Our little systems have their day,
They have their day and cease to be
They are but broken lights of thee
And thou, Oh Lord, are more than they.
...
Perplext in faith, but pure in deeds
At last he beat his music out
There lives more faith in honest doubt,
Believe me, than in half the creeds
He fought his doubts and gather'd strength,
He would not make his judgement blind,
He faced the specters of the mind
And laid them: thus he came at length
To find a stronger faith his own
And Power was with him in the night
Which makes the darkness and the light
And dwells not in the light alone
Continuing to learn about the history and doctrinal evolution of the Church makes it extremely clear just how human an institution it is and how much it changes according to the zeitgeist of a given period. The overall message, however, is a consistent proclamation of hope and declaration in the redeeming power of love. The mission of the Church has remained constant, to proclaim the reality and divinity of Christ and that all men can be saved by belief in Him. And I love that. I have had experiences that I would label as revelatory and I believe deeply that God exists and that He loves each and every one of us. But our little religious systems, over and over, have their day and cease to be. They're only broken lights of Him--the true light that animates the universe and is the source of all goodness.
Central to this conversation about homosexuality and Mormonism is defining the voice of God. There are many bloggers in the community that take the stance of continuing in line with Church policies and doctrine because of their sincere desire to follow God and to live their lives in line with His teachings. I think that this approach is admirable. But there are necessary questions that must be asked and examined.
The scriptures and prophets are very clear in the necessity to keep the commandments and to follow the voice of God. It's this injunction that brings so many questions in regards to homosexuality because of God's seeming condemnation of it. A necessary question, therefore, is what is the voice of God? Or, what are His commandments? Only after thoroughly examining and thinking through the answers to these questions should a person decide how they want to act and advocate in regards to homosexuality within the Church.
In my experience personally as a missionary and in nearly every conversation I've had with orthodox members of the Church, the logic goes somewhat like this: Joseph Smith claimed to see and communicate with God. Joseph Smith was a person, just as I am a person; therefore, I should be able to communicate with God in the same manner. Joseph Smith claimed that God commanded him to restore His church to the earth. I can therefore know whether or not this is true by communicating with God. Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon as evidence of his communication with God. The Book of Mormon promises that if I read it and ask God in faith, I can know for myself whether or not it is true. If the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith was a prophet. If Joseph Smith was a true prophet, then the Church he restored is true and subsequent leaders were also prophets of God who speak for God. Assuming this narrative, I can conclude that I ought to follow what is taught at any given time by the leaders of the Church.
The Book of Mormon is the crux of the argument, and my feelings in regard to the Book of Mormon, according to this logical structure, ought to dictate the way that I live my life. If I "know" the book is true, based on my subjective emotional and spiritual experience, then I should live my life based on the teachings of the Church (one irony being that the teachings of the Church have often been contradictory with teachings found in the Book of Mormon, such as the etiology of race, trinitarian views of the godhead, the necessity of temple ordinances for salvation, polygamy as a prerequisite for exaltation, etc.).
What I want to point out is that this logical structure is incongruent with reality, and, therefore, a much larger diversity of conclusions can be drawn about Mormonism. This narrative is extremely black and white. It's all or nothing. If I've learned anything so far in life, it's that reality is vastly more complex than that. Why would God's true church reflect something different than reality as it is?
There are two primary ways that I'm going to point out the incongruent nature of this narrative in respect to recorded history (though there are far more critiques that could be brought to it). The first is in the passing on of the prophetic mantle to Brigham Young, and the second is in the consistency of the "voice of God," or the commandments, over time.
I've got to admit that I haven't done much research on this first one, but D. Michael Quinn and other historians have examined it extensively, and you can check out their work for more questions. A lot of the circumstances surrounding Brigham Young's replacement of Joseph Smith as president of the church are questionable. One example that has been constantly cited as a spiritual manifestation of the authenticity of his calling was that when Brigham Young stood before the saints and appeared to them as Joseph Smith and the audience heard his voice as Joseph's voice. There is, however, no historical evidence that this actually occurred. Many people attended the meeting where it was purported to have happened, and none of them recorded it happening in their journals. It wasn't until after Brigham Young's death that the stories started circulating. The situation surrounding the passing of the keys to Brigham Young was also really questionable. The claim that if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, subsequent prophets were also called by God is not necessarily true. This leaves a lot more diversity of the thought in regards to policies of the church that happened after Joseph's death, such as the acceptance and legalization of slavery in Utah, blacks and the priesthood, coffee, tea, and beer as being prohibited by the word of wisdom, the condemnation of homosexuality and masturbation, etc. (Also, I'm not saying what I believe here--just pointing out how much more room there is for conversation and diversity of thought within Mormonism than most people are exposed to.)
