The Threat Within

In the past, my brother’s and my topics of choice varied considerably for this blog. Generally, he addresses the social issues surrounding the Gospel and the Church, while I address the doctrinal. However, stimulated by the comments of someone on both my brother’s and my earlier postings, I believe I will tackle a social topic. This person, only known as Jeremy, gave forceful, though amazingly vague criticisms of my brother’s and my writings (attacking our interpretations of th Fall, anti-Mormon literature, our relationship with God, our views of our leaders, etc.). Instead of really criticizing with any meaning, he instead contributed an idea.

Satan has used many methods to defeat the purposes of God. Using the sensationalistic, tabloid-like methods of J. Edward Decker (The Godmakers) can frighten people away with its claims. They become so scared of Mormons that their ignorance of the religion prevents any rational learning about it. Others, like Jerald and Sandra Tanner (Mormonism, Shadow or Reality), take a more conservative and scholarly approach, giving their own slant or interpretations to the words and events in Church history. But those are professional anti-Mormons. Are there others? Well, Signature Books is an interesting publishing company, who bring forth the works of people like D. Michael Quinn (Early Mormonism and the Magic World View). These take the approach that the official Church history is replete with errors, assumptions, deletions, and changes. Contributing authors are from the Mormon and non-Mormon camps. They take it upon themselves to rectify the Church’s faulty history through their scholarly means.

How do I feel about these different people and their writings? They can be very damaging to the faith to be sure. Ed Decker, to me, is without any credit. Even most anti-Mormons denounce his work, as they feel he damages their crusade more than he helps. The Tanners bring some interesting documents to light, bring up interesting points, and really can enlighten us to things we may have turned a blind eye to. However, as I said, they do a great deal to twist interpretations to the ways they see them. To write without bias is impossible, but it’s as if they don’t trust their readers to draw the “right” conclusions for themselves. Therefore, they tell you how you are supposed to take their exposures. Writers in the vein of Signature Books are dangerous as well. Good scholarly research is a valuable thing. It’s good to see what aspects of history we may be lacking. Who here knows that Joseph Smith had a Council of 50, his political council that even had non-Mormons in its ranks? Signature Books authors bring the details of such things to light. But these authors are not concerned with building faith. They will point out that Church leaders have made mistakes (something that many in the Church refuse to believe), and they go on a purely historical basis. In other words, they address the issues of Church history as if it was not inspired (whether they believe it or not), and target an audience that assumes the same. They use complete historical context, and not necessarily in an unbiased way. They present ideas that even they know might not be true, but they present them as true. Such things can also destroy faith, if we are to assume that Church history was shaped entirely by surroundings and not by the will of God.

But do the things that destroy faith always come from without? Or are there those forces that can come from within?

My recent experience has driven me to comment on certain personality traits of those within the Church. Many of us can assume stances of this nature at one point or another. Some of us may only carry one or two of these attributes, yet others of us may be permeated with these dangerous views and jeopardize our own salvation. But the great Deceiver may make use of those who are “extra-righteous” within the Church as those who deliberately seek its downfall.

A serious flaw within many members is a feeling of great doctrinal knowledge. They have studied the scriptures for years, have read books like Jesus the Christ, have argued in their high priests group (okay, there are many other forums of debate, but this seems to be a popular choice), and feel they have a supreme understanding of the Church and its doctrines. Though I am highly in favor of seeking knowledge about the gospel, these people seem to take a very a very condescending view towards those “of little faith,” or “the babes in the gospel.” They take it upon themselves to correct all the “false doctrine” they see out there, and call those wicked perpetrators to repentance. These spiritual vigilantes should beware of such an attitude. There are a number of pitfalls in there path.

First, they can become very caught up in pride. Some may feel they know so much about the gospel that they can call their bishop in for an interview. There are a number of falls from pride, well addressed elsewhere. Suffice it to say that humility is a hard thing to maintain, no matter our strengths and weaknesses. With greater knowledge comes a greater responsibility to disseminate such knowledge appropriately and in humility.

Second, these views of one’s greatness can alienate him/herself from others within the Church, and even outside. He or she might start looking at those beneath him as unworthy. They become judgmental, critical, and find themselves saying things that may hurt others. They may teach the principle that everyone is a child of God using a dozen different sources, and forget what such a principle really means. They begin treating them as lesser mortals.

Third, they seem to forget that we know so little about the gospel. If David O. McKay can say, referring to the endowment shortly before his death "I think I'm finally beginning to understand," I believe it is safe to say we all fall short of complete knowledge of the gospel. Though numerous doctrines are solid, not everything is set in stone. There is plenty of flexibility of interpretation. Someone whose opinion differs from yours needn’t be considered a threat to the Church or oneself. The gospel is a learning experience for all of us, and you might be wrong about a few things, yet, you probably won’t discover most truths until you’ve passed into the next life. Right or wrong, it often isn’t essential to our salvation, and we don’t need to always present our views as if we have cornered the market on proper understanding.

Fourth, a person so stiff in his interpretations may end up apostatizing. A belief that the prophets are infallible, for instance, is not only rubbish, but can be quite detrimental. Most everyone must come to an understanding that their leaders are not demigods. Moses made mistakes, and couldn’t enter Canaan. Jonah disobeyed God, and received solitary confinement (so to speak) for his defiance. Joseph Smith drank wine on occasion. Brigham Young sometimes taught Adam was God. Bruce R. McConkie said blacks would not receive the priesthood before the Second Coming. We must trust our leaders, and we have the promise that we won’t be led astray. Yet, when Pres. Hinckley or Elder Nelson does something that exposes his humanity, such as an incorrect statement or teaching, we must be wise enough to acknowledge that humanity while maintaining our trust in that leader’s inspiration. We cannot afford to be naïve about this fact. Many have fallen away from the Church because they expected more out of their leaders.

Taking that matter further, a number of former members have figured that they knew everything more than their neighbor about the gospel of Christ. They have done so much “research” that they ultimately conclude that they are the elect of God. There are seriously a number of churches that have splintered from the truth simply because they believed that God had called a new prophet out of his proper order. You can see a list of the various splinter groups here. These are all that we have managed to catalogue with any significant information on the Web. This list is by no means an exhaustive list of all splinter groups. Though cases like these may be extreme, one must still be cautious as he grows in knowledge. Again, responsibility and humility must prevail.

Fifth, they thwart any intelligent investigation of the gospel. As the Church has aged, so has its understanding. Our understanding of ancient America has changed in even the past decade. To shun new ideas or interpretations is foolish and narrow-minded. Many of these greater understandings are due to those willing to defend the Church. And those who defend must know what the critics are saying. True, it is unwise for most to read anti-Mormon literature. I wouldn’t recommend it to most. Some leaders have even termed it “spiritual pornography.” But the Church cannot possibly be wholly against it. FARMS is a branch of BYU, the Church’s university. This group is very studious, learning great things about the archaeology of the Book of Mormon and Christianity in general. They also devote work to defending the faith against the “anti” clans.

If one ventures into the minefields of anti-Mormon studies, he or she must enter with faith. An understanding that the opposition is strong, with balanced studies on defense is essential. But again, most key is intense faith, because questions will arise, some that may not get answered in this life.

As a final note, these people must realize that not all the damage they can cause will be self-inflicted. They can drive potential investigators away as self-righteous attitudes are perceived. They can set up false expectations in fellow members. They might offend others and drive them to inactivity. They may actually instill the same views in others, who then are subject to the same potential downfalls I’ve already enumerated.

The blessings of God are not for the wise. Though wisdom is a virtue, it is not the key. Such blessings are for the humble.

My Father, My God, part III

My Father, My God, part III

In this series, I have aimed at trying to help the reader better understand our relationship with God. I wonder if through it all, I have still placed too much emphasis on static doctrine, and missed the real point: we are in a very literal and personal sense children of our Heavenly Father. In this third and final installment, I will try to establish how such a knowledge can make us become so much more. As children of God, we can understand our true worth before our Maker, and our incredible potential to be like him.

