religion

RE: Spiritual Watering Holes Part 1. Rational Faiths.

I was listening to a Rational Faiths podcast about spiritual watering holes, and one guest said she relates the last two lines of a poem by Emily Dickinson (full quote at end):

narcotics cannot still the tooth
that nibbles at the soul –

REF

Once something is learned, it cannot be unlearned. Like grooves on a record, information is permanent. More information can be added to correct, to clarify, or to add information, but the original information will always be there. In the Faith Crisis Era, it seems like certain bits of Mormon history that get grooved into our records have a lot of sway over all the previous grooves. Whatever the issue, those experiencing a faith crisis feel that nibbling in their soul by the tooth of new information.

When reaching out to their TBM friends, the only help given in to “read scriptures, pray, fast, attend the temple.” As it is often the case, those experiencing a faith crisis are already doing those to an extent. This information is not new. However, Emily Dickinson exposes the reason WHY those activities have lost their efficacy: narcotics can’t silence the itch of the soul.

“Religion is the opium of the masses [or people, depending on your German]” said Karl Marx. Could it be that the daily to-do list is our daily dose of opium? But if so, how could a faith crisis make us immune to the effects of our daily opium intake? Does the new information learned during a faith crisis make one immune to it or do we inhibit our ability to feel the effects because of one’s loss of faith?

Whatever the reason, I feel that nibbling, and/but the opium isn’t cutting it anymore.

This World Is Not Conclusion

by Emily Dickinson

this world is not conclusion
a species stands beyond –
invisible, as music –
but positive as sound –

it beckons, and it baffles
philosophy – don’t know –
and through a riddle, at the last –
sagacity must go –

to guess it, puzzles scholars –
to gain it, men have borne
contempt of generations
and crucifixion, shown –

faith slips – and laughs, and rallies –
blushes, if any see –
plucks at a twig of evidence –
and asks a vane, the way –

much gesture, from the pulpit –
strong hallelujahs roll –
narcotics cannot still the tooth
that nibbles at the soul –

REF

“One True Church” is not proprietary

Why do Mormon’s lean so heavily on the phrases “One True Church” or “THE True Church” or “The Church is TRUE”? Whether or not you believe this statement to be true, there are a few points to consider:

⊗ This appeal to authority is automatically diminishing of all other organizations. If I were to walk in a room of strangers and say, “I am the most beautiful person in this room. Who would like to compare their beauty with mine?” I’m sure I wouldn’t get too many takers.

⊗ The Book of Mormon clearly states that God is managing more than one group at once.

3 Nephi 16:1 And verily, verily, I say unto you that I have other sheep, which are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem, neither in any parts of that land round about whither I have been to minister. (REF)

God is running several civilizations at once, so before Mormons go Sid Meier on the rest of the world, Mormons ought to be careful in considering themselves the only ones.

⊗ Adam Miller, the brightest mind in Mormon Thinkdom, knows this concept is silly:

The gospel is not a proprietary system. It’s open sourced and many of the ideas and practices that are most decisive in living a joyful life are shared broadly across the world’s traditions and cultures. (REF)

So let’s drop the vernacular of a one, true church, and let’s start living like we deserve to be called disciples of Christ.

Thoughts sparked while reading Times & Seasons.

Revelations: Foundational vs Directional

I’d like to share a letter I asked a good friend of mine. I’ll share the response in the comments later. How would you respond to my email?

≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡

You describe Joseph Smith’s revelations as foundational and subsequent revelations a directional. Here’s my question:

How did the 20th century prophets ask and not get an answer about blacks/priesthood? David McKay asked and didn’t get any revelation to correct the situation. Yet, Joseph Smith asked questions all the time and got answers even to seemingly unimportant questions like in section D&C 40, which are pretty much pointless but nevertheless God offered a timely response. Why can’t modern prophets get that kind of turnaround with God?

Even the method seems so different.

David McKay’s biography says, “In 1954 President McKay is said to have appointed a special committee of the Twelve to study the issue. They concluded that the priesthood ban had no clear basis in scripture but that Church members were not prepared for change.” (ref)

The committee method is much different than Joseph Smith’s direct method asking himself and getting a response.

I’ve heard a comparison to the Children of Israel having the lower law due to their unpreparedness/rejection of the higher law. However, this was neither a law nor a supported doctrine. It was not implemented by God and then removed by Him like the law of consecration and polygamy.

