[katielangston]

This discussion about authority, infallibility, and reliability is at the heart of my spiritual struggle.

Letting go of the need for there to be some abstract, authoritative, all-encompassing Source of Truth and and Goodness and Authority in a human being or human establishment or human book is so damn hard. (Pardon the swear.)

It makes sense that we long for it. It makes sense that some people even set themselves up as that source. Modern people have been culturally programmed to yearn for objectively provable Truth, and we search for it high and low.

But it doesn’t exist. It just doesn’t.

Truth is relational. It’s experiential. It’s too big to grasp, too deep to handle. The best we can do is catch glimpses here and there, and apply what we can apply, and leave the rest. I think the secret is to realize that I am the ultimate authority of Truth in my life. I get to say what I believe and don’t believe. I get to work out my own salvation with fear and trembling before God.

I have to trust in God that He’ll lead me where He wants me to go, and that I have the capacity within myself to listen and respond to His guidance — while maintaining a sense of humility that I’m most certainly wrong about even the things I’m most sure of. (What a frustrating paradox!)

Accepting that authority within myself, and letting go of the pipe dream that infallible external authority (in human form) exists is the hardest thing in the world for me. I struggle with it day after day. But I think that’s a key. I really do.

[katielangston]

Hmmmm. I’m intrigued by this conversation for another, though related, reason.

It seems as though many of us are approaching scripture as “man’s interpretation of their interaction with God.”

I think that makes sense, and it seems to be the sanest way to approach scripture. But I’d be lying if I said that doesn’t make me uncomfortable at times, wondering if I’m not just “making God in my own image.”

I want God to be “X,” and so when I’m confronted with scriptural evidence that depicts Him as “Y,” I go ahead and disregard that scriptural evidence…or rationalize it away as the “interpretation of men”…or whatever. I recognize that to a certain extent everyone does this in every religion and from every perspective, but should there be a balance in there somewhere?

[katielangston]

I’m also a church addict, which is probably why I so loved your post on the other thread. I really appreciated your advice and am going to take it. I might even take the whole summer off, if DH and I move out of town for an internship he just received.

Anyway, I’m rejoicing with you!

[katielangston]

Tom, I really liked your answer.

[katielangston]

I’m not sure that “cult” is the right word for it, since it’s so loaded. I think “institutional control” might be less abrasive and therefore more accurate.

The church certainly engages in institutional behavioral control — and, to a certain extent, “belief control.” The temple recommend interview process is perhaps the most visible example. Consider…

1. The church holds the temple up as the doorway to exaltation

2. In order to get in, a person must answer to institutional authority regarding certain “worthiness requirements”

3. One must continue to answer to institutional authority on a regular, systematic basis throughout their life

4. Deviation from the requirements leads to revocation of status within the community

The doctrinal emphasis on temple worship and receiving / retaining a temple recommend is huge. So the requirements that are established become magnified. Whereas you might believe independently that drinking a cup of coffee in the morning is acceptable to God, if you want to retain a temple recommend, you won’t drink coffee anyway. As a result, you are making a decision that is contrary to your personal beliefs in order to remain in compliance with the group. I’m not arguing the rightness or wrongness of either drinking coffee OR subjugating your beliefs to the community’s standards, merely pointing out that the church has, in a very literal way, controlled your behavior in this instance. Similarly, there are “belief” questions and requirements that seek to keep people from deviating too far from the institutional norm in terms of orthodoxy.

[katielangston]

Thank you, everyone, for this insightful discussion. Great stuff.

Here’s a question I’ve been wrestling with lately. As parents, will it damage our children to provide them a more nuanced approach and narrative to Mormonism? Do they miss something if we encourage them not to accept wholly literal interpretations? Developmentally, do they NEED stage 3?

[katielangston]

Love it, Ray. Thanks.

[katielangston]

Ray, I’ve only read Mere Christianity. I’ll wait until I’m done with the book to compare/contrast the ideas in both, but in this last chapter I just read McLaren quotes CS Lewis’s The Discarded Image extensively.

[katielangston]

Thanks, all, for the feedback.

Ray, you’re right. While I’ve become a TON more healthy the past 2-3 years, some of my old codependency/people pleasing is definitely lingering around… Old habits die hard.

Anyway, I’ll just put this in the “don’t worry about” category and deal with something if it ever comes up.

[katielangston]

Mustangsally,

I can only echo what the others have said…but I want you to know I’m so sorry this has happened and I’m praying for you. God bless.

[katielangston]

Ray, that’s an interesting interpretation–one I’ve never heard. I appreciate it. Thank you.

[katielangston]

Quote:

Blurg. As much as I don’t love some of the pitfalls of taking counsel from octogenarians (especially as regards resistance to change and their social mores being decades removed from my own), I’m not ready to hand the reins over to a bunch of young whippersnapper, flibberdegibbets who are at the beginning stages of mid-life crisis! Especially since the pool of candidates is always going to be true blue TBMs with unquestioned and unquestioning loyalty, better an old dude who has mellowed with age and been there done that than one still in the first fiery stages of fanaticism and devotion.

Haha. Great point.

[katielangston]

Quote:

Please expand on this point. I’ve also thought that GOD was at the head of our church speaking through PROPHETS for all of us. This is a tough one for me to grasp.