How much are we worth? I am awestruck when I think of it with this perspective: We live on the planet Earth. To me, this planet seems gargantuan. Yet, it is a rather small planet, especially when compared to Jupiter or Saturn. But every planet, asteroid, comet, or other object that orbits our Sun comprise a mere 0.2% of our solar system. The Sun alone takes up the other 99.8%. But our sun isn’t a particularly large star. It’s actually on the smaller side. There are estimated to be over a hundred billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy. In the known universe there are at least four hundred billion galaxies. Imagine how many stars that means exist in this universe! Each star is undergoing an incredibly powerful fusion reaction, each consuming billions of tons of hydrogen every second. The total amount of energy put out is a grand number, far greater than what we could possibly imagine. Yet, when a single star goes supernova, it releases more energy than all the stars in the universe combined. We are but specks of dust in an infinite room.

And yet, in all of God’s creation, we are by far his most treasured. Nothing to him is more valuable. His glory does not derive from his ability to create “worlds without number.” His work is not to produce incomprehensible quantities of energy. “For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39). In other words, every action God performs, it is for our benefit. The creation of this massive powerhouse of a universe was simply for us. Every thought in his limitless mind is how he can serve us, and what he can do to bring us back home.

For all his effort, many of us will not return to our Maker. Why? Because, according to God’s plan, we must have agency. That is how we grow. He is eager to give all that he has, but we cannot be prepared to receive that until we’ve overcome the opposition (see 2 Nephi 2). That means we will be tempted and tried, and only those who give their all, and cast all the rest on the eternal grace of Christ can be redeemed and inherit their mansions.

What must we do to overcome our opposition? What must we do to obtain eternal life? We must know God. We must establish a relationship with him. “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3) The truth is, without knowing the Father and the Son, there is no life eternal. And we must begin establishing that relationship in this life.

God is always reaching out to us. We are children who have disowned our Father, have given up our inheritance, and our now wandering prodigals. Our sinful lives, even if we’ve been nearly perfect, completely cut us off from all access to God. Knowing that all of us would cut ourselves off, God offered his Son. Through the merits of the Messiah, we can again communicate with our Heavenly Father. Again, imagine that we have willfully broken ties with our parents. Our Father, wanting us to return to him ever so badly, sent his only faithful Son to intercede on behalf of the rest of us. Through the infinite-reaching efforts, each of us can be restored into proper standing with our Father. By his own laws, God cannot force us to return to him. But he reaches out in every way he can, including offering his one righteous Son, so that he can reconnect with his wayward offspring.

But what do we do to reinstitute our bonds? How do we get to know God again? The Lectures on Faith offer this:

Let us here observe, that three things are necessary, in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God, unto life and salvation:

First, the idea that he actually exists.

Second, a correct idea of his character, perfections and attributes.

Third, an actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing, is according to his will. For without an acquaintance with these three important facts, the faith of every rational being must be imperfect and unproductive, but with this understanding, it can become perfect and fruitful, abounding in righteousness unto the praise and glory of God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

(Lectures on Faith 3:2-5)

Since parts I and II thoroughly covered the former two necessities in sufficient detail, the latter deserves the most attention here. Restated, it is by living a godly life that we find ourselves in true communion with our Divine Parent. Through sacrifice, service, and righteous living, we develop a faith in God. And with that faith, we again become Father and child. “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Hebrews 11:6). We must develop that faith through our efforts.

If, through our minuscule offerings and the Atonement of Christ, we are brought to stand before God at the Day of Judgment, our Father will embrace us, kiss us, and welcome us home through tears. We will spend eternity in his presence, in one of his numberless mansions prepared by the Son (John 14:2). We will be filled with his Glory, and we will become what he is. We will be gods, forever worshipping the Almighty God (D&C 132:20, Revelation 3:21, and many other scriptures)!

I know of no way to make it clearer. We are the children of God! So what does this mean to us as individuals? If we have truly grasped the true significance of this knowledge, we begin to change our lives. We live like princes and princesses. We make use of the offering of the Son, and bring our lives into harmony with the Father. If we truly know this, our lives are forever altered. We will comprehend ourselves and our destinies (King Follett Discourse). We reach out for communication with God, so he can guide us back to his presence.

It also means that we look at others as divine. As Christ best exemplified, we can serve and love those around us. Some may not dress well, may have less enjoyable personalities, or have bad hygiene. Some may be old, ill, or unattractive. Yet, God loves all his children. Christ served anyone accepting of his service, even the lowest castes. Knowing that we truly are looking at our brothers and sisters, with the same divine sparks in their souls, we should remember to treat everyone with love and dignity.

Unlike the first two parts in this series, I have been reserved in my scripture and quote usage. I have relied heavily on my testimony. And it is with my testimony that I will close. I truly know that I am a beloved son of God. I know that it is his joy, his pleasure, his work, and his glory to give to me all that he has. I know that he loves me with such a certainty that it has changed my life. Even since first attempting to tackle this topic, I have felt him change me. I know that we are all his children, and I have learned to love my fellow man more because of this realization. And I know that all of this is made possible by his gift of his Son (John 3:16), and his Son’s eternal sacrifice. Christ knew his Father, and addressed him as such throughout his life. Then the Only Begotten Son suffered and was crucified for all of us. And when he rose on the third day, he spoke with Mary Magdalene, making his and our relationship with God clear: “Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God” (John 20:17). He is my Father, my God.

The Beginner’s Guide to Mormon Types

(Not to be taken entirely seriously)

When approaching an unfamiliar and new species, especially one that prides itself as being “peculiar” and “not of this world,” it can be confusing to the uninitiated. On the surface, Mormons, also known as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, appear to be a homogenous group of white-skinned drones who do not think for themselves, allowing their “prophet” to think for them. Not so. Spending time among this group will give you a sense of their organization and social pecking order.

For the merely curious, even one Sunday will reveal much about behavior or Mormons. However, the intrepid anthropologist will need years to learn the finer intricacies of Mormon social behavior. Whether one is seeking to join the Mormons, or just has the odd urge to comprehend these strange creatures from a distance, an important key to understanding Mormons is to know their basic types.

Although it was difficult, I have managed to spend years among them, living as one of them, learning their ways. For the most part, I was accepted, even married a native, but there were rocky times when I was nearly kicked out of the tribe. Not for breaking any of their “commandments,” but because I did not always fit into their social rules. Despite those rough moments, I am happy to present this short guide to Mormon types, for the edification of all humankind.

One will note, while reading this guide, that faith is the primary distinction between groups. Unlike other species, the Mormons do not distinguish so much between socio-economic status or skin color, although these can come into play. No, with Mormons, it is the varying levels and kinds of faith that distinguish one from another.

I could never hope to make a complete list of all types of Mormons; there is too much variation and subtlety in Mormon society, and sometimes even treachery. However the guide I present is a good, representative start. My sometimes dangerous travels through Mormon lands has been fruitful for me personally, and I hope what I share today can also be beneficial to you, the reader.

One final note to remember: individuals can and do slip from one type to another, and can even be multiple types at one time. Do not make the mistake of pigeon-holing others. To those who are Mormon, these categories are not all-inclusive. You may find yourself uncomfortably fitting into one or two of these groups. See what fits, and change yourself if you don’t like what does fit.

The True Believing Mormons – These are the Saints who have a simple but powerful belief in the restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith, Jr. These people believe Gordon B. Hinckley would never lead them astray and follow the admonitions of their local leaders without questions or complaints. These humble members would rather die than actually gossip or judge another person. Caffeine and contention are of the devil, and the phrase “Oh, my heck!” can often be heard. Remember: while their faith may be simple, the feelings and convictions are deeply held. Do not fear approaching the True Believer, but chances are, they will approach you first. Well-meaning, but sometimes blind.

The Ersatz Believer – These individuals are so expert at deceit, they even fool themselves. Deep down, they do not truly believe the gospel, but they fear the social repercussions of ever expressing doubt or personal imperfection. Cowards at heart, these members fear man more than God and are happy to tear down others in an attempt to take close attention off themselves. This usually works, and they tend to be viewed as the most spiritual members, even though it is all just surface appearance. These often end up in leadership positions, where they can perpetuate their brand of “faith” and appoint others of a similar mind. They often are the first to shake hands with a visitor or new member, but their friendliness usually ends there. Despite the wish of many that they do leave, usually, these members will stay in the church for the status of “holiness,” only leaving if called out for their self-righteous behavior. Approach with caution.

