Not Very Useful Truths

Can It Be Fixed?

2012-02-14T08:53:25-08:00

Much chatter, always but especially now that the Mormon Moment is pushing the issue, chatter regarding how, and if the church can fix itself. Certainly I realize the church does not see itself as broken, but with regards to some of the less than effective ways of dealing with unsavory histories, can the church actually promote a better path? A cure?

There seems to be general consensus that the church could do a much better job in educating its members on the historical issues that often cause trouble. The so called inoculation of the saints, painting a more realistic image of how the history really happened according to the facts that are known, and even entertaining the probabilities where facts are scarce. For example, skipping the glorified images of Joseph in the gentle light of a lantern, one finger tracing the reformed Egyptian characters as he brings forth via divine translation the most correct book on earth would be a nice start and would make for less jarring "WTF" moments when kids first watch the South Park version of the events. There are dozens and dozens of historical problems that would benefit greatly from a more candid approach. Let's face it, the time is long past when these events can be omitted, polished, or spun with effectiveness. There is just too much information available that reveals the uglier side of things.

Telling the history in a more factual manner introduces it's own set of problems, however. In this clip, (gotta get in to point 1:07:00 or so), we have Richard Dawkins giving a very succinct version of some of the tastier bits of the JS narrative. I dare say he is factually correct in what he states, but his rendition makes the narrative seem looney. And indeed it is! The audience laughs and giggles, Dawkins refrains from a such, but his face still smirks and lest there be any doubt how he feels, he refers to Mormonism as "barking mad" as only he and his English accent can. The historical narrative of mormonism is hard to swallow, which must be the reason for spinning things like the translation of the plates away from the rock-in-a-hat version that simply adds fuel to the already implausible nature of the story. Without doubt, you must take a lot on faith, attribute much to the supernatural and be willing to set so much stuff on the shelf for the story to work.

History told frankly clears up the issue of members being sold one fairytale only to discover a less gleaming version of the story, but history as words on paper is not the problem. Some members can take the history and deal with it, but many can't. Refer to the recent articles and studies I mentioned in this post. What I infer from this data is that members leave because of what the history reveals and you cannot cure, cannot change those facts by opening up the archives. I think we can safely say that if the historical record of the church were ultimately MORE faith promoting, that would have been the version we heard over the past 100 years. This can't be fixed.

The data from Dehlin's study points to the problems of a more honest approach to church history. Joseph falls from grace, the theology comes into question, divinity seemingly becomes less and less evident. As the march through history continues, the words of the prophets become a comedy of errors, not a guiding source of revelation. The world moves forward on issues like racial equality, and the one-true church not only fails to lead, it barely keeps up.

It's admirable to hear the likes of Elder Jensen wish for more integrity on the part of the church, and one would expect a church to be honest with it's members, but in this case the cure only exposes the wound, it does not heal it.

Obama, Utah and Bumper Stickers

2012-02-08T20:00:00-08:00

I live right smack dab in the middle of republican, conservative, Mormon Utah. Right on the Wasatch Front, or the Mormon corridor as it is often called. Zion. And I smacked an Obama 2012 bumper sticker on my car - just for fun.

No, really, utterly regardless of who I might vote for later this year, I knew this would be a fun game. Why? Because I despise being categorized and stereotyped as a republican, conservative Utah Mormon just because I fit the demographic. Very literally, it is JUST assumed by nearly all I know and associate with.

So now I drive around with my sore-thumb bumper sticker and while I can't ignore my bias in looking for reactions and being super sensitive to them, I can tally up several flip offs, a couple flagrant times when people have accelerated and caught up to my car just to read it, then spend up more to get next to me and look over and shake their head in disgust. I have 2 neighbor comments now. And I swear the tailgating is worse now too... could be my imagination, though.

Pleasantly, I have not had anyone try to rip it off, (although it is magnetic...), or paint over it - anecdotes I have heard from others that have sported the Barak badge on their auto. Maybe I am just looking for trouble, but in the meantime this has turned out to be a fun social experiment.

Besieged

2012-02-01T17:22:45-08:00

Interesting times, all this focus on the mormon church is generating some really interesting discussion. So many various articles and responses - thought I would consolidate a few of them into a single blog post and add my own color at the same time.

First up came this piece from Reuters UK that goes into some detail about the effect technologies such as the internet and Google are having on church membership. From the article, a couple quotes:

"Maybe since Kirtland, we've never had a period of - I'll call it apostasy, like we're having now," he (Marlin Jensen) told the group in Logan.

...

The LDS church claims 14 million members worldwide -- optimistically including nearly every person baptized. But census data from some foreign countries targeted by clean-cut young missionaries show that the retention rate for their converts is as low as 25 percent. In the U.S., only about half of Mormons are active members of the church, said Washington State University emeritus sociologist Armand Mauss, a leading researcher on Mormons. Sociologists estimate there are as few as 5 million active members worldwide.

The idea of convert retention rates and membership activity rates was also addressed this week at Mormon Stories podcast 319 which interviewed the authors of a report titled Mormons in the United States 1990-2008: Socio-demographic Trends and Regional Differences which is entirely interesting from a statistical perspective but John Dehlin and the authors of the study speculate in the podcast as to why the church reports inflated numbers. A couple interesting points from the report if you don't want to dig through it yourself:

Mormons were 1.4% of the U.S. adult population in 2008, a proportion unchanged since 1990.
The Mormons of Utah are the only religious group in the U.S. today that comprises a numerical majority of a state‘s population (57% of Utah).
Mormons remain the most geographically isolated and uniquely distributed American religious group (only 19% are found east of the Mississippi River).
The Mormon population increase 1990-2008 was more modest than claimed by the LDS Church.
ARIS data shows that apostasy rates are rising among young men in Utah. There is a growing gender imbalance and surplus of women as a result.
There are regional differences among Mormons on several socio-demographic variables. Mormons outside of Utah are different to heritage Mormons in Utah.
Utah Mormons in 2008 had significantly larger households than Mormons elsewhere (4.2 persons per household in Utah vs. 3.7 persons per household elsewhere), suggesting that the traditional norm of large families endures in Utah.
Mormon women are more likely to be housewives and less likely to work full-time than other American women.
The period 1990-2008 saw rising prosperity with above average increases in household income among Mormons in Utah.
In 2008 Mormons had very high rates of voter registration (90% in Utah). Mormons are more than twice as likely to be Republicans (59%) than non-Mormon Americans (27%).

Now, moving on to a study done by the Open Stories Foundation that is a bit less scientific than the report above, but still fascinating and I am happy to say that I was one of the respondents in this study. The report/preliminary results can be found here! Some highlights, again cherry picking from the report:

Those who no longer believe reported the following factors, (not the entire list), that contributed to their loss of faith:

81% lost faith in Joseph Smith, (for 39% this was a primary factor).
84% studied church history, (39% primary factor).
87% ceased believing in the doctrine/theology, (38% primary factor).
79% lost faith in the book of mormon, (35% primary factor).

For those losing faith over historical issues:

81% found Book of Abraham issues to be moderate to strong negative factors.
84% - Polygamy/Polyandry.
87% - Blacks and the Priesthood.
79% - DNA and the Book of Mormon. (67% Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon)
72% - Mountain Meadows Massacre.
71% - Multiple, conflicting versions of the First Vision.

And lastly, just today the Salt Lake Tribune ran a counter/follow-up piece to the Reuters article that I started with above. This article also quotes Elder Jensen but there is a bit of a different flavor - read it and see what you think. A quote that I found interesting, as did many others in the Facebook groups I follow:

The church “has made no effort to hide or obscure its history,” Jensen said, but some aspects — such as polygamy — “haven’t been emphasized often because they were not necessarily germane to what is taught at present.”

I will argue that Elder Jensen is playing a game of semantics and definitions with that statement. Omission is also a form of hiding. Try this fun little link for a laugh:

Joseph Smith and Polygamy??

Ironic, no? And throw into the discussion on Facebook about 4.3 nanoseconds after the link to the Tribune article was published.

The Reuters piece was good, the tribune follow-up equally interesting. The internet seems to be cast, generally, as a place of suspect credibility for information regarding the church, and I won't argue that point - it's clear there is a ton of information to be found and perhaps even most of it is of questionable value, (based on data being referenced, attributable, non-biased, primary sourced, etc...). The quote from Millet in the tribune piece also points out that too much is from polemic and slanted viewpoints. And the follow-up in the article and from more personal discussions I have had with friends on the issue usually lends to the proposed solution of the church finally being academically honest, open, and forthright in presenting the historical issues. Many would argue the church has already started doing this.

My question is - Doesn't the church itself have a credibility problem at this point?

I know the faithful will bias towards trust of the church and those of us with less favorable opinions will be ever skeptical - but in general is the church a day late and a dollar short on the issue of its history? What Millet doesn't hint at in the tribune piece/(his book intro) is that the church's apologetic position for decades is viewed, by many, as equally damaging as the polemic position.

What this all feels like is that the church has been painted into a corner by the internet/google and is thus taking a reactionary position instead of acting proactively to deal with history before it became and issue. And because of this the church has damaged it's own credibility and is thus as much a part of the problem as it is a potential solution.

Even in the evidence of something such as church growth/statistics and honest reporting of such to the membership, there is clear evidence of problems and obscurity. Do they want to be trusted or not?

Here is a final link, thanks to my friend Sean for referencing this on Facebook. Gospel Principles - Lesson 31: Honesty. Makes an interesting point:

"There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest."

MORE LINKS:
ABC News Piece on LDS Activity Rates
Joanna Brooks on coming to terms with church history
Washington Post piece on the Church and racism
Washington Post piece on LDS Reform

Romney: POTUS and Temple Promises

2012-01-27T07:26:11-08:00

Heads Up: Talking LDS temple stuff in this one. Turn back now if that makes you feel icky.

Not trying to be offensive or disrespectful. Not saying that this is a problem, per se, it can be interpreted in many ways. Not claiming to point out anything that not already in the public domain and part of the conversation. When Mitt attends the LDS temple, this is part of the ritual - these are components of the covenants he makes. And was recently pointed out in a ME podcast, this verbiage that promises an oath to a church, not a deity, (and not saying which might be more consequential...). I think this matters and I think this should be transparently known and discussed among voters. The implications may be debated, the probability of a real conflict downplayed, but this should not be dismissed.