Secondly, there's the consistency of the commandments over time. Interpretation of the commandments has differed greatly in different periods of Church history. I already mentioned the major ones above, with racial policies within the Church, polygamy as a commandment necessary for exaltation, Church rhetoric in regards to homosexuality, and the changing of the Word of Wisdom. Another important change was a subtle one--a change in the law of tithing. If you look at the section of the Doctrine and Covenants where the law of tithing is revealed, it very clearly requires that Church members pay ten percent of their excess income. Beginning in the latter part of the nineteenth century, the interpretation was changed to be ten percent of someone's entire income, which greatly increases the amounts of donations one will give in the course of a year. (More information here). This issue is one of great concern, because there was no specific revelation received to change the commandment, and preference ought to be given to the standard works over church policy. When you really examine the history of the commandments and the way they are taught, you will find that they change and differ greatly over time.
I'm bothered when I read on people's blogs that they feel they have to live a certain way simply because the Church says so (and perhaps I'm wrong in being bothered by it). The reason is because I feel like far too few people really question the nature of the commandments. Far too few people in the Church really question what qualifies as the voice of God. Everything that has happened in the last four hundred years that has moved humanity from feudal societies in which people rarely lived past their fortieth birthday to increasingly egalitarian societies with high quality of life has come from inquiring. Progress is found in asking questions. I've found it to be true for myself and my own happiness, as well. We don't have to just accept the world as it was taught to us. We have the opportunity to go out and see to know reality as it really is. And we need to be prepared for some of our most basic assumptions to be questioned.
I do not expect in any way that a person who truly questions these things will automatically reject the Church or its teachings on homosexuality. I think there's room intellectually to agree with the Church's stance (though I personally disagree with it). More important to me than the conclusions is the process. More important to me than how people decide to live their lives in the end is whether or not their conclusion is born of thought and of questioning. And so I encourage everyone who is dealing with a reconciliation of faith and sexual orientation to truly question what they believe to be true, and to not rule out any possibilities. I've found that there are rich worlds of spirituality both inside and outside of Mormonism.
Questioning the truthfulness of the Church is not the end of your spiritual world-- in fact, it may just be the beginning.
...
Perplext in faith, but pure in deeds
At last he beat his music out
There lives more faith in honest doubt,
Believe me, than in half the creeds
He fought his doubts and gather'd strength,
He would not make his judgement blind,
He faced the specters of the mind
And laid them: thus he came at length
To find a stronger faith his own
And Power was with him in the night
Which makes the darkness and the light
And dwells not in the light alone
Continuing to learn about the history and doctrinal evolution of the Church makes it extremely clear just how human an institution it is and how much it changes according to the zeitgeist of a given period. The overall message, however, is a consistent proclamation of hope and declaration in the redeeming power of love. The mission of the Church has remained constant, to proclaim the reality and divinity of Christ and that all men can be saved by belief in Him. And I love that. I have had experiences that I would label as revelatory and I believe deeply that God exists and that He loves each and every one of us. But our little religious systems, over and over, have their day and cease to be. They're only broken lights of Him--the true light that animates the universe and is the source of all goodness.
Central to this conversation about homosexuality and Mormonism is defining the voice of God. There are many bloggers in the community that take the stance of continuing in line with Church policies and doctrine because of their sincere desire to follow God and to live their lives in line with His teachings. I think that this approach is admirable. But there are necessary questions that must be asked and examined.
The scriptures and prophets are very clear in the necessity to keep the commandments and to follow the voice of God. It's this injunction that brings so many questions in regards to homosexuality because of God's seeming condemnation of it. A necessary question, therefore, is what is the voice of God? Or, what are His commandments? Only after thoroughly examining and thinking through the answers to these questions should a person decide how they want to act and advocate in regards to homosexuality within the Church.
In my experience personally as a missionary and in nearly every conversation I've had with orthodox members of the Church, the logic goes somewhat like this: Joseph Smith claimed to see and communicate with God. Joseph Smith was a person, just as I am a person; therefore, I should be able to communicate with God in the same manner. Joseph Smith claimed that God commanded him to restore His church to the earth. I can therefore know whether or not this is true by communicating with God. Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon as evidence of his communication with God. The Book of Mormon promises that if I read it and ask God in faith, I can know for myself whether or not it is true. If the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith was a prophet. If Joseph Smith was a true prophet, then the Church he restored is true and subsequent leaders were also prophets of God who speak for God. Assuming this narrative, I can conclude that I ought to follow what is taught at any given time by the leaders of the Church.
The Book of Mormon is the crux of the argument, and my feelings in regard to the Book of Mormon, according to this logical structure, ought to dictate the way that I live my life. If I "know" the book is true, based on my subjective emotional and spiritual experience, then I should live my life based on the teachings of the Church (one irony being that the teachings of the Church have often been contradictory with teachings found in the Book of Mormon, such as the etiology of race, trinitarian views of the godhead, the necessity of temple ordinances for salvation, polygamy as a prerequisite for exaltation, etc.).
What I want to point out is that this logical structure is incongruent with reality, and, therefore, a much larger diversity of conclusions can be drawn about Mormonism. This narrative is extremely black and white. It's all or nothing. If I've learned anything so far in life, it's that reality is vastly more complex than that. Why would God's true church reflect something different than reality as it is?