The Honest Doubters – An honest doubter believes the church is true, has faith in its veracity and hopes they will some day have a testimony. Often pitied or looked down upon, these are not considered strong members, because of their truthful expression of faith without knowledge. Always destined to have callings in the youth programs or the primary, these members will never be the leaders of the church. Some may not even want leadership positions. Despite their doubts they can find many good and worthwhile aspects to belonging to the church. They try to attend, despite their doubts, despite any gossiping, and despite their low status. This group faces a large risk of leaving if they are insulted and gossiped about enough. But at least they tend to be honest.

The Socialite Believer – This is a somewhat hybrid group, with elements of the Honest Doubters and the Faux Believers. They may have doubts, they may truly believe, but their primary reason for coming to church is the social structure. They honestly get something out of their social contacts at church, but may or may not actually “feel the spirit” or “have a testimony.” Theirs is a drive to be around their kind of people, and the church fills that need. They like the support; they like the activities, the talking after meetings, and sometimes indulge in the gossiping, as long as it is not about themselves. Often become inactive if their social needs are not being met in church anymore. On the surface, they are harmless, but can be sucked in the same judgmental behavior as the Faux Believers.

The Jack Mormon Believer – This refers to a long-time member of the church, usually born in the covenant, sometimes to an “inactive” family. These are people who have decided the “game” of church is not worth their time. Sometimes, they have problems with authority. Sometimes, there is a problem with the word of wisdom or swearing, or some other highly noticeable sin. Whatever it is, these are the visible rebels who have given up trying to appear holy, preferring to revel in their sin, or at least they have quit pretending they don’t have a problem. People make mistakes, and as far as the Faux Believers are concerned, the Jack Mormon’s biggest mistake is that they chose to sin in an evident way. Perhaps they would have returned back into full activity with the church, or even wanted to return to activity, but decided the blatant judging is not worth their time. Most of these are Mormons in name only. Despite commonly-held beliefs, these are often nice people, unless cornered about their lack of church activity.

The Rebel Believer – This group is relatively small and often overlooked or lumped in with the Jack Mormons. However, they have faith, like the True Believer. The main difference is that the Rebel Believers passively fight against the Faux Believers. These social mischief-makers like to wear clothing and have hair-dos that push the envelope of acceptable dress. They often say outrageous things during Sunday School and tell quirky stories during the bearing of their testimonies. This is often meant to annoy only those who superficially belong to the church, because True Believers will love the quirky Rebel despite annoyances and differences. Attention is often a goal, as well, but the Rebel Believer is sometimes just expressing an artistic soul. May have outlandish ideas, but generally considered harmless.

The Intellectual Believer – The intellectuals are considered a dangerous breed by many. They have gnosis gained by their education and superior intellect. They have pondered the many unanswerable questions of the gospel and found their answers on the web. To these members, doctrine is relative and changeable, something to be argued over, not prayed over. Speculative doctrine is their specialty. Sometimes, suppressed history or abuses of ecclesiastical power outrages the Intellectual. In an attempt to argue a reasonable viewpoint, the Intellectual often argues himself right out of the Kingdom. Some return to the fold, but there are many out there who wander aimlessly through the lone and dreary world. This breed of believer is sometimes hunted because they make easy prey in the attempt to keep the doctrine pure. Intellectuals who somehow do remain in the church are also known to hang out with Faux Believers and participate in the mocking of those who do not know the gospel as well as they do. This group fears the day that President Packer becomes president of the church, because of his hard-line stance on doctrine. Considered extremely dangerous and membership is sometimes terminated with extreme prejudice.

The Hard-Line Believer – This believer is often considered the foundation of the church, a foundation stone for the members, a pillar of the community, because there is nothing that will move them from their faith, even if said faith is erroneous. Hardliners believe that nothing any prophet has ever said is wrong. Even personal opinions and private statements. This form of belief operates on the assumption that there is only black and white, only one way of viewing something. As inflexible thinkers, the Hardliner cannot fathom being wrong and dismiss without examination any dissenting views. The champion of this group is Boyd K. Packer. Annoying, occasionally harmful when approached by non-mainstream questions, but generally good members, if not annoying.

The Speculative Believer – Very similar to the Intellectuals, the Speculator willingly delves into deeper doctrine. Unlike the Intellectuals, the Speculative Believer does not have the education to know everything. They do not have any scientific rationale to explain away DNA problems with the Book of Mormon, so they invent wild theories to bolster their faith. This group also favors the telling and retelling of Mormon folklore, perpetuating myths of the three Nephites and other dubious miraculous claims. That’s not to say they don’t also believe in true miracles. In fact, this group believes just about any speculative idea. Aliens on other worlds? Why not? Abraham talks about worlds without number. No matter that there is no modern prophet who talks about beings on other worlds. It must be true. Considered a dangerous group, but only to those who will listen to them.

Blind Following Believer – These interesting fellows are barely able to think for themselves. Not only do they follow any statement by any leader in the church, they also follow the social structures without questioning. Their loyalty is high and their vision is off. Hard working and generally agreeable, the Blind Follower, like the True Believers, can be found in any variety of unpleasant extra-curricular activities like service projects and doing their home teaching. Blind Followers are considered quite valuable to the local social unit, the “ward,” and Bishops and Elders Quorum Presidents love to utilize this breed. Generally pleasant to be around, unless their beliefs are challenged in any way.

Too Willing to Doubt Believer – This group can be difficult to spot, because when they are in the church, they are camouflaged as some other group, normally the Blind Follower. However, once out of the church, they are much easier to identify, by their written testimonials online and in so-called “anti” material. Such statements, like the call of the bluebird, are unmistakable to those who recognize it. For those hoping to catch a glimpse, be on the lookout for such phrases as “I never doubted the church until I read . . .” Another favorite phrase is “I grew up in the church and never questioned until my friend’s pastor . . .” While in the church, these are generally considered harmless, like the Blind Followers. However, once out of the church, the Too Willing to Doubters appoint themselves the champions of ex-Mormons and try to lure others to doubt, as they do. Difficult to discuss with them, because by this point, they have usually swallowed everything their new “pastor” has told them.

The Fault-Finding Believer – The Fault-Finders can be a nasty little group. Although they claim to have a great deal of faith, their interest lies in tearing down others. Seen primarily in the company of the Socialites, these individuals often choose to tear down a “ward member” with low social skills or one who does not fit in. More frequently, however, is the attacks on local and world-wide leadership. Although no one is human, the Fault-Finder is happy to belittle and mock any leader who dares to be less than perfect. They can always do a better job than those called to lead them. Highly unpleasant to be around, only tolerated by the Socialites.

The Lost Believer – These are a sad lot. Perhaps once True Believers, the Lost Believer has made some mistake that led to their being ousted by the clan or “ward.” Sometimes, ousting is by ostracization, when deemed socially repugnant, but not too bad an offense. More often, the offender is cut off through a process called “disfellowship,” a temporary cutting off of religious privileges. More serious still is “excommunication,” which is another way of saying “Get lost!” No matter what the punishment, the Lost Believer truly had belief in the church teachings, but mistakes, called “sin,” are against the moral code of the group, and Mormons place the needs of the group above the needs of the individual. Some of these lost souls make their way back, but a good majority remain without the spiritual guidance provided by the Church. Sadly, in some cases, these individuals could have been rescued before the more severe punishments kick in, but what usually happens is when they are ostracized, they begin to feel little need to go through the “repentance” process. Usually not approached or even talked about by those actively in the church, regardless of the group to which they belong.

True but Prideful Believer – Ah, the Proud! These are normally, although not always, wealthy and well-to-do. Over-privileged and natural influence flowing from their good breeding and money, the Proud are often called upon to leadership positions. This is because they make better leaders than they do backseat drivers, and they have a tendency to join in with the Fault-Finders unless they are themselves leading. Although their faith and belief may be strong, they honestly believe they are better and more perfect than those around them. Their mighty houses might go against the warnings of the prophets, their large families might be more than they can handle emotionally, but they sure look righteous. They can afford this image, as they can afford the monster SUV’s to cart around their gaggle of children. Large and expensive framed pictures of temples and the “First Presidency” often greet the visitor. Statues and expensive paintings of the Savior adorn the house. Much attention is paid to the image of good breeding and righteous living, and yet, the Proud normally cannot spare more than $5.00 for fast offerings. Approach with caution, unless you are wealthy yourself. Otherwise, they will not even notice you exist and could walk all over you.

