, or it can be as impersonal as making someone on the road angry, but it usually starts with conflict. Though I can hold my own when actually in the conflict, immediately afterwards I begin to deride myself. I begin to obsess over what I should have done to avoid the conflict. I denigrate my personal righteousness in not backing out of the conflict as soon as it presented itself (turn the other cheek). I obsess over what the other person thinks of me. I convince myself that they despise me, and that they are justified in doing so. I believe that. In my deepest self, I believe that I am a horrible person with no redeeming qualities, a failure in my eyes and the eyes of my God. I believe that more than anything anyone could tell me otherwise, even myself. Even God. I want to believe I have some worth, but I don't know how.

Realizing this, however, has left me without the knowledge of how to change it. As I type, I realize how stiff and formal I sound, but I'm crying hard enough to worry my one-year-old daughter. I am not good at these things. This only makes me think I'm a worse person, harming her by my tears.

I don't know why I'm writing this, because it isn't really fair. There is nothing anyone can do about this but me. I ask forgiveness for the writing; I believe writing is a sort of catharsis for me. Before anyone asks, no, I am not receiving any help for how I am. I have tried to get help in the past, but I can't afford it either monetarily or time-wise. Besides, I don't trust going to someone else for help for my feelings. It is my obsession with someone else's opinions that is the problem.