Families are Forever: What We Forget When Things Go Wrong in the Meantime

There’s been a lot on my mind when it comes to people taking issue with the doctrine of eternal families. Especially when it comes to people sitting in church and feeling somehow harmed because of the “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” I guess you can file this post under tough but tender love. My central point is that the doctrine of families applies to everyone at all times, including those who may feel like it doesn’t.

A few things right off the bat.

No, the Proclamation has not been canonized. But that doesn’t make it any less scriptural. It wasn’t voted on by the body of the church. But that does not mean that God didn’t direct it. No, it is not a part of the temple recommend interview. But sustaining prophets in their priesthood keys is. It’s not a binding political document. But it is doctrinally binding and supported by other doctrines taught across this and previous dispensations to be rejected at our own risk (and the risk of those who look to our testimonies).

So then, seeing that the doctrine taught in the Proclamation is of God, it follows that if the doctrine of families hurts this moment, then it is not the church, the Proclamation, or God that needs to change. The change necessary for us to obtain peace consists in coming to Christ with a broken heart and contrite spirit to learn of the peaceable things of the kingdom and have our perspectives changed by him. There are things we need to allow the Lord to change in us.

The Doctrines in the Proclamation

The text in the Proclamation does not reflect a new concept. Each statement is a reiteration of existing doctrines.

Our Heavenly Father, an exalted and perfected man of flesh and bones, father of Christ (Jehovah) lives in a family unit after which he patterned the family of Adam and Eve. That includes the fact that we have a Mother. Such a doctrine has been part of modern teaching since the restoration.

In addition, we have plenty of reason to believe it has been a part of ancient teaching, not actively discussed, much like the restrictions to the lesser Law of Moses and contraction of greater priesthood responsibilities, or even suppressed by certain kings.

The order of the family of Adam was given as an archetype of our heavenly family. It follows that if family relationships sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise are to be eternal, and exist as the key for exaltation, and we follow the example of Christ, who does nothing except was he sees the Father do, then we are on a course to become like God in our relationships, ergo, God the Father is a literal Father as he instituted the beginning pattern of families to be.

The Hebrew name for God “Elohim”, denoting “greatest of all gods” itself is a plural noun. As we follow the same path, our identities as God’s children, whose eternal potential is currently in embryo–our identities as eternal beings, like his, are inextricably tied to our identities as Husbands and Wives, Mothers and Fathers.

We don’t know much about the creation of spirits. But we can make some inferences. The First Presidency of Joseph F Smith affirmed that:

“…man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father,” and man is the “offspring of celestial parentage.” They also include that “all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity.” (Man: His Origin and Destiny, pp.348-355.)

At the very least, we understand that the act of creation of spirits is a co-creative act between Father and Mother, hence why those who make the decision of their own accord not to choose an eternal companion are left without this opportunity.

This is why God created male and female bodies to house spirits, as we existed in spirit as sons and daughters, male and female, because all things were created spiritually before they were physically on the earth.

Thus gender, marriage, and the role of creation are all based upon this divinely appointed pattern. That is the doctrine.

So Why Does it Hurt?

First and foremost, in the case of my friends and family members who struggle with this, the pain comes because someone cannot see right this minute how this eternal pattern applies to them. All they see is that they are different somehow–biologically stuck between gender, attracted to someone of the same sex, divorced, single, etc. They see happy families to which this pattern does apply, and it only exacerbates the differences they see. In short, they forget the full breadth of doctrine as it applies to families. One might even call it a keyhole view, rather than focusing on what a friend called “The other 50,000 or so testimonies.”

But just as missing a loved one and longing for their presence does not necessarily imply that they should never be away from you or that the reasons they are away are wrong, the temporal pain of being the exception right now does not imply that the pattern is somehow wrong. The Proclamation can be 100% correct and still hurt.

The real risk of this pain comes in assuming that because we aren’t party to some blessings right here and now pertaining to this pattern, or because we have certain temporal complications in life that we are somehow justified in ignoring or criticizing the doctrine.