The Seeking Believer – This group has a healthy balance of faith and questioning. They are characterized by a thirst for additional knowledge while avoiding the temptation to intellectualize the gospel. Speculation can be fine, in moderation, but the written documents of the living and past prophets, coupled by the teachings of the spirit, is where the true knowledge can come. The Seeker is one who accepts the imperfections of the church leadership, and yet who still clings to their faith. These are ones who realize that not all questions have answers, who understand that they lack complete knowledge, are willing to seek more, and are aware that some knowledge will always be out of their grasp in this life. These are they who attend church for a variety of reasons, for the fellowship, for their callings, and yes, to even learn something. These are they who, while not seeking out the so-called “anti-Mormon” literature, are not afraid of it, can confront it and not lose their testimony. Why? Because their faith is not so fragile that the tinkling of brass can shatter it. These can be socially active or rather quiet individuals, but they are characterized by their love of learning the gospel and discussing it with others. Generally, these are easy to approach, but even these can have their elements of fanaticism.

I hope this little guide has been helpful. It is nowhere close to comprehensive, but has some of the major groupings of Mormons. Please remember that this is not an entirely serious piece, and should not be taken without a prescription. Ask your doctor if this guide is for you. Take only as directed, with a sense of humor and self introspection.

That Men May Be

In a recent Sunday school class, we had an interesting lesson on the Fall of Mankind. A number of things were brought up that interested me. One was the difference between sin and transgression.

The way I see it, a transgression is the breaking of a law, while sin is knowingly breaking the law and therefore willfully disobeying God. By this definition, a sin is a transgression, but a transgression isn’t necessarily a sin. This fits nicely with 1 John 3:4, which I’ve heard numerous times from those unfriendly to the Church to make out the Fall to be a horrible thing. We as a Church generally try to explain it as something necessary and beautiful. Adam and Eve were innocent (2 Nephi 2:23, Genesis 2:25), and therefore their transgression wasn’t a sin. They were as children.

From certain scriptures (Moses 4:14, and others that seem to imply such), we know that children can trangress the law. If you punish your 3-year old child for coloring on the wall, you know this. They break the law, and there may be temporal consequences, like a spanking or a time-out. Nevertheless, they are innocent, and are therefore not eternally accountable for their decisions. Adam and Eve’s innocence allowed them to remain unstained from sin. See Moroni 8:8, 20, 22 where it teaches that Christ's atonement was still required to pay for the transgressions of children. The law can still be broken, but because are unaccountable before God for their transgressions, Christ paid the price for them.

But my real question isn’t the degree to which Adam transgressed. My question is the same cliche' that has been asked so many times before: Why did God make the path to a necessary mortality through a transgression of the commandments of God?

Some have theorized that God was testing them to see if they would be obedient for a period of time, and that later he would command them to partake of the fruit. This doesn’t make sense to me for a few of reasons: 1) Such a test wouldn’t seem to have any bearing on anything else in God's plan, temporal or spiritual. They still would have been required to enter the lone and dreary world where they would be subject to sin and temptation, whether they passed or failed the test. Their future's and the future of humanity would still have been the same. 2) I don’t believe God would command someone to do something that would result in separation from him. All of his commandments are designed to bring us closer. If they were later commanded to take the fruit and leave the Garden, it would almost be as if God were commanding us to take part in sin, or something that would draw us away from him. 3) The scriptures will always offer a stronger argument than anything I ever could. Read Nephi 2:22, where it seems to clearly teach that if there had been no transgression, Adam and Eve would still be innocent nudes in the Garden of Eden.

I offer what I believe is the truer answer. God knew that the experiences we needed to grow and become gods ourselves required a test of mortality and separation from God. But by his own laws, he can’t simply remove himself from us. We have to transgress to part from him. So he chose to set up a law that could be broken in order for them to separate from him on their own. He allowed them to make a decision that put them in the fallen state necessary for growth via transgression. Then they were required to pay a temporal consequence, namely mortality and expulsion from Paradise, just like the child in time-out. They also were given knowledge, and became accountable, like a chid reaching the age of eight. Along with these changes came a cutting off from the presence of God. Yet, this was not an eternal damnation. This was merely a more distant relationship. They would not suffer in Hell for their mistake, but they were required to grow up a bit, and spend their newly found mortal lives learning for themselves and making further mistakes. Yet, a Savior was provided, and they, with all of us, were given the opportunity to return to our Heavenly Father.

Some may believe my theory to be borderline blasphemous. I knew a missionary who put it this way: “It sounds like God set them up to fail.” I don’t see it that way. You see, God knows the beginning from the end. He doesn’t ever command someone to sin, but he knows they’re going to do it. So he uses others’ choices to further his own ends. Take the crucifixion of Christ for example. In 2 Nephi 10:3 it explains that it was necessary for Christ to live among the Jews, because they were the only ones wicked enough to crucify their Messiah. He used the bad choices of others to complete his Son’s atonement. So he similarly used Adam's and Eve's weakness of succumbing to temptation to bring to pass his righteous ends.

Adam and Eve were innocent, and therfore incapable of sin. They fulfilled God’s plan by transgressing the law, and were thereby given the opportunity for growth. Yet through it all, God did not cause them to sin.

Circumcision, Debates and Covenants

First posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005

This essay is a rewrite of the Great Circumcision Debate essay. While I like the original, it really was too light and full of fluff. I had more I wanted to say, and this topic really needed to be treated in a more serious tone. This time, I touch on a great deal more doctrine, while briefly discussing the medical and social implications of this practice.-Matt 02/12/2006

The reason for this topic

Reading over a past post on Splendid Sun, I'm reminded of the controversy surrounding my own son's birth. At the time, we did not know what we would have, boy or girl. The ultrasound gave us no clue whatsoever, because our child actively hid himself. So, we had to speculate. Part of that speculation was over the delicate decision to lop off a bit of our child, if it was a boy. This generated a fair amount of conversation.

"If it's a girl, we can name her Allison. But if it's a boy, I don't like the names you've chosen."
"I don't want the names you want either."
"Well, if it's a boy, I think we should circumcise him, because you are."
"I don't want my son to be cut up. My son won't have any spare parts."

Remember that. No spare parts.

What is circumcision and why is it done?

It is the surgical removal of part or all of the fold of skin covering the tip of the penis. But that does not explain the emotional impact this procedure can have. From Biblical times on, circumcision was performed on an adult male (see Genesis 17:23-27) at the time they covenanted with the Lord. The Lord also commanded that children aged 8 days were to also have this done (see Genesis 17:12) . This was to be a token of the covenant made between him and the Lord (see Genesis 17:11-14). This covenant is so personal, it is in his flesh.

That thought catches me. In his flesh. Interesting. It is now known that a circumcised man does not have the same sexual feeling as an uncircumcised man. To men who were circumcised as adults, it has been likened to sight without color. If a man doesn’t know what he is missing, he cannot appreciate what he lost. To those who know what they are missing, it is never the same.

In a priesthood lesson I recently heard on covenants, the teacher was talking about casting away sin. The imagery was eerily similar to the image of cutting off the foreskin. When Abraham cut off his foreskin as a token of his covenant with the Lord, he was covenanting to obey the commandments and (among other things) not have sexual relations outside of marriage. He was literally sacrificing his sexual feeling for this covenant with the Lord. Some would call this too steep a price, but Abraham was nothing of not obedient. He made the covenant, lost a portion of his pleasure, but bound himself closely to his god. This was the same covenant he passed on to his children, the Abrahamic covenant. Isn’t it interesting that he is promised that through his sacrifice and seed, the world would be blessed (see 3 Nephi 20:27)?

Our son and his extra piece of skin
My wife and I attended a parenting/birthing class, which was a good preparation for us. The teacher had an approach I appreciated. She didn't tell us one way of doing things was good or bad. She just informed us and let us make up our own minds. One night, we watched a video of a newborn boy getting clipped, and I tell you what. My decision was confirmed, and Kari's mind was changed. No to any circumcision, full or partial. I think it cruel and unnecessary.

