tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83913565737894101332024-02-20T10:55:40.713-08:00Liminal BlatherThe purging of my brain onto a blog. Assorted ramblings from a not-quite-believing/not-quite-exiting Mormon.Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-34895794158403374632009-08-28T19:11:00.000-07:002009-08-29T12:27:59.204-07:00Julie & Julia & JosephWarning: Minor Spoilers, and a blog post that will be a little unclear if you haven't seen the movie.<br /><br />I just saw Julie & Julia. A cute movie, I thought. Like many experiences in life, this made me think about my Mormon journey.<br /><br />As the movie progresses, Julie models her life after Julia Childs. She sees her as an inspiration to be a better person in all aspects of life, not just in the kitchen. Julia becomes a hero to Julie through her writings (collections of letters, primarily).<br /><br />This admiration is suddenly thrown in jeopardy when Julie learns that the real-life Julia doesn't like her blog at all. All along she had fantasized about Julia reading her blog, but now she learns that Julia doesn't even like her. She is traumatized as her imagined Julia collides violently with the real Julia.<br /><br />Ultimately she works through this, as she realizes that the Julia in her mind has helped her life, even if the real Julia was a bit of a disappointment<br /><br />I think Joseph Smith could be considered in this way. As a child I lionized him, but as I learned about his indiscetions and poor choices later in life that sheen wore off. But is there something good he can still represent? I think this is dangerous if someone is alive, as they might use that aura of perfection inappropriately, but if someone wants to use Joseph Smith (or Lincoln or Gandhi or Reagan or Kennedy) as a deceased idol, how is that harmful?Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-78309581242851088062009-01-15T17:56:00.001-08:002009-01-15T18:08:58.850-08:00Leaving the church, but not really...I posted this idea on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">NOM</span>, and people seemed to like it, so I'm putting it here for posterity.<br /><br />Ever wish you could really just get away from church visitors but don't want to officially remove your name? Moving soon? Here's a "permanent" solution I came up with (but haven't tested). It only requires a little white lie.<br /><br />Here's my (only slightly unethical) suggestion based on my knowledge of church IT systems and practices. First, move to a new ward. Don't give a forwarding address. Eventually the church WILL track you down. When that happens, eventually someone from the local unit, probably the missionaries, will come to see if the address is legitimate.<br /><br />Now for the finger-crossing part.<br /><br />Tell them that they are looking for the <em>former residents</em>, who, as it happens, recently moved. Then--and this is where the magic happens--give them a "real" forwarding address. In the middle of nowhere. Preferably in a foreign country, but a US address is probably more likely to make it back through the clerk without a hiccup. Use <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">lds</span>.org to find a spot In Montana or Alaska (or northern Canada?) that is literally 4+ hours from a meeting house. You'll be safe until someone from that unit tries to find you, which will honestly probably be never. Thus your record will be considered "located," and they will never track you down again.<br /><br />I might start with a foreign address--in Iran.<br /><br />They may send you a letter after you move (rather than the missionaries), in which case you could just send a letter back to the sender explaining the same story.<br /><br />Little bit of a lie, but I love messing with systems. You could show up and make an apology (without mentioning your name) to the local bishop, if it made you feel better, but only after waiting another 18-24 months.Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-19290851726793699342008-10-06T18:09:00.000-07:002008-10-06T18:25:34.624-07:00Progress?Last week my wife and I had a very long talk about where I stand on the church. I haven't really come across anything in the last few years to make me think its claims of moral and authoritative superiority are true, and she, despite disagreeing with the recent actions against homosexuals and other issues, continues to fall back on "but it's true." We're both even-tempered, so while these can be animated, passionate discussions, they're (happily) not real fights.<br /><br />Nonetheless, this one left me particularly frustrated. Perhaps because it's been such a long time since our last one.<br /><br />The next night she said, "If you don't want to go to church you don't have to."<br /><br />Wow. I never thought that that day would come. My mind raced--was this my one chance at "freedom?". Was I looking at a once-in-a-lifetime chance to escape from endless, mind-numbing Sundays? The door to my prison left ajar by a thoughtless guard?<br /><br />"Really?"<br /><br />"Yes. I don't want to be a controlling wife or anything."<br /><br />I took one last look out of the prison door and turned back.<br /><br />"I want to be where my family is. I'll keep coming with you." <br /><br />What can I say? I know my attendance makes her happy, even though I complain to her about all the crap that gets taught. And I see so little of my kids, I'd rather play quietly with them in Sacrament Meeting (or in the foyer!) than stay at home.<br /><br />Strange, really. I feel like some progress has been made, even though nothing's changing outwardly. One never knows what to expect, here on the middle way. But I was careful not to lock the door when I closed it behind me.Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-15340301786639342822008-05-12T17:00:00.000-07:002008-05-12T17:11:17.082-07:00NOM Movie ReviewLast night I watched <a href="http://www.sonyclassics.com/mykidcouldpaintthat/">My Kid Could Paint That</a>. I highly recommend it to people who've found a way out of a prior belief system. Watching the progression of the film maker, both in the movie and in the DVD feature <u>Back to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Binghamton</span></u>. It's fascinating to see the human drama of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">pre</span>conceived notion collide with raw data, then to watch some people cling to beliefs in the face of that evidence, while others begin to question and doubt their fundamental assumptions. It's clear that it caused the narrator an all-too-familiar internal turmoil.<br /><br />When I first set out on my journey from belief to agnosticism (or, more candidly, outright disbelief) toward Mormon teachings, I felt very alone. It was as if I was struggling in a darkness that surely no one had been through before, save the "offended or unworthy." Having done considerable reading on <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">religiosity</span> since then (and even in seeing movies like this one) I find it fascinating that my experience is, essentially, a core part of the human experience. That many people go through these wrenching changes and emerge with added light and knowledge on the other side.<br /><br />So then, tally ho!Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-18715731721147296202008-03-03T19:42:00.000-08:002008-03-03T19:48:58.864-08:00Do I come out or notI recently discovered a fellow ward member on <a href="http://forum.newordermormon.org">NOM</a>. This was somewhat exhilarating, because even though I knew he was redefining his relationship with the church, I am completely "in the closet" in my ward; yet I could now interact with a local fellow member without blowing my cover. Mind you, in real life people see me wearing non-white shirts and such, and I certainly make nontraditional comments, but I still go to most meetings. And have a very "high" calling in the ward. I've been debating "outing" myself to this guy for some time, but I'm not really sure how that would play out. Given the negative reaction that often follows overt questioning, I'm interested in carefully controlling how much information I share with people who are basically acquaintances (i.e. fellow ward members). Ah, life in the liminal lane!Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-60541899823016707342008-01-15T16:41:00.000-08:002008-03-03T19:42:45.899-08:00Monday Night ServicesI sing in an amateur choir, which my wife and I auditioned for about a year ago. I've never really done anything like it before, and, frankly, I'm a little out of my league surrounded by so many experienced singers. But I really enjoy the weekly chance to step out of the daily punishments of life and just create beautiful music.<br /><br />We've just started working up our spring <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">repertoire</span>, and one of the pieces we're doing is Morten <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Lauridsen's</span> <em>Sure On This Shining Night</em>. I have a hard time singing this, even though it's still in "practice mode" (I can only imagine where we'll be in two months!) because it is so spiritually moving to me. I literally choke up at certain points. Yet the lyrics are completely <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">secular</span>, based on the poem by James <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Agee</span>--<br /><br /><blockquote>Sure on this shining night<br />Of star-made shadows round<br />Kindness must watch for me<br />This side the ground<br /><br />The late year lies down the north,<br />All is healed, all is health<br />High summer holds the earth,<br />Hearts all whole<br /><br />Sure on this shining night<br />I weep for wonder<br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Wandr</span>’<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">ing</span> far alone<br />Of shadows on the stars.<br /></blockquote><br />I don't have a good place to recommend for a professional recording of this, but <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">YouTube</span> has a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA-SGv6Z7Lo&feature=related">pretty good recording</a> of a Taiwanese group performing it. It doesn't do it justice compared to performing it, but I just find this a truly beautiful <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">piece</span> of poetry and music.<br /><br />When my Sunday's leave me feeling frustrated and generally unfulfilled, it's nice to know I communion with God (to the extent an agnostic can) every Monday.Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-76202825298351879362007-12-26T11:42:00.000-08:002007-12-26T12:24:13.308-08:00More Musings on RacismI just had the chance to spend lots of quality time with my devout in-laws for the holidays. I love them a lot. They are great people. The parents know my current views on the church, but the siblings do not (although I come off as very heretical to them, I'm sure). We talked about lots of things, both religious and secular. Here's what I learned in one poignant conversation that flowed from a discussion of presidential contenders:<br /><br />1. Oprah Winfrey is anti-Mormon,<br />2. the church was never racist (but it's complicated to explain that to journalists), and<br />3. suggesting that the church may have been mistaken prior to 1978 is disloyal (and therefore bad).<br /><br />Have to admit, I felt like #1 came out of left field. After establishing that there was no good evidence for the assertion, I suggested that if it <i>were</i> true, it might be because she's black, and the church has a less-than-stellar record with its teachings on race. That led to the next two observations. At that point, tension building, we changed the subject.<br /><br />These two observations by my family really bothered me because I've been thinking a lot about the <a href=http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110011023>recent article</a> in the Wall Street Journal on racism in the church. Since the article came out last Friday, I have been increasingly agitated by the continued belief among the vast majority of Mormons that racism was okay prior to 1978 (or that whites withholding power from blacks, when so directed by God, is not racism). I even had a dream on Friday night that I was acting as a racist, even as I found my behavior offensive at the same time. Not a pleasant dream (particularly as it led to violence against me) but a clear reflection of how I am thinking about this issue these days.<br /><br />I'm as close as I've ever been to writing a letter to a particular apostle who I understand actually reads his mail (rather than sending it back to a bishop or SP). I just feel that my integrity is demanding that I implore the leaders of the church to see the evil that is perpetuated by not officially forsaking pre-1978 "doctrine." Not that I expect the church to apologize on account of my humble letter, but then I can at least say that I've done <i>something</i> to further what I believe to be the best course of action for the sake of the many members whom I love.Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-78085812056005028142007-09-18T03:08:00.000-07:002007-09-18T03:39:28.857-07:00A Spirit by any other nameWhat really did me in, in regards to the church, was realizing that the spiritual experiences I considered noetic were 1) experienced by other people in relation to mutual exclusive ideas and 2) replicable using <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybin>psilocybin</a>.<br /><br />I've told this to a number of still-believing Mormons. It doesn't phase them at all. I find this very curious. To me, it is like growing up in a family in which we call a certain color red. As I meet more and more people, I find them referring to other colors, such as my yellow or green, as red. At the end of the day, I have to question what it means for something to hold the property of redness. I will certainly reject that an objective redness exists.<br /><br />So, too, goes the Spirit. I have come across so many recorded instances of people having "spiritual" experiences, I have read testimonials from participants in the Good Friday Experiment (who's drug trips were profoundly meaningful decades later), I have felt similar feelings when passionately discussing humanist principles. People use the same words and describe the same things as a typical Mormon speaker in F&T meeting. I cannot discern some consistent difference between what Mormons (including myself) appear to be describing and what others are describing.<br /><br />Some people have suggested that I weight my own spiritually noetic experiences (of which there have been several over my life) with more significance. That seems distorted to me--when I think about those experiences, it wasn't that I knew something as much as I felt a profound sense of love. That's a great thing, to be sure, but doesn't have anything to do with knowledge. At least not in any way that I can tell. <br /><br />I certainly don't think that personal meaning has to coincide with objective reality. It's similar to how my love for my wife and kids is real, but doesn't tell me the state of some extra-subjective thing. They're important to me but they're obviously not important to most people in the world (who are unaware of their existence), so to state that the universe somehow dictates their importance is a great myth (which I subscribe to!), but that's all. I can see the boundaries on the myth without deflating its personal meaning. I can confidently say, "I matter," or "My wife and kids matter," as a statement that transcends myself. For some reason, God doesn't work like that. If I think that God is just my God, but not other people's God, then it doesn't seem like God's really THE Judeo-Christian God anymore. Same for the truthfulness of a church that claims other churches cannot by true.Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-58566599906083154222007-09-13T17:12:00.000-07:002007-09-13T17:39:19.869-07:00I'm sorry...not!Since "coming out" to my in-laws I have been corresponding with my FIL on all things philosophical, ethical, spiritual and religious in an attempt to be better understood. I think this has gone fairly well (as he has since acknowledged that I didn't stop believing in order to commit whoredoms), but sometimes we get somewhat snippy with each other. In his last missive to me, he referred to the September Mountain Meadows Massacre article in the Ensign and asked if I was disappointed that the church was handling it so well.<br /><br />Goading attitude notwithstanding, I was actually quite pleased as I reflected on the article. It's a pretty honest account I think--you really can't definitely pin it on BY, and I don't think you have to in order to learn valuable lessons about the dangers of obedience.<br /><br />Then I heard about <a href="http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,5143,695209108,00.html">Henry Eyring's remarks</a> on the anniversary of the event: <i>We express profound regret for the massacre carried out in this valley 150 years ago today.</i><br /><br />I was pretty proud of my little church...a growed up! I realized he didn't say, "we're sorry," but organizations so rarely do. This seemed like an apology to me, so I was going to respond to my FIL that I was, in fact, quite pleased with the church's apparent progress from Hinkley's weasely: <i>That which we have done here must never be construed as an acknowledgment of the part of the church of any complicity in the occurrences of that fateful day.</i> I was really happy.<br /><br />So, I'm all the more disappointed (slightly angry, even?) to find out that a PR hack, Mark Tuttle, had <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PIONEER_MASSACRE?SITE=MOSTP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT">this to say</a> in response to Eyring's (apparently uncorrelated) apology: <i>We don't use the word 'apology.' We used 'profound regret.'</i> It's like seeing your brother come out of rehab and go straight back to the needle! Why, oh why, must they act this way? The organization is at fault, and it is the same organization that existed when the atrocity occured. Was nothing learned from this mistake? Apparently not. For although "regret" can be construed as an apology, it can also be spoken generally, as in, "We regret the Holocaust." Regret doesn't explicitly invoke responsibility. So now, unfortunately, the bar is raised--"regret" won't cut it anymore because you (through your PR guy, no less) have made sure we realize that you're not accepting any responsibility for it. How sad. How truly sad.<br /><br />But of course, it's not "the organization" deciding not to apologize, it's the leaders. So the finger of blame <strong>does </strong>have somewhere to point. Who has not learned the lessons of warning from the actions of President Hale and Bishop Lee? Who has not taken corrective actions to ensure that the organization could not facilitate future moral missteps? Who has decided that "being right" is more important than "being loving" to the survivors, some of whom clearly still feel emotional pain over this past event?<br /><br />The answer is obvious. And how inspired could such people be by a God of Love?Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-37568725792169265712007-08-28T18:09:00.000-07:002007-08-28T18:51:38.083-07:00My Great ShameI will now openly admit the sin that led me away from orthodox belief in the church: thinking.<br /><br />Okay, that's a little antagonistic--let me put it another way: intellectualism. But what is intellectualism? And why is it so frightening to so many people?<br /><br />As long as I can remember, I've considered myself an intellectual. Why? Because I have always enjoyed thinking about things, connecting disparate ideas, and evaluating existing "knowledge" with a critical eye. Study, reflection, and speculation--these are the words in my dictionary's definition of "intellectual," and I think they sum it up quite nicely.<br /><br />Study, reflection, and speculation. What exactly is wrong with those? The problem is that they are not outcome focused. Instead, they are focused on the process. An intellectual (when engaging in intellectual pursuits--after all, intellectuals believe and act frequently without complete analysis), absorbs as much information as possible, then tries to weave it all into a coherent myth (anthropologically speaking). When new, conflicting information appears, it must be incorporated as non-judgementally as possible, even if that means the old myth was wrong. Learning is its own reward--one never asks, "Why should I bother to think about this?"<br /><br />Anti-intellectualism, often inappropriately described as faith (for everyone has faith), is focused on the result. Someone posits a myth, and it is everyone's job to accept it. Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus, as two embodied beings--accept it. The Old Testament is full of literal stories about language confusion, global floods, and divinely sanctioned genocides--accept it. You can accept this by what you feel--accept it. Inputs that do not align with these myths are not allowed to reshape it; they are only to be rejected as lies, half-truths, or misunderstandings. Joseph usually didn't tell the story that way? Other accounts are incomplete. God seems to be acting immorally? Who are you to judge God? Others describe the same feelings when testifying of diametrically opposed beliefs? They must not <i>really</i> be feeling what you feel. To focus on the intellectual process instead of the proscribed outcome is to cast doubt on the myth, and to the non-intellectual this is highly offensive, morally dubious, or just plain dumb.<br /><br />Of course, many religious leaders want it both ways--study, reflect, speculate, etc., just make sure you get the right answer! And if that's too much work, guess what? The right answer is still the same! Isn't that convenient?Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-39345019994493810392007-08-23T17:24:00.001-07:002007-08-23T17:39:57.662-07:00Opening a Little WiderLast weekend my entire family went to a wedding out West. We stayed with some relatives who are extremely intellectual, and a generation ahead of us. It was great fun for someone like me--every night (and during the days if we were together) we discussed the church, politics, or general philosophy. We got into an extended debate of theodicy, which one of them was struggling with. I freely defended my own ideas, although not by explicitly saying, "God doesn't exist." I merely pointed out that if God does exist, God doesn't go meddling in people's affairs--otherwise God is clearly capricious and possibly sadistic. (Check out God's "rejoicing in suffering" in Deut. 28!) It was great fun and left me mentally exhausted.