Even if the priesthood ban was secretly implemented by God through a secret revelation to BY, there would still be problems with the “unprepared” argument. My internal counter argument is that the saints weren’t prepared for either Law of Consecration or polygamy but those got thrust on the saints regardless. So the “lower law” line of thinking is not consistent historically.

The point is this: when I hear foundational vs directional revelation arguments, I find it directional revelation more likely to be social pressure vs revelation. Polygamy was not socially convenient, so it seems more like a revelation. Disavowing it seemed socially convenient. Instituting a ban on blacks/priesthood was socially convenient due to the political climate in Utah. It was the only territory that allowed black slaves (ref). Disavowing previous positions regarding blacks/priesthood seems socially convenient in post civil rights America.

But my own counter argument is that sometimes the Lord lets his people do what is socially convenient, like having a king instead of judges like in 1 Samuel 8. If so, the selective nature of God’s blessings comes back into play.

In other words, I am enamored by the thought of prophetic leadership but am clouded in my understanding of modern prophetic leadership examples. I get that God has a history of being exclusive, and there are plenty of biblical examples, especially Christ’s limited ministry to the Jew and then lifting of the preaching ban to include all Gentiles. But none of that came from parallel social pressure from what I can tell. Maybe I’m wrong.

So as I prepare for this talk about prophets, and I consider the role of modern prophets, I am just trying to come to grips with a concept that I have struggled with for some time. I suppose you may not have the magic answer, but it’s something that I just don’t get.

≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡

YSA Wards – Single Segregation Syndrome

As I read The Great Divide on The Exponent, many memories of young single adult (YSA) wards came to mind. I found the YSA wards to be a social melting pot ripe with opportunities to attend fun events, to make sporting connections, and, of course, to meet girls to date. These were all great benefits of the ward, but at what cost did they come? Jess R. rattles off many costs. I’d argue there’s one more that’s the Big One.

I’m no behavioral psychologist, but I understand certain aspects of human behavior. For example, it’s not hard to imagine what happens when you put a group of teenagers in a room with no supervision. On the flip side, it’s equally as easy to predict what happens if you mix in one adult for five teenagers, then one adult for every teenager, then five adults for every teenager. Behavior changes with the pH balance of maturity and youth.

Peter Pan Syndrome is a term usually tagged to Mormon young men who “refuse to grow up.” In Mormon lingo, growing up means getting married. [[Begin tangent: this association of marriage and maturity is evidenced not only the rejection and labeling of young men as Peter Pan but also in young women who, like in Jess R.’s situation, get asked awkward and inappropriate questions. This pressure to marry, mission, or get initiated in the temple seem to thrust young adults into a narrative they may not want but then feel obligated to fulfill because of their covenants with God, familial pressure, and spousal expectations. This pressure begins when parents force their children to get baptized at the age of video games and barbies instead of waiting for the person to develop and decide for themselves if that is the right step. Initiating vulnerable children and young adults on pressures them into living a life they may not want to live. End tangent]]

I would argue the Church is responsible for Peter Pan Syndrome, or, to be fair to the ladies, Single Segregation Syndrome. By segregating the YSA, we buy them a one-way ticket to Never Never Land to live among the Lost Boys. Then we blame them when they don’t want to return to real life. YSA need spiritual guides in life, adults to help shape and challenge their view, and instruction that you don’t find at YSA ward.

I call for an end to the YSA wards as we know them, and the the implementations of integrating the youth back in with the adults. Sure, keep YSA activities, Sunday evening firesides, weekly activities, but get them out of Never Never Land and back on Earth.

You’re Primed to Fail – Moroni’s Promise

You’re Primed to Fail. Ok, not FAIL-FAIL, rather, you’re primed to reach false conclusions. That’s according to fivethirtyeight’s new article (here).

The short version is this: a two-part study showed that people who came to conclusions from ineffective methods were less likely to accept new information to draw new conclusions even when the data presented to them supported a more effective outcome.

The article lists causality illusion, base rate neglect, and perverse incentives all as culprits in making people more likely to reach the correct conclusion based on evidence. Each of these is worth a post, but I’ll stick with the overarching theme. The confirmation bias (CB) that leads to motivated reasoning entrenches us in deeply held beliefs that are painstakingly hard to let go.

