[Nathan]

Anyone interested in Fowler’s Stages of Faith will find M. Scott Peck’s (author of The Road Less Traveled), variation well worth the time and effort. Here’s a faithful summary: http://www.factnet.org/node/1809

[Nathan]

Thanks for the warm welcomes. Be seeing y’all around.

[Nathan]

Have you considered a book club? I had one at my house for three years while I was in grad school. We were all LDS grad students; the women in the ward already had a book group–so, by default it was just guys. (We didn’t want to read the Secret Life of Bees, Bridges of Madison County, or Harry Potter–condescending grin goes here.) We started from the classics, but near the end we were reading mostly contemporary. We stuck with fiction–even though some of our fiction was based in history: The Jungle, War and Peace, Native Son, Devil in the White City, etc. Brady Udall’s The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint was a pleasant surprise, as was The Backslider–two great examples of well crafted, LDS fiction. We met once a month. During months with exams, we would opt for something lighter–or as was more often the case–shorter, like King Lear or Hamlet. We got together the first Friday of each month, usually for 3 to 4 hours. We would take turns choosing titles, and reserved the right to veto–rarely exercised I might add. Each time at least one person would bring refreshments–usually several. Our group size fluctuated between 8 and 15. With guys at the law, business, medical and divinity schools–our conversations were always stimulating and often provocative. Labels applied at the beginning of the first year–such as liberal, conservative, progressive, intellectual–pretty much faded into the background.

Granted my context in Hyde Park, Chicago is not ANYWHERE usa, but I think getting a small group of folks together to do something similar on regular basis is easy enough and might help feed your healthy need for intellectual intimacy.

Be well.

Nathan

[Nathan]

Ray,

Old-Timer wrote:

I know I am speaking in very general terms with myriad exceptions, but I think almost everyone who reads what I just wrote would have a hard time not picturing women instead of men.

Of the many important points you’ve made, this is one I choose to engage you on or build upon. I think many people in the Church are fed up with what seems to be a trend by some to cry on cue during a testimony, as if it somehow validates the witness. I think this trend is becoming more common among men in the Church. This thought led me to one that you don’t actually address, but which I think is implicit in your post here.

John Eldredge is the Author of Wild at Heart, which has sold well over 1,000,000 copies. It’s written mainly for the Evangelical audience, broadly defined to included Catholics as well. His writing is VERY accessible, and repels the more academic-minded folk. Furthermore, he hasn’t the slightest idea of how to perform faithful exegesis (how to remain true to the historical, cultural, and textual contexts of the Bible). That being said, it is my estimation that in his thesis he grasps a fundamental problem with worship and church today. If you can stomach the fluff and sloppy scholarship that is 80% of his work, I (and over a million other readers) believe the remaining 20% is brilliant and will more than make up for your effort/investment. From the back cover of the hardback version, I provide the following glimpse:

“Walk into most churches, have a look around, and ask yourself: What is a Christian man? Without listening to what is said, look at what you find there. Most Christian men are . . . bored.” “In Wild at Heart, John Eldredge invites men to recover their masculine heart, defined in the image of a passionate God. And he invites women to discover the secret of a man’s soul and to delight in the strength and wildness men were created to offer.”

Nathan

[Nathan]

Tom,

Two of my favorite thinkers, Kant and Kierkegaard, struggled with this issue too; they chose to focus their struggle on Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son. Kierkegaard said Abraham displayed an admirable leap of faith in his willingness to do so. He went so far as to refer to Abraham as “knight of faith”.

Kant, on the other hand, a faithful and believing Christian, wrote: “If God should really speak to man, man could still never know that it was God speaking. It is quite impossible for man to apprehend the infinite by his senses, distinguish it from sensible beings, and recognize it as such. But in some cases man can be sure the voice he hears is not God’s. For if the voice commands him to do something contrary to moral law, then no matter how majestic the apparition may be, and no matter how it may seem to surpass the whole of nature, he must consider it an illusion.” He believed that Kant had a duty to disobey the command.

The two stories have been used to help patients/students identify which of Fowler’s stages best describe their current stage of faith.

Sorry, I don’t have any definitive answers here. I will say it’s a shame more don’t share your dissatisfaction, or what the Reverend Martin Luther King referred to as “divine dissatisfaction”.

Peace be with you, my brother.

Nathan

[Nathan]

Progressively, Latter-day Saints appropriate conservative evangelical terminology in efforts, both conscious and non conscious, to counter claims Latter-day Saints are not Christian, rely on their works, etc., etc. To a large degree this appropriation is inauthentic or reactionary rather than truly responsive. In understanding the doctrine of Grace, Latter-day Saints need look no further than the Book of Mormon for the most definitive passage in all scripture: “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that is is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved” (2 Nephi 10:24).