<br /><br />Unfortunately, they are perceptive people, so they could tell my positions on fundamental doctrines are, shall we say, unorthodox. They immediately had a phone call into my parents, who confirmed the same. So, now I've become an object of pity in two more people's eyes. Future conversations will almost certainly be more polemic, as they strive to "defend the Church" or "save me from myself." I sure hope not, but that's the way it's gone with others--they used to talk freely about their gripes about Church, but now it's all "true and living" all the time. It's an unfortunate wall they choose (subconciously, I'm sure) to erect.<br /><br />It's made me think about how some believers regularly accuse me of thinking I am smarter than they are. I try to point out that I can (as can they) disagree with someone whom I consider a peer or even a superior intellect. Factual disputes are not contests of intellect in my mind. I discovered what I did because of a fair amount of lucky timing--meeting the right people at the right times, or reading the right articles at the right times. On the other hand, as I usually do not point out it response, they now consider themselves morally superior to me. Even if I do "good works," I am an apostate and bound for much suffering. People can't be morally "different but equal" in any type of moral reasoning that I understand. So now that I've played out some of the steps expected of an apostate, I am clearly morally inferior. It's a little depressing to have yet two more family members feel that way about me.Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-79311744455774403992007-07-27T10:51:00.000-07:002007-07-27T11:18:18.618-07:00Disaffected with disaffectionIn April of 2003, Hinkley said:<br /><br /><i>Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.</i> -- Gordon Hinkley, <b>Loyalty</b>, April, 2003 <br /><br />For a long time, I thought that was a weird thing to say. Could he be that shallow in his thinking? I doubted it--I figured he was keeping it simple for the masses. A couple of days ago I read the Oaks and Packer interviews from the PBS documentary. I was quite surprised to find almost the exact same declaration from both of them. I have decided that I will have to believe that Hinkley is being completely honest when he says things like that.<br /><br />So, here's a great example of why I disagree. I had a very interesting experience reading the latest (or possibly one earlier) edition of Dialogue. I was flipping around when I came across a short essay about the recollections of a woman whose sister died of polio in her youth. I read it standing in my kitchen and openly wept.<br /><br />A minute later I noticed it was in the Fiction section of the journal.<br /><br />I was furious.<br /><br />I felt like my emotions had been jerked around. Like I had been used or manipulated in some way. Here I was, emotionally connecting with a phantasm, a figment of someone's imagination!<br /><br />But it was well written, so a couple of nights later I read it aloud to my wife. I couldn't get through it because, again, I wept. (But less than the first time--I'm not hopeless!) I found this fascinating in a new way--knowing it was fiction, and that I had been annoyed by that, I still was emotionally connecting with the characters in the story! That's the great thing about fiction--it tells truths in a way that simple facts cannot. An author can write, "I am sad," and that may be a fact, but it is nothing like writing an essay about the trials of a fictitious character (or a metaphorical poem). By doing that, I will actually feel what the author is feeling.<br /><br />So, I can accept the Book of Mormon as fiction and still find value in it. At the moment I don't find much, mainly because I'm also in a state of rebellion against the literalism that is "required" by the church, but if I were having a conversation with others who also approach it as fiction I think I could find more to value. It becomes a commentary on 19th-century America and Joseph's (and/or a co-author's, if that's your fancy) interaction with that society. It's just set in a fictitious pre-Columbian society (which is yet another commentary on 19th-century America!)<br /><br />There clearly is a middle ground--I live in it, and so do many people that I know and love. It's not the easiest place at times, but ease has never really been my top priority in life.Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com26tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-71385703085363645532007-07-13T08:17:00.000-07:002007-07-16T19:17:31.148-07:00Reviving Ophelia -- through MormonismI finished reading <em>Reviving Ophelia</em> last week. I've got some young daughters, so I thought I'd try to get a sense for the challenges ahead. It certainly raised my consciousness of cultural messages that get pounded into girls as they approach (and pass through) adolescence.<br /><br />While I was reading the book, I felt like active involvement in Mormonism could be helpful, in that the culture of Mormonism does not portray women as sex objects and teaches against substance abuse and premarital sex (sources of serious problems for adolescents, obviously.)<br /><br />On the other hand, the author asserts that part of the turmoil that can arise during adolescence is a result of waking up to the fact that this is a "man's world." Girls begin to experience harassment and gender-based inferior role assignments (don't look or act too smart!), and it crushes their spirits. Needless to say, Mormonism falls pretty flat in this area, by teaching that the superior positioning of men is actually God's divine plan (or, in recent parlance, the Great Plan of Happiness).<br /><br />How will this all work with my girls? I don't know of course--they're totally unique from one another and a decade or more from their teenage years. I only know that they'll be raised to know that patriarchies are a human invention, not part of some divine ideal! (And then, off to a private all-girls school!)Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com20tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-79781208885527926312007-07-11T04:51:00.000-07:002007-07-11T13:11:02.291-07:00The Gods and the BeesSince coming to the harsh awareness that the myths of Mormonism no longer align with my constructs of ultimate reality, I have been struggling to redevelop meanings for some of the symbols I left behind. The most powerful of these was obviously "God".<br /><br />I think God is a great support for some of the myths I continue to tell, such as the notion that, "the worth of souls is great in the eyes of God." But problems with theodicy and the (as far as I can tell) inseparability of the "soul" and our gray matter leave me unable to consider a micro-manager God. I've been leaning more towards pantheism, in fact. After all, if we were microscopic creatures studying a living brain, the behavior of neurons would appear completely deterministic, just like the world around us does. (I'm siding with Einstein here, not Bohrs.) Without the quale of being human, we would have no sense of the consciousness of our subject on a larger scale. As I see it, God could be like that, for the whole universe. Likewise, just as a human cannot select a particular neuron to manipulate in a "random" way, pantheistic God can't be manipulating our day-to-day lives. My only problem with this approach is that God then seems to be pointless to some extent.