"You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the law of consecration as contained in this..., in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion."

"Law of Sacrifice: The posterity of Adam down to Moses, and from Moses to Jesus Christ offered up the first fruits of the field, and the firstlings of the flock, which continued until the death of Jesus Christ, which ended sacrifice by the shedding of blood. And as Jesus Christ has laid down his life for the redemption of mankind, so we should covenant to sacrifice all that we possess, even our own lives if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God.
You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this alter that you will observe and keep the Law of Sacrifice, as contained in the Holy Scriptures, as it has been explained to you. "

There has been a pretty good debate regarding this, on some private/closed Facebook groups over the past few days. I won't try to repeat all that has been said but a few points that have earned a lot of time in the discussion include:

"Kingdom of God" - does that mean the church, the earthy church... the members? Or is this an appeal to a divine authority?
How is Mountain Meadows Massacre relevant to the discussion of these oaths/promises and what members may do at the request of leadership?
Can you re-frame this same discussion outside of Mormon contexts and feel differently about it? For example, say this was Obama and he was in a club that met regularly and required a similar oath. Does your opinion of what these oaths mean change?
I know, (and have already heard from some), that these oaths are secret and sacred and should not be on my blog. Fair argument, I disagree, but since it has been brought up that they perhaps should remain secret, does that not make them even more suspect? Again, reframing, but how do you know Obama or Santorum or Newt or Ron Paul have not made secret oaths of this nature to a group you are utterly unaware of? Worse, no?

Absolute Mess

2012-01-23T09:18:25-08:00

Me thinks it a mistake to define as synonymous terms things that have greater meaning in their original intended independence.

So many logical fallacies blended together today in an attempt to create the appearance of a theological proof that I hardly know where to start. In fact, I apologize up front as I am gonna get entirely random.

The law of gravity should not be confused as an understanding of why, only the ability to observe and predict the effects of gravity. That gravity is a fact, (but no more so a fact than evolution in most scientific circles of any merit - including those at BYU), is accepted as a truth is based on observances that, regardless of belief, remain constant. Gravity is observable and predictable. Evolutionary theory is observable and even predictable.

The earth is round and is observable as such, but this was not always the case and the failure to observe the factual evidence of the earths structure led to beliefs by many that the earth may instead be flat, but those beliefs only persisted in the lack of observable evidence.

Facts and laws and absolute truths, (if they exist outside of mathematics), require evidence, proofs, observations, repeatability. As was pointed out today in sacrament meeting, facts and laws as defined in scientific terms are not subject to belief or faith, they just are regardless of one's cognitive abilities to understand them.

I also accept that some, many even, will tend to supernatural explanations for things that are not easily explained. I many not agree or find this logical, the reality is that it's important for many people and it's the way the world works for them. Fine.

I respect what the speaker today was trying to convey, his strong beliefs and his desire to share his beliefs as a leader of others with similar beliefs, but what he stated as absolute proofs and truths created an air of defiant authority that was transparent and only weakened his intended message.

Please don't conflate beliefs and faith with truths and facts to produce something both illogical and diluted. The very definition of faith put's it at odds with the observable and provable standards that are used to define things like gravity, evolution, and the physical structure of the planet. Equating faith with fact, belief with knowing, or trying to make the leap from faith to fact is an absurdity that pollutes both terms rather than strengthens them. Faith is faith because of its lack of proofs, and therein lies a sort of beauty. Equally beautiful are facts that have met rigorous standards to prove their actuality. Faith cannot exist in the face of conflicting fact, and facts don't require faith to be factual. Respect that they are different, very different things.

The Fallacy of a Single Story

2012-01-16T18:30:50-08:00

I love this TED talk from Chimamanda Adichie - Watch it if you have not already, please! 19 minutes of your time that you won't regret spending with her.

I listened to this talk on my iPhone on the way into work this morning and thought how applicable it was to the indoctrination of most religions and how her words of caution were so widely applicable.

A single story represents a single dimension. A single story is an opinion with bias, regardless of the altruism of the story teller. A single story is never the entire story. How sad that a single story is often accompanied by the advice that no other stories are needed, that a single story is the only narrative you need, on which all other opinions on.

We see how a single story can castigate our homosexual brothers and sisters and make so many fear them when really, other stories from those we know and love and associate with, gay members of our own families even, can broaden the perspective and remove the fear of the unknown. We need many stories to understand that issue, all complex issues, but ignorance won't solve anything.

A single story can make you believe you are god's chosen, and that others must therefore be less, be wrong, be evil. A set of stories from others will again remove the fear and open the mind to realize that painting "the world", (mormon euphemism for "evil"), is not bad and rotten to the core, but big and wonderful and scary and beautiful - and far more complex than the single story of mormonism would have us believe.

A single story will divide, a single story will discriminate, a single story will cause fear, a single story will create fences and draw borders. A single story creates prejudices. A single story removes the color, leaving us only with black and white. When we are told by religious leaders to listen, have faith, obey, and not ask questions - we are essentially accepting a single story, and that's just wrong - we deserve more.

"... when we realize there is never a single story, (about any place), we regain a part of paradise." (Chimamanda Adichie, from the above referenced talk).

Believe nothing on the faith of traditions,
even though they have been held in honor
for many generations and in diverse places.
Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it.
Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past.
Do not believe what you yourself have imagined,
persuading yourself that a God inspires you.
Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests.
After examination, believe what you yourself have tested
and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto.

Buddha

Wholesale God

2012-01-16T09:50:43-08:00

Why is resold religion our most comfortable method of consuming the spiritual?

Reading Jana Riess's book Flunking Sainthood: A Year of Breaking the Sabbath, Forgetting to Pray, and Still Loving My Neighbor took me down a path I have started down several times before. In her year of trying different spiritual practices, and as the title suggests - failing at them for the most part, she examples the same concerns I have about the folly of prescribed paths to God and those that would "sell" them to us. To be fair, however, she does not write about God specifically, but about spirituality, which can mean many different things and does not require God or a definition of God. And while Jana is Mormon and my own background is Mormon, Jana's year of spiritual trial had little to do with mormonism and what I want to write about here is much broader than a single faith tradition. (And to be extra super duper fair, I am sure the author would say I have completely misunderstood her book entirely, but it's my own take-away - for what it's worth.)

Religion is similar to Costco or an Ikea store. Just as retail products find their way from production, through distribution channels and onto the shelves of your local store, they do so because of what we are willing to pay for such shopping convenience. This distorts the actual value of the product's utility - but again, not beyond what we are willing to pay. In a free-market economy if this meets a demand, more power to those that can supply the need and satisfy the customer, but many find more economical or satisfying ways of providing for certain needs or wants. In the summer we never buy tomatoes, preferring those that we grow in our own garden. They taste better, it's more satisfying to grow them and while some might argue I would guess they cost far less. The alternative is a drive to our local grocer to pay for a product that has been grown, shipped, protected and preserved, likely packaged at least for shipping, cleaned, presented, and priced for some profit after covering all above expenses and a clean grocery store with friendly staff.

The economics analogy can only go so far here, but at what point did we decide that spirituality necessitated a retailer?

Back to the retailer analogy for just a second. The Gap has some handsome clothing options - but what I am offered in the Gap has been limited by the decisions of others. Somewhere higher up in the Gap corporate chain decisions were made on what to styles and colors to buy and offer from their suppliers and which items to stock in local markets. They have decided for me what they think will best meet my clothing needs as their target customer. (I know, they have decided to offer what will sell best for them, which might be the better analogy!) Sure, I can walk out of the Gap and see what Sears or Eddie Bauer has going on, but I am still working with a limited selection and often with only variations on the same theme/style. All in all, these retailers are convenient and generally they satisfy a need, moreover and most importantly, buying my clothing rather than making my own is simply practical and economical, all things considered.

Jana Riess tried spiritual practice after spiritual practice and experienced degrees of enlightenment but also frustration and failure. Moving from one resold spiritual practice to another, nothing quite fit her, nothing was her style. And not one of us would imagine that the metro-sexualized styling's of Banana Republic would be a one-true-style for everyone either.

When it comes to a mature knowledge or testimony of the truth, we should not be dependent on a mortal mediator between us and our Heavenly Father. -Dallin Oaks

I agree with Mr. Oaks on this point, although I would not limit the scope of the statement to the Christian concept of a heavenly father. With very little understanding in the study of the evolution of religion, I can only make religion work in my head as a man made construct to control information, create structure and hierarchy, and thus impose a sense of authority. Man-made and enforced channels to God - "mortal mediators" as Oaks put it. Regardless of how we might each define God or the divine, we are all still mortals. To assume God cannot communicate effectively with me, one-on-one, infers a lack of trust in me and a lack of ability in God. To think another mortal is more select of god, or can communicate more clearly with a divine being is nonsensical to me. Human is human.

Deference to an authority figure or hierarchy of power may be convenient at one level - but it has all the burdens we also accept in the retail analogy. We subscribe to a one-size-fits all mentality regarding spirituality, we limit the possibility of what the divine can be, and we do so at a cost - literally and figuratively. We alleviate ourselves of some responsibility too, trusting others to teach and guide, and I get it - that's far easier than finding a true understanding on our own. Moreover, there can be little argument that adding layers, (mediators), will only corrupt the message, not sharpen or define it. Man is fallible and the message will corrupt. Just like the game we all played as kids, passing a message by whispering it into someones ear as you sit in a circle - sometimes the message makes it around the group verbatim, other times honest mistakes are made in hearing and repeating the phrase, and yet other times intentional changes are made - just for laughs. But if you really want to get you point across, go have a chat with your intended audience. Cut out the middle man/men.

To be certain, I don't feel myself a prophet or that I have god on my IM buddies list. Hopefully it's clear in this post that I don't believe in prophets, period. My mormon upbringing encouraged me to have a relationship with the divine while at the same time constantly ensuring that relationship would always require deference to a higher mortal authority and I simply reject that claim. The most spiritual moments of my life, the times I have connected with myself, with nature, with light have been moments that didn't require a man in a suit and tie and I trust that I am trusted by the divine as capable hearing and understanding.

