[Nathan]

Pearl Earring wrote:

. . . I have also felt it listening to songs on the radio, for example REO Speedwagon’s “Keep on Loving You.”

REO Speedwagon, huh? Nice. Speaking of 80s pop, just yesterday the lyrics of a couple of songs in this genre jumped out and grabbed me:

“And here you are with your faith and your Peter Pan advice. You have no scars on your face, and you cannot handle pressure . . . ” Billy Joel’s “Pressure”

and

“Choke me in the shallow waters before I get too deep . . .” (after describing religion and philosophy in a series of metaphors) Edie Brickell’s “What I am”

Of course it’s really easy to turn most love songs into devotion to God (the Song of Songs and other ancient wisdom is explicitly such–in fact the etymology of “philosophy” is the LOVE of wisdom). I’ll never forget the Bryan Adams lyrics that stirred me as a young, hard working missionary: “Everything I do (I do it for you)”. It was more easily digested as the Lord singing to me than the-other-way-around. Of course, the song quickly dissolved into despicable, overplayed cliché–but it was sweet while it lasted.

Anyway, your REO comment made me smile.

[Nathan]

When advocating the priority of “doing” over “thinking” it strikes me as necessary to be aware of one’s motivations for action. One thing I have to guard against is doing or serving for the praise or acceptance of others. Of course, it’s better to do the right thing for less than the ideal reason than to not do it at all, but it’s also better to strive to improve our motives–to evaluate them. When I encountered Kant’s deontoligical or duty ethics it hit me with force. For a while now I have lived by my conviction that duty is the highest or purest motivation for right action. (At first this struck me as cold and obligatory, but in time I embraced it.) Many say they want to be cared for by others out of love, not duty. But the highest form of love IS duty. We cannot allow “love” to be reduced to a feeling. Love is what we do, not how we feel (although strong and pleasant feelings are associated with love, I believe it is a mistake to reduce it as such).

The ancient Greeks used 5 different words that are translated variously into English as love: philos (friendship or adoration); storge (familial affection); eros (romantic and sensuality); agape (used by the apostle Paul to describe the kind of love God has for humanity and that we should strive to develop for one another); and pornea (objectified lust). The first four are variously identified as virtues and the final as a vice. In an effort to be more precisely ethical, some have argued that it is healthy/human to be enriched by feelings and emotions, but not to be informed by them. I think of all the things parents do for children everyday that they DON’T “feel” like doing, but do anyway because they “love” them: change diapers, discipline them, read to them, etc. Certainly there are times when our hearts are in the right place, but this isn’t always the case and we shouldn’t wait to act until we can do so affectionately. Perhaps there’s no better illustration of this principle than Jesus’ prayer and choice in Gethsemane.

In addition to cautioning us against using one another as means to some other end (relationships with humans are an end in themselves), Kant argued that doing the right thing is always its own reward. This can sound like a recipe for smugness (a certain South Park episode comes to mind), and I guess we have to recognize that is always a risk. But doing what’s right is, in my opinion, the fullest expression of what it means to say we are created in God’s image. There is a certain type of “knowing” that is only experienced in the “doing”. We needn’t get into all the complex issues associated with the varieties of existential philosophies to appreciate this. In fact doing so usually stunts or eliminates progressive discovery in this vein.

When I am sufficiently centered and do what is right because it is right, I avoid much of the emptiness that comes with seeking for others’ approval and acceptance. The best ways to increase my self-awareness in this regard are the old standard, pat-Sunday School answers: ponder, pray, journal, etc. And perhaps because this is so simple (and, I admit, boring) its easy to let down my guard. And more often than not, I find my thinking is divorced from my doing.

[Nathan]

Ray,

Yeah, “fake” has an unfortunate connotation, even when you understand my intent. But it begs the question: how do we get from point A (King Benjamin’s assessment that we are all “unprofitable servants” and “enemies to God”) to point B (Jesus’ dual commands: “be perfect even as your father in heaven” and “what manner of men ought ye to be? even as I am”)? But, this is another post.