<br /><br />I was drawn to thinking more about this recently after reading an article on <a href="http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0707/feature5/">swarm behavior</a>. If you don't want to read it, here's the gist: swarms can solve problems that individual members never could. In essence, intelligence is additive in a universal sense. This clearly holds true for humans as well. Consider, for example, the manufacturing of a jet aircraft. Not the assembly, but the machining and forging of parts, mining of ores, fabrication of silicon wafers in the circuitry, generation of power required to run welding equipment, etc. The knowledge to build an an aircraft from "nothing" does not--could not--exist in a single person. There aren't even organizations with the complete knowledge, but rather groups of organizations that must act together in the simultaneous application of inter-individual knowledge. Yet airplanes are common sights in the sky. The same could even be said of much simpler things, such as ball-point pens. Perhaps we as humans are progressing towards divinity not as individuals, but as a species. I like this new idea, as it captures Zion and God in one idea--a collection of humans united in the pursuit of familial love create Zion and become, in a sense, God.Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-1687946126527216592007-06-13T15:15:00.000-07:002007-06-13T18:23:48.006-07:00Obedience -- The Root of All EvilIn my experience, obedience is the foundation of the Mormon faith. I think it's impossible to overstate the significance of this concept to Mormons, not just to the "laws of God" as is popular in general Christianity, but to Mormon men who outrank you. An upcoming lesson from the Spencer Kimball manual captures it well in the statement:<br /><br /><i>[Kimball] underwent that complex operation not because it was deemed to be reasonably safe in the opinion of his medical advisers, but because he was obedient to...the leaders of the Church—regardless of personal risk.</i><br /><br />Last year's manual included these gems from Wilford Woodruff:<br /><br /><i>The Lord will lead [the President of the Church] where he wants him to go. We know God is with him, and has led him all the time. … It requires [the prophet] to tell us what is right and what is wrong in many things, because that is his place and calling. … A perfect channel exists between the Lord and him, through which he obtains wisdom, which is diffused through other channels to the people. That we know. We have got to learn to bring this knowledge into practice. 12 <br /><br />The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place.</i><br /><br />What is obedience? I will use the following definition: ipso facto compliance to a source of authority. In other words, compliance solely because of the authority vested in the source. In the church world, it's using leaders as the primary justification for an action (e.g. not wearing double earrings because Hinkley said not to).<br /><br />Why is obedience necessary? For children, it makes a lot of sense. They don't have the rational faculties or experience to understand all of the dangers that surround them, so if a parent says, "hold my hand in the parking lot," they will obey or face grave danger. Parents usually encourage obedience for this very purpose--to protect their children. It's also part of developing the inhibitions that we call maturity. Obedience is very important in small children.<br /><br />But what about in adults? Does obedience serve a good purpose? It might in situations of serious, immediate peril, such as serving in the armed forces. It's also convenient if you don't like having to think a lot. It's always simpler to do what you're told, rather than think through the issue yourself.<br /><br />Do either of these conditions properly apply to matters of ethics or faith? Of course not. So, why would a religion need to harp on obedience, unless its precepts were not clearly good ones to adhere to? <br /><br />For example, the golden rule is a teaching that stands on its own--an adult does not need to be told to obey his leader and thereby live the golden rule, because the golden rule makes sense after rational examination. If two earrings were a bad thing, it would be obvious (or at least could be made obvious through explanation.)<br /><br />In the Book of Mormon, even God, when telling Nephi to decapitate a sleeping man, explains the reasoning for the commandment. And that's <b>God</b>. Shouldn't we hold humans to a little higher standard than, "your wish is my command?"<br /><br />After all, obedience is a coin-toss. Obedient people can do great good or great evil--it all depends on who they're following. That's why I worry about teaching my children to follow and obey, rather than to think critically and question (not defy) authority. I understand how the church inherited this core value--pressure to obey is the only way it would have survived in its earlier cult-like days. But now that it's grown up a bit, it's time to move on. I'm just doing my part to help out.Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-46003533008675927992007-06-07T22:32:00.000-07:002007-06-07T22:56:05.601-07:00Functional InfallibilityFrom the blog that brought you <a href="http://liminalblather.blogspot.com/2007/04/evolation.html">Evolation</a> comes...Functional Infallibilty!<br /><br />What is functional infallibility? Infallibility that exists in spite of denial of the same. This is easier to demonstrate than explain. Here's how to do it in seven simple steps.<br /><ol><br /><li>Find a believing Mormon.<br /><li>Ask if the President of the Church is infallibile.<br /><li>Wait for the "No."<br /><li>Ask for an example of a mistake by the current President, or any of his last three predecessors.<br /><li>Listen to the silence.<br /><li>Ask for an example of a mistake that might be made in the near future.<br /><li>Listen to the silence.<br /></ol><br />Viola, functional infallibility in action. You see, nobody wants to outright claim that another human won't make a mistake, so presidents of the church must not be infallible. But when it comes to leading the church (which requires the kind of spiritual connection Mormons routinely teach comes from strict obedience), devout Mormons generally get <i>extremely</i> uncomfortable at the prospect of such a mistake actually occuring. It just isn't possible.<br /><br />I have seen this used to defend even the "crazy" statements, such as men on the moon or sun, Native Americans turning white, etc. They simply won't give a single example of a mistaken teaching. It's a beautifully simple example of double-think:<br /><br /><b>Fallible Prophets Don't Make Mistakes.</b><br /><br />Not every devout Mormon believes this, of course, but I don't think I've ever had the seven steps play out differently. The one time I saw it more or less happen in the 'Nacle, an Iron-Rodder asked, "Do you think you're smarter than the Prophet?" at which point the Liahona shut up. Functional infallibility in action.<br /><br />So while Webster's defines infallible as:<br />incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals, <br /><br />Liminal Blather defines functional infallibility as:<br />incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals, while not possessing the attribute of infallibility. <br /><br />Simple enough?Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-76753460382184515212007-06-01T10:07:00.000-07:002007-06-01T10:44:15.233-07:00Racism--Water Under the Bridge?Okay, yet another blog post arising from the furious debate raging on my last post. Is the church, today, actually racist? Or, more importantly, am I comfortable with my religion in the context of racial equality?<br /><br />No.<br /><br />A more ardent defender of the organization might rightly point out that Brigham Young, John Taylor, Mark Peterson, Joseph Fielding Smith and other bigots are all dead and gone; that we now give the priesthood to blacks; and that Hinkley as told us not to be racists; so the issue is over.