Finally, I do realize that we are social animals and that family, community, tradition, heritage, culture and even ritual have their place in our lives. Religion's benefit, as it has clearly evolved and had exceptional stickiness in our species, may be for the purpose of fostering community but as a vehicle we all utilize lest we not be saved? Meh. One path for us all to walk? No thanks. I'll take my spirituality direction from the manufacturer.

Updated Jan 16, 2012 - Interesting TED talk I found touching on the design of religion given by Dan Dennett. http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_s_response_to_rick_warren.html

8MVPKFKV5QNQ

John and Brooke McLay

2012-01-10T08:04:00-08:00

Mormon Stories published a 4 part podcast earlier this week about the McLay family and their journey. It's amazing. It's five and a half hours long, but I want so many more details and wish part two had gone into some additional topics... but...

Listening to his story opened some emotional doors for me that I thought I had closed off since I stepped away from the church. Hearing their story, their journey, really touched me. I am not ashamed to admit I had tears in my eyes this morning driving into work. While he had much more invested in the church and has paid a much higher price for leaving, there are so many parallels in his story and my own.

Thanks, John and Brooke and John (Dehlin), for this one. There is so much to be learned from what they have gone through - I wish everyone could hear this and understand the hurt and the love.

In-N-Out, and out for good!

2012-01-07T20:44:18-08:00

There must be some secret that I just don't get - but these are terrible burgers. Not average, not passable, not even worthy of comparison to real burgers - except that I've seen the long, long lines when a new location opens up, even becoming worthy of local news coverage. Why?

Where does the reputation of In-n-Out originate? How desperate where the fast-food offerings of other establishments when the original In-n-Out "took off"? Most seriously, after three visits (yes I gave them three chances when I should have quit after the first try), I can't figure this out. These burgers are terrible.

I can list at least five burger joints within a 2 mile drive of the In-n-Out location in American Fork, Utah that serve a better burger and YES one of those burger joints would be McDonalds - and I won't eat at McDonalds unless I am pretty desperate.

And don't tell me it's their fries... those are an entirely different kind of disappointment.

When I see a line, 20 or 30 cars long, waiting to partake at a new burger location I sorta expect the food to cause a mini orgasm in my mouth. Perhaps it's about managing expectations. Thus, if I ever find myself at an In-n-Out burger in the future I will expect the best part of my meal to be the soda.

Really, it's a shame.

2012-01-06T16:00:00-08:00

It was weeks ago that I was listening to a series of lectures on the history of the study of religion that made me deeply regret the one-dimensional understanding I have had my entire life of worldwide theological thought. I immediately thought back on the time I have spent in Sunday "school" and various seminary/institute classes and aside from a single class on world religions that I took during college, my education on religious thought has been anything but an education, it's been an indoctrination. That I spent last Sunday in the gospel doctrine class of my local ward only frustrated me further on this point - how little effort the church puts into actual teaching and even more regrettable, how little effort the members put into actually caring. That sounds like I am being dismissive and rude to the members, when actually the message from the church has been to dissuade any inquiries so I don't put actual blame here on the members. The common understanding is that what the church does produce IS the entirety of needed knowledge. Pity.

In the 50 minutes of gospel doctrine instruction we received a very high level fly-by of the BOM: the narrative of it's origin, it's purpose, and the testimony of the witnesses. All in 50 minutes, perhaps less because the time-wasting exercise of having the entire class state their names seems fashionable in my ward. We get the standard quotes from JS about the book being the most correct book on earth, or that it contains all the saving ordinances, (but not exalting ones), and then the testimony of the witnesses and how they all later left the church because of "pride and envy". How conveniently succinct an answer for the problem of the witnesses. Amen. We all go home with our belief structure reinforced but we learned NOTHING. Yawn. It's Sunday afternoon,though, a long nap is only a few hours away - fueled by utter boredom at church.

The history and lives of the witness of the book of Mormon is amazingly rich and complex. There is so much that could be covered here, so much that would excite and amaze members of the church - I dare say much that might even reinforce their faith in them as witnesses of the divinity of the BOM - but also admit a lot of it is very damaging to the highly polished story the church would have us swallow.

Just for kicks - at Mormonthink.com the subject of witnesses of the Book of Mormon comprises 70 pages of printed material with links to many, many other resources. If I go to the Mormon friendly site FAIRLDS.org and search on the term "Book of Mormon Witnesses" I come up with 593 matches including many to multi-part apologetics explaining the history of these men. Yet if you ask in an typical LDS ward if anyone has ever heard of James Strang or Beaver-Island, 9 times out of 10 I'll bet not a single hand raises - yet the Strangites and the story of Beaver Island has much relevance on the role of these men as witnesses.

Yes - I get that there are 50 minutes of precious little time to cover some of these subjects and it would be impossible in the setting of Gospel Doctrine to dive in too deeply. Still, it's hardly fair to summarize the 11 witnesses in a single statement classifying their disaffection and excommunications as the result of pride and envy. This is a case-in-point example of the church using these men so long as their story supports what they want you to know, but then to discard them rather disrespectfully. Imagine that your kids went to school and were taught the value of Pi, simply by being given the value 3.14 at just those two decimal places and then told - "This is a fairly important constant in mathematics. memorize it and just know it's important. Now... on to to differential calculus!" What is the value of what your kids just learned? How did it help their contextual understanding of the purpose and use of the constant Pi? It's hardly an education at all, yet this is how the church handles much of it's own material.

Also consider that this lesson on the witnesses comes around every four years in the church's rotation of topics for Gospel doctrine. You have the privilege of hearing the same boiled out happy-points every four years if you attend your meetings regularly - drilling the same stuff into your heads over and over and over. Tell me you are not bored to tears, but then realize it need not be so. There is so much to talk about, and the only reason we repeat the same banal stuff is because the church is under the delusion that a.) members don't need or want more than this and b.) that this repetitive approach is actually edifying and satisfying and interesting.

Part of the stuff I consumed over the Christmas break included a lengthy podcast from the group over at Mormon Matters on the second coming as it pertains to LDS theology. I really recommend it, some very educated and objective people basically sit around and shoot the breeze on how the second coming has been treated and thought about over the course of mormon history, and they throw in discussion of the subject on a broader Christian historical context as well and even hit around the idea of how the potential of a near-term second coming may have influenced the political behaviors of folks like Reagan and Bush. Regardless of how you believe or lean, the conversation is fascinating, it is rich with detail and never boring. This - this is the stuff we are cheated out of when we passively swallow the correlated materials from TSCC. We are robbed of history and context and discussion - we are left with white-rice, unflavored and bleached of real nutrient value - and we are bored silly.

Give credit, however, to the church for being cognizant of what dangers lie in a broader education on the matters of church history. Delusional as they are, they also know full well the risk of encouraging real thought and discussion and thus they strategize against it. Unfortunately, it is a short sighted game-plan that can't be sustained in coming generations of googling members.

My real point in all this is that even a guy like me, a member still but one with no belief in the religions core, even I could still find value in attending meetings and classes and spending this time with my believing wife if it felt even remotely accepting of questions and debate and discussion. Until then, I'll find better ways to spend the time and skip the indoctrinating sheep-think. It's a shame the church can't trust it's members, it's a shame the church is ashamed of it's history and it's really doing no favors for anyone in the long run.

Thoughts going into 2012

2012-01-03T18:26:06-08:00

2012 is here and I want some meaningful goals for the year and based on some recent, (and not so recent), experiences I am hatching some ideas.

First up - I gotta take a step down on this obsessive all-things-mormon ride that I have been on for several years now. Not because it's not still fascinating or that I don't care - but I need to cycle in more "other" stuffs. I have tried to swear off the Mormon obsession several times but trying to turn my back on it all-at-once is too hard, and frankly something I enjoy too much to completely absolve myself of. So small steps - and in 2012 I resolve to buy NO more mormon-themed books and instead will fill my to-read bookshelf with as broad a scope of topics and interests as possible. That said, I still have a few books up there that I need to finish and so I will. After that, though, Amazon.com will have to re-learn my buying habits and start recommending a whole new genre of material for me.

The correlated curriculum for the adult Sunday school class this year is Book of Mormon. With honest intent I attended this past Sunday. In the span of 50 minutes I listened and watched as the 11 witnesses were used when needed and then tossed away as prideful and envious losers when they were no longer needed, and all subsequent history of thw witnesses ignored. I listened as the BOM of was claimed to be the most correct book and without error - end of story. No additional discussion. I listened as the BOM was heralded for containing all the ordinances required for salvation, (but then again most Christian beliefs also contain these same beliefs), but no mention or debate on the fact that the book is entirely absent of the gospel required to proclaim the doctrines of exaltation which truly make the church distinct and for which most members didn't catch the subtle way in which the two words, (salvation/exaltation), were used in the discussion on Sunday. I listened as conversation was quick to stamp out discussion that may be contentious, allowing only that which is reaffirming of faith meaning the class is about indoctrination, not about actually educating. And thus I resolve to not go back this year. I learned my lesson.

Also for 2012 a goal is to live out loud. This is not my idea - but one that I have been pondering for a long time and especially since John Larsen talked about living out loud on a recent Mormon Expression Voices podcast. It's not that I have hidden my beliefs and my feelings about church to those around me that care to notice - in fact in many ways 2011 was a very vocal year for me. But I still find crutches in private Facebook groups where I can be just slightly more frank and open than I dare in more publicly visible forums. I still try and walk-the-walk in certain circles in order to retain some social capital. I want 2012 to be different. I want to acknowledge where I am at in an honest way that maintains respect for those of the faith that I am still in constant association with, but doesn't apologize when my views and actions don't line up with theirs. I am going to speak up more, speak out more, and just be myself. It hurts the head, too, to feel strongly about something and not feel free to speak it - or to feel no guilt about things like the consumption of coffee yet still feel an obligation to hide it from family or friends - something that would make a never-mo shaker their head in utter confusion. Life is too short to run around pretending or putting on faces. Moreover, I want my mormon family and friends to realize that leaving the church is not road to becoming dark and loathsome. I have the same goodness and the same problems and weaknesses that I had when I was a member. I am a person that is always changing, adapting, and trying to keep and open mind as the world around me changes. I don't want to apologize for leaving the church, changing my mind, or wanting to live life with some passion.