A while later, our son is actually born. We keep our resolve. When the nurse asked us if we planned to have a circumcision, we looked at each other, turned back to the nurse, and in unison said “no.” His little member is safe. Sure, we have to keep it clean and have to avoid any infections, but you have to be careful if he is clipped, too. No big deal.

The reaction of others
Except we found that everyone had an opinion about my son's penis. People were excited to hear I was a father, to hear I had a boy. And nine out of ten times, they felt it was their business to ask if he was circumcised. "No," I would tell them.

"Are you crazy? He could get infected (get cancer, lose his sex drive, whatever) if you don't."

What I want to know is, why do people think this is any of their business? Do I ask if a woman has had a hysterectomy? Do I ask a man if he has prostate problems? For that matter, do you ask if anyone still has their tonsils or appendix? This is a rather personal decision, yet everyone felt they had the right to know, and tell me why I was wrong.

I got pretty good at avoiding debates. It really isn’t worth it. I won’t change their minds, they won’t change mind. But the fact of the matter is, with all the research I put into it, I saw no good reason to clip the little guy. The health reasons cited were all maybe's. Sure, he might get infected. So keep it clean. Duh! Or he might get cancer. Well *cue the sarcasm* cut it all off, then! I mean, maybe I'll get appendicitis, so let's go ahead and do an appendectomy on me. Or let's push this to the extreme. Maybe, I'll get lung cancer, so let's just remove my left lung now, as a preemptive strike. I could get gangrene! Let’s cut off both feet, to prevent it from happening! But what if we removed the wrong appendage? That’s OK, there is a growing proficiency in our medical community in prosthetics. *end the sarcasm*

Uh, yeah. People! You keep it clean and things will be OK. If there is a medical reason to remove it later, do it later. It will be OK.

Other issues debunked
Social reasons . . . what a horrible reason to mutilate one's genitalia. I don't plan on raising my son in Utah for much longer, especially not in Utah valley, where everyone damages their sons. But even if we stayed here (God forbid), my son would just have to deal with the fact that his penis was different from the mutilated boys around him. And what is up with Mormons doing this to their baby boys? Mormons do believe the law of Moses was done away, right? I mean, there was a big debate about this very topic in the period of the apostles, some time after Christ's resurrection (see the Acts 15:1-31). As I recall, the decision was to not continue the barbaric practice. The law was and is fulfilled in Christ. It's over, through! We are now to be circumcised of heart. Why, oh why do Mormons keep hurting their sons in this cruel manner?

Making him match his father? Why do I want him to match me? That's a dumb reason if I've ever heard one. If he asks, I will have a discussion with him about it.

I’ve heard it said that newborns don't have developed pain sensors. What kind of idiotic statement is that? At the very least, they don't like being strapped down. It puts them in a panic. But let’s look at this in a different light: this little boy just came out of a nice, warm, safe womb. He’s ready to face the world! He’s got a loving mother and father right there to watch over him (idealistic, I know). But wait! What’s this? Why are we subjecting him to legalized torture? I will grant that just maybe, their sensors are different from an older baby. Fine. I feel that he still doesn't deserve that kind of treatment. What’s worse, they used to do this without any anesthetic. How cruel is that?

Reasons to not do it
As already stated, it is mean. They don't like having it done. It diminishes sexual feeling. A lot. It is unnecessary. God doesn't even expect us to do it. People, let us stop hurting our little boys!

Thankfully, I don't get the questions about my son's penis any more. People I didn't know made it their business. But what gave these perfect strangers the right to ask (and force their opinions upon me) in the first place? This is a rather personal matter. If my son later decides he wants his penis mutilated, he can do it himself (and I don’t want to hear about it).

Conclusion
I do not resent having had this done to me. My parents did not know any different, and it was the social practice of most of Christian America at the time. It was also what Mormons did. It was not a question of if they should it or not. People just did it back then. I cannot be angry about that. Of course, a part of me wonders what might have been. What am I really missing out on? I’ll never know in this life. Do I just have vision without color?

This also makes me think about the covenants I have made. None of those covenants require cutting a part of me and casting it away. But the Lord does ask of me to cast away my selfish, base, natural desires and come follow him. He wants us to be circumcised in our hearts (see Deut 10:15-16). Note that the idea of cutting male flesh and seed are linked in the scriptures

As I’ve studied this topic, I have developed a doctrinal theory. A man who gains mastery over his flesh, denies himself of the lusts of the heart and overcomes the natural man is blessed for his sacrifice, whether a physical loss of feeling or other sacrifice. How is he blessed? In his seed, and in fatherhood. What was Abraham’s blessing and covenant? That through him, his seed and the whole world should be blessed. We know Abraham did not have many children, yet he was promised his seed would be as numberless as the stars in the sky. Latter-day Saints believe this referred to his future exalted state upon achieving godhood. This is the fullest expression of fatherhood, and even manhood. Put in that perspective, the loss of a little flesh and feeling could seem pretty trivial. But even in this life, the man who controls himself and becomes circumcised in his heart will be a better father than the man who is lost to his lusts.

While the brutal symbol of circumcision and casting away physical desire is a powerful teaching tool and reminder of covenants made, I am so glad to live in a dispensation where the need has been done away through the atonement of Christ. A physical token does not create the covenant, anyway. Covenants should rest inside a person’s heart and mind, or else it is not worth entering.

Resources

Judaism 101 has a nice little introduction to the practice of circumcision of boys, including the religious implications for the practice. Has a pretty neutral tone, but very informative.

Circumcision Choices - This site talks about only performing partial circumcision, reducing the damage done while still allowing those who have moral or religious obligations to do their duty as they see fit. It also discusses some of the myths surrounding circumcision and offers explanations. This site is all about choice.

Why Circumcised Men Seem Satisfied - This site explain what is lost when a man has this procedure on his manhood and why most do not know what they are missing. Definite bias, but makes a few good points.

Jewish Circumcision Resource Center - This site is written by Jews in an attempt to do away with the practice of circumcision. Has a definite agenda, but is up front about their goals.

Ordinances and Covenants

I study numerous religions, most notably Mormon splinter groups. The different factions truly fascinate me. One of the major criticisms they fire upon the LDS Church is the changing of ordinances, most specifically those having to do with the temple. I wish to clarify the significance of ordinances, and justify any changes that have been made. I will start by using a quote by Brigham Young:

“Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell” (Journal of Discourses, 2:31).

This quote has been used a great deal by others defending said changes, indicating that the endowment is not the presentation itself. There are certain key components that must be kept, but the things that have been changed are not included in that category. I don’t need to mention my penalties for revealing what I’ve learned when I am before the guardians of Heaven, for instance. It is not part of the a necessary part of the endowment, according to Brigham's quote. I think the key words will suffice.

But what could justify a change in an ordinance? If the delivery vehicle of the ordinance (i.e. the drama of the endowment), was given by revelation, then even if some things are not absolutely “necessary for salvation,” shouldn’t it still remain the way it was revealed? Well, I will show a little history of changes made in revealed ordinances. The sacramental prayer has to be repeated if even one word is misread. But how should we say the prayer? Compare closely the two versions of the prayer over the bread in scripture, namely Moroni 4:3, and D&C 20:77. Both using sacred scriptural language, but one uses “hath” where the other uses “has.” “Not significant,” you might say, but if no changes are allowed and no word should be said wrong, for the pure perfectionist this is actually a big deal. Even worse, compare the other prayer in the Church that must be given an exact way, i.e. baptism: 3 Nephi 11:25 vs. D&C 20:73. The phrasing between those two is even more discrepant.

I contend that the only reason any ordinance should be stated any exact way is because that is simply what God asks of us. If he were to ask the sacramental prayer to be changed, it should be no big deal. If the prayer for baptism be changed, we should accept. After all, the prayers for baptism were offered differently before Christ (see Mosiah 18:13). What’s more, not all baptismal prayers were offered the same (3 Nephi 11:28). Christ standardized the prayer to prevent contention, but those that were offered before in their diverse manners weren’t invalid, were they?