We’re not.

Furthermore, it won’t help anyone get closer to the Savior to insist that the eternal pattern he died to maintain in the hereafter is wrong.

Pain persists, I feel, because of a few main contributors:

1) Damaging ideas about the timing of blessings. Nowhere in our canon does it restrict the reception of blessings to actions in this life only. Every blessing for which we are worthy will be given us. Church members can get caught up in thinking others will never receive a blessing because of their behaviors right now, and that sins are met with irrevocable condemnations. That’s not our doctrine. Others get so offended because they think a benevolent God should give them certain blessings in this life, and that making them wait for blessings in the next life is cruel.

So don’t assume someone is set forever in the state they are in right now. But also understand that some blessings may not come in this life. The greatest figures of our scriptures did not receive the measure of the blessings promised to them until after they died. Abraham is the prime example. His blessings of being a “great father” were all posthumously received. And if we are to be in company with these people of Abraham’s caliber, I don’t see how we could feel comfortable unless we have exhibited at least some measure of the same faith and determination.

2) Not realizing that repentance is always available, and that there is some measure of repentance, change, and learning available after death.

The fact that we perform ordinances in temples on behalf of the dead that they may reject shows we have the capacity to change after this life. Although the same spirit that possesses our bodies here will continue, there is a point at which the chemicals and biological processes and imperfections of the temporal body will no longer apply, and we may have clearer understandings of how perfectly the pattern of families DOES apply to us.

3) Not remembering that the resurrection returns us to the perfection of our spirits, male and female, with God-intended design, free from the things that have gotten in the way.

Joseph F. Smith noted what was taught by other leaders: “We will meet the same identical being that we associated with here in the flesh—not some other soul, some other being, or the same being in some other form, but the same identity and the same form and likeness, the same person we knew and were associated with in our mortal existence, even to the wounds in the flesh. Not that a person will always be marred by scars, wounds, deformities, defects or infirmities, for these will be removed in their course [per Alma 42], in their proper time, according to the merciful providence of God. Deformity will be removed; defects will be eliminated, and men and women shall attain to the perfection of their spirits, to the perfection that God designed in the beginning” (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 23).

If all these things make the temporal frustrations we face right in the end, then what is really painful about the doctrine? I think it’s only when we are shortsighted and get marred by the “cares of the world” that our vision begins to dim.

So What About The “Exceptions?”

That leaves the question here: for those to whom the pattern does not APPEAR to apply at this moment, but to whom the eternal pattern will and does apply, what are they to do?

Remembering that God’s work is to “Bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man,” (i.e. bring us to the joy and state in which he enjoys his greatest happiness), we should recognize that, according to him:

“Behold, this is your work, to keep my commandments, yea, with all your might, mind and strength.”

Whatever he asks us to do, whatever blessing it appears we are forgoing now, and whatever pain may be experienced by feeling like the pattern of families doesn’t apply right now, creating an alternate, temporal version of it that won’t endure is NOT what our work is about, and it won’t lead us to the greatest happiness in the long run. Whatever pains there are, you can bet that Christ paid the price for every step that hurts. Every hour of obedience which he requires is repaid ten-fold. All losses are made up. So if he asks it, then it must be extremely important for our ultimate good, because if it weren’t, he would be suffering needlessly.

Not knowing HOW the plan applies right now–these are the types of temporal unknowns the atonement was designed to heal. It is that relationship with Christ that the gospel is designed to strengthen first. Detaching ourselves from the vine because we’re not sure what direction the vine will grow this instant in favor of the pursuit of some other vine will always leave us dried and lifeless at some point.

The kind of perfection God expects is for us to be “whole” or “complete” (Greek-telios). Wholeness only comes in the atonement and grace of Christ. The fear of the unknown is swallowed up in knowing we have access to he who knows all.

Families truly are forever. But when forever starts may be different depending on temporal circumstances. And at some point, we know what the end result will be.

There are just a few things to figure out in the meantime. Until then, our responsibility is simple.