So how do you know when you’re a victim of your own bias or whether the paranormal is God’s way of contacting you? Skeptics love to shout “CONFIRMATION BIAS” to anyone who has ever said they feel something paranormal, like a witness of the Holy Ghost. The Mormon or LDS church challenges everyone to pray for a witness of the divinity of the Book of Mormon after reading it to know if it is ‘true,’ also known as Moroni’s Promise. For those who are raised Mormon, there seems to be a higher probability of CB because of the obvious grooming.

But what about those who are not raised Mormon? What’s their likelihood of being susceptible to CB? I can see how certain Christian upbringing can prime them for a paranormal experience, but there are certainly counterarguments for how negative Mormon perception could also be a primer for disbelief.

I came across an phrase in a skeptics blog that will only jump out to Mormons, ex-Mormons, or Mormon-versed non-Mormons:

How do investigators counteract this theory of confirmation bias? The scientific method has been one avenue presented to seek understanding on the subject of paranormal phenomena. (Reference)

Translation for non-Mormon readers: “investigators” is a term commonly used in Mormon circles for those who have an interest in Mormonism and are meeting with Mormon Missionaries to learn more.

Clearly, this was not written in a Mormon context, but it very well could be. Why not conduct Pew Research level study on Moroni’s Promise? What non-LDS university will stand up and take the challenge to put their name on the research of Mormon confirmation bias? It would be greatly revealing to understand how confirmation bias plays into the role of Mormon/potential Mormon paranormal experiences.

What do you think? Would you be interested in a research study on Moroni’s Promise? What would the results look like?

When Prophets Don’t Prophecy & The Absentee God

“A God who is obscure in explanation and absentee in governance must have a broad definition of success.” -alotlikelaman

I empathize with Atheists. I understand Agnostics. Chistians don’t have as high of expectations. But Mormons, you are the ones I’m wondering about. How do you deal with your absentee God? Do you know who I’m talking about? That God who was ever so present during the good ol’ days when Brother Joseph and Him were talking all the time. Over 100 chapters in the Doctrine and Covenants (yes, I know they’re called ‘sections’), but then, after the death of Brother Joseph, a long silence. It was almost like the silence after the death of the Jesus’ apostles. The Mormon Church claims a direct channel of revelation, a bat-phone of sorts, to God, and this uniqueness gives it claim to the title of the Living Church, with Jesus Christ himself at the head. But what happens when God stops talking to His church?

Mormons keep the revelations received by their prophets in a book called the Doctrine and Covenants. Currently there are 138 recorded revelations given over the course of roughly 87 years:

The 138 sections in LDS Church’s Doctrine and Covenants break down as follows:

—Reference

135 sections written during Brother Joseph’s ministry. 5 have since been registered. Where did that God who spoke so frequently and eloquently go? The thought of modern prophets who could utter the phrase, “Thus saith the Lord” was so powerful and inspiring. Yet the absence of the same strikes a similarly powerful chord.

I wish our prophets would come back and tell us something more inspiring than avoid tattoos or avoid multiple piercings. Tell us what God only knows. Tell us if God has a Spouse or many. Tell us why women can’t be ordained. Tell us why Brother Joseph kept Polygamy from his wife. Tell us why Brother Joseph often drank alcohol but we cannot. Tell us why the Church excommunicates free thinking intellectuals. When God is absent from talking to us, shouldn’t we be free to think how we choose until His word is revealed? Don’t punish us because He refuses to comment.

What are your thoughts on God’s absence, modern revelation, or excommunication? 

Going to church angry

The most common marital advice I have received is “never go to bed angry.” I won’t go into detail why I disagree, but suffice it to say I always wake up refreshed and have generally forgotten why I was upset the night before.

But what about church? Never go to church angry? Sometimes anger happens between tying my half Windsor and finding my favorite pew. And sometimes it ruins the whole experience. But what is there to be done?

Leaving church for an hour to hash out the argument defeats the purpose of staying. Avoiding the confrontation is as noticeable as the cheerio that one mom crushes into the carpet with her cheap flats because she’s too lazy to pick it up.

If I’m headed to the movies, but I can’t enjoy the movie due to a migraine or diarrhea, then I’m probably going to leave. Shouldn’t a spousal quarrel count the same?

