Departing Doctrine

I am in the awkward position of not knowing my position. Increasingly, I find myself disagreeing with almost all the ideology of both the liberal and conservative bloggers' side, and ideology of the mainstream members. It leaves me with the very real possibility that I am the one going wrong.

Increasingly, the things said over the pulpit do not resonate with me. But neither do any of the things from other perspectives. Maybe I'm just overstressed and finding myself incontrovertibly rooted in the right-now, physical world. Maybe having lived in survival mode, in fear for so long makes me utterly unlike the rest of the world, without the capacity to gnaw over the past, politics or religion. But maybe my constant tension means I'm losing touch with the Spirit.

I find myself hungry for doctrines that resonate with me, thirsty for the Waters of Life. And, as in prophecy, I do not know where to find them. My prayers consist mostly of "I don't know what to ask for, but please help." My list of Things I Need to Repent From grows longer daily, and I still haven't the least clue how to change any of them. Repentance is easier when you know what you are doing wrong, or know how to change it when you do.

Some People Oppose Gay Marriage

There is a point at which argument is futile. When two sides of a disagreement are so firmly rooted in their own perceptions, and those perceptions are coming from intrinsically different structures, there is not enough common ground for discussion.

This is, perhaps, why I haven’t really addressed the gay marriage battles going on in the United States of America since they started. I have listened to both sides, found fault and good with both, and made my conclusions. And most of the time, when I try to share why I believe the way I do, I only invite attack.

I do wish to state, perhaps for my own benefit alone, that I do not support gay marriage. I used to, before I started blogging. Getting involved in blogs certainly catalyzed some of my change of mind. I’m sure there are many out there who discount my opinions because they assume they are solely religiously based, or because they come from a place of ignorance and fear. I can protest as much as I like, but I’m not likely to change the minds of people so unapologetically closed-minded. I’m not even going to bother.

There is much I could say about gaining respect for differing moral stances. The arguments for gay marriage are generally based on the moral structure of secularism, the arguments against gay marriage are generally based on a moral structure espoused by many religions of the world. I believe that “separation of Church and State” in our country was never meant to restrict moral opinions from the public sphere. In fact, I believe that creating a space where individuals can act according to their morality in a public sphere without fear of losing employment, housing, physical safety, the ability to reasonably conduct business according to their conscience, and relative peace in their private lives was a core point of our government.

And, like it or not, the bulk of efforts to remove that freedom from fear is coming from those who think secularly. Many believe that individuals should have no right to exercise religiously-based morality in a public sphere, but ought to be forced to behave according to secular morality.

I would fight—have fought—equally hard to defend a gay person’s right to behave according to their beliefs in a public sphere as I now defend my own. I would shop at a store owned by a gay person. I'm as likely to design a gay friend's wedding invitations as those for a straight friend, were one to ask me. But I believe that the right to behave a certain way is not the same as a right to be publicly supported for it.

Determination of the lines of law—deciding what the public should pay for, support, and condone by law—should only be legally determined by a slow and cautious approach to lawmaking, including ALL the branches of government. Rushing headlong, deliberately bypassing checks and balances in the legal system, will inevitably reap consequences in unexpected directions.

I am afraid, watching the way law is happening now. And even if you support gay marriage, you should be afraid, too. The rate at which individual freedom to act according to personal moral conscience is being denied is frightening. When legal paths have been opened, they are very difficult to close. Almost overnight, changes are being made that alter the way people are allowed to live their lives. Though that may work in your favor today, there are no guarantees for tomorrow.

I do not know if my feelings on gay marriage will soon rob me of my ability to act according to my conscience in my employment. My line of work makes me one of those who could easily be forced to participate in things I find reprehensible. I wish, even if gay marriage wins wholesale, that those of religious moral conscience will be able to win a space for themselves. Not only to protect religious institutions, but to protect religious people.