Lastly, I always need some fitness goals to keep myself getting up and getting out. Last year I did 5 marathons and a number of other races including a tremendously fun 1/2 marathon trail race. This year the marathons are going to take a back seat as I concentrate on simply doing more long runs and hopefully culminating the year with my first 50 mile race in late October. Less focus this year on the race, however, and more focus on overall fitness. My body goal - Adam Levine. :)

Here is to a spectacular 2012!

Book of Abraham... lost?

2011-12-30T17:16:34-08:00

There is a bunch of stuff uploaded recently on YouTube regarding the Book of Abraham, produced by the fellows at FAIR. Not going to provide a link, but go search for BookOfAbrahamDVD if you want to check it out. (update: The YouTube content has apparently been taken down due to copyright violation... meaning I guess the proclaimed truths of the apologists are only available now if you buy their DVD. You can buy anything in this world, with money! $12.99 at the FAIR Bookstore.)

I have lots of thoughts about this video... but specifically in the series and in the Joseph Smith paper videos that are linked to this series, there are at least two separate references to some proof that the Book of Abraham was actually longer, had more "translated" content than what is found in the Pearl of Great Price today. Not much is said regarding this additional content, but the viewer is left with the impression that it has been lost. I believe it was John Gee who even elaborated on what this lost portion of the BoA may have contained.

Sooooo... We have some scrolls that, (as referenced by the experts in the video), are dated back to 200 B.C. that made their way to Joseph Smith some 2100 years later - purported text from Abraham itself, (copied, of course - since Abraham pre-dated 200 B.C.). I am supposed to assume then that this ancient text was important enough to God that it should be preserved - protected and schemed by divine powers so that it could come forth in the last days and be made known to all humanity by the translative powers of Joseph Smith.

And we lost it.

Stunning.

Not only did the source materials used for the BoA find their way to ruin once in Josephs hand, but a majority of the translated content, (judging based on Gee's reference to 30 minutes of BoA reading available today as opposed to 2 hours of reading as referenced in the film), was lost too?!

Was this film supposed to be faith affirming? What a debacle! 2100 years so that these precious and rare words from Abraham could find their way into some dust-ball frontier American Ohio town - be purchased at great cost to the faithful members and painstakingly translated by the only man on the earth with such gifts to bring forth this lost doctrine... and all, (virtually), is mishandled and lost. Moreover, all that is left of the source material is conveniently NOT the portion of the papyri that Joseph translated?

Again, apologetics doing more harm than good. You have to bend over backwards and kiss your own bum to make this logic resonate as true.

For some additional reading, and it took me a bit of time to find this, check out http://www.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/lostbook.htm. Here is the specific segment from Shirts article on the additional content that Joseph produced but is seemingly lost at this point. (comments added, emphasis added)

In 1838, Anson Call reported that "Joseph said to us, ‘sit down and we will read to you from the translations of the Book of Abraham.’" So Oliver Cowdery sat down and read until he was tired, and after he was tired, Thomas Marsh read, which made altogether about two hours. Well, Gee says a conservative estimate would suggest that the Book of Abraham material translated at that point is about four times the length of what we have now. Where did it all go? (notice, this question is not answered... only that it was never published... where did the translated content end up, in manuscript form? Where is it?) It only takes about half an hour to read our current Book of Abraham. These guys read for hours in the Book of Abraham translations. Well, H. Donald Peterson gives us a hint. In the book, Studies in Scripture, vol. 2: the Pearl of Great Price, by Millet and Jackson, H. Donald Peterson says, to the question, why did not Joseph Smith publish the Book of Abraham in book form prior to his death, or add it to the Doctrine & Covenants, "because it wasn’t finished. In fact, it was hardly begun. The book of Abraham was a lengthy record. One lone Latter-day Saint was told that when completed, it would be ‘more lengthy than the Bible’." Oliver Cowdery spoke of volumes necessary to contain the Book of Abraham. What we have are two short instalments, that were published during Joseph Smith’s lifetime, but he even promised more, though.

Update: Found this at Dialogue - http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/17931-the-kep-abraham-manuscripts/page__st__100

Steve Bloor

2011-12-20T12:19:01-08:00

Just a quick link to what has become a bit of a big deal in the ex-Mo world. Steve has an interesting story to tell, some very important insight and commentary... this has been brewing for nearly a year now.

Link below to his blog, but to quote a recent post from Steve on Facebook:

There is a tremendous need in the Church for honesty & candid talking, and my resignation letter as bishop seemed to resonate with thousands of members hearts & minds as they desperately look for the courage to face their own epiphanies.

Time has healed hurts & allows me to open my lips once more.

Please feel free to publicise wherever you feel would be helpful.

I know just one person can't change anything, but the more of us that speak up the louder we are & hopefully we can help members who are struggling with the courage & hope they desperately need.

https://stevebloor.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/compassion-for-those-who-leave/

Beautiful Bits of Mormonism

2011-12-27T08:05:41-08:00

Along the way Mormon thought has produced a few nuggets that are worthy of note. Calling certain doctrines or principles 'beautiful' may be a stretch, I concede, but it made for a better post title than 'Above average Mormonism'. Here are a few things that I can respect and appreciate from the religions past - which is, unfortunately, where all of them were left. This list is not intended to be inclusive... just a few things on my mind right now. This started in my head a couple weeks back when I posted about the Hymns in the church I love and sometimes miss. This list grew from there.

1.) Joseph Smith was reported to have said: "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves." Oh that such faith and trust in the members were still alive and kicking in the church today. It's one of those oft quoted lines from JS that always made me believe there was more to the man - even after my disaffection. Such advice seemed so sensible and reasonable and conveyed a trust in the teachings, the gospel, that the correctness of what was being brought forth as restored doctrine was self-evident and capable of guiding followers and believers without the need for strict dominion and bureaucracy.

I don't think even Joseph believed in this concept, however, and the idea of 'correct principles' is left to the definition of Joseph himself, or to the interpretation of those following Joseph. The ideal expressed in this phrase was just that, too ideal. Can you imagine a Mormon church that actually believed in this concept? Where structure and complete deference to authority gave way to individual responsibility and personal accountability? Can you imagine how different that church would be today?

And for the record, I am aware of the context of this quote and know parts of the political backstory here. I realize that as used in current day Mormon chatter this phrase is intended to convey a different message and it is this 'face-value' message I am holding up as a beautiful Mormon principle.

2.) The Word of Wisdom. Yeah, you heard me right - I think the word of wisdom was a point of sensibility even if not that remarkable. The mess and the smell of tobacco, the context of the temperance movement - some of this is just simple common sense - but the beautiful aspect of the Word of Wisdom is that it's a principle of moderation. Moderation, however, gave way to both strict reinterpretation of some aspects and gross neglect of others. Moderation failed because no faith was given to the concept of governing ones self. Letter of the law observance became more important than spirit of the law understanding.

Most members don't realize that the Word of Wisdom was barely even a passing concern until well into the 1900's. Woodruff himself drank coffee and brandy as recorded in his own journal as late as 1897. (Quinn has published this information if you wanna go look it up.) Historical temple recommend questions did not focus on the word of wisdom except to ask about the member having been intoxicated, which gratefully hints at the moderation principle as opposed to the modern day focus on strict observation of "not a drop!"

A return to moderation as the core of the word of wisdom would tell me the church trusts me, rather than the implicit lack of trust I felt when I was in it knee deep. If the church assumed I was good there would only be one question to enter the temple "Do YOU consider yourself worthy to enter?" That single question covers all the bases, but I digress...

3.) Modern day revelation. The D&C is full of the most trivial crap but at some level you have to love it. Here we have God speaking on all manner of concerns and offering precise direction and revelation. Prolific, too, was such revelation - plot me a graph showing revelations by year to date as recorded in the D&C, and go ahead and include the stuff from 1978 although I debate the revelatory nature of that one.

The boldness of claiming modern day revelation is what created a church that was different and new and alive, organic. And today this boldness is gone... dead. The D&C is closed canon. The leadership of the church does not utter the phrase "Thus Saith the Lord...".

More clarification on my part, in that I think the concept of modern day revelation is beautiful although my entire blog will give away the fact that I don't think modern day revelation really happened, (as in I think the D&C a hoax - as in I think JS delusional.)

The original church was a living, breathing, bold creation that would have held a degree of appeal, (aside from the whole wife-swapping thing). It now seems lethargic and burdened, haven seemingly given way to political, control oriented conservatism that resulted in a modern day religion that no longer stands out or stands bravely, or even audaciously except in the negative. "True" or not, at least the old church would have been far more interesting to be a part of.

4.) Community. I am just old enough to have tasted the old school and all encompassing community that Mormonism use to be all about. My grandparents both lived in a small community in Sanpete Utah and my time with them felt like I was chocolate chip being folded into the great batter of their life's that lived and breathed of Mormonism. I realize now that much of what was fostered for them was simply due to the smaller, rural community in which they lived. They had decades of history there, knew everyone, and had a pace of live that I can only envy today. But much of their community WAS Mormonism. They served in every church calling over the years, they had rich histories with neighbors and friends that they had know through tough times including the great depression, friends with whom they had found shoulders to cry on and hands to hold in raised celebration. Just by knowing my grandparents, claiming my place in their family granted me immediate acceptance and some social capital within their group. And all the while I could not envision a non-Mormon element to their community, although it certainly existed and I was only too naive and removed to sense it.

I even felt this as I grew up in Utah County in the 70's and 80's where the non-member or even the less-active member was a strange and rare anomaly within the few square blocks that made up our micro-community (i.e. Ward). Pity was felt for these outliers, but only because of their gross ignorance and inability to comprehend and accept the great truths of our faith. It took many more years of my life to realize how exclusionary our 'community' really was and how hard it must have been for very good people to feel so far removed from even their next-door neighbors. In my days growing up the road show was till a common event, as were block parties and a general assumption that virtually every major event and holiday on the calendar would involved the religious community as a whole. A different day and a different perspective, certainly.

