My five-year-old daughter came home from Primary one Sunday and told us all about her lesson the Word of Wisdom. Her teachers had creatively made pictures of things that were “bad” so the children could throw them away. They threw away images of cigarettes, alcohol, tea, and coffee – all the things that are restricted based on D&C 89 and other, later admonition from the prophets.

I usually have some grumble about her Primary lessons, as I seem to have about everything else, but I also let it go quickly, as I seem to everything else. But this one must have had quite an impact on my daughter because,  even months after the lesson, she still talks about it. In fact, it has become part of her play – she’ll be joking with her brother and she’ll say something to effect of: “you’re alcohol – I’m going to throw you away!”

I suppose I ought to be a proud papa; at least, I probably should thank her teachers for so thoroughly teaching her WoW principles. Really, it just made me laugh. Well, laugh until I heard her say of someone (within ear shot, as kids always do), “She’s drinking coffee – she’s bad!”

After the embarrassment cleared, the whole story gave me pause for thought. Sure those things are bad for you, but so is high fructose corn syrup – particularly in high quantities. In fact, we eat a lot of stuff that is technically “bad” for us, like potato chips, candy bars, and whatnot – often in excess – that the Word of Wisdom doesn’t mention.

Well, this could turn into another tirade on how we focus too much attention on some things (e.g., alcohol in the WoW) and too little on other things (e.g., meat in times of famine). But instead, another thought came to me.

What if the main reason God asks us not to drink coffee or smoke cigarettes has less to do with what is “good” or “bad”, and more to do with setting us apart from the world? What do you think?

Email a friend

A friend of mine is piloting a survey about political reasoning. I encourage you to take it. It only takes a few minutes and I think you’ll find it to be interesting (much better than all those lame Facebook quizzes).

Click here to take the survey.

Email a friend

There is currently a petition to the First Presidency to apologize on behalf of the Church for “official statements, rhetoric, policy and practice” that “have been injurious to gays and lesbians and their families and friends.”

First, I should say that in many ways I respect this petition. There clearly is a self-conscious attempt to address reconciliation without demanding the Church change its moral position on homosexuality or its political position on gay marriage. There has been a genuine effort, I think, to actually try to make inroads with the Church. I especially like the line, “We believe that people of good will may have differing views about homosexuality, while maintaining amicable relationships.” Yes–let’s hope this is true.

There is a problem, however. Although the petition begins with some very nice stuff about the need for reconciliation from “parties on both sides,” its subject is only about the need for reconciliation on ONE side: the Church. This doesn’t exactly strike me as “seek[ing] to create a climate for reconciliation.” Seems to me to be more like a climate of accusation. At least it could easily be seen that way.

So I have some honest questions for the petitioners. Do you really think there is a need for apology from your own side? If yes, what? And why haven’t you discussed that in the petition? Why not take a first step and offer whatever these apologies might be?

If “no,” then the petition seems to be a bit manipulative. Like one’s spouse saying “we need to…” when what he/she really means is “you need to…”

Email a friend

I’m not usually a literalist about the scriptures, but I’m a little baffled by a verse I read today and the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 137. This section is the account of a vision Joseph Smith had of the celestial kingdom. He names Adam and Abraham, as well as his parents, as inhabitants, likely those who were saved “by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.“

And then he mentions his brother, Alvin. Joseph “marvels” that his brother Alvin is there, “seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.” And then the great revelation that “All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God.” Of course, this revelation plays a big part in understanding why we do work for the dead in our temples…right?

Here’s my question: What was Alvin doing there in the celestial kingdom when his work hadn’t been done yet?

Okay, so that’s just one question among many questions that I could ask about this scripture: Has he already been resurrected? Is that a requirement of being the celestial kingdom? Why have I been taught that people are waiting for their chance to “accept the gospel” when it looks like doing so doesn’t necessitate our doing their work vicariously? Are the ordinances not really a requirement to get there? If not, will Alvin and people like them want them anyway?.

In the end, I think what I’m really asking is this: If I take this section literally – and Alvin Smith was actually in the celestial kingdom – then once I have received all my living ordinances, what am I doing when I go back to the temple?

Today, the California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8 while leaving previous same-sex marriages intact.

My question is: What difference will the Court decision have on criticism of Mormons?

I’m not in California and I’ve yet to read anything pertaining much to this.

On one hand, I can see the decision rekindling the somewhat-cooled flame of gay activism (in comparison to November, anyway), and as a result we will see more criticism of Mormons and the Church. On the other hand, perhaps the decision will redirect anger at the state of California and the Court. Perhaps both.

At any rate, I think it’s irrational to blame Prop 8 voters for the perceived unconstitutionality of the measure. One might believe that Prop 8 was fueled by hate and intolerance (see this post for a rebuttal of that view), but it’s a very different thing to say that the supporters themselves are being unconstitutional. Seems the Court (and by extension, the State of California) is the proper target for that criticism.

Note: I am not going to tolerate, in any degree, disparaging comments made about Mormons or gays and lesbians. I wish to discuss an important issue, not open a name-calling session. Unproductive and/or disparaging comments will be promptly deleted.

Email a friend

Imagine inviting all of your friends over for your birthday party.

And by friends, I mean just about everyone you knew in high school, your college friends, people from your ward(s), people from work, relatives, ex-boyfriends/girlfriends. In other words, this is a BIG party.

Imagine, furthermore, that everyone is interested in what you say and what you do. It’s your party after all. You can’t simply have a hundred private conversations.

This is a dilemma. You likely have very different ways of interacting with your very different friends. You’d say some things to certain friends that you wouldn’t be caught dead saying to others. Around some friends, you’re more expressive; around others, more reserved. With some you’ll chat about politics or religion  (in fact that seems to be all you do), but with others this is out of bounds. And imagine all of the people that you hope don’t talk to each other.

This, of course, is a hypothetical situation, but it probably rings true to most people on a smaller scale. We might think we know someone, but then we see them around a different crowd of people and we’re surprised. Sometimes disappointed.

Enter Facebook. And now the situation is not so hypothetical. Well, what do you say? You might think you’re awful clever with that last status update, but some of your friends are certainly thinking, “Wow, Sue’s a little different than I thought.” You might think, “Well, this is the way I am, and if somebody doesn’t like it, then that’s their problem.” But this is an awfully anti-relational way to be. Surely even the most individualist people among us act differently with different people.

So, what does all of this mean in terms of being Mormon on Facebook? Certainly, we can do things like say what our religion is, and we can also say we’re a fan of this or that. But in terms of things like status updates, shared links, etc., it is difficult sometimes. I’d like to post links to posts from this blog, for example, but the reality is that many of my friends are not LDS and this site would be weird for them. There’s a world that I share here that, frankly, I don’t wish to share with everyone. So I keep it quiet and I don’t even include my blog at all on Facebook.

Another issue: Many of my friends are “fans” with Thomas S. Monson, the Church, even Jesus Christ. But this strikes me as odd. It seems to equate my religious beliefs with my media preferences. I would wonder what my LDS and non-LDS friends would think.