Insights from Adam Smith: Why We Hate Misfortune, Even if It’s Good for Us

Adam Smith is full of good quotes. But his longer metaphors are even better.

If there is one thing in life that sustains people through tough times, it is the understanding that tough times stretch us and make us stronger.

But that doesn’t keep the immediate moment from hurting. Even if we know that adversity leads to growth, we still would rather avoid adversity.

Speaking of the emotion of justified anger, which has a place in the long run but immediately makes us and those who witness it in public uncomfortable, Smith says, “It is the remote effects of these passions which are agreeable; the immediate effects are mischief to the person against whom they are directed. But it is the immediate, and not the remote effects of objects which render them agreeable or disagreeable to the imagination…Trophies of the instruments of music or of agriculture, imitated in painting or in stucco, make a common and an agreeable ornament of our halls and dining-rooms. A trophy of the same kind, composed of the instruments of surgery, of dissecting and amputation-knives, of saws for cutting the bones, of trepanning instruments, etc. would be absurd and shocking. Instruments of surgery, however, are always more finely polished, and generally more nicely adapted to the purposes for which they are intended, than instruments of agriculture. The remote effects of them too, the health of the patient, is agreeable; yet as the immediate effect of them is pain and suffering, the sight of them always displeases us.”

He then adds this point:

“The ancient stoics were of opinion, that as the world was governed by the all-ruling providence of a wise, powerful, and good God, every single event ought to be regarded, as making a necessary part of the plan of the universe, and as tending to promote the general order and happiness of the whole: that the vices and follies of mankind, therefore, made as necessary a part of this plan as their wisdom or their virtue; and by that eternal art which educes good from ill, were made to tend equally to the prosperity and perfection of the great system of nature. No speculation of this kind, however, how deeply soever it might be rooted in the mind, could diminish our natural abhorrence for vice, whose immediate effects are so destructive, and whose remote ones are too distant to be traced by the imagination.”

The comfortable and natural tendency is for us to eschew anything that forces us to encounter immediate discomfort. That is why it is so hard to exercise, to wake up early, or to break bad habits.

It is then the mark of personal progress to develop to ability to put off our natural and gut responses in order to view the long-term consequences of what we see in life. Such perspective waters the seeds of grit (a strong predictor of success), happiness even amidst hardship, and of vitality. Such is the path of those whom we would call “godly” in their demeanor. It is the kind of perspective to which Christians aspire.

It appears that the Stoics (and Smith) are on to something here.

Mormon Doctrine of Families vs Hyper-Egalitarianism

In a recent discussion of philosophy, two Australian thinkers devised ways of completely cutting away income and wealth inequality in a kind of hyper-egalitarianism. One solution that was on the table: abolishing the family.

They are not the first to pose the idea. The idea is at least as old as Plato, but never as a legitimate policy. But several American academics have already posed it as an actual proposal rather than an abstract idea (see footnotes for more examples).

In Mormon doctrine, families play an essential role in God’s plan for us. Families here with a father and mother are patterned after an eternal family. The institution of the family is enacted by divine design. A huge portion of our growth on earth is contingent upon us learning to be children submissive to loving parents as we learn our relationship to God, as well as learning how to be parents in preparation for enjoying the same type of family life that God enjoys.

Mormon doctrines of the need for family-level education, of personalized work ethic, and of the inherent value of the parent-child and parent-parent relationship automatically sets this at odds with this level of hyper-egalitarian sensibilities.

Any “new model” of families or basic social units must find itself pressed against this doctrine. The “culture of celestial relationships” will be at odds with a political culture of class sensitivity and declarations of “unfair” advantage that come by virtue of a strong family. By definition, having smart parents is an unfair advantage for child attainment. Having responsible parents is a social shame. By simple genetics, having parents with good health or above-average intelligence or any social feeling places their children in a better position, whether the parents are terrible at parenting or not.

In essence, there are extremes in the political realm that LDS doctrine essentially constrains devout Mormons from reaching. Hyper-individualism combined with a lack of government devolving into anarchy is a society of chaos and selfishness forbidden by the community-focused Peter and James. The extreme political right is essentially off-limits.