Yeah, this one has been frustrating for me, too. But here’s where I’ve come to on this (subject to change with more experience and information, of course):

God and the church are NOT synonymous. God is God–an eternal, all-knowing, all-loving Creator and Ruler of the Universe. The church is an organization comprised of flawed, messed up men and women. If God is the church and the church God, then you either have to conclude that God is imperfect or the church is perfect. Neither option makes much sense to me.

I mean, even if Mormonism is True in the “traditional” sense of the word, it’s tough to deny two things:

1)–Mormonism isn’t the ONLY vehicle through which God speaks to man (what about inspired leaders and thinkers from other cultures and faith traditions?–surely God loves them too and doesn’t withhold His presence from them); and

2)–Prophets can mess up, too (i.e. your discovery of Joseph Smith’s humanity).

What does this mean? For me, it means that truth exists outside of Mormonism (even independent of Mormonism), and that sometimes Mormonism gets it wrong. This can be a scary thought, especially when you’re used to the “security” that comes with “Follow the Prophet”, but from where I’m sitting, it’s an unavoidable conclusion. When Paul said “we see through a glass, darkly,” he meant it. We ALL DO. Even him; even prophets and apostles.

The only way I can see navigating the waters, then, is by relying on your own compass and relationship with God to pull you through. Of course, that’s even scarier, because if others can get it wrong, whose to say you’ll get it right? But that’s part of the point, I think, of mortality–and why we have the Savior. He knows we’ll never fully “get it” but He loves us and forgives us anyway.

[katielangston]

I feel pretty close to this content topic, because of my husband’s chosen profession (plus, I have an acting degree as well–though I haven’t pursued a career in the theatre for logistical reasons [one in the family is plenty, thank you very much]).

So I’ll take a stab at the questions you posed…

Is it worse to have a “R” rated film (Let’s say with nudity and profanity) in your house then creating it? Why? (I think it probably is, but I would like to hear the why.)

I think this is a flawed question, as neither are inherently bad. So to ask “which is worse” is kind of a non-issue. For me the real question is, does the film have artistic merit? Is the profanity/nudity gratuitous, or necessary to tell the story in the most effective way possible?

If you are making a film about another persons life style that is not at the same moral standing as you in real life, is it honest to misrepresent who they are because of your personal views? (Honest in a character is very important in a film.)

It’s dishonest.

If you make a film with nudity or profanity or drug use can you hold a temple recommend? If yes, please explain?

Yes. As I said previously, the temple recommend interview is not a place for you to justify your life decisions to your bishop; it’s a place for you to take personal inventory. If you can, within yourself and according to your own parameters, honestly answer yes to the questions, you should have no problem with the institutional church.

Is it wrong to go to places, such as PREMIERE parties, that have beer, sexual “type” dancing, a pot user on the side (it’s sad I know)? How will this affect your spiritual growth?

No, it’s not wrong. It will only affect your spiritual growth if you begin to find your sense of meaning and existence within that world as opposed to within yourself and your relationship with God.

Is nudity in a film always inappropriate? why?

Absolutely not. For example, Schindler’s List wouldn’t have been half as effective without nudity.

Is language always inappropriate? Are there swear words that are worse then others? (such as four versus three letter)

Words mean things. Sometimes to be true to the situation and the characters, you have to use the language they’d use. Again, for me it’s an issue of gratuitousness (trying to be “edgy” or vile for shock value) vs. artistic merit and honesty.

What do you think would be cause for disciplinary action of a member making films? why?

When you cross the line into porn or make a film challenging the church’s authority, then I expect you’d run into trouble. Otherwise, I sincerely I doubt you’d get much flak.

Should you limit your content because of your belief in God? Why?

Actually, on this I’d say yes. You should always consider your relationship with God in whatever you do professionally or artistically. I’d say the issue here is to 1)–stop equating “God” with “the church”; and 2)–develop a personal, direct relationship with Him that isn’t filtered through an institutional third party. Let your conscience and your personal communion with God affect the work you produce. You might be surprised at what you do (and don’t!) feel good about creating from an artistic standpoint when you eliminate the middle man.

EDIT: Upon rereading that last paragraph, I realize it sounds like I’m saying that you don’t need the church or should reject the church. I’m not. I’m just saying that the church isn’t the mediator or intercessor between you and God. It’s a direct 1-to-1 relationship. You don’t have to filter everything according to what your bishop would say. Follow your conscience and trust God to lead you right.

[katielangston]

Just to touch on the art content thing…

My husband is an MFA Acting student. He’s currently acting in a production of Neil LaBute’s Some Girl(s), wherein he smokes an herbal cigarette, cusses extensively, and appears in nothing but boxers with another woman.

He was also recently called to the Elder’s Quorum Presidency in our ward.

In the interview with the stake, they asked if he was worthy. He said, “I feel worthy in every way, but you should know that I am an actor and frequently perform in productions where I cuss a lot and kiss other women.”

He was told that the church has NO position on that sort of thing, and it is between Him and God (and to some extent me; FWIW, I’m COMPLETELY fine with it).

In any event, I don’t see why this would EVER COME UP in a temple recommend interview anyway. There is a list of questions; “do you watch or make rated R movies?” is NOT on the list. The temple recommend interview is not a place for you to justify your life decisions to your bishop; it’s a place for you to take personal inventory. If you can, within yourself and according to your own parameters, honestly answer yes to the questions, you should have no problem with the institutional church. My experience is that if you don’t make a big deal out of it, no one else will, either.

[Author]

Posts