Anyway, what are your thoughts? How do you “be Mormon” on Facebook and yet also respect the differences of all of your many “friends”? I really hope this can turn into a good discussion and perhaps help to revive this (sorry) somewhat dead blog.

UPDATE May 19: Be sure to look at my comment, about ten comments down, for a clarification of what I’m trying to explore with this post.

Email a friend

Some sacrament meeting talks are more meaningful, insightful, and applicable than others. Certainly natural ability comes into play, but one of the biggest problems, from my experience, is that most speakers follow a “same old” generic pattern. There is nothing inspired or authoritative for this pattern, and in fact in many cases it can dull or deaden what could otherwise be enriching and inspiring sacrament meetings.

I don’t mean to belittle anyone’s efforts, faith, or testimony. Rather, I bring good news. It’s not hard, if one is willing, to raise the standard of sacrament meeting talks. It requires (a) recognizing the “same old” pattern as simply one way of giving a talk (and probably not the best way) and (b) being willing to try something new. I think you’ll like it.

So, I will first describe the “same old” pattern and then describe what is, in my opinion, “a more excellent way” of giving sacrament meeting talks. I hope that some of my tips can be worthwhile for all Latter-day Saints, however refined their talk-giving abilities may be.

THE “SAME OLD” PATTERN

When people use the “same old” pattern for talking, they probably don’t think, “Hey, I think I’ll use that ’same old’ pattern that everyone else uses.” Rather, it is probably commonly thought that this pattern is simply THE way of giving a talk.

These “same old” talks often begin with an unnecessarily elaborate introduction. Such introductions might involve (a) discussing how and when the bishop  asked you to give the talk, (b) giving some kind of joke, often unrelated to the topic, (c) providing a disclaimer about how you don’t really want to give a talk, or at least not a very long one, or (d) some or all of the above.

These introductions are not simply unnecessary because they waste time. Time filling is a very minor problem here. The major problem, from my estimation, is that these kinds of introductions set the talk up to be mundane or trivial, as well as perpetuate the myth that this is the way sacrament meeting talks must or ought to be. In this way, the “same old” speaker gives a silent disclaimer:

Don’t expect anything great from this talk. In fact, because this talk is mediocre, I’m going to attract undue attention to myself and to a bland pattern of talk giving. By doing so, I will perpetuate the myth that sacrament meeting talks are simply something that we have to do and that have little practical value, at least beyond the things that I might have learned in preparing and giving the talk. You laugh or smile at these efforts not because they are funny or enlightening, but rather because you sympathize with me in my tedious chore of talk giving.

Once a person has given this necessary disclaimer, she can proceed to introduce the topic. This is usually done in a very generic way (e.g., “my talk is on faith”). In this way, one can send the message to the congregation that one is giving a standard repetitive talk.

If a person wants to accentuate this generic message, this can be done by providing a dictionary definition. The speaker knows that the congregation does not need this definition, and he’s not planning on drawing on it in any particular way, but none of this matters for the “same old” pattern. All that matters is to not introduce the topic in a meaningful, applicable, or inspiring way.

From this point, the “same old” pattern might take a variety of turns, some of which are better than others, but in general adheres to at least one of the following guidelines:

1. An excessive amount of long general authority quotes.

2. Use of published inspirational stories (often without much attribution) or, alternatively, an unnecessarily long description of a personal story.

3. Simple recipes for acquiring blessings (do x, get y), often in conjunction with worn-out non-scriptural platitudes that either have no explicit relationship to the Savior  (”say your prayers, read your scriptures, go to church”) or imply that He is an instrumental blessing machine (”take advantage of the Atonement”).

4. The use of various scriptural passages, but without context, exploration, or elaboration. Such passages are often used for the purpose of supporting a blessing recipe or generic platitude (#3).

5. Subtle political commentary.

6. A brief standard testimony, of various levels of sincerity and always reserved for the end, followed by a possible violation of the third commandment (see my future post).

Now, please understand that I’m giving a caricature here. I’ve heard many wonderful sacrament meeting talks and even in talks that are perhaps not so wonderful I’ve been uplifted and inspired. Still, I think that far too many of us do some of these things simply because we’ve learned some mediocre habits about what giving a talk should be. I’m sensitive also to the fact that giving sacrament meeting talks is not easy for many people. That’s why this post brings such good news — the “more excellent” talk is actually often easier to prepare, and much more satisfying.

A MORE EXCELLENT WAY

In contrast to the “same old” pattern talks, excellent sacrament meeting talks have a purpose of strengthening, enlightening, and inspiring the congregation. Speakers don’t have to be especially talented or experienced — they have a variety of experiences, public speaking skill, and experience in the church. But what they have in common is that they know their audience somewhat well and they speak sincerely from their hearts. There’s no need for gimmicks (jokes, apologies) or formalizations (definitions) — although there’s nothing inherently wrong with perhaps telling a joke or giving a definition.

These speakers also recognize that they are not simply giving a talk “on faith” (whatever topic they were assigned). Rather, they are talking about faith in a personal and inspiring way, and in a way that might be most relevant for the congregation right here and right now. There’s no formula for this kind of talk, but here are a few things I’ve noticed, in contrast with “same old” talks:

1. These speakers stick closely to the standard works and use the scriptures well. This doesn’t mean they have to be a scriptorian, it simply means they’re willing to turn to the stories and lessons of the scriptures first and foremost, and see general authority quotes as supplementary. When general authority quotes are used, they are more likely to be recent ones (perhaps from the last General Conference).

2. These speakers almost always avoid published inspirational stories. If stories are told, they are almost always their stories (either about them or people close to them). In this way, they portray the gospel in the real world, not the canned sensational one. However, these speakers also recognize the need to avoid lengthy travelogues. They tell the part of the story that is relevant and then move on.

3. They are sensitive to the struggles and needs of others, and for this reason avoid making the gospel too formulaic. They think twice before saying things like “Being happy is a simple choice” or “If you pay your tithing, the Lord will bless you financially.” If they do want to say things along these lines, they might instead portray their own story — how they chose to be happy in the midst of affliction, rather than offering canned platitudes that perhaps hurt as many people as they help.

4. Along the lines of #3, these speakers recognize that living the gospel is more complicated than “reading your scriptures, saying your prayers, and going to church.” Rather, the gospel is about coming to Christ — and He plays a central role in these talks (whether explicit or implicit).These speakers wisely recognize that people come to church not to learn a few facts or be reminded of some vague platitudes, rather they come to church to worship Christ and to seek healing through Him.

5. These speakers recognize that the gospel is not synonymous with a particular political platform or to American democracy, and they are also aware of sensitive familial, gender, racial, international and other circumstances.

6. Finally, these speakers bear their testimony whenever prompted by the Holy Ghost — whether this is planned or extemporaneous. Testimonies are not simply saved for the end. Indeed, the line between “talk” and “testimony” is blurred in many of the best talks.