Make no mistake. This war is not just about gay marriage. It is much more fundamental than that. It is a war between religion and secularism, a clash of whether or not people will be allowed to act according to a religious source of morality. Whether or not their votes will be taken away. Whether or not they can choose to conduct their business as they believe they should. Whether or not they are allowed to raise their children in the faith they hold dear. Whether or not they are allowed to speak their hearts, or must remain silent for fear of dire consequence.

There are many voices of empty reassurance, claiming that such things could never happen. But they are already happening. People claimed that welfare for single moms wouldn't result in more single moms, that loosening divorce laws wouldn't result in more divorces. They are blind to the lessons of history, and ignorant to human nature.

Some rights cannot be granted without robbing the rights of another. You can't give the right to drink and drive without potentially robbing a drunk driver's victim of the right to life. You can't give gay people the right to demand the services they want from whom they want them without robbing the service provider of the right to sell their services to whomever they wish to sell them. There is always a price. Some ideals cannot be legislated without sacrificing other ideals.

I mourn for our country. Not because gay marriage is becoming legal, but because of the way that victory is being won and the intentions in the hearts of those who are winning it. Such desire to silence opposition exists everywhere, male and female, gay and straight, religious and secular, but when it is popular and celebrated—when it is in power—there is no one who will escape the price.

Yet, despite my sorrow for the sins of this world, I know in whom I trust. The Book of Mormon is now more than ever before an obvious warning to the righteous, a chance to prepare. We may be called to lay down our lives as so many before us have. But if we keep the love of God in our hearts even as the mobs mock and ridicule, we will have a rock of faith through the trials to come.

“O, ye nations of the earth, how often would I have gathered you together as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, but ye would not!

“How oft have I called upon you by the mouth of my servants, and by the ministering of angels, and by mine own voice, and by the voice of thunderings, and by the voice of lightnings, and by the voice of tempests, and by the voice of earthquakes, and great hailstorms, and by the voice of famines and pestilences of every kind, and by the great sound of a trump, and by the voice of judgment, and by the voice of mercy all the day long, and by the voice of glory and honor and the riches of eternal life, and would have saved you with an everlasting salvation, but ye would not!”
D&C 43:24-25

Apostasy and the Commandment to Forgive, Part 3

Apostasy and the Commandment to Forgive, Part 2

Jesus explains in Matthew 18:15-18 the process of what to do if one of Christ's disciples (ostensibly a member of the Church) should trespass against you. First, you should discuss it with him, then if he does not listen, involve the church, and then if he does not listen to the church he is no longer your brother in the gospel (v. 17). I believe this means that you still treat him with respect, but no longer trust him to behave as a disciple should behave. The Lord also gives the church the power to "bind and loose". In context, this would seem to mean that the church has power over membership covenants.

Peter then asks how often a person should be forgiven. Christ says, essentially, that we are to forgive ALL debts we hold against someone because we are debtors to Him.

Which brings me to a very personal illumination of forgiveness.

Apostasy and the Commandment to Forgive, Part 2

Apostasy and the Commandment to Forgive, Part 1

As I said in the previous post, the "little child" spoken of in Matthew 18 is not a literal child, but is one who has humbled themselves as a little child in Christ's service. Also, Alma in Mosiah 26 was faced with the same problem that many discuss today: when a dissenter within the Church should be excommunicated. I am also comparing this to what I have learned in the process of divorcing the husband with whom I once covenanted before God.

Apostasy and the Commandment to Forgive, Part 1

There has been recent discussion about disciplinary councils which I have been wondering about. In reading my Sunday School lesson, I recently stumbled upon Matthew 18, when the disciples of Jesus asked Him who was greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Christ uses a child to visually express the type of humility we ironically need to cultivate to be great in His eyes. We often use this chapter to decry child abusers. Yet this chapter really isn't talking about child abuse at all.

When Jesus speaks of the "little child" He is talking about a person who has been converted and humbled themselves.

So when we receive those who have humbled themselves in Christ's service, we receive Him. And if we offend a humble follower of Christ, it is better for us to be dead.

And then comes a powerful insight into the nature of our lives. Christ says, "it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh!" It is necessary that, as we cast off pride and humble ourselves in service to Christ, we experience "offenses". But that does not excuse those who commit these offenses.

