Unto Every People

Moving Forward

Many of you have asked that I comment regarding the 1978 Revelation of Priesthood and the history of racism in Mormon scripture, doctrine, and culture. For the past several weeks I have been contemplating how I may add productively to this conversation. There is certainly no shortage of material to inflame modern sensibilities on the subject.

Individuals must be allowed to change. Organizations, even religious ones, are a collection of individuals. It is sometimes tremendously difficult for an individual to accept responsibility for error. It is even more difficult for a collection of individuals. Mainstream Mormonism has chosen to reinterpret or de-emphasize some of their history instead of fully acknowledging it. They are a hierarchal society dependent on a perceived line of authority from the first leaders down to the present day. While they don't claim infallibility, they do expect it. Perhaps this is why it is so difficult for them to view this subject candidly.

I am not going to attempt to itemize a historical case for racism in Mormonism. The evidence is there plain enough to see... if one chooses. I find it disturbing and vulgar. Racism always is. But our collective history is replete with disturbing chapters. America institutionalized racism. None of us escaped unscathed. It affected our families, our communities; the very moral fabric of our nation. It stands to reason our faith was also adversely affected. Mercifully, our sensibilities continue to evolve.

Mainstream religion has always played a stabilizing role in society... binding us to the past as we march head-strong into the future. Rarely is it a catalyst for social change.... that's not its traditional role. If anything, it goes kicking and screaming. As societies evolve so do our concerns and our need for answers. Religion eventually bends, reinventing itself over and over to meet those questions. If we were forced to abandon every faith with a history of intolerance and prejudice, there's no question we would be a faithless society. Ours is a world defined by evolution not by perfection. Religion need not be perfect. Every religion has a history of intolerance and yet every religion has principles for over coming it.

Like many conservative religious sects in 19th century America, Mormonism was guilty of racial injustice... and the echoes of that injustice reverberated clear into the late 20th century. Doctrine and practice conflicted with gospel ideals. It was problematic and painful for those who chose to see it for what it was. To try and call it something it wasn't would only demonstrate the extent of our ignorance. I will not do that but I see more benefit in exploring what Mormonism has become instead of dwelling on certain troubling elements of what it was.

It's comforting to think our chosen traditions are free from all the unpleasantries of error. I'm not saying we must necessarily acknowledge that fact... just that it's sensible to be fair. Do not hold another's tradition to a higher standard than your own. If you haven't examined your own unpleasant and deficient past, don't obsess over someone else's. History provides invaluable perspective by giving us an opportunity to learn from the mistakes of others. Often those lessons were hard earned. But as individuals, we must be firmly planted in the present. As evolving beings, we are only responsible for our own thoughts and actions. We comprise the religions of today... not the specters of the past.

All this said, it's worth noting that had Joseph Smith survived to lead his followers west, I believe we wouldn't be having this discussion now. He wasn't perfect in any sense but I do believe his views on race better match our 21st century sensibility than most any of those who came after him.

EDIT---

The Prohibition of Interracial Marriage in Utah, 1888 - 1963

A Utah Historical Society Essay by Patrick Q. Mason

Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons
on the DocumentaryChannel

Q&A: Perfection in Imperfection

The Great Salt Lake

Part One

I never expected this blog to attract attention.  I assumed it would remain largely undiscovered except possibly by my family and closest friends.  Unsurprisingly, they remain mostly uninterested.  What is surprising is the level of interest shown by complete strangers.  

I've been collecting some of your email.  Several of your questions are quite provocative.  I'm not quite sure how to or even if I should tackle them.  That's not to say I don't have an opinion... I certainly do.  I want this to be an inclusive place where we're all served.  Focusing on divisive issues is counter-productive without mutual respect.  It may take some time for me to find just the right way to share my thoughts.  So until that moment comes, we'll hold off on the more incendiary material.  That said, there are some reoccurring themes I am prepared to answer more fully even though I have already touched on them here in the past.

Do you consider yourself a Mormon?

While I don't embrace much of their more creed-defining philosophies, I do share their expectation of faith and find some of their unique and intrinsically Mormon beliefs helpful.  This is understandable since they were my introduction to mysticism and faith.  Non-Mormons may pick up on certain "peculiarities" in my more Christian beliefs and wish to classify me as such but Mormonism does require a level of orthodoxy I fail to embrace.  So no, I do not consider myself a Mormon.