Well, I hope these suggestions might be helpful for a few people. Please recognize that this post is simply my opinion. I also understand that we need to be concerned about how we receive the talks of others. Here I’m simply focusing on the giving of talks. I would love to hear what others have to say.

Email a friend

I believe that one of the common problems of our modern era is that our relationships with our bodies have become abstracted.  This abstracted relationship manifests itself in a lot of ways, but I’d like to focus in on our modern concept of physical fitness.  I’m implicating fitness as an abstracted relationship because we talk about fitness without much discussion of what exactly our bodies should be fit for.

As far as I can see, the implied answers to these questions are  rather unsatisfying.  Fit to inspire envy.  Fit to turn heads.  Fit to be admired, liked, loved.  Perhaps secondarily we hear in the chatter around fitness some answers along the lines of fit to keep living, fit to live longer, or fit to feel good.  Whatever degree of merit these answers deserve, I submit that they all likely fall short of better answers that we might come up with.

I think that the question of fitness has to point to whether or not we are using our bodies in useful ways.  I am certain that we are all using our bodies in some useful ways, but probably not always in ways that would inspire the label of “physically fit.”  For most of us, the most strenuous activities of our week involve moving around for the sake of moving around, or, perhaps with a bit more purpose, moving around for recreation.  It is much less common to move around to get somewhere or to do work that helps us and others to live well.  And so we have behemoth gyms that are pumped with cooled air and filled with machines so that people can move around without going anywhere.  I can’t help but think that such a scene would be a real puzzler for those pioneer children who sang as they walked and walked and walked and walked (and walked).

My point is not that gyms are bad or that exercise needs to be productive.  My point is that it is odd that we use the term “fitness” to describe a goal without really identifying what a physically fit body is fit to do.  I don’t have a good answer for the fitness question.  I’m not even sure that fitness for any purpose should be the highest virtue toward which we should strive in our relationships with our bodies.  But I do think that grappling with this question and not taking fitness for granted might help us to be less abstracted in the ways we approach our bodies.

Now, I haven’t looked at the scriptures with this specific question in mind.  Maybe some of you have some light to shed in this regard.  However, the one scripture-like line that has kept coming to my mind is from the hymn “More Holiness Give Me,” in which the supplicant pleads to become “more fit for the kingdom.”  I’m fairly confident that fitness for the kingdom goes well beyond any kind of physical fitness, but perhaps it does not exclude a sort of stewardship that we have for our bodies.  It leaves me wondering how I might be physically fit for the kingdom.  How might the way I use my body make me fit to love and serve others?  How might it make me fit to enter the celestial kingdom?  Like I said before, I don’t have many answers here, but I like the questions.

Email a friend

Just a few thoughts from my reading the accounts of the resurrected Christ to his followers.

In three visitations, Christ was not recognized at first: (a) the visitation to Mary at the empty tomb, (b) the extended journey with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, (c) and the appearance on the shore while Peter and the disciples were fishing.

I think it can be profitable to point out what happened before His followers recognized Him. For Mary, it was after he called her by name. For the two disciples, it was when he blessed and broke bread. For the fisherman, it was after they, following His instructions, pulled in their net overflowing with fish.

Perhaps these stories can be analogous to our lives, in terms of recognizing the Savior’s presence and influence. When we feel that Christ knows us personally and calls us by name; when we partake of the sacrament and renew covenants with God in His name; and when, following His instructions, we are successful beyond our wildest dreams in building His Kingdom — in these circumstances, we see Christ for who He really is.

Email a friend

We had another great General Conference! Some of the dominant themes were faith and endurance amidst trials, temple worship, and unselfish service. Here are some highlights, with some of my own thoughts (and at least one soap box.)

Saturday Morning:

• Elder Hales gave excellent advice about budgeting. We need to say more often, either “We can’t afford it, even though we want it,” or “We can afford it, but we really don’t need it.” I liked the example he gave about wanting to give his wife a nice coat for their anniversary but she didn’t like the idea. “Where would I wear it?” she asked, concerned for what it would mean to some poorer sisters in the ward. I think that there might be some good that comes from the recent economic crisis, in that it may shake us out of our sense of entitlement and our feeling like we need everything under the sun.
• Elder Eyring spoke about handling adversity. “We must be transformed through making righteous choices where that is hard to do.”

Saturday Afternoon:

• Elder Ballard talked about learning from the past mistakes of others, particularly the pride that comes from forgetting God. “Some of life’s most meaningful teachings come from those who have gone before you,” he said. I like this approach because I think that one of the major reasons for the recent economic crisis is because we as a people are disconnected from the wisdom of those who have gone before. We don’t want to listen to our parents and grandparents who would tell us that money doesn’t grow on trees.
• Elder Cook gave a very interesting talk. I don’t remember now everything he talked about, but I appreciated his remarks on the Latter-day Saint view of salvation and how it compares with the other Christian notions of the day in which the majority of the world would be consigned to eternal hell-fire. I wonder how much we as a church do not emphasize enough the near-universal salvation in our theology. I think we too often see anything but the Celestial Kingdom as hell, which is not scriptural and I think is rooted perhaps in an unrighteous desire to continue to have a heaven/hell dichotomy. Although we should definitely strive at eternal life in the Celestial Kingdom, let us not let this keep us from rejoicing at the power and mercy of Jesus Christ, who redeems all the work of His hands! This is good news!
• Elder Scott gave a nice talk on temple worship. He counseled us to understand the doctrine related to temple ordinances, especially the Atonement of Jesus Christ, our relationship to Christ, and Christ’s relationship to the Father. I like what he said about removing your watch in the temple. I’ve been thinking lately about how the temple is a sacred space that operates by “higher time,” so to speak. When we worship in the temple, we transcend this world and enter into a higher realm. In doing so, we leave behind trivial cares of the world.

Priesthood Session

• I was struck by Bishop Edgley’s talk. He talked about the need for quorums, especially in the months and years ahead, to do more in terms of helping unemployed members. He said that probably every quorum in the Church, regardless of professional experience, likely has the experience, skills, and insights that are necessary in this regard. (I was reminded that I should tell my bishop about my resume writing skills.)
• President Uchtdorf joked about how he was looking for a story to tell, and he thought of farming stories, stories about animals, nuclear physics stories (in honor of Elder Scott), and pigeon stories (in honor of President Hinckley), but the story he ended up with is — you guessed it — aviation. He talked about an airplane that crashed at night in the Florida Everglades as a result of the pilots’ preoccupation with a warning light that didn’t turn on — when the only problem, it turned out, was that the bulb was burned out. He used this story to warn us against distractions, counseling us to be more like Nehemiah: “I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down [to engage in petty matters].” What could be accomplished if we were all like Nehemiah? President Uchtdorf asked. I’ve thought about this lately in terms of the Internet. Lately I have spent much less time on the Internet and I am very grateful. I am worried about many of my friends. Internet addiction is a real problem, people! Perhaps some people even reading this post should be doing more important things. If this is you, then stop reading now. Get on with your life. Do you really need to check your email as many times as you do? Do you really need to update your Facebook status 12 times a day? Surely there are better things to do! Is it possible that Internet distractions keep the still, small voice from penetrating into our hearts? (I really don’t mean to offend here — but this is something that I personally have struggled with, and am recuperating from, and I hate to see others get sucked into mindless Internet addiction. Soap box over.)