People no longer live in the same home for 40 years and live and die next to the same neighbors. The concept of community has evolved over the past few decades and the dynamics that contributed to that sense of community I felt around my grandparents or even in my own childhood home is much harder to foster in the 21st century. And certainly I realize that cultivating community is not unique to mormonism - it was just unique for me in my mormon experience. It's ever so slightly poisoned now, however, as I see that there was/is a dark side to the Mormon community culture - community came at a price. Still, I often wish for those innocent days when I was younger, the world seemed simpler and everyone around seemed a genuine friend.

I can't fault the current iteration of the church for the way in which communities have changed, but change they have and that change mixed with my introverted socially retarded personality, diced in further with my disaffection from the church in general has been a change in the negative and I truly regret that.

5.) Mormon Art. Although my comparative religious art exposure was limited, I found Mormon art simply beautiful. Compared to the often grotesque imagery the other Christian churches offered up of the crucifixion, for example - art that seemed dark and grossly ornate at times - even scary as a child viewing it, Mormon art seemed soft and loving and closer to what I wanted to feel from God. Living in Highland, UT - several prominent LDS artists whose work was on display at temple square lived near our home and one even served as the advisor for my Arts merit badge. I remember still standing in his home-studio with LDS art works in progress on canvases surrounding us as we talked, which only further deepened my respect for such work.

The problem now, of course, is that much of this wonderful art, while still beautiful, is tainted with meaning and understanding. What a shame that some of the most impressive works also sell a version of the mormon narrative that is false or misleading. What a bummer that such talent worked in a way that so many now would label as subversive. My earliest memories of primary include images of Joseph hovering over the plates, fingers tracing the characters. To realize that these scenes are invented to fit a more palatable narrative is really discouraging.

Another case in point is the imagery of Joseph and Emma as projected in many paintings and sculptures. The superficial message is tender and loving and I looked at these images for years and let them saturate me with a feeling empathy for all their struggles, their trials, and the premature end of their time together.

Those feelings of care and love still exist when I see 'Joseph and Emma', but only in one direction. I now feel deep sorrow for all the Emma had to endure, for the way in which she was demonized by the early church and then redeemed as the church 'needed' her to help bolster a newer history. The beauty of the art again recedes into darker meanings. What a pity.

Modesty. You're doing it wrong!

2011-12-08T18:55:10-08:00

This skinny-jeans fiasco at BYU-Idaho has my panties all bunched up but not for the superficial reasons you might think. For the record, I am pulling some content for this post from this URL, http://www.byuicomm.net/blog/2011/12/07/testing-center-reminds-students-of-dress-and-grooming-standards/ and I include the URL only because I fear it might not be up for long and I will lose my cross-reference.

To clear some stuff out of the way, this post is NOT about BYU-Idaho and their standards or rules. I could care less. If that is what you signed up for in the college of your choice, more power to you. Someday I intend to write a post on how much I love and cherish the experience of my college years, (I did not go to BYU), memories which have come back into contrasted focus due to this silly skinny jeans scandal at BYU-I. This post is also NOT about modesty. Unfortunately, I feel obligated to stop and say it's not about the perverted use of the term 'modesty' that the church prattles on about, because in some sense this post will be entirely about modesty and thus I have to clarify that I don't mean modesty in the creepy demand for shapeless full coverage clothing that intends to keep minds out of the gutter. Moreover, this post is NOT about the sexist message that saturates this entire fiasco and policy as enforced by the BYU-I testing center, although that message makes me crazy mad. Finally, this post is NOT about the fact that some simpleton with a sense of power and a penchant for self-righteous dominion took authority into his own hands to enforce a policy with his own twisted interpretation. I actually feel bad for the fellow, (or fellows - I guess it's not just Mr. Dexter), and know he/they will likely regret these decisions and the publicity that has followed. I take no joy in skewering them further... but I'm going to anyway.

This, taken from the link above, is what my post is about:

In response to students who feel that formfitting jeans are appropriate, Dexter said, “If a student prays and they think that the tight ‘formfitting’ clothing is accepted by the Lord, they have not asked, or have not asked the right question, or they have chosen an answer for their own gratification. I don’t believe the Lord would give approval to anyone to be disobedient to the CES Dress and Grooming Standards.”

Mr. Dexter... really? Did you really just imply that someone arriving at a different understanding than your own, following their prayerful consideration of the matter, simply could not be right? In your glorious status as testing center director, your encompassing knowledge of all things right and wrong lets you judge and rebuke? Really? I already know the answer to these questions, I have had many people in the past few years ask me the same things, and I have asked these questions of others many times over the year. Wait... stop! No - Not about fashion. Hell no! Wow. I have never asked for divine guidance in my fashion choices, although since I grew up in the 70's and 80's I probably should have! But I'm a guy, right? And the Mormons don't really care about male modesty - that's a chick thing.

All joking aside...

You cannot imagine the number of times I have been advised to pray during my disaffection. This is the most common advice: "Have you prayed about it, brother Hafen?" But can we be honest? Those that have asked that question usually throw it around with good intent but really don't want you to answer that question unless you can answer with: "Yes - and by golly I am back and believing! Thank you!" Unless I can tell you want YOU want to hear, you don't really mean to ask it. If I don't answer as you wish me to, then it's not a question, it's a not-so-gentle rebuke disguised as a caring inquiry.

If I tell you I have prayed many, many, many times about many, many, many things... do you believe me? If I tell you that my answers are not YOUR answers, you do trust me? Or is your knee jerk reaction the same as Mr. Dexters: "You're doing it wrong!".

Can you imagine what that says to someone? How that feels? Do you sense the self-righteousness in your voice when telling me MY answers are wrong? The hubris? The lack of humility? Yes, this is where modesty fits into the skinny jeans story - modesty as in: "Lack of pretentiousness; simplicity." Here are a few other definitions I think we should all try on:

1. having or expressing a humble opinion of oneself or one's accomplishments or abilities

2. reserved or shy modest behavior

3. not ostentatious or pretentious

4. not extreme or excessive; moderate

5. decorous or decent

Do you roll your eyes if I tell you that I still pray daily? Privately? WIth my family? With my wife? Does that make me a hypocrite in your eyes? Do my prayers come off as some offense to God, that they may be insincere or hollow, thrown recklessly towards the heavens? I assure you they are not. Do you think my answers are tainted or poisoned because I sin? Well, my-untranslated-mortal-friend, you sin too - so get over yourself.

One thing I know to be true in the realm of spirituality is that spiritual experiences can mean many significant things, but they do NOT mean the LDS church is true - and to be fair they don't mean the LDS church is NOT true. Spiritual experience happen to many people of many different faiths and even those without a declared faith - they are not the sole domain of Mormons. If those who would ask to me pray can't accept and respect the answers I get, then so be it. However, it does not lesson the meaning of those answers for me, personally - spiritually. Can you, in all modesty, accept that?

So, Mr. Dexter I humbly invite you to go home, excuse your staff as well, and come back when you can present yourself for duty in a more modest manner. Take a moment an pray about it before you come back, please.

LDS Hymns

2011-12-01T17:00:02-08:00

Maybe I am having some Mormon nostalgia here, maybe it's the recent "Fight Songs" episode over at Mormon Expression, or maybe it's in my head because the bumper music at Mormon Stories and Mormon Matters has me thinking about Mormon hymns all the time. Regardless... music is powerful, it gets into your head and soul and it can be associated with the most brilliant and meaningful things imaginable. And of course the reverse is true, I remember an Oingo Boingo song from my youth that I heard while vomiting violently with the stomach flu and to this day that song invokes strong negative reactions in my brain. So for better or worse, in praise and in criticism, here are some of my most loved and most despised songs from the LDS hymnal. And up front, I am not touching the Christmas songs... :)

Because I Have Been Given Much - The lyrics talk of love and grace and blessings and feel genuine. The music is perfect and positive, gentle. "That he too may be comforted."
Come, Come ye Saints - It's just the classic mormon hymn that can invoke a flood of memories from anyone who has spent time in the church. There are many really nice renditions of it and the version on the bumper music for Mormon Stories/Matters is a nice arrangement. Favorite line: "But with joy, wend your way."
How Great Thou Art - This one really does invoke some strong feelings, the music is powerful and the imagery of my favorite line goes well beyond the religious connection inferred by the verse. "I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder..."
I Stand All Amazed - Yes, a sacrament hymn, (see below), but one with words that as a believer, (Christian believer - no TBM requirements here), really work with the music to stir the imagination. I was always humbled by the line "To rescue a soul so rebellious and proud as mine"
Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing (not in hymnal) but a really lovely song. Truly. I wish I knew why it was not in the hymn book. Youtube it, there are some nice (dated) renditions from BYU with orchestra. I think this still gets a lot of play Mo-Tab.

I really want a positive tone for this post, so I am only going to mention in passing some hymns I really dislike. These include "Joseph Smith's First Prayer", "Praise to the Man" - both for obvious reasons, and the majority of the "sacramental" hymns simply because they are so slow. "Called to Serve" while upbeat and catchy, always created guilt in my head for not having served a mission. :( Enough with the guilt.

Now, gonna go queue up some Metallica and cleanse the palette.

John Dehlin

2011-11-28T08:07:49-08:00

Unsettling things about the church can remain on the shelf for a long long time. It takes something, someone, some event to break the mental lock that processes doubt into the proper error handler in your brain. Those fractured concepts that simply don't add up threaten to crash a few critical threads and in retrospect it's crazy how our evolved heads have become so exceptionally well adapted to deal with the radioactive decay of religious programming.

I'm sure it's different for everyone, my programming started so early and was so consistent that my primary error handler was the very basic mechanism of even not even allowing that certain things may simply not be true. Logic and reason could not crack the reboot that would occur when the question was even considered.

There was no way to walk away from the church without help. Impossible. Maybe you consider this hyperbole, but I think for many or even most it is simply impossible without help. Years ago I once stumbled into website, (could well have been salamandersociety.com, I honestly don't recall), but I do remember running away quickly. Twas boiling hot water and I pulled my toe back fast - lesson learned!