If not the Mormon Church, which church do you affiliate with?

Does it really matter?  We're human.  We aren't designed to be perfect.  Our perceptions aren't perfect.  Our memories aren't perfect.  Our reasoning isn't perfect.  And our understanding is unequivocally not perfect.  Our imperfections define us as much as they challenge us.  Our chosen faiths are no different.

All traditions suffer from error and inconsistency... including my own evolving faith.  In fact, I believe faith to be a philosophical exercise to conceptualize our imperfect existence without the need of it to be perfect itself.  It's the act of struggling with and working through faith's imperfections that actually give it any meaning at all.  This differs irreconcilably from a principle tenet of Mormon belief know as the Restoration.

To clarify this point, I would go so far as to say from the fantastical perspective of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god, there would be no sizable difference between a Catholic and a Hindu.  A Buddhist and a Mormon.  A Jew and a Muslim.  Or even an Atheist and a Spiritualist.  God would look at all of us as effectively the same given our stupendously limited development.  And so, I regard sectarianism with both amusement and concern.

The idea that at some future point, humanity will bask in a singular religious utopia is quite unsettling because it would negate the principle of agency.  I envision a world embracing the pluralistic ideals of peaceable coexistence where none reign supreme and the chaos of diversity is its own reward and its own beauty, where we learn from one another and compete in good works.


Do you support Church leaders?

It is in the context of pluralism that I emphatically reject the need or benefit to any ecclesiastical authority.  I consider it a potential evil and a distinct danger to the advancement of humankind.  That said, I recognize many Mormon leaders to be good, decent, well-intended individuals.  I support them in their roles as fallible mortal beings struggling to find meaning and purpose in this life.

This brings me to two related topics.

(Continued...)

Q&A: Faith-Science Equivalence

The Vitruvian Man by Leonardo da Vinci circa 1487

Part Two

(Continued.)

How would you define yourself religiously?

The short answer is, I really don't.

I have dedicated an entire blog to faith and belief.  I use terms very familiar to the religious.  I speak of the spirit, priesthood power, resurrection, life after death, perfection, and even God.  As unsettling as this may sound to some of you, I probably have more in common with an atheist than the emotion driven spiritualist.  Faith allows me to conceptualize mysteries I struggle to understand.  I sense the profound correlation between "faith" and the tightly bound mysteries of the universe.

There are principles of quantum physics being explored to explain the mysteries revealed in the Global Consciousness Project that I find easier to contemplate if encapsulated in philosophical terms like "soul" or "spirit."  The concepts of complimentarity, quantum superposition, quantum entanglement, and mass-energy equivalence likewise, can take on spiritual connotations when discussing the nature of "reality."  I don't have the scientific vocabulary for that.  To contemplate consciousness, existence, immortality, and purpose, I turn to philosophy... but the various fields in physics also explore these very same concepts.  I see a faith-science equivalence where contrasting reasoning and vocabularies are applied in the exploration of analogous issues.

This brings us to the million dollar question; 

Who, do you believe, is God?  

The short answer is, I don't know.

My god is not the Mormon god.  In fact, he's not even the Christian god.  He's not just some bigger better version of me.  He is something profoundly different.  I guess a more important question would be; "What is God?"  To me, God is a philosophical construct of something yet to be identified in physics.  Maybe it is something so far beyond our abilities to comprehend in a scientific context. he will always remain firmly within the protective bounds of philosophy.

Mathematics is the language used to describe the laws of physics.  The divine beauty and symmetry are evident.  I wonder if God is not author of mathematics and if the very laws of physics themselves are God.  On my plane of existence, sentience is the natural result of ever increasing complexity in a biological system.  I reason God to be a sentient derived from a similar process of increasing complexity but on a scale that transcends the multiverse.  Gnostic thinkers postulate we are but minuscule manifestations of God's own consciousness and that, in reality, the whole of the universe is God.

I really don't know if I am any closer to being right... but I find much more comfort in not knowing than in the vision of reality postulated by religious absolutists.  Their concepts seem uncomfortably small in my understanding and estimation.

Again, I hope I haven't troubled any of you.  My beliefs are my own.  I'm not here to correct or even influence your own spiritual path.  I believe, in the spirit of mutual respect, we can learn from one another and appreciate our differences.

"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural constants were off even slightly.  You see, even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life - almost contrived - you might say a put-up job."

~ Paul Davies, The Mind of God