Sunday Morning:

• I just really like President Uchtdorf’s talks. I especially like when he moves from a quiet to a really loud voice, especially considering his accent. In this talk he spoke of the problem with “spectator discipleship.” It’s one thing to know the gospel in theory, it’s quite another to practice it. An important reminder for people like me.
• I don’t remember much from the talk of newly-called apostle Elder Neil Andersen. I will say though that I like Elder Andersen a lot. I appreciated it when he visited my mission several years ago, and I also really liked the devotional he gave at BYU a few years back. He spoke of the problems with liberal individualism (a problem that many Church members buy into).
• Elder Holland gave a wonderful talk on the Savior’s atoning sacrifice. I won’t do it justice with any commentary.
• President Monson counseled not to focus on the problems of the world, but on the blessings of the gospel. He reminded us of past Saints who have faced tremendous challenges and who have prevailed in Christ. As usual, nice stories. The closing hymn of this session was fitting: “When dark clouds of trouble hang o’er us and threaten our peace to destroy, there is hope smiling brightly before us and we know that deliverance is nigh.”

Sunday Afternoon

• What an awesome talk by Elder Oaks! He spoke of selfless service, especially through temple service and raising children. He spoke of temple work having no other motive than love and service for our fellow men, both living and dead. He also said that the gap between those who are willing to have children and those who are not is widening. I think this is very scary, for reasons beyond the need for spirits to come to earth. When married people are able but not willing to have children, they voluntarily cut themselves off from the “circle of life,” so to speak. By being disconnected in this way, people lose the lessons of the past (hearkening back to Elder Hales’ and Elder Ballard’s talks). Elder Oaks said further that we cannot walk, talk, or do as other men, in terms of “every trendy action.” (Perhaps this is an interesting way to talk about our not drinking coffee.) He castigated the “me generation”–our generation with its sense of entitlement, its consumerism, its “something for nothing” mentality. Finally, he talked about our need to have more selfless attitudes in regard to our church attendance. We should stop thinking about what “I” should get out of Church, and to think rather in terms of how we can serve.
• I really like Elder Bednar’s talks, and this talk on temple worship was no exception. Bednar says that we take upon ourselves the name of Christ in a more full and complete way when we make covenants in the temple. There is a difference between those members who faithfully and consistently worship in the temple, versus those who do not or those who go haphazardly and hurriedly.
• Elder Gary E. Stevenson’s talk went along nicely with Elder Bednar’s. He spoke of the “righteous unity between the temple and the home.”
• President Monson closed the conference with a warning against adversity (especially through the Internet and pornography) and requested that we remember him and all the general authorities in our prayers.

I love to ponder, learn, share, and discuss.  I love when people challenge my beliefs in a way that stretches me to seek more deeply for understanding and helps me gain a greater vision of the possibilities and the truth.

I have always been this way and I know it is part of why I discovered the gospel of Jesus Christ and joined His Church.  If I did not desire truth and was not willing to change my mind about things, even things I deeply clung to, I would not be a member of the Church and I would not have the life I live today.

So, I appreciate when people share ideas and challenge each others’ understanding.  I think it is so valuable and so important.  I believe it to be necessary to truly become a Zion people.

Yet, there are some dangers that we need to keep in mind and be aware of:

1.  In looking at things intellectually we can sometimes lose the power of the simple, profound truths.

2.  In critically examining our own lives and ideas we can easily stray to criticizing and condemning others.

3.  This can lead to our own brand of self-righteousness.

4.  When we typify members of the Church in our thought and speech we are creating “-ites.”  As we exalt the -ites we identify ourselves with and put down the -ites we consider “others,” we are building walls that separate us from one another and greatly diminish our power to influence each other for good.

I have seen this happen to me.  I come from a very different world than many of my peers here in this Provo/BYU world.  As a convert I have a different culture than the norm deeply ingrained in me.  I treasure the perspective I have because of my variety of experience in culture and crowd.  I am proud of where I come from and who I am–as I would hope we would all feel.

I transferred from UC Berkeley to BYU while I was on my mission.  (I had joined the Church after my first year at Cal. ) Talk about the CULTURE SHOCK of a lifetime.  Even greater than from California to Portugal perhaps because I wasn’t so prepared for the differences.

I will write later about some of my experiences and the struggles I had and still have with the adjustment from regular person to Mormon and Northern California to Utah.  My worlds clashed and it’s still hard to figure out who I really am sometimes.

But what I want to share right now is that I have seen my tendency to judge and criticize a culture that is foreign to me.  I was enchanted by the differences in culture I experienced when I lived in South America and also in Portugal on my mission.  I treasured the people I met for who they were and rejoiced in the variety of God’s children.

Then I came to Utah to go to BYU.  I had the expectations of a convert of only a few years and of a very newly returned missionary.  My idealistic assumptions didn’t take long to come crashing down upon me.  It hurt.  It was disappointing.  It was confusing.  Probably mostly because I just wasn’t prepared for it and it caught me off guard.

I felt alone and different and wondered often who I really was.  In my insecurity and confusion I learned to condemn that which I wasn’t used to.  I handled the disillusionment by judging and criticizing a culture that was different from my own.  I created -ites in my mind and looked somewhat hopelessly to find my own -ites in this new world.

My point for now: Can we find a way to look at ourselves closely and honestly and yet not create -ites and not become self-righteous, even in our disdain for those we consider self-righteous?  Is there a way to humbly approach the truth without mocking each other?

Can we look at things and think carefully and critically and yet not stray from the simple gospel truths that bring joy and are a foundation for all truth?  Can we develop our intellect and yet keep our hearts involved in our search for truth?

Can we be confident in that which we have learned and yet still always feel and know that God knows more and trust Him wholeheartedly, even when we don’t understand?

Can we strive to understand and yet lean not unto our own understanding?

Email a friend

Things are quiet on the blog lately, so I figure it’s a good chance to make an appearance. Perhaps few people will read this entry and then I can likely avoid being blacklisted.

I applied to teach at Messiah College in Pennsylvania recently and part of the application was affirming the Apostles’ Creed. I affirmed the Apostles’ Creed, and I did so because I agreed with all the statements that were made within the creed. However, after having done so, I couldn’t help but recall the words of Joseph Smith when discussing his First Vision: “the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight” (JS-H 1:19).

This of course made me a little uncomfortable with my decision to affirm the Apostles’ Creed. I could affirm that I believed every statement within the creed (even the statement “I believe in the holy catholic church”) with good conscience, so why should I be uncomfortable?