Mosiah 26 records the short-term aftermath of King Benjamin's powerful testimony and exhortation to his people. After his speech, many of those who were too young to feel the power of the truth of what he said did not believe in Christ, and therefore did not understand the gospel teachings nor align themselves with the Church.

At first they were few, but because of infighting in the Church (kind of like a lot of the infighting that is displayed online) they grew more numerous. And then, once they left the Church, they flattered church members—not to get them to leave the church—but to cause them to sin. These church members sinned to the point that they had to be brought up for "admonishment" by the Church.

Sound familiar?

Ultimately, the one they were brought before was Alma. This is important because Alma not only had been a great sinner in his past and repented, but he seemingly still was very careful not to commit sin again. He did not feel qualified to judge the people of the Church, and the King, Mosiah, refused to judge them according to the laws of the land.

It was tricky for Alma because on the one hand, those who were in the Church and not living by its teachings were damaging themselves and others. But on the other hand, simply wielding the fist of justice could possibly serve to offend more people and cause greater problems.

Matthew 18 and Mosiah 26 both deal with damaging relationships. Jesus in Matthew 18 addresses what to do if, as a humble follower of Christ, your own personal relationships are causing "offenses," or in other words, causing you to sin. Mosiah 26 reveals to us how the Church is to deal with those causing others to sin.

These were enlightening chapters for me because I still sometimes labor under the pain of the decision I made to divorce my ex-husband. When I was married, I thought that if I did all the things they tell us to do, put the spouse first, put the marriage first, I could (singlehandedly!) save my marriage. I was determined that Satan wouldn't have my marriage or my husband.

Oh, how prideful I was!

In my next post, I will discuss what I have learned about the Spirit's personal guidance for me, and the guidance that Jesus gave His disciples and Alma. When should apostasy be forgiven, and when should the one turning away (whether it be from marriage or a religion) be cut off?

And what are the consequences for doing either?

Apostasy and the Commandment to Forgive, Part 2

But Behold, They Did Not

I am slowly going through a change in the way I approach my opinions. It is generally accepted that, should one have an opinion different than the majority, or (barring majority) socially accepted, one is perforce wrong and should keep it to oneself. My natural inclination is to not make waves, though my upbringing has taught me that challenging beliefs—mine as well as others—is, to a point, healthy. (Of course there is balance in all things, and challenging merely for the sake of challenging crosses that line.) I hate contention, though I'm always for a bout of debate, so long as no hard feelings are present at the end. As I read the chapters in Alma which correspond to my Sunday School lessons, I'm starting to feel that this may not always be the best approach, however. Alma 9, especially poignant, reads:

And they stood forth to lay their hands on me; but behold, they did not. And I stood with boldness to declare unto them, yea, I did boldly testify unto them, saying: Behold, O ye wicked and perverse generation, how have ye forgotten the tradition of your fathers; yea, how soon ye have forgotten the commandments of God.

This troubles me, because I don't see this sort of boldness in myself. I still have too much fear. But where is the balance between boldly testifying and not offending? Where does the burden of not offending lay with me, and where does it lay with the one being offended? I suspect some will be offended, no matter what is said, for they are offended by the word of the Lord, and expect you to tell them what they want to hear.

I suspect the balance lies somewhere in the words of Jacob. We are to trust in the Spirit to guide us to what we should do. Even though boldness in testifying may be difficult for us, we should say what the Lord commands us to say, even should it offend others. We should always try to have the Spirit in all we say (or type!) That isn't to mean we shall always be perfect at it, but that is also not to mean that just because someone is offended, we should not say it. Sometimes, despite the best of efforts, others will do all they can to be offended. If they can ferret out things to be offended by, they can discard the rest of your words, no matter how Spiritually inspired they may be, and thus don't have to change.

I think just that was observed when Sister Beck shared her controversial talk.

The end remains that, though you should try to see another's point of view, a point will come when you cannot agree with their conclusions. When given the choice between serving the master of popularity, who asks for you to say things that are pleasing, and rails against you when you do not, or the one who pleads and chastens.