In the same way, the extreme political left with such notions of hyper-egalitarianism enough to suggest abandoning the family institution is also off-limits.

Such a world is specifically warned against:

“We warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”

So where does that leave us? What choices will we make in light of this warning?

On Resilience, Vulnerability, and Trusting Joseph

In a world of social media and internet misinformation, how do you maintain faith?

A few thoughts came to mind this week that I felt were poignant and worth sharing in the hopes that they may aid others. Speaking from my own experience, of course:

From a Young Age

Most of my exposure to challenges of faith came at a very young age. In 7th grade, several of my friends, whose parents were heavily involved in criticism of the LDS church, became aware of my religion. Their parents would then make comments to them, which in turn I felt the need to answer when they would ask me. At age 12, I found myself wrestling with questions like the LDS doctrinal conception of the Godhead, the nature of eternal families, and the translation and historicity of the Book of Mormon. I was forced to ask myself if what I was reading was what I really believed, and if I knew it was true. I stretched myself for better answers to their questions and my own, and my obsessive personality would not stop until I had those answers to my satisfaction. That was true not only for my friends’ questions, but for the questions I would overhear my older siblings being asked. I was attempting to find answers to questions posed to far more experienced people than I was.

I was also young enough to trust that God knew better than I did, and that he would give me the answers I sought in due time. Being young means there is still a semblance of inherent goodness that can’t be taken away by the slyness of pride in your own intellectual abilities. By the time I was old enough to be prideful enough to think that I knew better than the Spirit, there were very few things that appeared to be new or novel challenges.

Openness to Questions at Home

It helped immensely that I had parents who would not only engage with me on these hard subjects, but who had learned and challenged themselves to be able to give me honest answers and to direct me to where I could find my own. My dad was a convert, and always shared with us his insights. My mom would focus on study and the power of personal revelation to confirm the doctrines taught in scriptures and by modern prophets. It would have been far harder to be spiritually resilient had I not had them to teach me 1) what the right questions are, and 2) how to ask them. There is a right and wrong way to go about checking the understanding of your faith. There was enough openness at home that I could trudge through that messy process with the support of my parents and older siblings.

There is Always More to the Story

Part of being open means understanding that within every question is an implied desired answer. When someone asks a question about religion, it’s often that they are actually looking for the answer to a different question. It’s always important to remember that with every piece of information and every question, there is always more to the story than the questioner or the presenter of critical information is acknowledging.

Case in point: people often criticize Joseph Smith for utilizing a ‘seer stone’ in a hat to aid him in the translation process for the Book of Mormon, saying the entire thing is outlandish.

Coming from anyone of religious faith (let’s take any Christian church as an example), being so critical of such a method seems… well… hypocritical.

What medical purpose does Jesus having placed clay on the eyes of a blind man before healing him actually answer? Do any of us think Jesus was limited to using physical elements in order to heal, or that he used “magic mud?” It was designed as an instrument to produce faith. The cleansing of Naaman in the Old Testament was accomplished by washing in the Jordan seven times. Did Elisha think the Jordan in particular had curative properties? The point was to develop and demonstrate the gift and power of God, which according to Joseph Smith, were the real instruments used in the translation of the Book of Mormon. Such a thought should be approached with respect. That’s all most Mormons want in a conversation.

Let’s take a secular look. Anyone can poke fun at a claim like Joseph’s on the surface. And yet let us consider what this actually means. Were there no actual revelation or divine action, then Joseph Smith dictated what is now 500+ English pages of a manuscript within the period of three months–with his eyes darkened by a hat, having no room to place an existing manuscript in the hat and no light by which to read it–straight through, beginning to end, completely from memory, having little formal education and in the clutches of poverty. If nothing else, that makes Joseph Smith worthy of serious respect for that accomplishment alone–an accomplishment that cannot be glibly tossed aside because his “process” doesn’t seem orthodox.