This experience brought me back to another problem I have been struggling with recently: the idea of the Trinity. I probably know little about the idea of the Trinitarian God, but what I know about it, I kind of like. But I’ve been taught since youth that we (Mormons) don’t believe in that God. In fact, that’s why we aren’t Christian, according to other Christians. But I kind of believe in the Trinitarian notion, even though I also believe that God and Christ each have a body. In fact, I think Mormons have a lot to learn from the Trinitarian notion of God – knowledge we’ve sorely lacked because we have “affirmed” the opposite for many years.

Today I came across a Joseph Smith quote that helped assuage my conscience and helped me re-reconcile myself with my Mormon faith. He said:

The most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.

The way I read Joseph Smith in this quote and the above is that creeds are an abomination not because they are incorrect, but because they limit our view of the Truth, and that’s never a good thing. So it may be (may be) that I am right to believe everything contained in the creed because it could all be true. I just need to be willing to “affirm” that other things might also be true not contained within the creed. And that’s easy, because I do.

So I’m back to being comfortable with my decision to affirm the Apostles’ Creed, but in the future I ought to indicate that, in doing so, I reserve the right to also believe other things not contained in the creed. I don’t think I’ll be telling that to Messiah College, though – they didn’t want to hire me anyway.

Email a friend

“Can you be a good Mormon and want to be a millionaire?”

This question, or something very much like it, was posed in my Sunday School class last week. I think the very question says something interesting about the asker, but since my short answer (“No”) would not have gone over terribly well, and my longer and more justified answer would’ve taken over the lesson, I thought a blog entry might be a good place to explore the issue.

In looking at all the topical guide references to “riches,” I can’t find a single one that talks about earthly wealth in a positive way. Some may be considered neutral, such as (1 Kgs. 10: 23 , 2 Chr. 9: 22) “Solomon exceeded all . . . for riches,” and so forth. But the vast majority seem pretty pejorative.

What’s the big deal?

The scripture about not serving two masters (Luke 16: 9, 11, 13) is particularly potent. Mammon of course literally means “riches” of the earthly, temporal kind. The story of the rich young, would be disciple (Luke 18: 22-27) re-emphasizes the point.* Earthly riches and the kingdom of God just can’t seem to go together; they’re like repelling magnetic poles.

The greatest contempt in the scriptures is the love, desire, and seeking for riches. Powerful passages include: D&C 56: 16 (those who don’t give to the poor will say “my soul is not saved.”), D&C 68: 31 (the Lord condemns greed), D&C 6: 7 (don’t seek them, eternal riches are more important anyway), 3 Ne. 6: 12, 15 (seeking wealth is the cause of their great iniquity), Alma 7: 6 (setting hearts upon riches equates with idolatry), Mosiah 12: 29 (riches equated with whoredoms), Jacob 2 (very abominable sin is seeking riches and pridefully keeping them).

In fairness to my Sunday School class, the members were pretty good about emphasizing this point – that “The love of money is the root of all evil” (emphasis added, generally by those seeking to justify wealth). We’re generally good about understanding we shouldn’t seek it – certainly not with pride or to have more than someone else – but is there still a way to be good and be rich? Maybe our question is “Can I be a millionaire and a good Latter-day Saint?”

Is it OK to have money?

Gordon B. Hinckley shared this Brigham Young Quote:

Brigham Young went on to say on that occasion:

It is our duty to preach the gospel, gather Israel, pay our tithing, and build temples. The worst fear that I have about this people is that they will get rich in this country, forget God and his people, wax fat, and kick themselves out of the Church and go to hell. This people will stand mobbing, robbing, poverty and all manner of persecution, and be true. It my greater fear for them is that they cannot stand wealth; and yet they have to be tried with riches, for they will become the richest people on this earth. [Nibley, Brigham Young, p. 128]

To which I can hear many of you say, “Hasten the day.” Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled – Gordon B. Hinckley

It seems that whether we like it or not, whether or not it is “OK,” the saints are going to have money. So given that we have it, but that desiring it (saying “Hasten the day” or with Tevye, “May the Lord smite me with [this curse]”) is bad, what should we do?

“Surely, you’re not suggesting I give everything I own away?” This seems to be the natural question asked incredulously when ever someone mentions taking the scriptures on riches seriously (i.e. Jacob and King Benjamin’s sermons in addition to the New Testament passages). I think that the story of the rich young would-be disciple is instructive. He didn’t ask that question; he knew the answer, he just didn’t like it. After telling us that we have no excuse to deny the beggar (especially if we blame the victim), King Benjamin counsels us to do all things in “wisdom and order.” While this is a wise balancing point, I have never met a Latter-day Saint who was ever at risk for giving too much of their money to the poor. King Benjamin’s remarks lead me think that it is theoretically possible, but in my practical experience, I have never witnessed it.

In that vein, I am suggesting that we give away every material possession. I suggest that we give it to the Lord and put our trust in Him to take care of us as He promised. While there is no earthly institution authorized to receive this consecration, that does not obviate our responsibility to live that law. We can consecrate all our earthly possessions and even our selves, now, to God and then act as faithful stewards in dispensing them as He sees fit. Does He want us to give a double fast offering? He’ll let us know (maybe He has). Does He want me to spend enough money to feed several families on college tuition? In my case, yes. Does He want us to buy a million-dollar home? I’d be surprised, but I’m not going to tell God what He can and can’t do with His money. But the point is that it is His. Consecration is simply acknowledging that and being honest with His stuff. If I want to be a good Latter-day Saint, I can’t be a millionaire – God’s the millionaire. But if I’m the steward, I better use it as He would have me use it.

* Handy Nibley refrence on the “Eye of a Needle” not being a Jerusalem gate:

The disciples marveled greatly at this, for they had never heard of that convenient postern gate, invented by an obliging nineteenth-century minister for the comfort of his well-heeled congregation—the ancient sources knew nothing of that gate, and neither did the baffled apostles. That is another “para-scripture.”  (Approaching Zion, Deseret Book, p. 168-170)

and a lighter reference: http://snltranscripts.jt.org/96/96cheyward.phtml

Email a friend

I received the following report in an email newsletter from my friend Don Jarvis (quoted with his permission):

A senior LDS apostle recently told Provoans that “We need to pray for our new president, regardless of party affliction, I mean, affiliation.”  Speaking on January 25^th in the Provo Tabernacle at the conclusion of an Oak Hills (east Provo) Stake Conference, Apostle M. Russell Ballard spoke warmly of the inauguration, read excerpts from President Obama’s inaugural address, advised members to read it, and said, “I like his emphasis on personal responsibility.”  The audience chuckled at the “affliction” slip, but was otherwise unusually hushed and attentive as Elder Ballard voiced his strong support for our the new Democratic President.  

Afterwards, I thanked Elder Ballard for his positive report and noted its difference from the angry criticism broadcast daily by KSL’s afternoon talk radio.  Elder Ballard simply answered, “Well, he’s our president and we need to support him.” 

A front page article in the Deseret News of 22 January quoted Elder Ballard as saying, “I left with a feeling that the people of America are going to unite behind this new president and his administration and that we need to pray for him,” … “We need to exercise our prayers and help him accomplish the great objectives that he has set.”