For obvious reasons, this has been on my mind quite heavily of late. It is a frightening proposition, but I am no longer going to make peace out of default. If I have said something I believe in, I will declare it should the Spirit so move me, and no longer labor under the burden of agreeability. Sometimes the only way is for the Church to assert its position and beliefs firmly enough that those who disagree with its most basic tenets find the impetus to follow their beliefs, no matter how painful and difficult it may be to those who love them, and no matter the social and physical danger. Not all those who rail against the word of God find themselves unable to harm those who testify.

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.

When "Funny" Isn't

Once upon a time, I prided myself on my ability to make a person feel two inches tall in less than ten words. I was good at using sarcasm and "wit", and built quite a reputation for myself. I was careful to use my linguistic power only when the situation warranted it and the object of my censure was fully deserving of it. I thought that made me safe, excused me from any sin. A long series of experiences gradually led me to change my opinion, culminating with my husband's explanation of his extreme distaste for any form of sarcasm.

I've recently had an experience with a blog post that has led me to think about this topic again. I observed a once-admired person ridiculing a group of people I do not agree with. Despite being superficially on the "side" of the ridiculer, I felt uncomfortable and finally felt that I should speak up, lest my silence be construed as tacit approval. As a result, I put myself in a position to also be ridiculed. I have mixed feelings of disappointment and hurt about this. Gradually, the hurt is fading, though I'm still disappointed. I thought perhaps I was wrong in my stance, so I decided to make it the topic of study in my scripture study this morning. Since I think best when I write, I thought I'd share my conclusions here. It's not meant as an attack or justification; it's just a way for me to cope with what happened and to resolve my internal concerns. I have found that both scriptures and leadership, with one exception, seem to agree with me.

There is an undeniably bitter chasm between those who have left the LDS Church and those who still profess to believe. Often, those who have left mock and point fingers at those who believe in the Gospel. Sometimes, this mockery becomes downright attack. Unfortunately, mockery is not the sole prerogative of the disaffected. In fact, sometimes mockery creates the disaffected. President Hinckley in 1986 said "Everywhere is heard the insulting remark, the sarcastic comment, the verbal attack against the reputations of others. Sadly, these are too often the bases of our conversation. . . . In the Church it sows the seed of inactivity and finally apostasy." Those who become inactive and/or leave the Church can be either source or subject of the mockery. Ofttimes, they either begin to mock sacred things, even in jest or, when they find themselves doubting or with questions, they find themselves denigrated and shunned by those who should be their brothers and sisters in the gospel. In the latter case, the situation often seems to prove to those who are doubting that the Church is not founded by God. Some find it hard to believe that the Church of God would include those who do not practice His charity, and so they stop believing and they leave.

There is no doubt that not all humor is wrong, but sarcasm is a particular brand of so-called "humor" of its own. Peter B. Rawlins in his 1974 New Era article explains,

"A most damaging form of humor is sarcasm, or cutting, hostile, or contemptuous remarks. Such humor is usually based on inordinate pride and is usually aimed at some person or group thought to be inferior, such as minority races, ethnic groups, and the physically handicapped. Occasionally some good comes from these jokes when taken in good humor by the object of the joke . . . . but this occurs only when the feelings of all concerned are considered.

Though often meant to be harmless, sarcasm denotes insensitivity to the feelings of others, stemming either from thoughtlessness or maliciousness."

In other words, the very nature of sarcasm includes insensitive thoughtlessness or maliciousness, depending on whether or not the person is aware that they are hurting others. To say that someone deserves the sarcasm is to admit, perhaps without conscious realization, to intentional hurting of another child of God, no matter how far led astray that child of God may be.

That is not to say that one should never criticize behavior. As President Hinckley later says,

"I am asking that we look a little deeper for the good, that we halt the sounds of insult and sarcasm, that we more generously compliment virtue and effort. I am not asking that all criticism be silenced. Growth comes of correction. Strength comes of repentance. Wise is the man who can acknowledge mistakes pointed out by others and change his course of action."