There are two primary ways that I'm going to point out the incongruent nature of this narrative in respect to recorded history (though there are far more critiques that could be brought to it). The first is in the passing on of the prophetic mantle to Brigham Young, and the second is in the consistency of the "voice of God," or the commandments, over time.
I've got to admit that I haven't done much research on this first one, but D. Michael Quinn and other historians have examined it extensively, and you can check out their work for more questions. A lot of the circumstances surrounding Brigham Young's replacement of Joseph Smith as president of the church are questionable. One example that has been constantly cited as a spiritual manifestation of the authenticity of his calling was that when Brigham Young stood before the saints and appeared to them as Joseph Smith and the audience heard his voice as Joseph's voice. There is, however, no historical evidence that this actually occurred. Many people attended the meeting where it was purported to have happened, and none of them recorded it happening in their journals. It wasn't until after Brigham Young's death that the stories started circulating. The situation surrounding the passing of the keys to Brigham Young was also really questionable. The claim that if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, subsequent prophets were also called by God is not necessarily true. This leaves a lot more diversity of the thought in regards to policies of the church that happened after Joseph's death, such as the acceptance and legalization of slavery in Utah, blacks and the priesthood, coffee, tea, and beer as being prohibited by the word of wisdom, the condemnation of homosexuality and masturbation, etc. (Also, I'm not saying what I believe here--just pointing out how much more room there is for conversation and diversity of thought within Mormonism than most people are exposed to.)
Secondly, there's the consistency of the commandments over time. Interpretation of the commandments has differed greatly in different periods of Church history. I already mentioned the major ones above, with racial policies within the Church, polygamy as a commandment necessary for exaltation, Church rhetoric in regards to homosexuality, and the changing of the Word of Wisdom. Another important change was a subtle one--a change in the law of tithing. If you look at the section of the Doctrine and Covenants where the law of tithing is revealed, it very clearly requires that Church members pay ten percent of their excess income. Beginning in the latter part of the nineteenth century, the interpretation was changed to be ten percent of someone's entire income, which greatly increases the amounts of donations one will give in the course of a year. (More information here). This issue is one of great concern, because there was no specific revelation received to change the commandment, and preference ought to be given to the standard works over church policy. When you really examine the history of the commandments and the way they are taught, you will find that they change and differ greatly over time.
I'm bothered when I read on people's blogs that they feel they have to live a certain way simply because the Church says so (and perhaps I'm wrong in being bothered by it). The reason is because I feel like far too few people really question the nature of the commandments. Far too few people in the Church really question what qualifies as the voice of God. Everything that has happened in the last four hundred years that has moved humanity from feudal societies in which people rarely lived past their fortieth birthday to increasingly egalitarian societies with high quality of life has come from inquiring. Progress is found in asking questions. I've found it to be true for myself and my own happiness, as well. We don't have to just accept the world as it was taught to us. We have the opportunity to go out and see to know reality as it really is. And we need to be prepared for some of our most basic assumptions to be questioned.
I do not expect in any way that a person who truly questions these things will automatically reject the Church or its teachings on homosexuality. I think there's room intellectually to agree with the Church's stance (though I personally disagree with it). More important to me than the conclusions is the process. More important to me than how people decide to live their lives in the end is whether or not their conclusion is born of thought and of questioning. And so I encourage everyone who is dealing with a reconciliation of faith and sexual orientation to truly question what they believe to be true, and to not rule out any possibilities. I've found that there are rich worlds of spirituality both inside and outside of Mormonism.
Questioning the truthfulness of the Church is not the end of your spiritual world-- in fact, it may just be the beginning.
Very insightful! I've been trying to work with some alternative ways of believing recently. I'm struggling to believe any of them still, but it has led me to more attempts at communicating with God and more "faithful" (i.e., less critical) scripture study.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this post. I've spent much of my life with that "all or nothing" mentality you mentioned. It hasn't been until recently that I've started searching out what exactly I believe, not just taking whatever is preached to me as doctrine. I think Heavenly Father gave us agency for this purpose-to question, think for ourselves, and come to our own conclusions while still involving Him in the process. I think we can become a bit robotic and very homogenous in the church when we just fully accept everything that's taught to us.
ReplyDeletePresident Uchtdorf's CES address a couple Sundays ago was a great example of this. It was about diligently seeking truth and at one point, he reminded the audience that Brigham Young himself said that we as members need to take what we hear in conference or church, ponder it and pray to know if it's of God or of man. He also spoke of the divinity of Christ being the central crucible to truth. In no part did he ever question the truthfulness of the Church. In fact, he affirmed it over and over. Still, it was interesting to hear a member of LDS nobility say that we need to seek the answers ourselves, rather than take everything that's told to us to heart 100% with no question as to its validity.
ReplyDeleteI'm impressed with your thoughtful expressions here on this blog. I am seeing a reawakening within the LDS community to the core fundamentals of our religion. The reality is, if we ever hope to embrace the teachings of Christ, we are going to have to let go of many of the fixed beliefs we have been clinging to that have no basis in the revealed word of God. I'm encouraged by your astute observations here.
ReplyDelete