However Latter-day Saints feel about President Obama, I hope that we can take Elder Ballard’s counsel seriously. Moreover, I hope that we can follow the example of the Brethren in the civil and respectful way they speak about him and this new administration. In general, I actually have been quite pleased with my fellow Latter-day Saints in this regard.

Don added,

Last year several of us Utah County Democratic candidates met with three different LDS general authorities. They all reaffirmed the Church’s basic neutrality, advised us to list our Church experience in campaign literature, ridiculed the notion that good Mormons could not be Democrats, and expressed a wish for better balance in Utah politics.

Email a friend

I’m going to say what many Latter-day Saints are thinking, but some are afraid to say: Sunday School is often mediocre.

I really don’t wish to gripe. I definitely realize that each person — teachers and students — need to do their part. I also recognize that most teachers try hard and take their callings seriously. But certainly Sunday School doesn’t have to be the mind-numbing chore that it seems to be for many members. We can do much better!

In this post, I offer ten simple tips that could radically improve Sunday School lessons. (Yes, I will be that bold.) These tips are simply suggestions from myself, a Latter-day Saint who has done a fair amount of teaching and thinking about this issue. They can be applied by virtually anyone, in my opinion.

I should mention at the outset that what is most important, of course, is to teach and prepare with the Spirit. But any vague platitude I could offer about this is probably not going to be terribly useful. Rather, I discuss a few practical tips that, I believe, can help facilitate the Spirit to work powerfully and effectively through your teaching.

1. Consider why people come to church. What is the purpose of church attendance? Of Sunday School? Is it learn a bunch of facts? To get through a bunch of talks and lessons (just for kicks)? Most Latter-day Saints would probably say no. Rather, most people come to church, I believe, to commune with others in meaningful ways and to receive peace and healing. Thus, a Sunday School lesson should be tailored towards these ends. 

2. Realize that your students are not blank slates. Many Sunday School teachers act as if they need to “cover the material” in a way that doesn’t even reflect what those in their class already know. At my student married ward at BYU, for example, nearly all (or almost all) of us have read from the scriptures repeatedly and have received years of formal instruction about them. And yet teachers feel the need to cover everything, often going to great lengths to summarize something that everyone already knows. What’s the point?

I recommend that teachers assume that the class has read the scriptural material. This will motivate students to read before class — but even if they haven’t, they likely have read it before.

3. Don’t ask obvious questions. Recalling information from text is a third-grade skill. Third grade! Don’t insult your class’s intelligence by asking them “what happened” in a verse you’ve just read together. There are much better ways to spend your time, aren’t there? If you do wish to point out something specific, it’s often best for you to just say it rather than making the class play an annoying round of “guess what the teacher is thinking.” Save class participation for insightful discussion, not mindless generation of facts.

4. Dive right in. Go immediately to what you think is the most interesting / inspiring/ thought-provoking part of the lesson. This will help start class on the right foot, and also will ensure that you discuss the best stuff before time runs out.

5. Plan specific questions for generating sustained, meaningful discussion. Whenever I sit in on a good Sunday School or Priesthood lesson, I ask myself: “Why was this a good lesson?” Almost always, one of the answers is, “Because there was lots of meaningful class discussion.”

Prayerfully consider a few questions (probably no more than two or three) for the class to discuss. These questions should not be for the purpose of generating lists (”What things should we avoid doing on the Sabbath Day?”) — sometimes these questions are useful but hardly sufficient — but rather should get the class thinking and discussing about living the gospel in a messy world (”Why is it sometimes difficult to pray?”). There doesn’t need to be a simple answer to these questions (and often won’t be); rather, this process is meant to be spiritually-uplifting, meaningful, and therapeutic for the class. From my experience, there are few better ways to “bring in the Spirit” than to have class members discuss living the gospel in a way that moves beyond “the Sunday School answers” (more on this below).

6. But don’t let discussions get out of hand. A good teacher is able to facilitate discussions well. Sometimes this means stepping back a little, but often discussions require a little steering (steering away from non-edifying controversies or trivia, for example). Don’t be afraid to move on even if there are some hands raised. But sometimes, when the Spirit is very strong, it is best to continue with the discussion. Who cares what else you have planned! In these cases, we should be like John the Baptist (speaking of the Savior): “He must increase and I must decrease.”

7. Ask follow-up questions. The “Sunday School answers” (”read your scriptures, go to church, say your prayers”) are not the right answers! Or at least not sufficient ones. Get students thinking more deeply. For example, if someone answers “pray” to a question about avoiding temptation,” ask a follow-up question. “Why do you think prayer would be helpful?” or “Can you think of an experience when this was helpful to you?”

8. Share specific testimonies throughout the lesson.  Of course, it’s fine to share your testimony at the end of the lesson. But I have found myself teaching when the Spirit prompts me to testify of something specific in the middle, or even the beginning, of the lesson. Sometimes this is planned, sometimes not. But in every case, it is powerful. Try it — I think you’ll like it. But try to be specific, and don’t be afraid to move away from the “I know” template if necessary.

9. Call on class members by their names. If you don’t know someone’s name, ask them (and try to remember). This makes such a difference, from my experience.

10. Be excited to teach. If you’re not, try your best to be, and don’t make remarks (however humorous) about how it’s a bummer you have to teach (like you hear so often in sacrament meeting talks). Would you want to sit through a lesson from an apathetic teacher?

Stay tuned for Part Two …

Email a friend

This is the second of a series of short posts entitled “Meditations on Time.” In this series I will explore some of my thoughts and experiences concerning time and the gospel.

In my previous post, I talked about my childhood fear of living forever. As a young boy, I thought that living forever would be boring and even frightening. I concluded that I would simply live in the present and not worry too much about it.

What I’m aiming to do in this series is to discuss why this childhood view — simply live in the present — is problematic.

I know it’s a couple days after Christmas, but I would like to briefly talk about Ebenezer Scrooge’s resolution at the end of A Christmas Carol. After being shown his tombstone by the Ghost of Christmas Future, Scrooge pleas:

I will honor Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I will live in the Past, the Present, and the Future. The Spirits of all Three shall strive within me. I will not shut out the lessons that they teach.

Scrooge’s problem, prior to his conversion, was that he was shut out from his past (e.g., Fezziwig’s kindness to his employees, his boyhood love) and his future (e.g., his inevitable death, as well as Tiny Tim’s). Because of this, he also was not truly living in the present — he was blind to Cratchitt’s blinding poverty and how he had alienated his nephew. Rather, Scrooge’s life was a disconnected, alienated one. Alienated from the past and future, Scrooge likewise was alienated from the persons of his past and future. Especially himself. Instead, Scrooge distracted himself from these deeper existential and relational matters. Life became a lonely, meaningless struggle for more and more money.

One thing that is remarkable about A Christmas Carol is how frightened Scrooge is when he sees his tombstone. I remember watching  Disney’s rendition of the story as a child, and thinking about how ridiculous it is for Scrooge to be horrified at the sight of his grave. He is an old man (er, duck), after all. Surely he knows that the future holds death for him.

