"A militant kind of aggressive religiosity, sometimes called fundamentalism, has grown up in every single one of the major world traditions as a rebellion against this imbalanced world, a rebellion against humiliation, powerlessness and there is a sense of rage expressed in religious terms.
~Karen Armstrong
Twisted and focused by men insane with hatred and fear, this kind of fundamentalism was used against us ten years ago. There is no excuse or redemption for what they did... at least not in this life... but we must still look objectively at how we fell victim to these predators of spirit. And victims we are... the perpetrators, their supporters, those who perished, those who lost loved ones, those who stood in horrified witness... all of us
We must, as a people and as a species, move beyond the small and petty definitions of perceived right and wrong and embrace the beauty of difference God has blessed us with. This is my day's tribute:
"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field. I will meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about
language, ideas, even the phrase each other
doesn't make any sense."
Jalāl ad-Dīn Muḥammad Rūmī
13th-century Persian, Muslim poet, jurist, theologian, and Sufi mystic.
"The belief that Christ was married has never been official church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the church. While it is true that a few church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, church doctrine."
Official Statement
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Dr. Robert L. Millett is the Richard L. Evans Professor of Religious Understanding at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. He is also a professor of ancient scripture and emeritus Dean of Religious Education. For the past 30 years, inter-faith dialog has been a focus for Dr. Millett. He takes a rather pragmatic view of LDS doctrine. Back in January of 2008, I had the opportunity to hear him speak.
Dr. Millett was the invited guest on the Peabody Award winning national public radio program Speaking of Faith. The 2008 presidential debates had fallen into a sort of dogmatic quagmire as largely misunderstood and misrepresented concerns of Mormon culture and belief dominated the political discussion. Dr. Millett was called on to help frame that discussion by sharing some of his thoughts on Mormonism. During the course of the conversation one rather unassuming question led to a startling and even evocative response:
"I wonder, you know, is revelation still happening and are there teachings that stop making sense at times or are there new ideas that arise?"
Dr. Millett framed his answer in a then recent controversy surrounding author Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. He paraphrased the official church response to the debate regarding the san greal (holy grail) or the mythical cup used to capture some of the blood spilled at Jesus' crucifixion and the sang real (royal blood) or the inference that Jesus married, had children, and established a holy or royal line of progeny.
"The scriptures are silent as to whether Jesus was married. It is true that early church leaders may have offered their opinion on this matter, but those opinions did not then, nor do they now, constitute the doctrine of the church."
So far nothing too extraordinary but how Dr. Millett interpreted its significance really was. He declared this statement establishes the idea that while Mormons revere, honor, respect, and uphold their church leaders, they do not believe in a form of prophetic infallibility. He went on to acknowledge the church continues to formulate its truths. Sometimes it even revises and expands on core doctrines and understandings.
"And so we — as we, as we move into the 21st century now, and as we begin having a greater focus upon Christ and Christianity and Christian principles, I think there is a tendency to look back and say, 'All right, what are the central saving doctrines? And what are some other things we, A, don't know much about, B, just don't seem to be in harmony with what, with what — and where we are now?' And I think that's taking place more and more."
Mormonism is extraordinarily young in terms of religions. It was less that 200 years ago that Joseph Smith triumphantly proclaimed that sacred Christian scripture was no longer closed and began presenting his revelations and additional texts.
"Compared to the Christian church, which has been at this for a couple of millennia, we're about halfway to Nicaea. And so... cut us a little slack, will you? Give us a little time. We're in the religion-making business, and this takes time. It takes centuries. And trying to explain the faith and articulate the faith, that doesn't come over night. We've really only been about that for 20 or 30 years."
Now I realize Dr. Millett tailored his presentation to non-Mormons. He used language unfamiliar to most anyone who's sat through Mormon services. But Dr. Millett represents a growing trend within Mormon intellectual circles to tone down religious rhetoric and to finally speak more pragmatically about the evident changes in LDS culture and theology. He is still one of the church's foremost experts on the gospel and is tremendously influential in preparing the next generation of LDS theologic thinkers.