Stimulating thoughts, once again. Thanks.

Nathan

[Nathan]

Stimulating thoughts–right on!

As I see it, spiritual experiences are almost universally subjective. Unfortunately, “subjective” is most often used pejoratively, not unlike “relative” and “relativism”. What is going on inside me is the screen through which I interpret my experiences. Last week my wife had two family members die unexpectedly (the circumstances of their deaths were unrelated) and a day later she miscarried in her second trimester. She took our daughter with her to visit her family in the States, and I have been Mr. Mom with our two boys. You can imagine how hectic my week has been. This is the mindset I brought with me today that filtered the story of Shrek. Shrek is true for me in ways my sons can’t appreciate. Shrek will never belong to my personal cannon–and have the staying power of Wordsworth, Thoreau, or Star Wars–but it did the trick this afternoon when I needed it.

I try to avoid using the phrase “feeling the Spirit” to protect against reducing the spiritual to mere emotion. I opt for “experiencing” or “encountering” the Spirit, which is more faithful to the Mormon, mystical tradition.

[Nathan]

My graduate thesis examined the question of whether folks follow a particular theology for relating to those outside their faith when engaging in interfaith dialogue or is it done more on the fly, accidental? I discovered that it is almost always accidental, even by those who thrive in academic circles. It’s only after and in retrospect that they can make sense of their activities in light of their beliefs. Most claim some sense of being led or called to engage or cooperate with others. When we experience our crises of faith doesn’t it make more sense to process them–move through them–in prayer and service, applying our convictions to our context? This might sound reasonable, but I encounter many who refuse to act because they can no longer sincerely do so. It may sound strange and dissimilar, but a similar excuse is given by adolescents for not applying proper grammar rules: “It sounds fake to talk that way”. Properly understood, “fake-it-til-you-make-it” can be a highly practical and recommended approach to life. Perhaps no life better illustrates this than Jesus’.

[Nathan]

Idaho Coug wrote:

My testimony was shaken and I went through a 5-year period of complete inactivity, disillusion, frustration and even anger. Then a few years ago my son began to ask about baptism and something pulled at my LDS roots and I decided to return to activity. But my testimony would never be the same. I could not put the Jeanie back in the bottle. I couldn’t just set aside the things I had learned. Church has become very different. At times I wonder if I really fit in. I can go through an entire 3-hour block and disagree with almost everything I hear. It can be frustrating but something nonetheless continues to keep me connected to the Church.

Coug,

I believe it is essential to differentiate between what people are saying and what they likely mean to say. This is a skill I encourage couples to foster in their marriages. Does he “speak her language”? “Language” proficiency, rather than fluency, is a realistic goal. Applying this same technique in your interactions with others will allow you to more fully identify with what they’re actually saying: i.e. Depending on what you already know about a person, her statement “I know this is the Lord’s only true church” could mean something like, “I experience security as a member of this church.” Or “Applying the principles of the gospel to my life blesses me and my family.” You have to take such statements in their immediate (what else is being said at the moment) and extended contexts (what you know about the person). Some would claim this type of interpretation of human experience is presumptuous or even disingenuous. I contend we do it all-day-long, every day. It is a very practical way to live out the hopeful prayer, “Forgive our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” We want to be received with grace, given the benefit of the doubt. Of course, I sense that a good deal of what is communicated in worship settings (in and out of the Church) even those couched in soft-spoken and gentle tones is informed by fear and insecurity. But even here, although honesty requires me to internally acknowledge when something said is “totally jacked”, I can still see someone’s desperation or fear-inspired statements to be akin to “why hast thou forsaken me?”, “Lord, not my feet only but also my head”, etc.

Idaho Coug wrote:

1. I DO NOT KNOW if Joseph Smith experienced the First Vision. I am bothered

by the various versions and would assume that his first and only handwritten version is likely the most accurate.