There is always more to the story. Answers will come. Peaceable answers will come. There are answers. It may require giving up our own pride or presentism, but they do come.

The Place for Faith and Trust

If there is one concept that has always been a part of Christianity (and of any worldview), it is that of faith. That is action and belief in the face of uncertainty.

As I’ve pointed out, faith is as much a part of a secular worldview as it is a religious one. Any time we attempt a scientific measure, we are exercising faith as we pursue an answer where there is not 100% certainty (which is really the basis of science).

Christ was very clear that it is by “grace through faith” that we are saved. In order for faith to exist, by definition, there must be some probability that some idea is false, which is only allowed in uncertainty. The evidence never does compel us (i.e. make it impossible to believe the opposite) one way or another, or else it wouldn’t be faith. If 100% of the evidence pointed to Joseph Smith as a prophet, then there would be no use having faith in Christ having used him to accomplish something. Being intellectually compelled morally is no different than being physically or politically compelled to do something, and even God does not compel us.

God gives uncertainty by design.

It is worth remembering that in the example of Joseph Smith, even the people who knew him best were divided about his character. Some of his closest friends like W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery, at one point, turned on him, and then returned to being close to him. Compare the experience of his brother, Hyrum, who was ever close and faithful to everything Joseph asked of him (including accompanying him in death), to that of William Law, a close associate whose actions led to the murder of Joseph Smith at the hands of an angry mob.

Now if people who knew him so well–who saw him in his capacity as a husband, brother, father, and prophet–relied despite uncertainty upon faith in his experiences and integrity and also were deeply divided on his character and motivations, how could we possibly have room to say that we know his motivations nearly 200 years later?

Imagine you get to know someone who becomes a good friend. You don’t know everything about them, and sometimes you may argue because you aren’t in a good mood or don’t want to hear what they have to say. Now one day they make the effort to introduce you to someone that changes your life and becomes your spouse. You are forever changed because of your friendship, and they become an interested party in the success of your marriage.

Joseph Smith is that friend to me. He introduces me in the greatest way to the best friend I have ever had-Jesus Christ. That relationship stands above all others. It has left me indebted to Joseph for the effort he exerted to make that introduction. When rumors soak the air, that relationship with Jesus allows me to give Joseph the benefit of the doubt, and it has always left me with peace and trust in his honesty because of the fruits that my connection to Christ has brought.

There are things we just don’t know. It is within that space that we grow. We have to learn to be okay with that. In that space is where we develop trust. Just as no one enters a relationship knowing perfectly all the ins and outs of their friends’ or loved ones’ thoughts or see perfectly that they will never harm us, so too it is that we cannot know perfectly of every action Joseph took or why. We learn to trust our friends by having experiences with them, taking their advice, and seeing that advice pan out.

If every time we could imagine a supposed betrayal we confronted them or began frantically moving through their personal information to find evidence of a betrayal, trust would die, as would the relationship.

In the end, I trust Joseph. I trust in his honesty. I trust in his purity of heart. I trust in his testimony and in his experience. I trust in God and in Christ to have supported Joseph when Joseph says, “I would like you to meet a very dear friend of mine…” Doing so has changed my life and reaped the goodness that has defined my years on this earth. That makes me vulnerable to criticism.

And I’m okay with that.

Culture Wars: Carving Out a Place for Disagreement

In a recent post, I briefly described a larger trend in secular society that insists that religious influence, doctrine, and conscience have no place in the public square.

A large part of how all this plays out depends entirely upon how people of religious faith (as opposed to secular faith, which does exhibit an influence) respond.

Which is why I was glad to see this response from the President of Catholic University John Garvey and the Archbishop of Washington Donald Wuerl make a point about Catholic doctrine and practice that places so-called “culture war” disagreements into the proper context.