The question of the role of Grace can be summarized with this question: “What is God’s role in the life of a believer? Is God a distant observer, a casual participant, and cheerleader, or the source of strength, wisdom, humility, and love of all those who obey?” There are vast differences between what Joseph Smith and the preachers of his day taught–but they usually aren’t the differences we expect (such as this).

Next Sunday I will preach at the Protestant service on post, and my family (we normally worship together) will attend LDS services off post. Our five-year-old is giving a talk; he was assigned the topic: “Jesus is a God of miracles.” The first exemplifies the Church’s desire to be viewed as a partner within Christianity (to an extent, anyway) as well as my own, and the second exemplifies the shift in technical language in the Church: increasingly more Christological. It’s not just Glen Beck.

History is replete with examples of the minority attempting to legitimize its faith in the context of the older, larger society. Philo attempts to portray Moses as a former-day Plato; Paul tries to package the good news of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection in terms of Stoicism. Early Sikhs, Baha`i, and even Buddhists made similar attempts to appear/become normative. As I see it, Glen Beck is as guilty as the rest of us who want to belong.

[Nathan]

The Greek word from which “crisis” comes to us means “decision”.

Perhaps one of the better, but less known, synonyms for faith is “leaning”.

During the phenomenon described as a crisis of faith, one reclines from his/her leaning with the intent to adjust one’s orientation. This adjustment, this decision, should not be made hastily, nor should it be avoided. This decision is not complete until one leans forward once again, until one lives in faith. Living out such a crisis exclusively in the realm of ideas will not bear fruit.

[Nathan]

Ray–well done, friend!

Your reply reflects a great deal of thought on the subject (I’m guessing over the course of many years).

Old-Timer wrote:

Whether I view his life and death as having a literal saving component or as being purely symbolic (and by “purely” I mean “fully” not “merely”), I see “Jesus” as a universal Savior and his life and death as a universal model. (

As a young missionary I taught against the belief that Jesus was merely a good man or teacher. (This line of argument is similar to the one used to claim that the Prophet Joseph Smith is either a Prophet or a charlatan; there is no third option if he’s not as he claims to be.) As a student of religion, I became acquainted with people who actually believed this, and I felt bad for them, as much as I could understand them. As I continued my education and went on to seminary I met people across this particular spectrum who, for example, didn’t think it was necessary that Jesus be resurrected to be a savior. I observed that some of these people were highly committed ministers, whose faith, as far as I could tell, displayed a deep and abiding faith; this really messed with my head. In time, I have come to appreciate this view, to the extent that I can respectfully interact with those who function from it, even though I cannot fully assent to it.

In my ministry prior to the chaplaincy I worked with key religious leaders from nearly every denomination and religious tradition. I worked closely with them, even the less well known like the Zoroastrians, Jains, Sikhs and Bahai’s. At nights I would teach world religion at a college in Chicago, and these friends were happy to speak to my classes from the context of their traditions. For many of those I came to know, their character and countenance demonstrated not only their piety, but I learned more about God and my relationship to AND with God as a result of my interaction with them. My relationships with these men and women made me a better person; they made me a better Christian and Latter-day Saint. After having daily experiences of this nature over the course of 5 years, I was confronted with some pretty serious questions my fellow seminarians wrestled with only in the realm of theory and speculation. My thesis in Seminary addressed the question of relating to the religious other; what were the grounds, limitations, etc.? But even then, and even more so now (7 years later), I have to acknowledge a “pre” or even “non-rational” explanation for how my repeated encounters with God in others’ traditions and spaces makes sense in light of universal faith claims: such as that there is “no other name given under heaven whereby men must be saved [than Jesus Christ]” (Acts 4:12), or even that the LDS Church “is the only true and living Church on the face of the whole earth” (D&C 1:30).

Pre-rational or even non-rational approaches to the most important questions one can ask seem risky. But these are the only way I know how to still hold dear the regular and affirming experiences I have that there are goodness and blessings in applying gospel principles to my life. My senses are heightened, and my purpose renewed when I “yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit” and “let virtue garnish [my] thoughts”. As I have done so, my “confidence” has “wax[ed] strong”. A gentle “peace that surpasses understanding” has seemed to “distill” upon me “as the dews of heaven”; for me, poetry is the best way to describe this law of the harvest. Is “transcendence” the best way to describe the apparent conflict here? Maybe. I’m honestly not sure. But continuing to ask the difficult questions within the contexts of faith and covenant (and while doing good) works, and works well–even though it seems like it shouldn’t. (I’ve digressed, but perhaps it will help you see me more clearly.)