God is flexible and understanding. He doesn’t ask us to perform these rituals because he gets a kick out of watching us perform them. He uses them to teach us a lesson. In the early days of the Restoration, wine was used for the sacrament, and many just felt that the crust of the bread should be removed. The Lord revealed that such wasn’t necessary in D&C 27:2. We now use simple tap water, and our bread is usually cheap, store-bought, crust-covered, preservative-saturated bread. Does this make the ordinance less sacred? No! It simply teaches that the sacredness of it lies not in its exact usage, but in the spirit in which it is done.

The House of Israel was the covenant people of the Lord. The Law of Moses which directed their lives was taken upon them all in covenant. Part of that was keeping the Sabbath Day holy. They had their strict rules on what was within the Law and what was outside. When the Lord Jesus Christ broke what they saw to be the fixed rules of the Sabbath, he taught them that, “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath” (Mark 2:27). In other words, that day was set up by God to improve and bless man. And we know that the sabbath was later changed to honor the resurrection of Christ. This flexibility can apply to all ordinances and covenants we enter into. They are for our benefit, not merely for the sake of the ritual involved.

Showing this history, I have tried to teach that making alterations in ordinances is not a new thing, nor is it a bad thing. It can be done at any time under the direction of the Lord. The temple ordinances are no exception, and despite the many changes that have taken place, they are still true and teach us what we need to know to return to God. But some may ask, “If the ordinance can be so flexible, wherein lies its sacred nature? I thought that a revelation on how to covenant with God would have to be unchanging, else we change the covenant itself.” I will dispel that thought by posing a few questions myself: Do we believe in transubstantiation (the literal change of bread and wine to body and blood)? Do the sacramental emblems become magical after the prayer? Must we pray over every plate of food we serve, lest it not “nourish and strengthen our bodies?” Are our sins floating around in the baptismal water after we’ve been dunked, until washed down the drain? The answer is obviously no. None of these is true.

An ordinance is a symbolic means of God making a covenant with us. It is absolutley sacred, with something to be learned in each case; likely more than can be learned in a lifetime. Yet, it is not the ritual itself that is eternal and unchanging, but the two-way promises we make with God. He asks us to covenant with him, and he sets up the way to do it. But what if my baptism wasn’t performed properly and nobody caught it? Am I doomed to hell? No, because God knew that I made the covenant, and that we all did our best to do it properly. I made my promises to God, and I will not be held back simply because the physical representation of my spiritual promise wasn’t performed properly. I think, as members of the Church, we sometimes may get distracted by the very tool that is meant to teach us. The endowment is not the drama, the sacrament is not bread and water, and baptism is not a quick rinse. It is something far deeper.

Always remember that the symbolic nature of our ordinances is to represent what we promise to God. Every time you take part in an ordinance, think a bit more on what you are truly doing, and be not held back by worldly distraction.

Are women really more spiritual than men?

Attending the Marriage and Family Sunday school class, a couple weeks ago, the question was posed by the teacher, “Why are women more spiritual than men?”

The answers were varied in content, but in agreement that women indeed are more spiritual than men.

“Because they have to rely more on the Lord to get through a day (help their kids, etc.).”
“Because they were closer to Heavenly Father in the pre-existence.”
“Because they are more in tune with their emotions.”

No men in the classroom responded.

The teacher then changed the question: “Are women more spiritual than men?” Again, the women were quick to respond.

“Yes, they are, because women are more nurturing than men.”
“Yes, they are, because women can create life, a process that brings them closer to Heavenly Father.”
“If my husband didn’t spend all his time at home watching TV and helped me instead, he would be more spiritual, too.

Like the other men present, I, too, stayed silent. But inside, I wanted to shout: One does not automatically become spiritual by the happenstance of chromosomal composition at birth! I know it can be hard living up to the church ideals of womanhood and motherhood, butthis was pretty offensive and removed any sympathy I might have had for these women.

The lesson was not intended to focus on that topic, and was instead meant to become more balanced, but the class members turned it into a reversed-sexism, anti-male bash session. It later eased off of men, as the teacher turned toward some of the positive things, including eventually talking about what men do and the roles the Lord wants them to play in the family. It was actually meant to be a nice lesson. Instead, I felt uncomfortable, and by the looks on some of the other men in the room, I wasn’t the only one.

I know some of the women in that group, and suspect that most of them would be horrified if they realized how self-righteous they sounded. Kari was not in the room at the time (our 14-month-old daughter was grumpy), or she might have actually stood up for the male half of the class. As it was, she sounded unimpressed when I told her the details of the lesson.

It is too easy to state that such-and-such group is not as spiritual as another group. The early leaders of the LDS church did that, calling those of African descent “less faithful” in the pre-existence. This unfortunate attitude led to a labeling and exclusion of blacks from the full blessings of the church for many years. While men have their problems as a collective, debasing any group based on sex, race, religion (or nonreligion), political party, sexual orientation or anything else is not fair, not right, and I would submit to you that it is an abhorrent act to our father in heaven. See 2nd Nephi 26:33.

In this country, men are not actively encouraged to share their spiritual feelings the same way women are. Because of this training to hid what they feel, some women suspect that they do not have any. Obviously this is not true. It is a grave disservice to state men do not have spiritual feelings, and helps perpetuate the stereotype (and yes, I'm aware that as a white male, this could be considered an ironic statement).

It sometimes (often) feels that in an effort to uplift the less-represented groups in this country, it becomes expedient to denigrate the white male. I was once told that prejudice is like a pendulum. For many years, it swung in favor of that white male. Now, it is swinging away, favoring the minority groups. I know injustices have been done in the past, but does putting down any group of people solve the problem? No. It only creates more resentment, anger, bitterness, hurt and a larger divide. Such behavior does not ever heal.

And on a related note, it is ridiculous to say women are so spiritual, they don’t need the priesthood.

Gender roles have been a difficult topic, and a somewhat controversial one in the church. Women have never been offered the full priesthood, except briefly in the temple in days gone by. Now, it is only be proxy, through their husbands or fathers, that a women can enjoy the blessings of the priesthood. I do not claim to understand why this is. The Lord works in His own ways, not ours.

It appears to me that, for whatever reason, Heavenly Father chose to give one gift to his daughters (the gift of creating life), and another gift for his sons (priesthood authority). Which is better? Feminists would say that the priesthood is, because that is where leadership and control come from. I’m not sure that’s entirely true. Speaking as a man, I cannot truly view things from a woman’s point of view, and some may say I have no place to speak. However, I do not believe that God gave anyone the short stick. Any injustices done in this life are to be made equal in the next life. The beauty of the gospel is that He can make us whole and heal our wounds, spiritual and physical.

If a man abuses any authority he thinks he has, he is not in the right. See D&C 121:36-46. He will be held accountable. Of that, I have no doubt. The priesthood, regardless of what rights it may give, does not allow any man to control any woman. I have seen and been told of inequalities, even abuses in the church. It sickens me to think of these things. For instance, two individuals may make a sexual mistake. The woman will be given a difficult time, made to feel even more guilt than she already did, lose rights in the church, etc. The man, on the other hand, gets a light tap on the wrist and is told not to do it again. Is this fair? Of course, not.

Sometimes, spiritual feelings are very emotional. Tears can be near the surface. This is uncomfortable to most men. Some choose to avoid situations that would bring this up. Others might strive to suppress the outward expression. This does not change the fact that everyone has the light of Christ given to them, provided they do not reject it (see D&C 84:44-46). While individual capacities may differ, overall, men and women are given access to most of the same fruits of the spirit.

This essay makes no attempt at being comprehensive in its dealings with the subjects of male spirituality or gender/racial equalities, either inside the church or out of it. All I'm trying to do is express my feelings and frustrations.

So, have I written a touchy-feely, politically correct essay about being nice to everyone? In a way, yes. However, it is also meant to be a heartfelt plea for understanding. I have no intention of comparing in gruesome detail the differences between how men and women express their spiritual feelings. You can check out lame, over-generalized books like “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus” if you want such differences discussed.

My final point is, gross generalizations are dangerous and harmful. We as Latter-day Saints, we as Christians, should avoid the urge to judge, to minimize, to put down, to over-simplify, to diminish by categorization, any other person or group. Without a doubt, our Savior saw all people the same. Should we do any less?