Since we can see similar difficulties in other foundational religious experience–events in Jesus’ life in the gospels, Paul’s various Damascus accounts, creation accounts in Genesis, delivery of the 10 commandments, etc., etc.–this shouldn’t surprise us. Of course, most of us initially take these as discrepancies or contradictions and follow that it is imperative we decide whether we are dealing with fraud, diversity, or what have you. These Latter-day difficulties are all the more glaring because they come to us in first-person and other primary accounts. Moses was written about centuries after he lived, Jesus’ life a generation or two later, and even the relatively small amount of information we have from Paul has one scratching his head in confusion/frustration. All religious histories are fraught with these types of difficulties, which is one reason why atheism and agnosticism can be attractive alternatives to belief. You seem to intuitively embrace belief.

Idaho Coug wrote:

2. I appreciate the testimony the Book of Mormon provides of the Savior and His Atonement. But I am concerned by the extreme lack of direct evidence. Book of Mormon apologetics have actually lead me to DOUBT that the Book of Mormon is an historical document. I similarly DOUBT that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham accurately.

Or at all.

Idaho Coug wrote:

3. I REJECT the doctrine and former practice of Plural Marriage. I similarly REJECT the former policy regarding black members and the Priesthood. I believe that MUCH in the Church both now and in the past is a product of personal opinion, tradition, culture and expediency.

Since this is the case for all traditions throughout history, that something is based on “personal opinion, tradition, culture and expediency” shouldn’t cause us to necessarily REJECT it.

Idaho Coug wrote:

4. The teaching that Old Testament events up to the flood occurred in Jackson County, blood atonement, Adam-God theory, revised temple ordinances and many other aspects of LDS history and doctrine lead me to believe that the Lord has been very selective in revealing truth while leaving much to the best intentions of man.

I caution myself on always seeing such a clear break between these two: revealed truth from God and man’s best intentions.

Idaho Coug wrote:

5. The Word of Wisdom falls into this category for me. I appreciate the spirit of working toward health and fitness throughout our lives but find the Word of Wisdom itself to be a clear reflection of health codes of the time combined with personal opinion. But I strive to live its encouragement to be healthy and fit and find that daily coffee and the occasional use of alcohol assists me in doing that.

Some in this forum have found it helpful to sometimes speak in terms of “the good” rather than “the truth” or “truth with a capital T”. It sounds like you’re saying this here, and immediately below. (This may seem like relativism, but it is far from it.)

Idaho Coug wrote:

It is obvious that I struggle with much that is uniquely Mormon. And yet I love the Church and I appreciate the massive amount of good it does both for members and nonmembers alike. I often feel like a fish out of water at church but also believe the Lord accepts me right where I am and accepts my testimony right where it is. I hope this is a place that I can both contribute and continue to learn from and be strengthened by each of you!

Your honesty and vulnerability make me think we are well founded in sharing this hope. Thank you.

Nathan

[Nathan]

Dear Pressing,

The folks who wait to act until they have it all figured out never get to do so. Your exercise of balancing your devotion to your husband and your own tradition will accelerate your spiritual maturity (as well as your spiritual suffering). If you will indulge me to share one piece of advice . . . do not give into the emotionally satisfying temptation to see your dual worship as a predicament that requires resolution; refuse to conclude that it’s got to be one or the other. That being said, you can’t remain a closeted Latter-day Saint or Baptist supporter indefinitely. So even if you don’t feel a need to choose one over the other, members/leaders in both communities will eventually pose this choice for you. It’s not easy, but God can bless you with the wisdom and courage to live in such a way that your witness of his goodness will be beyond reproach. Your story encourages me. Thank you.

Nathan

P.S. Congratulations on being a mother. Of course, this makes your choices all the more important (and difficult).