The Information Age has had an extraordinary effect on not just Mormonism but religion in general. Information and resources that were once difficult to access are now just a few key strokes away. Research that was once obscure now only requires a simple internet search engine to discover. The free flow of information requires a new approach to theological conversation. A new tone of inclusion and respect of difference is required to reach a more informed populace.
In a way, Dr. Millett has summed up my personal journey... looking back and identifying central doctrines I find helpful and moving on from those ideas that are not in harmony with what and where I am today. Traditional Mormon doctrine has tried to present itself as static and immutable. Dr. Millett has given us a rare glimpse into the mechanisms for refining understanding if not out right change evident within the faith. For this I am grateful and, in some small measure, feel more connected to the tradition of my forefathers.
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.
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.
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."
The paleontological record is pretty clear. We are the product of behavior modification that has continually altered our social systems and spurred cognitive and technological adaptation for as long as our ancestors have been classified as genus homo; latin for human. All species of the genus, except homo sapiens sapiens, are now extinct. We are the evolutionary victors from among 15 known in our evolutionary family. Our emerging history of the social evolution is as astonishing as it is enthralling. Beyond mere "survival of the fittest" shared with all life on earth, there is compelling evidence of cooperation and mutual adaptation among our human cousin species that made us possible. One example, we owe our amazing immune response to an incredibly rare interbreeding between homo sapiens and two archaic human species among whom our ancestors coexisted; homo neanderthalensis and denisova hominin.
Social evolution has always been characterized by gradual development... that is, until now. Until the last two or three centuries. most of humankind lived much like their ancestors did for at least the last 10,000 years or so or since the emergence of agriculture. We now live in a mechanized connected world dominated by rapid developments in technology and communication. Social evolution has been replaced with social revolution. In this escalating complexity, human society is undergoing change our biology could scarcely prepared us for. Some say our very survival depends on how successfully we adapt.
The psychological strain of this unprecedented rate of change can not be overstated. The fact our populations increasingly struggle to cope is self-evident. Today, the fastest growing segment of the burgeoning mental health industry is the phenomenon of "pop" psychology and its companion; self-help. This product is not necessarily esteemed for its credentials as vetted theory by accomplished psychologists, anthropologists, ethologists or neuroscientists but for their widespread reception by the general population. It is often tailored to appeal directly to the prevailing "common sense" aesthetic of its intended target audience.
Self-help is not always incontrovertibly without value... but caution is advised. Unchecked, some consumers find themselves running from one popularized concept to the next in a desperate search to find that single silver bullet to right everything wrong in their lives... often in a near addictive state. However, considered and consumed in a thoughtful manner, some of this material can enhance our understanding and enlighten our perspective.
Technology, Entertainment, and Design (TED) is a nonprofit dedicated to "Ideas Worth Spreading." This past June, author Karen Armstrong made her TED prize wish known: The Charter for Compassion. It has already been affirmed by tens of thousands including His Holiness The Dalai Lama, Her Majesty Queen Noor of Jordan, His Eminence Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, the esteemed Dr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr and many many others.
I've long thought of Karen Armstrong as a sort of religious anthropologist; combining spirituality, history and human psychology. Her book, Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life, is proving to be very thought provoking. It presents a stunning fact based argument supporting the biological evolution of compassion and human altruism. But more importantly, it focuses attention on the widening psychological disparity plaguing modern society in the 21st century.
As a solution, Ms, Armstrong suggests a concerted effort to advance the principles of compassion. She speaks of a collective exploration to achieve a higher level of compassion beyond the generally passable, every day expectation of today.
While the steps outlined seem somewhat obvious and even cliché, I am impressed with her sense of urgency. It compels me to look more closely at what she is proposing. Sometimes the best solutions are the most straightforward... even in a complex world. Cliché or not, I see value in her idea and the necessity for practice.
It may be too idealistic to hope for but lasting change is rarely immediate. Any transformation, even on a personal level, would be promising. I have no doubt I will walk away from this experience a little changed.