I’ve come to realize, however, that although Scrooge had an intellectual awareness of his impending death (as we all do), he was not truly living with his death in front of him. Instead, he repressed his own death and went about his day-to-day affairs as if death was not in the picture. This repression was necessary for him to continue with his meaningless, single-minded goal of accumulating wealth that you can’t take with you.

Interestingly, people often find that they truly live — sometimes for the first time — when death is very near. Irvin Yalom, the existentialist psychotherapist and psychiatrist, noticed this when he was working with terminal cancer patients. Many of these patients reported that it was only in the wake of impending death that they truly saw what was most important. An analogous example of this is my last month of high school, in which many of us — with the “death” of our high school existence and relationships in front of us — became friends for the first time. People who had previously been isolated in their various cliques began to toss old social norms to the wind. “If only we had become friends earlier” became a common refrain. Perhaps the very thing that kept us from being friends was the repression of the termination of our relationships.

Of course, living in the past, present, and the future is not simply a cognitive mental exercise. Rather, it is a way of being — a way of seeing the world and relating to others. A way of seeing ourselves and our relationship to God. It is, really, a way of always remembering Jesus Christ — truly living with Him in remembrance, including His past (e.g., His mortal life and sacrifice), His present (e.g., His leadership over His Church and involvement in our lives), and His future (e.g., His Second Coming and Millennial reign and final judgment).

But to truly flesh out this way of being — well, that is the point of this entire series.

Stay tuned…

Email a friend

This is the first of a series of short posts entitled “Meditations on Time.” In this series I will explore some of my thoughts and experiences concerning time and the gospel.

Living forever hasn’t always been a pleasant thought for me.

I still remember when the notion of living forever first dawned on me. I was probably 4 or 5 years old. Prior to this time, I had believed in life after death, but I never had really thought about what that would be like. I remember having some kind of conversation with my older sister, and she said something about how in the next life time never ends. That idea was so foreign, I couldn’t even begin to fathom it. I asked my mom if this were really true, and she said it was. When I expressed that it sounded so weird to me, my mom replied, “Well, wouldn’t it be weirder if your life just suddenly ended?” I had to admit that I of course didn’t like that outcome either.

Therein was my dilemma. Both possible outcomes — living forever and ceasing to exist — frightened me.

I can still remember burying my head in the seat of my dad’s recliner and contemplating the deepness of eternity. “What would it be like to have one day … followed by another day … and another day … and another day … forever? I was going to go crazy!”

“Wouldn’t we get bored?” I protested. Mom answered by saying we’d be making worlds — how would that be boring?

Well, of course it won’t be boring at first. But forever? Even Disneyland would be boring forever!

Around this same time, the idea of having no beginning also began to sink in. This idea, of course, also made no sense. But — I could handle it because it was all in the past and I couldn’t remember it anyway.

Maybe that’s the key, I thought. Maybe there’s a way to live forever but without the dauntingness of forever before you. Maybe life is a continual series of reincarnations or something. Maybe after this life there will be another veil and future experiences like mortality with clearly defined ends. I think I could handle that.

But maybe there’s not. Probably not. The reincarnation idea didn’t really jive with what I knew about the plan of salvation.

I resolved that I just wasn’t going to think about it. I was just going to live in the present and wait until after this life to worry about the burden of eternity.

Let’s just hope I live a long time, I thought.

To be continued …

Email a friend

Since the passage of Proposition 8 in California, there have been several protests aimed at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These protests are of course understandable. California Latter-day Saints did, after all, play a formidable role in donations and phone calling in support of the measure. This participation was formally encouraged by the general leaders of the Church in Salt Lake City. Considering how big of a deal this is for so many same-sex couples and others in support of same-sex marriage, these protests are inevitable and I welcome this exercise of free speech.

What I disagree with, however, is the “stop the hate (H8)” rhetoric. As if everyone in favor of Prop 8 is hateful and bigoted. Especially Mormons. This message is coming off to be awfully disingenuous and overly dramatic, and also sidesteps the major issues that need to be debated. Just because someone is not in favor of gay marriage does not mean they are hateful. Nor does it mean they are bigoted. They simply disagree with you, in terms of what should count for marriage.

I recognize that there certainly are hateful people. I have seen hate on both sides. Still, I think that most supporters and opponents of Prop 8 do not hate each other nor are they bigoted. For this reason, I hope that we can extend the same-sex marriage debate to a higher plane.

I fully recognize that there have been a lot of stupid arguments and accusations made on both sides of the debate. You’re not going to hear me talk about what social science research has shown (a hopeless argument on both sides, if you ask me, and one that ought to be irrelevant to civil rights concerns). I hope that both sides can recognize, though, that hate does not justify hate. If the message of same-sex marriage advocates really is “what the world needs now is love sweet love,” then I would hope that they would stop making demons out of those who disagree with them. In fact, Barack Obama (who I voted for, as well as a whole lot of Prop 8 supporters) is a great example in this regard — Obama would advocate for us speaking about the issues and not resorting to name calling.

In addition to avoiding demonizing, I would hope that people on both sides will drop their straw man fallacies. I want to focus in this post on a few straw man arguments that are continually made by Prop 8 protesters. I welcome respectful dialogue about these issues — and I will exercise my right to discriminate against straw man arguments and ad hominen attacks (from both sides).

My major contention is that many Prop 8 protesters want to have an “equality for all” rhetoric but continue to eat a marriage philosophy that inherently discriminates.

Let’s be clear that almost everyone is in favor of discrimination in terms of marriage. I haven’t ran into a lot of people who will admit being in favor of siblings marrying, for example. Or even cousins marrying. Or groups of three or more. (I’ll simply set adult-minor relationships aside.)

Here are my questions to opponents of Prop 8: Is it conceivable that two siblings could love each other and want to marry? Is it conceivable that their love is just as genuine as the love between two gays or lesbians? If so, then does it mean that an opposition to their being legally married is hateful and bigoted?

You might say, of course, that this example is too extreme — how many siblings want to marry each other? But prevalence is irrelevant in regards to civil rights arguments (which Prop 8 opponents are making). Moreover, I could make the same argument for polygamous relationships, which are quite prevalent.

You might argue that such relationships are unnatural or a crime, or even question that such love could genuinely exist. Here, though, you would be guilty of the same kind of judgments that have been made throughout the years towards lesbian and gay relationships. Would this make you a bigot? Bigotry does not depend on the existence of clearly identified and politically dexterous groups of people.

You might argue that a sibling-sibling marriage is clearly not good for society — you could perhaps make an argument concerning birth defects. Again, these arguments are irrelevant to civil rights concerns. Moreover, these arguments do not pertain to same-sex sibling partners or to those who are unable or unwilling to have biological children (an argument that gays and lesbians ought to be sensitive to).