<br /><br />Those things are progress. Definitely. But progress does not equal arrival! Here's what bothers me, for those who care.<br /><p>1. The Book of Mormon is racist.</p><p>Lamanites are given dark skin as a curse for their iniquity. I've heard desperate apologetics attempt to explain this away, but the purpose was to make them less enticing to white Nephites, so this is clearly a visual characteristic. Plus when the Amlicites mark their skin with red paint at one point (Alma 3) it is discussed as a parallel to the dark Lamanites. This comes up many places in the Book of Mormon. In other words, a skin-darkening literally occured, and it is a tainting, a bad thing. <strong>The solution: embrace a metaphorical approach to the Book of Mormon. </strong> Vestiges of 19th century thinking can be disregarded, just as the violence and misogyny are usually ignored in the Bible.</p><p>2. Selling books with racist teachings is racist.</p><p>Books written prior to 1978 (and possibly later) referring to blacks as less valiant in the pre-existence are still available through Deseret Books. <strong>Solution: stop selling them or switch to new revised editions.</strong></p><p>3. Allowing racist doctrines to continue to circulate is racist.</p><p>I don't remember much of my life before 1978, being so young and all. I grew up attending church every week. In the 1980's, I learned all about how blacks were fence-sitters in the pre-existence. I'm sure it wasn't in any correlated material, but I learned it just the same. I do not remember (nor do I know of today), any correlated material that proactively dismissed the old doctrines. <strong>Solution: actively teach that blacks and whites have always been equal.</strong></p><p>4. Portraying God as a racist is racist.</p><p>Ultimately, the 1978 decision was a great step, but one taken somewhat begrudgingly, by all appearances. I realize that the Q15 have said that they felt inspired to take this self-evident step--I'm sure that if there is a God that inspires anything, God would have agreed with this decision. However, the doctrine of Presidential Infallibility meant that the leaders couldn't, in 1978, say that the ban had been wrong per se, just that it was over. So we are encouraged to believe that God really didn't want the church organization to be an ensign to the world on such an important moral issue, but to merely be a follower. And a begrudging-looking follower, at that. <strong>Solution: admit that prior to 1978, blacks really should have held the priesthood, black families should have been sealed, and a black women should not have been sealed as an eternal servant to Joseph Smith.</strong></p><p>See, it's not so hard to get this right.</p><p>Listening to Darron Smith's podcasts on MormonStories really opened my eyes to the modern experience of a black person in the modern church. There's room to improve, for sure.</p>Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com61tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-18126594755301529842007-05-25T14:32:00.001-07:002007-05-25T14:49:02.196-07:00God is smarter than youGiven the sudden turn in comments in my last thread, I decided to throw out a quick thought.<br /><ul><li>God knows everyone personally.</li><li>God knows them better than you know your best friend, spouse, or children.</li><li>You are smart enough to recognize your friends, spouses (for the Mormons), or children as individuals--you do not judge, bless, or discriminate against them based on some arbitrary classification beyond their control (e.g. race, gender, etc.)</li></ul>Ergo, God would not judge, bless, or discriminate against you, or blacks, or women, or Egyptian children, based on arbitrary abstractions of society (e.g. race, gender, etc.)<br /><br />So, if you want to know if a concept is really divine in origin, ask yourself: Would I be just as happy if the blessings/withholdings were reversed? If my bishopric and church leaders were always non-white or always women? If I had to pledge obedience to my spouse, but she did not have to reciprocate? If you were expected to marry someone you weren't attracted to?<br /><br />This is a great judge of moral advancement--the ability to act in such a way that you would not mind being any member in a transaction, relationship, or society that you deem moral. In other words, the golden rule, but for everyone.<br /><br />Instead, we often stereotype: women are better at parenting, men are more authoritative speakers, etc. This obviously isn't true in the whole--<strong>every</strong> women isn't a better parent than <strong>every</strong> man. <strong>Every</strong> man isn't a more authoritative speaker than <strong>every </strong>woman. Humans rely on these simple heuristics because we're too limited to do otherwise. We can't know everyone. (But we like to imagine we can.)<br /><br />God cannot discriminate using the simple stereotypes of humans. I don't think God could be so stupid.Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com71tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-44249935997452499302007-05-21T18:17:00.000-07:002007-05-21T18:42:07.682-07:00Shame vs LoveAbout 6 months after my epiphany regarding the church, I found my mind turned to the nature of mainstream Christianity vs LDS Christianity. Now, I'm no expert on the mainstream church (and obviously there's a good bit of diversity of thought), but one morning, just as I was stepping into the shower, it hit me.<br /><br />Mormons obey to receive grace.<br />Christians obey because they have received grace.<br /><br />I'm no mainstream Christian, but somehow that second approach rang so much better in my heart and mind. As soon as I realized it, I suddenly saw how pervasive this approach was in Mormonism. Hardly a GC talk goes by in which you don't hear the caveat, "if we are worthy," or "if we are obedient." Salvation comes through Jesus, but only once you've earned it. It makes Jesus like the token collector at a train station--he's deciding whether or not let you in, but the fare is the fare, so pay up. Obedience comes from knowing that you will not get to live with your family if you miss tithing by 1% and then die too quickly to make amends.<br /><br />Contrast that with the idea that Jesus has, in his infinite mercy, reached down and pulled you from the depths of your human weakness. As a result, you will obey him in a show of gratitude. Clearly you'll mess up, but he'll help you out anyway. Obedience comes from knowing that you are saved and being thankful for it.<br /><br />We'll let the LDS.org search engine take it from here (in my completely scientific study!):<br /><br />"obe*": 7,136<br />"worthi* worthy": 4,636<br />"grace": 1,816, including phrases such as, "We cannot be saved by grace alone."<br /><br />It's an emphasis that really bothers me, in that it promotes a judgemental attitude in others and a deeply negative sense of shame in the believer. I do not find Christ as a valuable symbol if I am using him to promote shame--I much prefer the parental love image of the second approach. My children exist because my wife and I <em>gave</em> them life, a totally free gift. If my children disappoint me, I do not reject them--certainly not for the rest of their lives! Instead, I show them how to live better lives and recover from their stumbles. And I seek their obedience out of respect and love, not fear of punishment.<br /><br />Just some liminal blather on what Jesus means to an agnostic...Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com51tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-52708450547898710392007-05-18T10:32:00.001-07:002007-05-18T10:52:09.594-07:00My Spiritual Witness of HumanismLast night I was having an extended philosophical conversation with my wife and some good friends. They, like us, are "so-called intellectuals," although they're not Mormon. (Does that make them "real intellectuals?") Whenever we get together it immediately turns into a deep dive on politics, religion, current events, etc. This time was no exception.<br /><br />We were discussing Fowler's <em>Stages of Faith</em>, which they are going to read on our recommendation (do I mention this book too much?), and I was trying to explain the idea around shared centers of value and power. I explained (hope I didn't mutilate the message too much) that a driving force behind our quest for purpose is the desire for validation of worth in the face of death. That it is the inevitability, incomprehensibility, and finality of our impending end that is in a constant battle with our desire to have intrinsic worth. Nobody wants to think of himself as a random lump of biomass, here one year and gone the next. (Not that we're not random biomasses, just that we don't like using that as our primary construct for existence.)<br /><br />While I was explaining this--the idea that "fear of death" drives the quest for meaning, I was almost moved to tears by the Spirit. So, I guess that was True. Since it was in the context of religion as a human construct, it doesn't really jive with the other stuff I thought the Spirit told me was True, but I experienced what I experienced.Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com22tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-88519788129079830362007-05-17T05:05:00.000-07:002007-05-17T05:20:42.963-07:00I am God. No, wait, you are God.I posted about this on NOM a little while back, but I wanted to comment on it here, too, so that I can always find it.<br /><br />The University of Chicago Magazine published a <a href="http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0712/investigations/god.shtml" target="newwindow77">fascinating article</a> on how people tend to see themselves in agreement with God on moral issues. While this seems a truism at first--people naturally align their morals with what God "teaches" them--the interesting thing was that when those moral beliefs were manipulated in a laboratory setting, <b>God's beliefs changed right along with them</b>.<br /><br />This has played out in my own life, where I cannot believe that God is an exclusivist when it comes to religions. At the same time, I saw God in a totally different way as a believing Mormon, and I can actually remember that.<br /><br />My take-away from this is that "God's teachings" are synonymous with "your personal beliefs" in the majority of situations. Which means if someone says that "God wants us to do such-and-such," it's identical to saying "I want us to do such-and-such, and ALL CREATION agrees with me."<br /><br />Seems like a hard pill to swallow if you're a believer in God. But then, you're different, right? You actually do understand what God teaches; the idea that you project your beliefs onto God is ludicrous...right?Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-79421972379577196032007-05-13T20:13:00.000-07:002007-05-13T20:43:40.248-07:00I gave a talk today, oh boy...I gave a talk today about motherhood. It went over very well--I don't think anyone noticed that I didn't do the typical "bear my testimony" bit at the end, nor did I actually use any scriptures. (I did use quite a few GA quotes though.) I got very emotional toward the end, which tends to happen every time I speak in church about something I care about.<br /><br />Not long ago I would have attributed these feelings to "the Spirit." Now I have every reason to believe they come from me, like all of my other feelings. But for what purpose? I can give an "objective" purpose for love (procreation), fear (self-preservation), or hope (also self-preservation). But getting choked up in a talk? Less clear. But then, jealousy, excitement, pity, and frustration are also less clear. We obviously can assign whatever meanings we want to the things we feel, but I would expect that there should be some evolutionary advantage for any common feelings (although they could always be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%28biology%29">spandrels</a>).<br /><br />I told my wife that it was my "Good for Society" feeling. In other words, the feelings that choked me up were similar to those I feel when singing the national anthem with a group, or watching Extreme Home Makeover, where they renovate a home to help a suffering family. To that end, these feelings seem to serve a very useful purpose--preservation of the tribe, with preservation of the individual as a result. I don't think she thought that was nearly as inspirational as attributing them to the Creator of the Universe. I have to agree, my "Good for Society" feeling isn't the kind of thing you find in songs or poems.<br /><br />Perhaps I would agree with the statement, "the Spirit testifies of the goodness of something," but not "of the truth of something." That's getting pretty metaphorical, since I don't literally believe in a disembodied supernatural being that plays with my emotions. In this case, though, a more correct way to put it would be, "the Spirit testifies the goodness of something, as I define good, and as I understand the something." When referring to this particular feeling, I can't count on the Spirit to correct me in either the definition of good or in my understanding of reality. But I can still seek out the feeling.<br /><br />Believers will doubtless point out that, to them, the Spirit <em>does</em> send sudden thoughts into their minds to correct misunderstandings, etc. That I find much easier to explain, given the fact that so much of our brains work is done subconsciously, with the conscious mind seeming to more, perhaps, tell a story about what is happening (even though it thinks it's in control). For more on this, I refer you to the great essay, <a href="http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html">A Ghost in the Machine</a>.Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-19162276133391918352007-05-10T19:32:00.000-07:002007-05-10T19:44:27.050-07:00Lines in the sandI got an email recently from the Relief Society presidency, looking for a Priesthood holder to attend the next Enrichment night. Apparently, women cannot be alone in the church. I responded with an offer to show up with a key if that was what was needed, but that I would conscientiously object to supporting any such policies by actually chaperoning adult women. I was sure to include the bishop in the response, since he was included in the original inquiry. So, although it's no bus boycott, I have been feeling more empowered to "call it like I see it" in the church.<br /><br />How a Western woman can swallow this whole is beyond me--I honestly think that any human being should be offended by this kind of policy. What am I missing?<br /><br />I know there are some readers of this blog who are more inclined to believe all of these policies are set down by divinely inspired leaders than I am. I'm fairly certain that if you don't believe the LDS church is "the only true and living" church, you'll call out a policy like this for the sexism it is. So to the believers, here's the question--why on earth would such a policy exist? Why are women not to be trusted alone? Might they start to think for themselves?Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-3431146783538310902007-05-07T07:14:00.000-07:002007-05-07T07:52:44.934-07:00Heavenly MotherI made some comments about this topic on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">NOM</span> last week, but I want to flesh out my thoughts a little more.