Ray your following point demonstrates rare insight:

Old-Timer wrote:

Finally, Christianity, as it is conceived and presented and believed by many, many Christians, isn’t truly a universal theology. (It is for some, most notably many Catholics, but it is not for many, most notably the vast majority of Protestants.) It’s a world-wide religion, but it’s not a universal theology – nor even universal for this world. It doesn’t posit that even the majority will be saved, much less that all will be saved and an unknown number exalted. (a larger number, imo, than even most Mormons believe) Mormonism really is a world-wide religion with a universal theology – and it posits Jesus as the great mediator / savior / redeemer of all creation (even in “other worlds”). Again, whether or not that is taken literally or figuratively / symbolically, it is a transcendent concept that is fundamentally different than the view of Jesus within the rest of Christianity.

Jesus really is different in Mormonism than in Christianity – primarily because he isn’t limited to being a Christian Savior / Redeemer / God within Mormonism.

Latter-day Saints are often criticized by other Christians for their “low Christology”; we claim Jesus is our brother, etc. But a fair response to this could easily be: we don’t have a low Christology, but rather a high anthropology: God intends us to be like God is. The question for which I still don’t have a fully suitable answer is what is Jesus’ role in this transformation/maturation process, and whether it is universal in its application or limitation?

Finally, Ray, you also made the distinction between the LDS Church as an organization and Mormonism as a theology and world-wide religion. In all fairness to the countless men and women of ages past who lived faithfully, I believe we also owe the same privileged differentiation to Christianity: it is a theology, and world-wide religion; the various movements and denominations are what limit them from the same universality.

Thank you for the open thoughts.

Nathan

[Nathan]

Okay guys, got it. But this idea isn’t as much about how others see me as how I see myself. The whole “are Mormons Christians?” thing is exhausting, and most of us have moved beyond that (even if those around us haven’t–my perpetual situation). The claim here is moving from the historical to the experiential: did Joseph Smith do more than “restore” Christianity; did he not also found a new world religion? As an institution, the Church can be seen as reacting to conservative Protestant claims that it isn’t Christian, etc. As individuals, many of us may be reactionary as well. My experience is most Latter-day Saints are. (I still am.) I see it less in this forum than elsewhere, but I still see it: word choice, tone, context. I believe this prevents us from experiencing certain benefits tied to the broader, non-traditional teachings of the Prophet. One of many examples is how faith allows us to transcend the historical debate between freewill/determinism or works/grace in the context of salvation-exaltation. I guess a question, if not the question in my mind is, “If Mormonism is bigger than or transcends Christianity, what does this mean about the central role of Jesus?” For someone who wears a cross on his chest and allows that symbol to inform my life, that’s pretty big.

I look forward to all thoughts. Thanks.

Nathan

[Nathan]

Brilliant feedback! Keep it coming.

Ray, although I share your opinion about the importance of guarding against being overly critical/cynical, I should point out (as Brian did above), that my thread title introduces one side of the question and the end of my post the other. I was intentionally trying to keep it balanced. You’re point, however, is valid.

Nathan

[Nathan]

Great thoughts above. Here are some repeats and a few new ones:

Keep: Member participation/involvement

Ditch: Practice of husband as default concluding speaker when husband-wife teams speak

Keep: Cheerios in the pews (families worship together)

Ditch: Toddlers and junior primary bear their testimonies in Sacrament Meeting (Primary will do until baptism: but not as a hard and fast rule)

Keep: Testimony meeting

Ditch: Prevalent notion that tears indicate sincerity, and therefore, truth (better training as mentioned above is sorely needed)

Ditch: Last minute invitations to speak, and the speaker prefacing his/her comments with this disclaimer (bad form all-the-way-around)

Keep: Current Hymn Book

Ditch (Add): Other Hymn Books

Ditch (Add): Twice-a-year instruction (preferably in Sacrament Meeting, but SS would also work) on reading/singing music

Ditch (Add): Electric guitars and kazoos (okay–maybe not–see cowbell above) but at least additional instruments

I’ll add more later . . .

[Nathan]

Oh, one final story in defence of those Stake Presidents out there not representative of the incidents relayed above:

Last month, my temple recommend interview concluded with a refreshing conversation about how the German saints were overly cynical and American saints were inexcusably naive. The Stake President is an engineer, and very rigid in his thinking–but not so rigid he doesn’t see that most rules and policies have exceptions. While a missionary in the early 80s he struggled with organic evolution and a few items of Church history. He told me, “I eventually realized I was restricting how God works for us.” I told him that it is human to want to put God in a box. He had never before heard the metaphor, and laughed.