Or, perhaps, you might argue that we ought not discriminate against two siblings who want to marry. If this is the case, then this betrays the fact that there is much more behind the Prop 8 debate then discrimination towards same-sex relationships. Rather, it is a question of whether there ought to be discrimination at all in terms of marriage. If Prop 8 protesters think there should not be any discrimination whatsoever, then they are being disingenuous about their desire to radically change the meaning of marriage — to the point that it becomes nothing more than a social contract between two or more adults who want to live with each other for any reason.

The merits of this radical change, I would argue, are certainly worthy of debate. Perhaps our nation will decide to go down this path. But it’s not a civil rights debate. Rather, it is a debate about the fundamental meaning of marriage — and its consequences certainly will impact everyone. I see these potential consequences, not hate or bigotry, as a reason for why many are in support of Prop 8. They believe that this fundamental change of marriage will destroy the family as we know it. It might not harm current families, but it certainly will change the way many of our children and their children view what marriage is. Prop 8 opponents might argue that these issues will have to be taken one step at a time. This may be true, but it is naive to think that voters are not going to be thinking down the road.

If opponents of Prop 8 think that the legalization of same-sex marriage will not change marriage in this way, then that is an argument I welcome them to engage me with. And not only me and other Mormons — but other groups of people like many African-Americans and Hispanics (who, unlike Mormons, it is not politically correct to make scapegoats out of).

Hopefully we can have this debate without demonizing each other.

Email a friend

I hear the word “objective” used fairly often. I’ve heard it at home, at the university, at work, and even at church on occasion. One thing I think we fail to appreciate is that this word can have several different meanings and that some of these meanings may convey more philosophical baggage than we might know.

Although there may be more ways to use the word, I’ve decided to deal specifically with two ways I hear the word “objective” used daily.

First, people use the word “objective” as a noun to indicate a focus or goal.

“Our primary objective was to bake cookies for those who were unable to attend church this week.”

I have no problems with this use of “objective”.

A second way that “objective” is used is to distinguish objective “facts” from subjective opinions. The idea is that there are some things that are transparent, known, uninterpreted facts.

“From the scriptures we can learn objective truths like the fact that God knows the future.”

I do have a problem with this usage. I don’t think that we fully understand all of the philosophical baggage associated with using the term in this way. The subjective/objective distinction can be traced back to the philosophies of Kant and Plato. Kant described the world in terms of phenomena, (”things-as-they-appear-to-be”) and noumena, (”things-as-they-are-in-themselves”). Of course, being unable to escape our own particular perspectives, we are only able to see things as they appear to us. Philosophers have suggested different ways for us to get past this problem. The current popular belief is that modern science is able to bridge this gap and consequently allow us to distinguish between facts and opinions. Usually accompanying this idea is the belief that such objective knowledge is superior to mere subjective opinion in nearly every conceivable way (not that this argument is actually articulated–it is merely assumed).

However, not everyone believes that science works in this way. Notable scientists and philosophers such as Thomas Kuhn and Richard Rorty have argued against the belief that science uncovers objective truth. The problem comes when we draw an arbitrary line for what counts as fact and what counts as opinion. We know the line is arbitrary because it was an opinion as to where the line should be drawn–not a fact…but I digress. We ought to do our best to see this word replaced with a more accurate term. The word “rigorous” comes to mind. To revise our example sentence (above), I suggest simply removing all of the objective-style language. I think you’ll agree that the meaning is not only left intact, but expressed more clearly. “From the scriptures we can learn about God.”

There are several reasons Latter-day-saints in particular might want to abandon the second use of “objective.” One, it is often used to overstate the verity of a particular point of view over which there is not necessarily doctrinal consensus. For example, I have heard use of the word “objective” in describing both the “fact” that God definitely knows right now whether I will end up in heaven or not and the “fact” that He absolutely does not know where any of us will end up. If we are being honest with ourselves, the use of the word “objective” doesn’t actually add anything to the conversation, it is simply serving as a pseudo-superlative to truth. It is almost like we are saying, “this truth is the truthiest truth of all truths—its objective!”

A second (and more important) reason Latter-day Saints might want to change this vocabulary is to avoid connecting the church to the worldview of modern science. Members of the church often identify with the great inventions of current and past years. This identification is, perhaps, warranted by our understanding of Jesus Christ as the source of truth and light. Great people of the past did the best they could with the light that they had and we honor them. Sometimes modern scientists look at the world with similar glasses. To them, previous philosophers and scientists all worked toward the building of what has become the perfect method—the modern scientific method. To such scientists, all of the tools have been developed for man to discover all of the objective truths out there. Nothing else is necessary. While church members might identify with this perspective because of the similar way in which we view the importance of continuing revelation, science is not necessarily revelation. I would like to remind us all that science is an institution of man. It is an “arm of flesh” so to speak. It is undoubtedly flawed just as each of us mortal beings are undoubtedly flawed. Problems have been found and will continue to be found with modern science and the scientific method. Why should God’s church buy into their terminology and ideas? Why should we mingle their philosophies with ours? We have nothing to gain from the adoption of scientific philosophy and plenty to lose. If we aren’t interested in such an adoption, why adopt the terminology (and, consequently, the dualistic philosophy)?

Email a friend

Like most things in life, this election is bittersweet.

I’m happy Obama won.

I’m sad that so many of my friends and family members are, well, not so happy.

I’m happy that so many people across this country have brighter hopes for America and for the future.

I’m sad for those who think that the end is near.

I’m happy that McCain conceded graciously.

I’m sad to longer see Tina Fey’s impersonations of Sarah Palin.

I’m happy that (as of now) “Yes” on Proposition 8 in California won (and that similar initiatives passed in Arizona and Florida).

I’m sad that this issue has been so divisive among members of the Church and others, especially in California.

(I’m really sad about my liberal friends who think this is a fairly straightforward civil rights issue.* And I’m saddened when I think of further turmoil concerning this issue.)

I’m happy that the Utah County Democrats put together such a fine group of candidates this year.

I’m sad that a majority of my fellow citizens in Utah County are still mindlessly voting straight-Republican — not realizing how much better matched the Utah County Democrats are for their values.

I’m happy that the Democrats did not achieve their filibuster-proof majority of 60 senators.

I’m sad that Utahns decided to disgrace the U.S. House of Representatives by electing a hyper-conservative who wants to house illegal immigrants in prison tents (Jason Chaffetz).

(And that Alaskans would elect a convicted felon to the U.S. Senate.)

I’m happy that this crazy guy only received 3% of the popular vote for Utah governor.

I’m sad that there are 22,157 people roaming the streets of Utah who voted for him.

I’m happy that many people who prayed that Obama wouldn’t be president, will be praying for him now that he will be president.

I’m sad that some people would rather fantasize about his assassination.

And I’m definitely happy the election is over.

–

*I do think that an argument can be made for gay marriage. But the equality argument is a fallacious bludgeon that creates a straw man out of opponents to gay marriage. At any rate, the issue is more nuanced than mere equality vs. discrimination. Unless of course you are in favor of cousins and siblings marrying. And groups of 3 or more. And single people having the same benefits as married people (somehow). If not, then you are in favor of discrimination in terms of what groups (not individuals) can marry.

Email a friend