Mormon Stories provided warm water.

I don't know John Dehlin at all. I can't fathom the amount of crap he has to take, the criticism, the requests for personal help and meetings, the accusations from EVERY side. I don't pretend to know his philosophies on helping people stay or leave the church. I don't know how he can keep smiling through it all. I don't care what he does with his money or blame him for asking for help financially - if I could I would. I don't care that he chooses to ban people from the worlds and environments he creates to do what he does and promote what he cares about and again, I don't worry about what those promotions or cares may be.

What I do know and do care about is that his work provided hours and hours of thoughtful conversation and dialogue that I consumed - EVERY LAST BIT OF IT. I know that he opened my mind to things I would have shunted to the garbage pit. I know he showed me a side of Mormonism that was just the right temperature at just the right time with the frankness and honesty that had been missing up to that point. I know that much of what I listened to I didn't like. However, I know that a lot of it was damn near scary in just how perfect it was at just the right time. I listened on my commute to/from work, I listen on runs and while exercising, and I listen during those moments I can close the door to my office. I found time to listen because it was like a drug - I was starved for it.

Maybe John wants to know that he helped me leave the church or maybe that makes him sad. Maybe that doesn't matter one way or the other to him but I do sincerely think that he would be pleased to know that I am happy and that I warmly credit him with helping me get where I am at now.

I don't have the guts, the integrity, the smarts, the risk-tolerance, or the personality to do what he does. I could not take the criticism. I listened to it all. I listened to some of it multiple times. I still listen - Mormon Stories and Mormon Matters. I am at a very different place now than those years ago when I first found him and his work, but it still stirs something in me even though most of the content is now fascinating for entirely different reasons. I openly criticize his guests while at the same time I ask for more. I grumble that the podcast is three hours long and then grumble again when more content takes so long to show up on my RSS feed. I sincerely despise the bumper music as it starts to play and then I STILL sing along with those hymns that contain so much cultural meaning in my life that I can still get goosebumps hearing them.

Look, I get that John sometimes rubs people the wrong way and that there is no way he can make everyone happy. I feel like for the most part I have moved past where his work can most effectively help me and I now find a more irreverent kinship elsewhere on the internet but I am having a hard time stomaching the criticism leveled at him recently in certain places I frequent. And I think most of that criticism is blatantly rude!

For what it's worth, John Dehlin, I owe you and I sympathize with you and I deeply respect you. Thank you!

A Remarkable Week

2011-11-21T09:00:57-08:00

I have had a remarkable week, (or by the time I post this I should say that LAST week was remarkable). Details to follow, but in this post I want to officially come out of the closet, so to speak. Because of my intended audience here, I'm going to start this post a bit differently. To my friends and family that have never been here, to my blog before - welcome. I hope that those of you who are uncomfortable with my next paragraph, that this will be the only post you sample on my blog. This blog is not faith affirming, at least not affirming of Mormonism - but this post will remain above the fray. That said, for those who may have found doubt and questions in their spiritual journey that currently count themselves among my friends and acquaintances, I know how hard it is to find a friend to talk to about these issues. I would love to hear from you.

While I have not hidden this from anyone that asked or cared, I have not made a point to make a declaration either. Because of speculation and rumor, I am going to do so. I no longer believe the truth claims of the LDS church and have made definitive changes in my life that reflect such paradigm shifts. For those that knew me only a few years back as a member of the local bishopric, I wish to express with sincerity that while my doubts formed during my tenure as a counselor, I strived to act and speak with integrity as I served in that calling and spoke early and frequently with my bishop and stake leaders about my struggles and consciously avoided anything that would have construed hypocrisy on my part. One of my last official duties involved speaking at the New Beginnings annual event for the Young Women's program and my words at that time focused on very basic Christ-centered doctrines that I could still testify as central in my own spiritual being.

For those that I served and worked with, I apologize if I did behave in a heretical manner. I don't apologize for my journey nor do I regret where I am at today, but I do feel that this is my journey and that others get trapped in my wake is an unavoidable side-effect - especially in Mormon-Corridor-Utah. While my reasons for leaving are not the point of this post, the reasons that didn't cause me to leave need some attention. I did not leave because I was offended, or because I had some transgression that I needed to justify and I did not leave because I did not have a testimony. Just to be clear.

For those that want more information on my journey, welcome to my blog. In here you will find insanity, ranting's, questions, apologies, incoherent logic, but I hope you will find a sincere attempt at finding something I can use to grow and learn and be more than I was before. I don't claim to say things that are factual or even reasonable, but I say things that are important to me and from my heart.

Bottom line: I claim Mormonism as my title in heritage only and the only real culture I know. I claim nothing else from the faith, in fact I reject most of it. Call me agnostic, I don't think the term a pejorative, but then again I don't worry about the label you would assign me at all.

Now, back to my week and the quasi-remarkable events that occurred.

$
First up, I was considerably anxious for tithing settlement this year. While I have been "out" for some time, I did attend settlement last year with my family out of respect for my bishop whom I consider a dear friend. This year with a new bishop in place and a year more removed from my days of dogma and obedience, the time was right to break away from this non-required-bow-to-authority-regarding-personal-financial-matters that if nothing else should be between God and I and no-one else. My dear wife signed up the family and I came home from work ready to fight this past week, very worried about the potential. Instead, she graciously handled the event, gently invited me to come if I so wanted, and came back without any conflict. This was huge for me. HUGE. It was remarkable - it was a step forward, it was a weight off my shoulders. Remarkable.

First Loves
Next - I had lunch with an old friend. A friend I have not seen in over 20 years, so perhaps the term friend is a bit generous but I consider her a friend for my part. She is a friend that I actually dated for a long time and very seriously in my late teens, so perhaps the term friend is not the right fit for other reasons. Nonetheless, the fates found us sharing sushi and catching up, a brief 60 minutes to chat, laugh, and even nearly cry a few times. Our lives have taken separate paths, and it was a bit of a relief to understand her life has had struggles whereas I sorta imagined her life in a fairy-tale of sorts. And truth be told, years ago she broke my heart in a way I could not describe in words - ah the power of teen romance. But since her I have found more powerful love and more deep love and have a family that entirely defines love and thus it was nice to sit across from her and smile and share and know that my life is very very good, very good indeed, as is hers. Cathartic. One thing we both agreed as we ended our lunch was that we may have been both good and bad for each other at one time, but our experience was essential and our mistakes should not be regretted since we both learned from them. Remarkable.

Friends
I found a couple new friends that given the amount of time I have lived in my neighborhood should have been an old friends by now. Admittedly I am a socially retarded ex-mormon and shy in most situations. Reaching out to her and her husband via Facebook broke down a silly divide that was in place largely for religious reasons but also because of my social awkwardness. 20 minutes of finally talking with these neighbors who do NOT attend the local ward revealed so much hurt and sadness in their exclusion and in their kids not being allowed to play with others and their introverted defenses to go about their business to avoid religious conflict. So sad, and I am so ashamed that I may have contributed to it even if not consciously. Facebook helped break down this particular divide. Remarkable.

Moreover, the story of this family hits close to home as I can relate to their experience just a bit now that I stand on the other side of the fence. I have mentioned this before, but when I was in the bishopric I was a guy that was sought out, smiled at, respected (I think), and people would shake my hand. I am not exaggerating when I say that these days there are those who will NOT even say hi as we pass by in the hall. Potentially even worse are those that were casual acquaintances before, but now go out of their way to fellowship and if they think it's not transparent - they are wrong. As I continue to rebuff the religious aspects of these forced interactions, the interactions become less frequent in general. Don't get me wrong, I would love them as friends and good neighbors but not if the terms have to include some religious pre-context. Yet I have also found people who are true friends and feel a new closeness to those that are still genuine and friendly. I love these people, these friends and neighbors. I am glad that they have sifted through the sand and I know the people I can truly count as friends. Remarkable.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
And lastly, in an incident from this past week that I won't elaborate on, I realize my life is more under the microscope than ever before. I am such a dork most of the time. I make mistakes and I "sin" although my definition of sin has changed a bit. (I consider coffee a God given luxury and blessing - that man might have joy, not a sin...). But true to believing Mormon conditioning and the way the dissonance brought on by those who leave the church must be processed in their minds, the mistakes of my life - the misfortunes and the hardships will now always be retrospectively attributed to my disaffection from the church. I get cancer? God is punishing me. I lose my job? Serves me right for not being righteous. A car accident, a genuine mistake, a poor business decision, a failed product at work, marital problems... well, I just don't get the blessings afforded to the faithful. Right? Well, let's just say if God is that vindictive and petty, we believe in different Gods. If my life does not play out in a remarkable way, causation will follow effect in the wrong order. That... that is sadly remarkable.

Why the Book of Mormon Matters

2011-11-11T12:12:56-08:00

The way it plays out in my mind, I see the stage, an anxious studio audience, and Drew Carey digging through a box of props and costumes in preparation for his next scene. It's the normal cast of Whose Line Is It Anyway, but we get Drew playing the role of Joseph Smith. As he digs through costumes, he passes on the farm boy garb, throws the silly glasses and shield to the side without consideration - pauses briefly to examine the "anti-banking" three piece suit and finally settles on the "general Smith" attire, complete with sword and really killer boots. Never mind that this particular iteration of Joe was inaccurate for the scene to be depicted, it does have the proper effect of coloring the entire scene as just a bit silly.

General Joe-Carey-Smith now marches on stage and is confronted with the discovery of ancient bones and with a face that can barely conceal a smile and giggle, he closes his eyes and ponders upon these human remains and then emerges from his meditatives stance to declare that these bones are the remains of an ancient warrior named Zelph who was righteous and white and served under the command of the prophet Omandagus.

The scene ends with Carey's serious face finally breaking into a full laugh and hilarity ensues amongst the studio audience. Silly, indeed.