<br /><br />I used to think that Heavenly Mother (HM) was a great doctrine--something that offered a value to believers that they couldn't really find elsewhere. Now I think it's a pernicious doctrine. Not by itself, but in how it's applied.<br /><br />Traditional Christianity suggests the presence of God, usually referred to in the masculine. This could be because of the terrible stuff He encouraged doing to women (segregation, death for accidentally touching male privates while defending her husband, etc.), but, at any rate, I think modern Western Christians tend to view God as transcending gender. So a person can imagine God being as male or as female as he/she wants to. God becomes gender-neutral.<br /><br />Joseph Smith threw a wrench into this by suggesting that people become gods, and that God was once a person. As such, God has a gender. One could leave it at that, and say that we happen to have a male God and other worlds have female Gods, but he also introduced plural marriage (more commonly known as Celestial Marriage), meaning that we have both a Father and Mother God.<br /><br />Mormon doctrine unequivocally teaches that there is a Heavenly Mother (or Mothers), although it provides virtually no details. But one aspect of her existence reign supreme in the modern church--she is an evil topic. People get <strong>very</strong> uncomfortable in public discussions of Heavenly Mother. If a speaker were to begin expounding on his/her beliefs about Her, a bishop would probably feel compelled to either stop the speaker outright or at least "correct" the talk from the pulpit afterwards. No "good" thing is so completely taboo (even the temple, which is freely discussed in the temple, and isn't really a "doctrine" anyway, but a ritual).<br /><br />We have no indication that Heavenly Mother serves any purpose whatsoever. There's no question that God was the Creator. There's no question that Jesus is the Savior. The Holy Ghost is the Comforter and testifier of all Truth. So, where's Heavenly Mother in any of this? Making refreshments? Tidying up the CK for our eventual return (<a href="http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=f50bd0640b96b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1">as Neal Maxwell once suggested!</a>)? Yes, girls, you get to be a god along with your husband, but that won't mean "God", because God is clearly the male, and His Wife, well, we don't really know what she does, nor do we want to know, nor do we want you to even think about it. In other words, we don't <em>care</em> what she does. You may not be second class citizens in the church (cough, cough), but you clearly will be in the eternities, at least to your children.<br /><br />This denial of the feminine bothers some believers, even though they may not fully know why. So we see explanations arise for how it can be "good" not to care about women's eternal destiny.<br /><br />The #1 Mormon explanation for this (as I perceive it) is that God doesn't want her to be criticized. People might start saying, "Oh my Heavenly Mother!" Seems possible--I've heard people "swear" on Mary. So we know one other thing about female Gods--they're emotionally fragile. Heavenly Mother would rather completely distance herself from Her children (even removing their salvation, if necessary) than risk one of them saying something mean about her. Even as a GOD, women will need to be protected by their husbands.<br /><br />The #2 explanation (and this is a distant second), is that she's the Holy Ghost, or some such thing. (I've also heard that Joseph Smith was the Holy Ghost embodied--whatever.) You know, if this makes someone feel better, I guess I won't get on their case, but the HG has <em>no body.</em><strong> </strong>So it can't be the female equivalent of HF.<br /><br />I wouldn't mind this doctrine so much if women (and men) were free to openly discuss these things, or if Hinckley were to get inspiration to clarify this teaching. Instead, response to spiritual inquiry is hostile. Seriously, if someone feels like they have a spiritual connection to the feminine divine, should that be dismissed as evil? It's just so blatantly wrong! Better to not have Her at all, than to make her a magnet for <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">guilt and self-loathing</span>. If we don't care about the existence or role of Heavenly Mother, what are we saying about the fundamental and eternal value of women in general?Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-52280316636930216292007-04-30T04:51:00.000-07:002007-04-30T05:55:03.029-07:00Before All Else: ModestyIt's prom season, apparently. I don't have kids in school yet, but I do have a brother-in-law who recent went to his senior prom. (I skipped mine and have never looked back, but that's another story.) We talked to my in-laws the night of the event (after his group had come to the house for pictures and had left) and I was really struck by the disdain they seemed to show for all of the girls but one (my brother's date). The reason, of course, was immodesty. It was as if nothing else was visible to them. Was their hair nicely done? Did their dresses look stunning? Could you sense their youthful exuberance on the brink of launching themselves out into the big, wide world? No, they were just immodest. It was like they had just met a bunch of pole dancers.<br /><br />What is modesty, anyway? My favorite definition comes from a book written by Karol <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Wojtyla</span>, "Love and Responsibility." I don't remember a lot of the details, but this concept stuck in my mind--immodesty is dressing in a manner to present oneself first and foremost as an object of sexual pleasure. I liked it because 1) it's gender neutral, and 2) it's about your own intentions, rather than how others will view you.<br /><br />This is still subjective, obviously. People gladly tromp around at the beach in clothing that would be considered immodest on a date. Acceptable skin-baring has varied considerably over the last 200 years. And different cultures simultaneously to accept different levels of exposure, as a quick trip between Europe and the US will show.<br /><br />Is it immodest to try to look attractive? That seems a little draconian--like requiring a burqa. So if we're not expecting people to make themselves hideous, we should expect them to flatter themselves with their clothing. In the US, this frequently means showing shoulders and back if you're a woman. I have to admit that when I see most formal dresses, I think that they are lovely articles of clothing, not the uniform of a street-walker. I've seen a couple wedding dresses go from the original stunning design to "temple-worthy," and it always seemed like a sad sort of aesthetic destruction--like the Taliban scratching the faces or heads off of artwork in Afghanistan.<br /><br />But somehow, in mainstream Mormon culture, modesty has become extremely legalistic. It's like temple garments (whether you wear them or not) are the imagined line of acceptance. Dress off the shoulder? Immodest. Collarbone visible? Immodest. Muumuu? Modest. The fact that the garments themselves started showing lots of skin in 1923 is conveniently forgotten in this approach.<br /><br />It seems like modesty is falling in line with smoking for the church. It's very easy to draw defined boundary, then look with disdain at those on the wrong side of the line. My thoughts are drawn to the message of Sister Nadauld, YWGP in 2001: <i>You can recognize women who are grateful to be a daughter of God by their outward appearance.</i><br /><br />Sure makes it simple to determine who is good and bad, doesn't it?Ujlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.com5