Before all the Pharises tell me about how contention is if the devil and I should apologize first regardless of fault, I’d like to remind them I am a lot like Laman, not Nephi.

What are your thoughts? Stay, go, work it out there, or work it out later?

Is Church Attendance a Spiritual Indicator?

Some Sundays, I don’t want to go to church. Some religions are lackadaisical about attendance requirements, but Mormonism is not. Either you go as often as you can and are deemed “active” or you fall below that standard and are deemed “less-active.” I would add that those who obsess with attendance to meetings and auxiliaries are “over-active,” e.g. cutting a vacation short in order to avoid missing an auxiliary meeting that would have otherwise functioned just fine without you.

Aside from those Mormons who hold a volunteer position that requires them to physically be there, like to teach a class, why is it imperative that everyone else go each week? If salvation is an individual matter, why does it seem roll call plays a huge role on your perceived spirituality? Who came up with the term “active” as a way to describe someone’s attendance rate? Why is that even an issue?

The LDS Tech Wiki describes “active” as, “Participating on a regular basis, such as attending meetings, observing the principles of the gospel, and accepting Church callings; Under current Church policy, those who attend meetings at least once a month” Reference.

Is attendance a good measure of one’s spirituality? I’m pretty sure Jesus would argue against it. In fact, I think he did, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness” (Matthew 23:27). The statistic seem to agree: “67 percent of active adult Latter-day Saints pray daily, compared to 83 percent in other denominations; and 41 percent reported reading the scriptures daily or several times a week, compared to 52 percent in other denominations” Reference. It seems that forced attendance yields poor personal spiritual habits.

Let’s get away from the roll call obsession in the Mormon church. It doesn’t matter if you attend once a year or once a week, God sees beyond our church attendance whether we are striving to be kind, loving, and charitable. Living a Christ-centered life doesn’t happen at church, it happens wherever we are. Whether by circumstance or choice, our attendance (or lack of) does not define us. How we think and act are ultimately the deciding factors of who we are.

What do you think? Does attendance matter? Should church attendance be part of “worthiness” requirements for temple recommends or ecclesiastical endorsements?

Why Do Mormons Bless Their Food?

Never mind the absurdity of blessing cookies and sugary punch to “nourish and strengthen our bodies” as is so common among Latter Day Saints. I’m more interested in delving into why Mormons bless their food at all. What’s inherently wrong with food that requires it to be blessed? Why the shame and taboo when a morsel of goodness bursts the first fruits of flavor through our culinary receptacles before a supplication is pronounced? Surely there is a doctrinal source indicating that’s what’s supposed to be done, right? Right?

Maybe not.

Part of the confusion lies in what it means to “bless.” The commonly understood interpretation is to “sanctify” or “consecrate.” Mormons obsess with consecrating things: homes, oil, graves, chapels, etc., so why not their food? Additionally, Mormons love to use the word “bless” instead of saying “heal” or “give help” in their prayers: please bless John that he will recover from his illness; please bless the missionaries who are searching for souls to save; etc. “Bless” is as meaningless as “literally” that has now become an intensifier.

I would argue the most common use of “bless” in the Bible means to “praise” often meaning a “praise God.” And when it comes to food, choosing the right definition makes all the difference. Pay attention to the word “bless” as you read these verses regarding prayer and food.

Exodus 23:25 “And ye shall serve the LORD your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee.” — God sanctifies our food and takes away the sickness when we serve Him.

Deuteronomy 8:10 “When thou hast eaten and art full, then thou shalt bless the LORD thy God for the good land which he hath given thee.” — Praise God after eating.

Matthew 14:19 “And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.” — Jesus praised God and then passed out the food.

It’s much more likely, in the New Testament, Jesus pronounced a b’rakhah (blessing, benediction) that Jews were accustomed to recite before meals, “Barukh attah, Adonai Eloheynu, melekh-ha’olam, haMotzi lecheem, minha’aretz”, or , “Blessed art Thou, O Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who brings forth bread from the earth.”

So next time you sit down to “bless the food,” try blessing, err, praising God for the food instead because it all comes from that which he declared as good (Genesis 1:31).

What do you think? Do you “bless” your food, praise God, give thanks, or just eat?

–alotlikelaman

Adapted from this.