The trick is to make certain that criticism is being done in a spirit of love and not one of mocking sarcasm. ANY time criticism is necessary, the criticizer must show an increase of love towards the person if they wish to criticize righteously. One should try to evaluate and see if their love is stronger than death. Otherwise, one should probably refrain from criticizing, unless otherwise directed by the Spirit. (And if you're in the frame of spirit necessary to be directed by the Spirit, you are probably also filled with love for the person needing to be criticized!)

Those who are struggling with questions and doubts need that love more than anyone. It is too common (and easy) to label people with doubts as near-Apostates, and then to ignore and revile them. After all, Korihor was not allowed to teach among the Anti-Nephi-Lehis, and Christ did not always give the Pharisees nothing but warm fuzzies. Most of the time, however, if the situation is examined with a prayerful heart, it will be discovered that the people in question are not nearly anti-Christs and are almost never deliberately misunderstanding the Gospel as the Pharisees did. Usually, people with doubts are just like every other person in the Church. Can any long-term member honestly say that they have never had questions or doubts and yet still have a strong testimony? If there are any, they are rare.

I guess that most of the time, those members who overreact to questions and doubts do so because they do not have a true understanding of agency and the Atonement, or faith in their own testimony. They are afraid of questions and doubts because they are afraid that if they are exposed to questions, their testimonies will be undermined.

Of course, my last two paragraphs do not apply to those few souls who are truly anti-Christ. These are people whose only goal is to lead others away from the Church and from Christ. It is usually quite easy to tell the difference. Anti-Christs are rarely questioning, but they often pose rhetorical questions. They rarely seem as though they are searching, but will exude confidence in the answers they have already received. If nothing else, if you can feel the Spirit's true love and sorrow for a person, but still feel that you should not engage in discussion, the Spirit is directing you away from a conversation, rather than your own fears acting to categorize and revile a person who is honestly seeking to know.

What I have found is that sarcasm is not compatible with Christian discipleship. I could find no references to God or Christ mocking anyone. The one exception I found in the scriptures is when it mentions in Proverbs and Psalms that the Lord will laugh at the wicked. Given the nature of these two books of scripture, I think that is a bit of literary word painting on Solomon's and David's (or others') parts, and not literal.

Meekness is compatible with discipleship, and as Elder Maxwell stated in his 1982 BYU address, the meek know how to not speak. They have nothing to prove and no need to revile others. "The meek think of more clever things to say than are said. And it’s just as well, for there is so much more cleverness in the world than wisdom, so much more sarcasm than idealism."

Rawlins says later in his article:

"Would it not be better to “lift up the hands which hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees” (D&C 81:5) than to humiliate and disgrace one of our neighbors? When humor is such a powerful tool in building subtle bonds of brotherhood, in cheering those who suffer, and in teaching profound and memorable lessons, why should it be used to belittle and discourage?

Those who profess belief in Christ should shape their humor in the light of Christ’s teachings. Being rejected from His kingdom because of a warped sense of humor would not be funny."

Sarcasm is never funny. "Remember, too, that no matter what you see in the TV sit-coms and movies, put-down, cutting humor is not good humor. While it may be entertaining to watch, in real life, cutting humor and sarcasm are too unkind to be funny. They can only injure, never uplift." (Chris Crowe, New Era 1986)

What disciple of Christ would wish to harm any of the souls for which He died? Whether or not those souls accept His sacrifice is irrelevant; He died for them unconditionally, should we not give them the benefit of the doubt and love them unconditionally? Let their choices push them away from the Church and the comfort of God, if that is what they wish. Never let your choices force that decision upon them. If you criticize, criticize with love, not sarcasm. You might be surprised how many "near-Apostates" only need that love to give them the courage and strength they need to come back to Him.

Other interesting and pertinent articles:
Brad Wilcox 2000
Rex A. Skidmore 1988
James E. Faust 2000
Russell Wilcox 2007
FHE Book 1997