Disagreement is Not Discrimination

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/disagreement-is-not-discrimination/2015/04/17/c9717ec8-e2d7-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html

Religion is a moral worldview. So is the secular morality concerned with non-discrimination and with reproductive health rights. To insist that any form of what can possibly be interpreted as “discrimination” is always and forever a bad thing (Economists talk about statistical discrimination all the time without repercussion) is very shortsighted indeed, as is insisting that individual health needs are the only concern an institution or church should have. Non-discrimination rights have limits, just as our First Freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition have limits to allow us to function as a pluralistic society. If some points are not conceded by the non-discrimination crowd, we will get more of the same.

I particularly appreciated this:

“The church’s message, though, is one of mercy, not moral indifferentism. That is why we object to these two [reproductive health and Human Rights Amendment] laws. They ask for much more than mercy and understanding… Mercy is not the same as moral relativism. Disagreement is not the same as discrimination. The law goes too far when it demands that the church abandon its beliefs in the pursuit of an entirely novel state of equality.”

I can’t speak to the specifics of these two laws, as I don’t know their ins and outs. But the larger principle remains the same: as long as moral intuitions are a matter of personal belief that has far-reaching consequences for society, anyone for whom laws apply should be able to voice their concerns in the public sphere, whether they got there by religious or secular persuasion.

Secularism as a Religion and Why the Church Needs Defenders

I was recently involved in a conversation about some controversial topics. It’s an environment that I tend to be quite comfortable in, despite other people’s possible discomfort. If given the right tone in a climate of mutual respect, most topics can be navigated comfortably.

Someone made this point to me about Christianity, and about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in particular (they were a Mormon as well):

“The Church doesn’t need you to run to its defense. It doesn’t need defenders.”

I beg to differ, but for more nuanced reasons than thinking that basic human decency is constantly under attack or for fear of some grand conspiracy.

In the media and in politics right now is a fierce debate about the place of religious practice and belief in the public square. This seems to be driven by a concern among the religious and irreligious alike that the religious are “forcing” or “pushing” their religious beliefs onto secular society.

So let’s get back to definitions:

Religious beliefs can be boiled down to a worldview about morality and social “thou shalts” and “thou shalt nots” derived from an epistemological approach of personal study, prayer, and above all, the evidence of personal and social experience. Personal choices are the form of experimentation upon which principles are tried and therefore inform the morality of the individual and are squared with the scientific and multicultural understanding of the world around them.

Secularism can be boiled down to a worldview about morality and social “thou shalts” and “thou shalt nots” derived from an epistemological approach of personal study in the sciences, introspection, and personal and social experience. Personal choices come as the result of at least two processes: evidence of the epistemology of the scientific method and of experiences upon which their moral system is tested, usually distilling to a simplified version of the Golden Rule.

In either case, be it secularism or religion, we have a worldview that is intrinsically and inescapably linked to our notions of morality. After all, saying that nothing is wrong or that a particular act is not wrong is still a moral judgment.

Secularism tends to criticize religions (often calling them cults) for punishing dissidents in some way, insisting on orthodoxy, or for dogmatic approaching to social problems.

The irony is that secularism is so often guilty of the same thing. The doctrine of a zero-tolerance policy of separation of church and state; petitioning, boycotting, or wholesale threatening the livelihood of owners of businesses for not agreeing with their moral dogmas (see Mozilla CEO);  punishing dissidents who do not accept the cultural morality of the day by ostracizing them from discussions; and insisting on the orthodoxy of the ill-defined language of rights all make me wonder if such a worldview could not be labeled cultist. At the very least, secularism is on the same plane as religion in terms of its quest for adherence.

Every time you vote, write, or comment about a political, social, or economic issue, you are attempting to impose your worldview and value system onto someone else.

Concerned about inequality? Your morality is concerned with economic equality. Wanting welfare reform? You may value self-reliance above some other priority. Concerned about military intervention and killing overseas? Your worldview makes you concerned about death and suffering–perhaps above other considerations such as justice or defense of self and country.

However, the voice of the religiously conscious is being drowned out simply because it is informed by religious conviction.