[Nathan]

cwald wrote:

the SP made the comment that “the purpose of the priesthood is to gather 1. gather Israel, and 2. serve our fellow man — and it doesn’t matter how well intentioned our non LDS neighbors are, their works will amount to nothing in the end unless they accept the restored gospel/priesthood.”

It hurt. I made a few comments – that I probably shouldn’t have made, and pulled out my ensign and read some of Packer’s talk — but I’m afraid I probably said more than I should have. I doubt that anyone in the room didn’t know that I was “upset” by the comments being said and that I am really not pulling the company line on this issue. Oh well – I guess I’ll just have to see how the chips fall.

See? This is exactly the type of precious vulnerability that a forum such as this facilitates. Thank you brothers cwald and heretic for your personal and transcendent stories.

Two comments, if I may. First, cwald’s Stake President has the responsibility to perform boundary maintenance. He benefits from a particularly narrow view of the Great Apostasy. Of course, to a degree, what his Stake President said accurately reflects LDS teaching. Didn’t the Prophet say something like baptizing without the proper authority is as efficacious as baptizing a bag of sand? Then again, there is a sense in which this Stake President misspoke or exaggerated his point. Using the same source, the Prophet Joseph Smith also taught that that righteous men and women of many faiths will remain through the scourge of the last days and witness the millennial reign of the Savior: a terrestrial kingdom. Who knows what final judgment will look like, or if there will even be one. Let’s just say it resembles the teaching that each of the Savior’s roles–Creator, Redeemer, and Judge–have and will involve members of the Priesthood: that those earthly judges in Israel will participate in a similar event in the world to come. I suspect cwald’s Stake President will be relieved to discover that God’s mercy won’t hold him to his rigid understanding of God’s justice.

In such situations as cwald’s, I believe each of us needs to have the discipline and composure to sit still and be quiet. And yet, we also need to have the discipline and composure to stand up and respectfully challenge narrow-minded teaching. Like any recovering addict can tell you from the Serenity Prayer, they key is having the wisdom to know the difference: to know when speaking up will hurt more than it will help. Of course, none of us can know for sure. But my gut tells me that if we can keep our defensiveness in check, we honor God and our fellow men when we speak up in such instances. Chances are, your Stake President is speaking from his own personal frustrations with similar-minded folk outside the Church. Perhaps it’s helpful to imagine the following exchange for a future confrontation:

“President, when I hear you say this, I’m afraid some will misunderstand you as endorsing a sense of superiority over, or animosity against, our brothers and sisters of other traditions. Of course, I understand you are saying that the further light and knowledge we enjoy makes us all-the-more responsible for demonstrating patience, long suffering, kindness and love unfeigned. I just wanted to help clarify this. Of course, if I’m wrong, we could step outside and settle this like men.” (grin)

The second comment is to heretic: great exchange with your wife. Your choice to appropriate the term “heretic” is helpful. I have similarly found the word “Protestant” useful. We are called to protest injustice in the world. Of course terms such as “heretic”, “protestant”, or even “saint” conjure notions of separateness and distinctiveness. Your ability to function as a heretic from within demonstrates a maturity I too rarely encounter.

Speaking of maturity, Russ Hill is a friend of mine. He’s an Orthodox Priest and Chaplain here in Stuttgart with me. A while back I introduced myself and him to a Catholic Priest with these words, “This is Chaplain Hill; he’s Orthodox. I’m Chaplain Kline; I’m heterodox.” Chaplain Hill laughed so hard he blew snot from his nose. The Catholic priest has since come to appreciate my humor too. My point, if we take seriously the Lord and his gospel, we’ll know better than to take ourselves too seriously.

[Nathan]

Yet another reason this forum is so valuable.

[Nathan]

Brother Heretic,

Sharing from such a personal perspective, even more than the ideas exchanged, is what makes this forum so valuable to me. Thank you.

If I may, I would share with you that from the vantage point of my professional experience, where couples are divided by Fowler’s stages, it is most often as you described: men venture from stage three before their wives. For those in stages 4 or 5 who can continue/resume to authentically live the gospel, they will find the tension in marriage to be manageable. It’s those who wear an air of superiority and liberation that alienate their spouses. As you shared in your post, your faith is growing. I’m guessing your wive senses this too, even if she is “uncomfortable” with it. I’m guessing too, that you’re on your way to a stronger and healthier marriage as well.

[Author]

Posts