I know I am being irreverent here, but this is how Zelph hit me when I first read the accounts and then re-read different accounts from many sources in an attempt to debunk such a crazy chapter in mormon history. I was already chock full of doubt and dealing with serious problems regarding polygamy, financial fraud, crazy folk-magic influences, improbable and debunked translations of the BOA, outright callous deception in the form of the Kinderhook plates - but then to add this scene to my growing "bigger picture" of Joe I just had to laugh. It suddenly was so obvious that he was just making this shit up as he went along - the Drew Carey of his time.

I relate this because I have been thinking a lot in response to a really fantastic post that was put up recently at Pure Mormonism regarding "the Best Evidence for the Book of Mormon". I am being sincere in my praise, I think Rock presents a very clear and well laid out argument and his post elicited a tremendous amount of chatter, both good and bad, some of it very attacking and negative of Rock himself which is unfortunate - because what Rock puts on the table is pertinent, it is important and it is worth discussion, and as a result I'm gonna spout off my own opinions regarding it. If you have not read Rocks post, some of my comments will not make sense out of that context.

Rock's use of the term "best evidence" in his title is clarified in his comments/responses to the post:

"Perhaps some here are confused by my use of the term "Best Evidence." I did not intend it to be construed as "absolute proof that the Book of Mormon is true." Best Evidence is a term going back to the common law which required the use of original, organic evidence over the introduction of such secondary exhibits such as rumor or hearsay.

In the matter of Book of Mormon lands and events, the Best Evidence rule leads us first to the writings of Joseph Smith. Where did HE say the Book of Mormon people lived? Well, he said they lived in North America. ... The best evidence for what Joseph Smith believed is found in the speeches and writings of Joseph Smith."

Now prior to reading Rocks post, I was not at all familiar with the 'best evidence rule' in concept and definition of how Rock is using it. My shallow understanding from Rocks description above and from a bit of digging on Google leads me to believe that this is a rule that grants credibility based on originality of source but is not so concerned with overall credibility of the source author. Given the proclivity I see in Joe to say one thing and do something entirely different, or the non-consistent manifestation of his "gifts" of prophecy, revelation, leadership, or even common-sense foresight I am left with a genuine sense of Joe being a mentally ill, yet charismatic, and unquestionably brilliant fellow but not someone whose words I would take as 'best evidence' of anything except the art of misdirection. My classification of Joseph Smith is exampled with my opening narrative of Zelph, and because I wouldn't trust the guy to watch my kids or gather my mail while away on vacation I don't trust his words as best evidence of the BOM. More pertinent - if his words ARE the best evidence, it's downhill from there in terms of hope for quality additional supporting proofs.

That's just me, however. Perhaps my take on Joe is an outlier opinion and given some of the interesting and often circular logic that was, (and continues to be), tossed out in the comment thread on Rocks' post, there are clearly others that are going to fight hard for the BOM's authenticity. Whereas before I might have allowed for the BOM to be important regardless of it being true, divine, and authentic - Rock's post has caused my position to change.

In the post, Rock points out that there are some obvious questions members should ask regarding the current apologetic and quasi-scholarly efforts surrounding BOM studies:

"...The Church(TM), does not take a position on where events described in the Book of Mormon may or may not have taken place. The Brethren, we are constantly reminded, simply do not know.

Here's my question: Why not? Why don't they know? Aren't these guys supposed to have a direct line to God himself? Why doesn't somebody just ask Him?

I can understand a reluctance to pinpoint the precise location of certain cities and battle sites. But are we to believe that the modern prophet of God can't even claim knowledge of the proper end of the hemisphere? Why is everyone so comfortable with the answer that "we just don't know"?"

I am most sure that I am not comfortable with this answer, but I am not comfortable with this realization broadly! Why has revelation stopped? Why has "thus saith the lord" been unheard of for decades? Why is the Book of Joseph not produced by the current prophet? Point - there is little evidence that the prophet currently acts as a prophet and there is little evidence that prophetic, translative, revelatory behavior has persisted beyond Joseph Smith himself. Why does additional evidence of the BOM not come forth from the Brethren? Because the Brethren can ill afford any more misses regarding the BOM and if the BOM is nothing if it cannot remain remarkable.

Rock is presenting what is, at least at face value, a reasonable argument placing BOM events in North America, and therefore keeping the BOM "remarkable". I am offering NO comment on the validity of his overall premise or evidence and I do agree with him that BOM really can't and won't be proven historical, scientifically - although I am certain that enough evidence will finally mount to prove it false. Claims, supernatural and at least unprovable thus relying on faith, that the BOM is historically true AND divinely brought forth could not be more critical to the church. That is why Rocks post is important and that's why it elicited so much passion in the discussion. Truly, as preached by those on high, the church stands on the divinity of the BOM - I would even go so far as to say that is all that it has left to cling too.

If and when the authenticity of the BOM falls, what is left? I would like to say, and have made such claims in the past, the Joe must have been a prophet at one point but fallen long before his death. That would at least allow for divinity to have played a part in the restoration. The BOM remains as the most important bullet point in church history that speaks to divinity, but only because it still has the potential, (because definitive proof against it does not yet exist), to be divine - not because of the content of the BOM itself. I realize that many will argue with me on the point of evidence that does or does not exist to prove the BOM false - but please, that's not my point. For the sake of argument, I am leaving a sliver of hope for the faithful to make this post work - so play along. :)

BOM contents may bring people to Christ, may have messages of goodness and hope and faith - but the BOM is not remarkable or unique in that regard. It does not contain essentials of the restored gospel as practiced in the modern LDS church, in fact it often speaks in conflict with practices and doctrines of the church. Moreover, it contains some messages of very questionable value - even damaging if we consider stories like the murder of Laban. Compared to other Christian or religious texts, it is weak sauce. Relative to powerful literature in general, leaving the genre of scripture, it's literary content is embarrassing and I would list a bookcase of novels and historical texts that have brought me to tears and caused emotional responses that have taught, uplifted, and validated my humanity, even my spirituality, far more than the BOM. If the BOM is not divine, if it did not truly happen in a very authentic and historical sense, it is nothing.

Even if I allow the book to be remarkable solely based on messages of truth and goodness, that value is being diluted given the noise that surrounds such controversies as illustrated by the buzz that Rock's post generated. Natural doubt is generated when general authorities have to insist and re-insist at very public events like general conference, that the BOM is true and tested and divine. The panic is palpable, without the supernatural narrative surrounding the BOM that piece of the canon becomes trivial, ergo the church itself is stripped of one of its final claims to divinity and truth. It falls into the basket of quasi scripture next to book of Abraham, and would it then be quietly discredited and omitted from LDS texts and teachings? I think not, it can't! It's all that's left to speak of Joseph's prophetic calling and for that reason the brethren will remain silent, will not paint the church into any doctrinal or historical corners by offering bold evidences or new revelations and instead will let the apologists throw out the theories and explanations and also let them take the blame when they fall short.

The Book of Mormon cannot simply be a nice story, it cannot be even an inspired story. Stuff like that which Rock puts for has to, at some point, carry the book because the brethren won't/can't and evidence against the book is mounting. It must be authentic and divine, else all that is built of Joe is lost.

Sexual Suppression

2011-11-09T17:45:00-08:00

A thread on Facebook led to this quote being shared as part of the discussion. I am going to simply paste the quote below and then follow it with links to some videos and cross-posts dealing with sexuality and Mormonism.

“Sexual suppression supports the power of the Church, which has sunk very deep roots into the exploited masses by means of sexual anxiety and guilt. [It] engenders timidity towards authority and binds children to their parents. [Note that this leaves the mind at an immature, adolescent level, emotionally and sexually, creating pressure that is often relieved in childish, unhealthy ways, including sexual abuse.]

"This results in adult subservience to the state authority and to capitalistic exploitation. It paralyzes the intellectual critical powers of the oppressed masses because it consumes the greater part of biological energy.

"Finally, it paralyzes the resolute development of creative forces and renders impossible the achievement of all aspirations for human freedom. In this way the prevailing economic system (in which single individuals can easily rule entire masses) becomes rooted in the psychic structures of the oppressed themselves.” ~ Wilhelm Reich (Austrian-American psychiatrist – author of several notable books, including The Mass Psychology of Fascism)

Cycle of Guilt
Bring Sexy Back
Intimacy, Need, and Shame
Sex and Love
Spirit of the Law Sexuality

On Belief and Predestination

2011-10-25T08:00:07-07:00

Benson declared that a lack of belief - not sin nor unrighteousness - was the crisis of our time, or so I was told in Sacrament Meeting this past Sunday. No, I don't recall this specifically from Bensons teachings nor did I bother to look it up for reference sake, but an entire talk was given about lack of belief on Sunday. Defined, belief is an opinion or conviction or confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. Sometimes I fail to see the difference between belief and faith - but in either case a lack of rigorous proof seems a prerequisite, otherwise your holding to convictions that fly in the face of fact. Demanding belief in the face of evidences that overwhelm ones sensibilities does not stand up to the "rigorous proof" test, granted, but still seems to be asking for far more than is reasonable when the same standards are not applied to both sides of the argument. If I remove the grandeur and myth from the man, and look at what we know or even what we can safely assume, why must I still believe if the known parts don't smell right? Why, when in every other context of knowing a figure I would not trust that person to watch my children or to sell me a used car, should I look the other way? If I can't establish a pattern of affirming and divine acts from someone like Joseph Smith that outweighs the negatives, how can anyone ask me to look beyond all those faults and still accept him as a prophet? Again, we are not talking about rigorous proofs, but the bar is set very high for what faults I should find acceptable, what wrongs I should ignore, what facts should be dismissed while equal standards are not applied in the other direction.

Entirely unrelated: The doctrine of predestination is still floating around in the church, I heard it taught this past Sunday along with the leading questions such as "how does knowing you were selected to live in the latter days help you in your life?" Hmmm. I keep hearing how it has been dismissed, downplayed, or swept under the rug like so many other doctrinal artifacts in Mormonism, but the concept is far from dead. That we are the elect, saved until the final days, foreordained to find the Gospel during our lives is still preached, in print, and embraced. I have blogged on this before but it still feels so arrogant to hear it taught. To know of the millions and billions who are therefore NOT elect of God, not valiant and not pre-determined for the fast-track to salvation. How does pre-existant selection based on works, works!, not seem so in the face of agency and grace and all else that is taught about the purpose of this life?