The Ladder

I have my own personal blog starting up. I might be more active in it, since the posts will generally be shorter. The idea is this: I pose an idea or question, and I get help and responses from my readers. But I need more readers. Please visit my new blog, The Ladder.

Why I read anti material

Every so often, people I know question my judgment. And my testimony. That’s fine, I can handle it. But sometimes, I feel I have to set the record straight. This is one of those times. Recently, members of my wife’s family found out I read so-called anti-Mormon web pages regularly. They couldn’t understand why I would fill my mind with such filth.

Well, I only heard about the conversation afterwards, and my wife satisfied them, but I suspect they still wonder at me. People wonder enough about me, as it is. I suppose I should put their minds at rest. To start, I will give a little of my history.

Part I: Encounters on my mission
I first encountered anti material before my mission, but handily ignored its existence. It was not worth my time, I thought. Why bother, when I know the truth? Once, when I was about 15, I attended a local Baptist church with two friends, both of whom were Mormon. We did this instead of attending Wednesday night adolescent program called Mutual, which was boring to us. While at the Baptist meeting, we stood out as outsiders and many approached us afterwards. When they found out we were Mormon, well, they had plenty to say. We were told many awful things in an attempt to change our minds. Our prophet is evil, the Book of Mormon adds to the Bible and Revelation prohibits that, etc. It ended up being a Bible-bashing session, and little was accomplished for either side. I suspect that all of us left that encounter without anyone changing their minds.

While on my mission, I had many opportunities to discuss and debate what others called false doctrine of the Mormon church. I hated not knowing how to answer the hard questions that others asked and spent a good deal of time reading up on how to defend my faith. Just one example out of several from the early months of my mission:

One time, while I was a junior companion, my companion and I encountered a well-dressed and well-educated man on the street. My companion began telling him about the Book of Mormon and how we can know the truth. As a second witness of the Savior, it removes the confusion that is found in the rest of Christianity. The man asked us, “If the Book of Mormon is supposed to cut through the confusion, then why are there so many Mormon factions?” He had a good point. I don’t recall how that conversation ended, except that the man with whom we spoke did not pursue the discussions and we left largely disappointed.

That conversation bugged me, because I did not have an answer.
I decided that that line of reasoning might work for a new investigator, but there has to be more. The church isn't true just because the Book of Mormon exists, or the RLDS church and all the others would also be true. No, it is the principle of continuing revelation that makes a church true. It is the unbroken authority that makes a church true. The Book of Mormon helps, but is not the only thing. It is the Holy Ghost that confirms which is true. You can't just use the Book of Mormon, because it is not enough. Neither is the Doctrine and Covenants (or Book of Commandments). Again, it is the Holy Ghost that will tell you the truth of all things.

Later on in my mission, I went with my companion and another set of missionaries to an appointment the other elders had arranged, a follow-up appointment. Upon sitting down on their couch, the African-American couple said that their pastor had given them something to watch. They pulled out a VHS copy of the Godmakers. I knew what it was, but had never seen it before. Well, I got my chance. The entire room was quiet, the entire way through the film. There was a dark feeling, most definitely not the spirit of God. Afterwards, even the couple admitted they didn’t like the feelings associated with the video. We all discussed it and laid to rest some of the concerns. However, in the end, we couldn’t address every point of the movie, and did not want to. We each bore our testimony and asked permission to sing “I Believe in Christ.”

The meeting ended on a positive note, but that night opened up an understanding to me. There are people who go to great expense and expend a great deal of energy trying to tear down the church. Lies and distorted truths are not beneath them.

Part II: Post-mission encounters
These were not the last time I saw such information. At least once or twice a month, people would give me pamphlets and books to read about how horrible the church is. In my naivety, I dismissed much of it, just because it didn’t fit with what I knew. In other words, some things I thought were lies turned out to be true, but taken out of context or blown out of proportion. And some things were true and just not spoken of by the church. However, I did read all I was given, and compared how it sat with me to how the scriptures felt. I could feel the spirit as I pondered the scriptures, for instance, compared to the anti material I had seen that night.

In 1996 and 1997, I continued to explore LDS themes, but this time, online instead of in books. Like many people, I had recently discovered the joys and perils of the world wide web. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not have any official web presence at this time, and anti sites proliferated. I read a great deal of garbage about the church, but also plenty of truths I did not previously know. My mind was not changed, but I learned to take anything I heard about the church, positive or negative, with a grain of salt. Just about anyone talking about it seems to have an agenda, either to push it or to pull others away from it.

In 1998, I had a friend named Jamie who was not a member of the church. Her only previous experience with the church was a friend named Joseph Smith. This ironically named young man had been raised in the church but now hated it. He had a website on Geocities that attempted to discredit the church. He also claimed to still attend church, because LDS girls are “easy.” He and I never met, but I was more confident at this time, more able to speak my convictions and back them up with information. We passed a few debates by email before we both gave up trying to change the other person’s mind. While ultimately fruitless in changing either of our minds, the exchange was educational. To that point, I had not personally talked to a lapsed member about the church.

Part III: Which brings us up to the present
I laid off on actively searching out anti material for a few years. I still would see things occasionally, online and in print, and would read it. However, I spent some time reading more faith-promoting things, but only the deeper doctrines, such as those presented by Hugh Nibley. However, I had been maintaining a web page since 1997, in some form or another. I found myself with a plethora of LDS links, hosted on my web page, a listing that just kept growing. I started to organize it and eventually gave the list its own page. Then, in just the last few months (meaning, earlier in 2005), I decided to try my hand at writing LDS-themed articles. No real reason except that it interested me. My brother, who has long been interested in this topic, started contributing links and we started collaborating. Guided by the lessons I had learned in the past, I decided to maintain that balanced look at the LDS church.

I am still a believer and an attendee of church. However, I view the church as a human institution, no matter how divine the interventions that led to this church’s creation. Why? Well, I cannot escape the conclusion that imperfect humans lead the church and their fingerprints are on everything the church does. Is this bad? I do not think so. I believe that if it continues to ennoble and uplift, to inspire and uphold good values, it is a good thing.

Of course, there will be those bad elements who try to use guilt instead of teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves. There are going to be those who do not live the Christ-like life they claim to espouse, who are hypocrites, prideful and spiritually void. However, there are enough honestly good people trying their best to find salvation through Jesus Christ.

Part IV: Why I continue reading anti literature
I read an article not too long ago titled The Impact of Mormon Critics on LDS Scholarship, by Michael R. Ash. Michael builds on the statement from Hugh Nibley, "We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes." Brother Ash tries to show how opposition to the church has improved the quality of Mormon research. He gives numerous examples of where lazy research and just wrong statements have been accepted for years by members. Eventually, our mistakes get aired and LDS scholarship flourishes around that mistake, bringing out new understandings. “Sometimes, the critics are right. Sometimes, they can help point out our errors,” opines Ash. I agree. Without critics, we are too blind to our own faults. It takes outsiders to keep us humble.

I have learned much by keeping my eyes open and reading other histories and essays not favorable toward the church. What I’ve learned is that these were ordinary men and women who founded and built up the church, not demigods. They had mistakes and flaws, passions and egos, intelligence and blind spots. I have learned that the gospel of Jesus Christ, in any dispensation, has been passed by God to men and women. It came to them perfect, but was and is distorted by the hands of humans. And I have learned that this distortion is OK. It is just how things work in this world. God works with it.

I’ve learned there is absolute truth, and relative truth. There are some things that do not change, that can be considered absolute to the belief system of a Latter-day Saint, like the belief that Jesus is the Christ, and Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Then there are things that can change. The mode of sacrament, from wine to water, is one such example. The temple endowment is another. These relative truths are the ones that get changed from prophet to prophet or dispensation to dispensation. They are not wrong for their changes, just altered. They still attempt to draw people toward the absolute truths. That is their purpose. See http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/templechanges.pdf for more development on this subject.

The church is not perfect. I am the first to admit this. And so, I must say this: however much good it does, the LDS church must always strive to do better. We can never rest in our effort to do more, to go the extra mile, to extend beyond ourselves. If that means listening to critics sometimes, then it is worth it. I believe that for this reason alone, we should not dismiss anti-Mormon literature.