Moving forward two days; Independence Day! My recent experiences still never too far from my thoughts, I attended two family functions; my own and that of my dearest friend. I took great satisfaction enjoying the diversity of personalities. Some call the quirky jostling "dysfunction" and "harmful." I imagine unchecked it could be. It certainly isn't always easy but difficulty isn't a reliable measure of harmfulness.
When we are injured and suffering either emotionally or physically, our ability to recognize and appreciate the miracle of family is often tremendously diminished. Patience and understanding are always the first to be sacrificed in such situations. I am all too guilty of this and know this to be true.
I know my family... and in optimal condition, I understand and appreciate them the way they should. This holiday was nearly optimal for me. I so enjoyed their company. Yet, as we said our goodbyes, I regret not all of us were feeling optimal and a poor choice of words set into motion hurt and suffering. I left beleaguered; not knowing how to help make things right.
Then something extraordinary happened. For maybe the first time, I found myself in a very familiar setting; comfortably enjoying family... but not my family. I'm usually quiet and shy and maybe, to a certain degree, I still was but I experienced something unique... at least to me. I noticed a familiar dynamic. The players were different yet they shared the same identical personality characteristics I grew up with in my family... except there, they were totally redistributed as if like a deck of cards where they were shuffled and all dealt new hands. I could see aspects of my parents, sisters, brother, nieces and nephews all represented in unique combinations. The reactions and interactions played out in familiar ways... right down to the moments of hurt and suffering.
I think what was so extraordinary about the experience was which personalities acted and reacted. Like watching a familiar movie shot from completely different angles, it provided some much needed insight into the inner-workings of my own family because I wasn't emotionally vested in any of the outcomes. Too often we take for granted our abilities to weather criticisms and judgements. Too often we take for granted our abilities to read and anticipate the moods and reactions of those so near and dear to us.
Our most intimate relationships are our families. They are both the safest and most dangerous of all relationships in an emotional sense due to their profound nature. Mormon doctrine teaches we foresaw our lives, our living conditions, our life companions, and we "lept for joy" in anticipation for our earthly existence. I share that belief. But I also have the nagging suspicion that these intimate relationships we call family are far far more complex and older than we dare imagine.
I believe in a cyclical process of life and learning where we live again and again until all of life's lessons are learned; perhaps not reincarnation in the common sense but something. Those we know as family follow us from probation to probation. We continue to play profound roles in each others lives... because we have unique lessons to learn from one another. Our bond truly is eternal.
Popular psychology likens healthy living to cleaning out one's garage. In their opinion, it is a garage filled with the junk of our own making where choice pieces may be dusted off and repurposed but the majority of seemingly broken and useless trash should be quickly and unceremoniously tossed in the garbage and carted off for disposal. Some even espouse, for the sake of a clean garage, to just torch it and all its contents and move on rebuilding a new garage without looking back.
I view my garage differently. It's something inherited where I was promised I could find all the needed tools and supplies for successful and healthy living. Sure, I may have added a few things in my time as owner... the dust bunnies, a few discarded burrito wrappers and the occasional cup and straw but the shelves remain relatively untouched. You see, the previous owner was something of a MacGyver. In his case, he had eons of creative experience and an intimate knowledge of who I am. Turns out those shelves of seemingly eclectic trash aren't worthless after all... and the act of sorting and cataloguing the multifarious collection provides me with the increased ability to respond effectively and creatively to all of life's challenges.
Our families, for good and especially bad, help us learn to respond effectively and creatively to life's ups and downs if we but take the time to properly sort and catalogue. We glean real experience and practical knowledge from the high pressure interactions of such an intimacy that only family can provide. Only then will we not take for granted those tools and supplies we were given. It is a difficult task that takes a lifetime of struggle... with no hope of complete success.
In short, we inherit a pile of junk from our parents. Spend a lifetime trying to sort it all out. Then end up passing it on to the next generation. Like it or not, this is the beauty and continuity of cyclical progression.
"If you don't have the right equipment for the job, you just have to make it yourself."