Ranting, but the doctrine rings so superficial and broken.

Leaving the Mormon Church

2011-10-19T14:00:03-07:00

This post is in answer to Kileys call for letters to those just leaving the church.

My "letter" will be rather short and sweet and based on how I reason my own departure has gone, conceding that a year from now I may have an entirely different perspective. One thing that is clear, if nothing else, is that my need to adapt to new knowledge and to allow and even seek different views is critical to making the transition from the church possible and positive. Here goes:

Find friends fast. You will need to talk and those closest to you are likely members and not able to offer you the listening ear you WILL need. My own relief came online and at the Utah County CALM group, and then eventually to a circle of apostate friends at work. And once you have friends to talk to, talk till you're blue in the face. Get it out.
Know when to shut up. Many won't want to know, or can't process what you want to tell them. Others *think* they want to know, but once the conversation starts will show clear signs that they are freaking out, or freakin' lost! Pull back. I have had more than one conversation with well intentioned members who I should have just avoided, saying it's personal and not something I wanted to share.
Don't hide it from your spouse. Be open, careful, but lay it on the table. Be respectful, but don't pretend there is NOT a problem. Communication. If your spouse/partner/significant other can be one of the friends I advocated above, awesome! But there is too much invested in a typical mormon relationship to expect that your spouse can be objective. Loving, sure. Objective? Not always. You will need friends and the person closest to you in your life may actually need the MOST time to deal with what you are going through.
Be angry! That said, I find the perpetually angry ex-mo's to be off-putting and too negative for my taste when I have found the journey away to be far too optimistic and hopeful to be tainted by an unyielding stream of hate and piss. The problem is that anger is a cathartic response and an expected phase in the process and some people have much more to be angry about than others. I advise accepting the anger, welcoming it, processing it as quickly as you can, and then moving on to realize all the positives that come from leaving. Be ready for other side affects too. Depression and anxiety happen, frequently. Don't ignore the symptoms and don't be hesitant to get help.
Be slow in change, yet embrace it. I wanted a rebellious tattoo so badly last summer I could smell it. I am glad I was warned away from it. Not that I find anything offensive or inherently wrong with tats, I quiet like them actually. But I would have certainly picked one that was reactionary and emotional and not something I wanted on my body forever.
Read, read, read. Everything you can get your hands on. With the mormon-fear-factor removed, it's time to really figure out the world. I have swallowed as many books, magazines, podcasts, lectures... you name it, everything I can regardless of my view of the subject going in. I have read Hindu and Islamic scripture, studied Masonry, read much from the so-called "New Atheists" and dove into every nook of mormon history I can find. At first this was in a desire to re-prove the truthfulness of mormonsim, but eventually became a simple quest to look at things from every perspective I could afford. I was such an ignoramus before that most of the time I still feel like a very small child just starting school, eyes wide open.

Good luck! Peace and happiness in your journey.

Now what?

2011-10-18T12:04:43-07:00

I'm sitting here and I feel like I am waiting for something. Waiting with particular frustration because I can't exactly put a finger on exactly what it is I am waiting for.

More on the waiting in a bit - I am feeling bold enough today to get a little bit loud in this post. Leaving the church is a hard road. Period. The mere thought of questioning every spiritual fiber of your construction and then allowing yourself to accept what you learn without tainting the experience with indoctrinated bias is not easy. Yes, I am patting myself on the back here and not apologizing in the process. I have apologized many times for the hurt it caused those closest to me, and I am sure I will have to repeat those apologies many times in the future - they are sincere and I mean them - but today I am celebrating what I accomplished, personally.

I know, I know... The Matrix is way over-used as a parallel to leaving Mormonism, but with quotes like this... can you blame us?

Morpheus: We have a rule. We never free a mind once it's reached a certain age. It's dangerous. The mind has trouble letting go.

This is certainly more true than most of us are comfortable realizing. To contemplate life without the church causes such stressful anguish for many that have dedicated their life to it that it's not possible to process, not probable to hope for. The investment in time, money, energy is too great to walk away from. The disruption of social circles, the certain disdain from friends and neighbors - the price is simply too high for many. And maybe it's not even a wise price to pay, maybe what I feel a degree of pride in achieving is only myself fooling my own fragmented brain into thinking I have done the right thing. Others may have the last laugh, but today I feel bold enough take pride in standing up and stepping out.

Invigorated anxiousness seems to have taken over since I found a different spin on spirituality. I feel renewed. And I feel like I am still waiting for something. But the wait is now different, it's not the same kind of lingering future-think that came with the doctrine of the church - it's a more present sense of urgency. Men, (and women), are that they might have joy, 2 Nephi 2:25. If that scripture means anything to Mormons, does it not imply joy here and now? Living life because a God of love would really want us to be as happy as possible, to be as educated as possible, to be an empowered as possible, to be yearning for experience - to truly understand just how precious *this* *current* life is. This is where I find myself now, waiting... not for the eternities, not for the promise of 72 virgins or a mansion in heaven or to live on a planet of glass - not even for the chance of reincarnation or to sit on a thrown and create my own worlds. It's at once far more simple and complicated than all that - I am waiting for myself to act on the realization that nothing is more important than the present, and make the most of it.

I'm not talking about crazy life altering acts - but I am realizing just how formational the church has been in affecting my entire approach to life and even the easiest changes seem relatively difficult, yet they are hard not because of realities that hold me back - they are hard because the programming in my head is sticky. Does that make sense? Really don't know where I am going with this post.

Running 2011

2011-10-17T08:36:06-07:00

My running season formally concluded this past Saturday. I had a goal of running 5 marathons this year which unfortunately I can't say I met. The entire season was a series of ups and downs and I am not sure how to proceed in terms of setting goals for next year.

My five marathon starts included a crappy 3:24 finish at the Salt Lake marathon, followed by a personal best and sub-3-hour finish (2:59:57) at Utah Valley. The elation of Utah Valley fueled my motivation for the rest of the year but the course at Deseret News cracked my spirit when I finished with 3:10 and then followed a couple months later with a disastrous non-finish at St. George. St. George bested me in every way. Dehydrated at mile 23, fighting through mile 24 and ending up in a confused and collapsed mess at mile 25, the race simply beat me. I physically dragged my body to the finish but it was not a formal finish, no medal for me. Instead I ended up with vomit covered shoes and a hospital wrist-tag-souvenir since my post-race celebration was a trip to the ER for a couple IV bags to bring me back to life. Sucked! Thus I ended up at the start-line of the South Jordan marathon this past Saturday with no expectations, no goal times, only a desire to get the bad taste of St. George out of my mouth and to get across the finish line again. 3:25 was my worst time of the year, my second worst finish time ever, but it was a finish and it was exactly what I needed.

The year also included my 3rd Ragnar event, a wonderful half-marathon trail race that may be the highlight of the year, and a great local trail run event that was simply fun, fun, fun. Time to rest just a bit and make some plans for 2012. With 10 marathons, (9 finishes), under my belt I don't know what to expect from my aging body next year. I would like to push for an ultra race, a 50 miler perhaps, but that will come at the cost of marathoning so frequently and require some additional training efforts. But for now... just a bit of rest and healing after a year with such fantastic highs and so many lows.

Can you blame the media?

2011-10-13T13:54:49-07:00

Feels pretty hot out there! It's political season and with Mitt staying pertinent in the GOP race, Mormons are getting mucho attention - and the pejoratives are flying!

"Cult!"
"Polygamy!"
"Non-Christians!"

And once again, the Mormons are offended and crying foul! How can the world so misunderstand us? A really decent discussion on the topic can be found at the Mormon Matters podcast: See episode 55: Cult Claims and the Media. The panel discussing the issue is group I really like, even if they are entirely pro-Mormon in their spin of the issue, but they are far more objective than your typical TBM. It's a good place to get into the nuance of the topic if you have not been otherwise following along. But I take exception with what I perceive to be their overall tone: "The media is getting better, but they are still unfair and simply don't know Mormons." Perhaps I am missing the point, but that's what I hear in the discussion. And my response is: "Can you blame them?"

Put simply, we don't teach our own members the real context, history, and subtext of the religion or it's theology - most Members have a very simplified, polished, and neutered version of their faith and will frequently cite half-truths out of ignorance. Want to test yourself? Spend an hour at MormonThink.com where the entire approach and format of the website it to present issues in essentially 3 parts: 1.) What most members know/think/have been taught 2.)Significant details and problems most members are not aware of 3.) A presentation of antagonistic and apologetic responses to the issue. As a 38 year old member before I finally stumbled onto information like this, I know I was grossly unaware of most of these details and YES I realize most apologists will blame ME for not researching those issues earlier in my life, but let's save that discussion for another day. The point I am making is that if we don't take time to teach and understand the faith, in it's totality, as members who live and die under the tenants of the faith, why are we so shocked when non-members including the media misunderstand the church? Want to argue with me that the church is not forthright in their teaching of their own doctrine and history, please reference this post I did last spring about what my own daughter was being taught in seminary.

Moreover, some of the uglier stuff that gets tossed around like polygamy is quickly swatted away by church members and representatives as "in the past". The church has changed, essentially, so "get over it - we don't practice polygamy anymore". Fine. In the most common understanding of polygamy this is superficially true - but every doctrinal tenant of the plurality of wives is still in the LDS canon today. None of it has been redacted or extracted. It's still part of the theology! Most members would even argue that its literal practice has only been "suspended" and the reality is its virtual practice through sealings of multiple women to men still occurs today. Who can blame the media for being confused? Most members have no idea of the real history of polygamy, its inception, its secrecy, its abhorrent practice in the earliest days of the church, its extension to polyandry. They have no understanding of the manifestos, (plural), to end the practice and what was really motivating those changes. They have no understanding of how polygamy still lives and breathes in the church today and just how devastating and influential polygamy was and is in virtually every major event in the history of the church at least through the early 1900's. Can you blame the media for not getting it right?

Want the media to have a more accurate picture of Mormonism? Start painting the real picture to the members first.

P.S. And to the issue of the "C" word, this blog is really really good. I won't attempt to say it any better.