In addition, I dislike not knowing what others were saying about us. How could I make a rebuttal, or stand on my own knowledge when confronted by critics, if I failed to prepare beforehand? Those against the church are always searching for new ways to tear down that which is good. It is irresponsible to ignore those efforts. I think back to my ignorance as a missionary, and it bothers me. When confronted by Jehovah’s Witness material against us, bringing up the Adam-God theory, I had no idea what to say. My defense was indefensible, feeble. I remember doing the best I could, struggling with the quotes from out of the Journal of Discourses, and eventually, I came up with the explanation that it was a purposeful misquote. That was enough to satisfy the investigator who asked me, but I know now that it was not enough. I demanded more of myself. I feel we all need to have higher expectations of ourselves. Turning a blind eye does not solve the problem. Neither does hoping it will go away.

I would not suggest to all Saints to read “anti” material. It is not always easy. It can make you doubt. It is not always comfortable. Some people do leave the church after reading or watching this kind of material. I will not call such people weak-willed, where others might. I feel everyone has the right to feel and believe as they wish. I would only hope that any decision would be made after weighing all the evidence, but even then, it is your right to let another tell you how to believe. In the end, each person has to take a stand and decide what they really believe.

I cannot claim to be a great defender of the faith. I cannot claim my testimony is unshakeable. I cannot claim to know everything. I cannot claim I have never doubted. What I can say is that I have examined as many viewpoints as I could. I can say that I read “anti” material and give it equal time to faith-promoting material. I can claim to know enough on which to base a decision. And what is that decision? To stay where I am, despite historical discrepancies, despite the flaws and mistakes of men and women, despite valid complaints against the society of the saints. That is where I make my stand, willingly and with my eyes open.

In honor of Christ

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
I don't have any fancy ideas for this. I just wanted to make a quick note.

I love the Savior. He is my finest friend. About two thousand years ago, God gave the world his most Beloved as a gift (John 3:16). 33 years later, Christ gave his life for the world (Galatians 1:3-4). They have given us the greatest of gifts. We cannot possibly pay for what was given to us. It was out of pure love that this gift was given. I would encourage us all this day to find something in our lives amiss, and make a change. Give the gift of your heart to the Savior by striving harder to be like him. I love him with all my heart, and I know that he truly came to this world. He was born for us, lived for us, died for us, and now lives again for us. This I testify is true. Merry Christmas.

Brigham, the Man and the Prophet (revised)

There are issues where I stand differently from others I know. One in particular is my defense of Church leaders. It may sound like nothing that different, but one thing that I have observed is that there are generally two camps: those who acknowledge the leaders and see them as near-faultless, and those who see their faults and look down upon them for it. I fall into what I believe to be a rather small third party. I note the faults in Church leaders, past and present, and I grow to love them all the more for it. I refer the reader to some of Mathoni's blogs on this matter (those addressing the beauty of the humanity of our leaders), as they are very poignant and deal with the matter very well.

I wish here to take up a little defense of the second president of our Church, President Brigham Young. I will not go into any real depth, but I do wish to show a few of his virtues. He was a man of faults, and is often criticized by any anti-Mormon and even a good many Mormons for those faults. He finds in this post, however, his praise, as he was the man called by the Lord to lead the Church of Christ.

One of Brigham's great virtues is his loyalty. Often portrayed as self-assuming, Brigham's humility is very well exemplified by his loyalty to the Prophet of the Restoration, Joseph Smith. Let us look at some quotes on the matter.

"Of the Twelve Apostles chosen in Kirtland, and ordained under the hands of Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and myself, there have been but two but what have lifted their heel against me -- namely Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball."
-Joseph Smith
(May 28, 1843. DHC 5:412.)

"As the Mormon movement grew, Smith became larger than life, but he also ended up with a mixture of friends and foes - with difficulty knowing who was who. Many of those who denounced Smith were his closest friends, who referred to him not as a "false prophet" but as a "fallen prophet." Smith became so troubled by this that he frequently tested the people around him...On one occasion, he vigorously chastized Brigham Young - accusing the latter of something he had never done in what was clearly a harsh, cruel, unfair manner. As Brigham said, 'Joseph, what would you have me do?' - Smith broke down in tears and hugged him. 'Brigham,' he said, 'I was testing you and you have passed.' "
-Truman G. Madsen
(Joseph Smith, The Prophet)

In many ways, the true determinant of a man's greatness is his subjection to God and those leaders whom God has placed over him. Joseph was the Prophet, and Brigham never sought to undermine him. After Joseph died, Brigham still did not exalt himself above his friend and mentor.

"I feel like shouting hallelujah, all the time, when I think that I ever knew Joseph Smith."
-Brigham Young
(Journal of Discourses, 3:51)

What I have received of the Lord, I have received by Joseph Smith; he was the instrument made use of. If I drop him I must drop these principles; they have not been revealed, declared, or explained by any other man since the days of the apostles.”
-Brigham Young
(Journal of Discourses, 6:279-280)

One of the greatest examples of trust comes from Brigham Young. The way he viewed Brother Joseph is the way we should view all the Prophets

“Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults.”
-Brigham Young
(Journal of Discourses, 4:297)

If a prophet called of God can look past the faults of another, I suspect that we owe that prophet the same courtesy. Brigham loved Joseph, there is no question there. He knew his place, and gave his heart in his humble capacity.

As we know, Joseph Smith was murdered, a signature to his work certifying its completion. But who would lead the Church? This issue was a problem not yet experienced by the Saints, and many did not know how to deal with it. People like Sidney Rigdon, James J. Strang, David Whitmer, and others saw themselves as the new leader of the Church, and denounced President Young’s claims as a usurpation of authority. This would not be in his character, nor necessarily was it his desire. He merely chose to accept the burden that was placed upon him. When he first learned of the Prophet’s death, he thought all was lost. It was only after pondering and prayer that he realized the duty that was his. When he spoke to the general assembly of Church membership in Nauvoo regarding his call to lead, this is what he said:

"For the first time in my life, for the first time in your lives, for the first time in the kingdom of God, in the nineteenth century, without a prophet at our head, do I step forth to act in my calling in connection with the quorum of the Twelve, as Apostles of Jesus Christ unto this generation—Apostles whom God has called by revelation through the prophet Joseph, who are ordained and anointed to bear off the keys of the kingdom of God in all the world."
-Brigham Young
(B.H. Roberts, Succession in the Presidency of the Church. p. 8, emphasis added)

Judging from this, I don’t believe he reached for more authority than was his. Perhaps he only sought to do his best at what God asked.

Some say that Brigham was iron-fisted in his governing of his people in the West. As a man who spoke what was on his mind, and as a man who had to conquer a desert, his methods may have seemed harsh, especially by today’s standards. John A. Widtsoe stated that one of Brigham’s defining traits was his loyalty to truth. He further said, “Brigham Young is reputed to have had a strong will. That was needed in the conquest of the desert. Many have failed to understand that in the exercise of his will and power he was not autocratic, but firmly determined that truth should be obeyed.”
(Gospel Interpretations, p. 224)

His loyalty to truth and demands for obedience were what the Lord needed at the time. That is why he was called.

Throughout his life, he taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

“I am not bound to wife or child, to house or farm, or anything else on the face of the earth, but the Gospel of the Son of God. I have enlisted all in this cause, and it is in my heart, and here is my treasure.”
-Brigham Young
(Journal of Discourses, 14:19)

He loved the Gospel, and gave about 400 sermons, touching on numerous doctrines. Some will criticize him for some of his teachings (again, learn better perspective from Mathoni’s post), but he taught with power and authority, emulating the Savior as best as he could.

As Brother Brigham slipped from this world into the next, the final words to hang on his lips were, "Joseph, Joseph, Joseph." Those words were humble and loving, still acknowledging who was his mentor and leader. He loved Joseph. He loved Christ. From the moment he turned his life over to the Gospel after a two-year investigation, he never turned back.

Despite all I have shown, I can scarcely do justice to this spiritual titan. I do know however, that despite the bad light that some may cast on him, if we take a moment to reorient ourselves, we may see that he was a man of God in all respects. He was the one called to succeed Joseph Smith. He was the one called to ensure the continual rolling of the Kingdom of God.