But let’s be honest: there is nothing in science that can possibly prove that murder is morally wrong. Nothing in the scientific method dictates that sexual assault is incontrovertibly cruel. Therefore there are no scientifically proven grounds to accept any form of morality above another. Every moral system is then based upon what is unobservable and immeasurable: the innate values of a human life, of virtue, of self-determination, etc. It then follows that because none of these are provable, that we form moral judgments based upon belief–and to use the language of religion– upon FAITH, defined as “…the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen,” (Hebrews 11:1).

Secular morality and religious morality are based upon the same concept–faith. Yet one form of faith is being socially valued above another and forcing the other out of the debate.

Why is that?

That’s where the need for defenders comes in.

Mormon doctrine places the role of agency as a central principle of God’s plan. We chose to live in the world, even with all its injustice. We now choose what to believe and what voices to listen to. In this rich doctrine, God prizes choice so much that he sacrificed his Son in order to uphold this principle.

We also understand that in order for choice to actually be a choice, we have to have at least two options. The Book of Mormon expounds this, saying: “For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so…righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one,” (2 Nephi 2:11). The current political tide has been moving quite rapidly over the past 5-10 years toward a type of areligious (and increasingly anti-religious) moral system.

For that reason, religious voices are necessary in the public square to offer an alternative to the dismissive attitude against spirituality that is becoming a dominant moral platitude in the educated Northeast and urban cores–an alternative with strong philosophical justification in Natural Law and claim to a longstanding historical tradition that has served as the moral foundation of the United States for over two centuries.

Unless someone teaches truth to combat error in a strong way, agency cannot exist. You cannot create good out of agency unless good is a component of the two choices.

In scripture, the only times God has stepped in to essentially start over–Sodom, the Flood, Jerusalem (Babylon), the Nephites–are when sin and immorality are so abundant and accepted that truth and God’s will are no longer visible, and the only components of choice become bad vs worse. Real and godly good are no longer options because the voices of the godly have long been silenced and their worldview discounted because of where they had their genesis.

God will not have his children condemned to be apart from him because their option to choose him has been compromised. That’s why he steps in–to provide justice and fairness to allow all children to learn to discern good from evil (and yes, there is evil in the world) and to provide mercy when we fail as well.

Those are the messages that need to be offered to give us a real choice. And isn’t that the most American of ideals?

Moral Intuitions and Why Religion Matters

I have been reading lately Jonathan Haidt’s book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.  The first several chapters are an overview of his work in moral psychology–that is, the psychology of how we make moral judgments.

His beginning and most important point is this: people make moral judgments based on intuition first, followed by active reasoning. Although this reasoning can affect intuitions, it is often a post hoc rationalization for the intuition.

The Woman with the Issue of Blood, the Law, and Modern Healing, Part 1

The Issue of Change in “The Church”

In the past few years, the online Mormon community has been abuzz with calls for more inclusiveness in the church. “Big tent Mormonism,” as it is being called, is becoming a talking point in some circles, while others stand wary of the extent to which the phrase and concept can be abused. There are so many ways in which we as a people are striving to become more culturally inviting and less insular.

However, taken to a quite plausible (not-so) extreme, calls for doctrinal change in addition to cultural shifts may not be far off. We as a body of saints do have good reason to be wary of politicized catch phrases. Quite common in this conversation and well within the realms of the Bloggernacle is a call for “The Church” (I put this in quotes for a reason) to stop mistreating members of such-and-such a group. When Church leaders say things like “There is room for you here,” there is often a cough coming from the back of the internet room saying, “Unless you’re ____.” Within this blank space, critics affix several classifications such as gay, female, black, unconventional, etc.

The Issue of “The Church”

“The Church” is made up of what I see as three distinct components: 1) Doctrines and ordinances of salvation administered by Christ’s Priesthood authority; 2) Prophetic leadership and revelation with Christ ultimately at the helm, including authority passed through Priesthood keys to local leaders; 3) Individual members and their families working out their own salvation through Christ. When anyone issues a call for “The Church” to do X, in order for me to feel that I can truly agree with the sentiment, I need to know what they mean by “The Church.”