[Nathan]

Rix,

I wouldn’t say it was “possible”, but rather that it is inevitable. Religions are manufactured to address humanity’s need for relationship with the divine. Regardless of whether one believes God is active in this manufacturing, the context in which this takes place is always “culture”. There is no humanity to speak of without culture. Of course, your question is clearly aimed at (or informed by) anthropological concerns. But I would say that just as important are the theological concerns, such as those confronting the faithful Christian (Latter-day Saint or otherwise): what is the role of the believer in the world? This seemingly benign question becomes universally profound in H. Richard Niebuhr’s classic text, Christ and Culture. The following is a condensed amazon.com book review:

Amazon.com Review

“Being fully God and fully human, Jesus raised an enduring question for his followers: what exactly was His place in this world? In the classic Christ and Culture, H. Richard Niebuhr crafted a magisterial survey of the many ways of answering that question–and the related question of how Christ’s followers understand their own place in the world. Niebuhr called the subject of this book “the double wrestle of the church with its Lord and with the cultural society with which it lives in symbiosis.” And he described various understandings of Christ “against,” “of,” and “above” culture, as well as Christ “transforming” culture, and Christ in “paradoxical” relation to it. This 50th anniversary edition of Christ and Culture, with a foreword by theologian Martin E. Marty, is not easy reading. But it remains among the most gripping articulations of what is arguably the most basic ethical question of the Christian faith: how is Christ relevant to the world in which we live now?” –Michael Joseph Gross

[Nathan]

Old-Timer wrote:

Nathan, I thnk Sam meant to ask how you handle those types of topics (where significant differences exist) in your roles as chaplain and assistant pastor in a Protestant church. At least, that’s how I read the question.

Oh, got it–I guess that makes sense. Members of all types ask me how I negotiate the differences. I’ve been doing it for so long and do it so frequently that I have to be reminded that it is still a square-peg-in-a-round-hole issue for many (inside the Church and out). That being said, I didn’t get to my current position overnight. In fact, a much younger me (though thrilled to see I ended up a Chaplain) would certainly have been disturbed to learn what living faithfully looks like for me now.

This is a very important question, and I propose it applies as much to most of those in this forum as it does to me. Most of us struggle with competing loyalties: be they more fundamental such as one’s loyalty to reason on the one hand and spiritual affirmation on the other, or more complex such as loyalty to one’s non-member spouse and loyalty to one’s denomination/tradition (especially when children are involved). This could easily serve as a topic for a separate post, so I will provide a simplified answer that should mostly satisfy.

The bottom line is this: my teaching, preaching, counseling are always contextualized and, therefore, are rarely the fullest expression of what I actually believe. Which is not to say that I ever teach, preach or counsel contrary to my convictions (though there are honest ways to lead conversations like this). Teaching seminary, leading a devotion with fellow chaplains, or participating in discussions on the lessons in gospel doctrine or priesthood all require me to remember my audience. I attempt to share what will help my audience get them from where they are to where they want to be (or should be). Since I am often in control, it is easy to steer the topic to issues of consensus. The doctrine of God’s nature (trinity vs. godhead) has gradually become a tangential issue for me. I prefer teachings that center on what discipleship looks like, rather than what God might or might not look like. I definitely prioritize faith practiced (service or ethics) over faith held (cosmology/ontology)–or emphasizing faith as a verb rather than a noun. These two practices–awareness of my context and prioritization of praxis over ontology–help me “handle” difficult topics in whichever church I am serving.

The exercise of articulating this causes me to re-examine and reinforce my position. Thank you for asking.

Nathan

[Nathan]

Ray,

This is a powerful account and illustration of what the sacrament can mean. For those who embrace the relatively recent development of sacramental doctrine–that by partaking we are renewing our covenants–it might be helpful to consider that to partake without a reverential focus (since our baptismal covenants are included) may be akin to taking in vain the Lord’s name (upon us).

Your story makes me think about what it means to love God with our minds. Obviously, loving with our minds is an impulse that leads some to a forum such as this. Joseph Smith, describing faith as a principle of power in the School of the Prophets attempted to capture this mystical notion with the phrase “mental exertion”. Similarly, the word “remember” plays a fundamental role in the meaning we ascribe to these 91 words. I currently teach early morning seminary (to a class of 26 who meet on post), and the repetitive use of “remember” in Helaman 5.12 (scripture mastery) deserves to inform not only our faith in, but also our love for God. I make it a matter of earnest prayer that God will teach me to love with my mind more fully.

Again, your story helps reinforce for me these convictions. Thank you.

Nathan

[Nathan]

bridget_night wrote:

I see you are in Stuttgard Germany. “Sprechen Sie ein bischen Deutsch”? I was born in Berlin and served a mission in Austria.

I don’t speak much German. I served my mission in the Philippines (90-92). But I served a two-year enlistment in the Army here in Germany prior to my mission. I love the German people and their culture–though they are a little broken in ways. This is such a beautiful country.

bridget_night wrote:

You might want to read my story in my intro, but I have experienced God leading me to other faiths from time to time for my own growth and for the non-members growth. It really helps you to see what you really do believe and that there are so many wonderful inspired people in all religions. My dad served in the German army during WWII. He was a convert to the church and loved the gospel. One time he went to a small church in Germany where the minister invited all the soldiers to come to the podium and share what the beliefs of their own denominations were. When my dad got up and told about the Mormons for about a half hour, everyone asked him to speak longer because they enjoyed it so much. He ended up speaking 3 hours and he said the spirit was so strong. Whenever my dad met someone of another faith he would try to find common ground with them. One Baptist was kind of rude to him, but my dad said, “Oh you are a Baptist.

This is a meaningful story; I trust you’re passing it along to your family.

bridget_night wrote:

I love Baptists and what they teach about emersion. Until we come to a complete unity of faith (probably at the second coming), I think we should look for commonalities and serve each other rather than all the differences. When others ask about the differences, we can share why we believe or have them.

If I understand you correctly, this is a very important principle: beginning with commonalities is critical. You know, the mission cliche:’ we should build on common beliefs. However, sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring real differences precludes ones ability to be vulnerable and enter into genuine relationship with others. I strive to be recognized as a peace maker, but I refuse to sit around and sign “Kumbaya”.

bridget_night wrote:

You do have such a special position. When my oldest son was in Army bootcamp, he loved going to hear the chaplin there.

Thank you. It is a blessing to be a chaplain. My wife and I were both set apart by Elder Oaks as full-time, non-proselyting missionaries when I became a chaplain. We don’t have to wait to retire to serve a mission, but we are prevented from formal missionary work, allowing us to focus on ministry and service as a mission for the common good.

bridget_night wrote:

He admitted there were no atheists in fox holes and started praying again.

I sense you had the best of intentions when relaying this maxim, but I must tell you it isn’t accurate. Although the crisis of faith when confronted with one’s mortality causes many would-be atheists to return to the faith of their youth, there are plenty in combat who honorably stare into the abyss. My first favorite theologian–Ludwig Feuerbach–is an atheist. It must also be acknowledged that even the Book of Mormon portrays some of its atheists in unexpected sympathy.

Thanks again, Bridget.

Nathan

[Nathan]

SamBee wrote:

Stupid question, how do you deal with the Trinity and the Temple – these both seem like pretty major areas of difference, which can’t just be airbrushed out.

Sam, I’m not sure I follow your question–though I very much want to. Are these two separate concerns–the trinity and the temple? Or is this one concern, where both subjects are related? I certainly understand the major questions with regard to the nature of God (trinity, godhead, etc.), but it’s a pretty broad topic. I’m guessing maybe when you mention the temple you are thinking about origins of temple worship, and maybe this is where a discussion on the nature of God would come in. Elaborate on your question so I know I’m going in the right direction, and I’ll happily answer in detail. Either way, I’m shooting for my life to be a masterpiece–airbrushing is not an option.

Standing by.

Nathan

[Author]

Posts