[oasis]

cwald wrote:

If Mormons want others to quit generalizing and falsely demeaning their religion and morals and values and practices…than Mormons need to quit doing the same thing to other groups of people they don’t understand.

I hope I am not generalizing or falsely demeaning anyone, but I sincerely apologize to anyone who interpreted my comments as generalizing or falsely demeaning to any group. I do not claim that most atheists engage in sexual harassment or that non-atheists are without sin.

The topic of sexual harassment at atheist conventions is a red-hot topic right now. White-hot, actually. I know, because I read atheist forums all the time to get different perspectives. I’m just relaying what I read on the Web. Google it yourself and you’ll see the fiery discussions. I think it’s a really interesting question of how atheists can claim that sexual harassment is objectively wrong when morality is simply a human convention.

http://archives.religionnews.com/culture/gender-and-sexuality/do-atheists-have-a-sexual-harassment-problem” class=”bbcode_url”>http://archives.religionnews.com/culture/gender-and-sexuality/do-atheists-have-a-sexual-harassment-problem

Your recent comments do not make me feel welcome on this site, so this is my last post. Thanks to everyone who gave me advice on my other questions.

[oasis]

cwald wrote:

This is so, well, so ridiculous, that it amazes me every time I hear it. Europeans did not embrace Christianity because it was gushing with “compassion, and brotherhood.” Europe embraced Christianity because it was conquered.

I was not talking about Europe. I was talking about the Roman Empire in the first few centuries of the common era, when Christianity put down its first roots. The world of 492 was vastly different from the world of 1492.

[oasis]

What a fascinating thread! Thank you for posting the link to the original article.

Predictions can be tough. I remember a statistics professor who “proved” that the population of Texas would exceed the population of the United States by the year 2100. He just used two different extrapolation models that seemed perfectly reasonable in isolation but which yielded nonsense together. A sort of negative synergy, I suppose.

However… I also once read an article about the growth of Christianity in its first four centuries of existence. Christianity was microscopically small in AD 33 and went on to sweep the Roman Empire within a few centuries… against stupendous headwinds in the early days. The author claimed that slow but steady growth over a few centuries could turn the world upside down. He also claimed that Christianity won converts because the Christian culture embraced compassion, selflessness, and brotherhood of all men (or siblinghood of all humans, if you prefer). I have read that the Christian church is growing rapidly in China because the Chinese are judging Christians for what their faith leads them to do (compassion, selflessness, etc), not because of Noah’s Ark or the Psalms or the Book of Revelation. And for the very same reasons, I do think the Mormon church will turn the world upside down if you give it enough time.

Side note on compassion: Today in the car I listened to a podcast from the dean emeritus of the local Episcopal cathedral (his name is Alan Jones and he is very cool). His comments blew me away. He defined “sin” as the willful denial of the interconnectedness and interdependence of all humans. At first I was tempted to shrug this off as another crackpot, crystal-waving New Age sort of thing that I hear with such depressing frequency here in California, but the more I contemplated his definition, the more I realized he had hit a bull’s eye. Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. I immediately thought of LDS temple activity, which had really spooked me when I first learned about the LDS Church, but which I gradually grew to understand. Someone told me once that temple work was, at its foundation, an act of compassion. After hearing the insightful comment from Alan Jones, I now see temple work as a holy ordinance that teaches us and celebrates the interconnectedness of all humans, even those who have died, and that is therefore God to the core.

Back to the point about church growth predictions. In 2010 I took a year sabbatical but got bored and took a job with the U.S. Census Bureau for the the decennial census. I was a crew leader for a fairly white section of my city, and I had to review dozens of census forms that my enumerators turned in each day. I was absolutely stunned at the number of multiracial children here. You keep hearing how the majority of Californians will be Hispanic by 2050. Utter hogwash. The majority of Californians will have Hispanic surnames, but many of them will be multiracial.

I believe the same future awaits the Mormon church. There may be hundreds of millions of Mormons by 2150, but it will be a “multiracial” form of Mormonism that differs in important ways from the Mormon church of 2013. I think you are going to see a lot of revelations and changes in church doctrine that sweep away some of the debris that is today a stumbling block for so many Mormons and investigators. The church will redefine its relationship to women and gays, perhaps in ways that nobody can predict. The role of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon will be different in 2150. Not weaker, just different and purer and more welcoming to LDS investigators who hear the word “polygamy” and run for the exit. And if the LDS culture remains true to its principles of compassion and Christ-like selflessness, it will grow just as mightily as Christianity did in the Roman Empire and as it does in China today. (Did you know that there are an estimated 67 million Christians in China today?)

Oh… and one other shaping force is in play here. Atheists have really low birth rates. I guess atheists stick to this nutty idea that we live briefly and then kick the bucket with no more meaning or importance than a squashed cockroach. Well, yeah, if I believed that, I would gravitate toward hedonism and away from changing diapers, too. (There are a lot of negative aspects of atheism that are not reported; apparently sexual harassment of women at atheist conventions is a real problem.) Anyway, LDS birth rates alone are an important factor in church growth.

Now I am starting to worry. I have been inactive for 15 years, but I am feeling a prompting to return to the LDS Church. I wonder if it’s because subconsciously I just want to be part of a successful enterprise?

[oasis]

This is hardly a novel pattern in the history of religion.

I was born and raised Lutheran. We were taught that Martin Luther was (in a limited sense) our spiritual father and that God used him as a powerful tool to correct the errors of the Roman Catholic church at that time. Luther was never a prophet in the Biblical sense, and he started a reformation, not a restoration. But I see some interesting parallels between Martin Luther and Joseph Smith, especially around plural marriage and personal failings. From Wikipedia:

From December 1539, Luther became implicated in the bigamy of Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse, who wanted to marry one of his wife’s ladies-in-waiting. Philip solicited the approval of Luther, Melanchthon, and Bucer, citing as a precedent the polygamy of the patriarchs. The theologians were not prepared to make a general ruling, and they reluctantly advised the landgrave that if he was determined, he should marry secretly and keep quiet about the matter. As a result, on 4 March 1540, Philip married a second wife, Margarethe von der Sale, with Melanchthon and Bucer among the witnesses. However, Philip was unable to keep the marriage secret, and he threatened to make Luther’s advice public. Luther told him to “tell a good, strong lie” and deny the marriage completely, which Philip did during the subsequent public controversy. In the view of Luther’s biographer Martin Brecht, “giving confessional advice for Philip of Hesse was one of the worst mistakes Luther made, and, next to the landgrave himself, who was directly responsible for it, history chiefly holds Luther accountable”. Brecht argues that Luther’s mistake was not that he gave private pastoral advice, but that he miscalculated the political implications. The affair caused lasting damage to Luther’s reputation.

And if you think that’s bad, read what Wikipedia says about Luther and Jews:

Luther argued that the Jews were no longer the chosen people but ‘the devil’s people’: he referred to them with violent, vile language. Luther advocated setting synagogues on fire, destroying Jewish prayerbooks, forbidding rabbis from preaching, seizing Jews’ property and money, and smashing up their homes, so that these ‘poisonous envenomed worms’ would be forced into labour or expelled ‘for all time.’

In my opinion, rejecting the LDS Church or the BoM because of Joseph Smith’s imperfections is sort of like rejecting the theory of relativity because Einstein had a child out of wedlock and then started an affair with his cousin while he was still married. Yes, I know, Joseph Smith was a prophet who talked morality and God, not physics. I’m just saying there is a difference between the message and the messenger. If the messenger is human, don’t expect perfection.

[oasis]

I have heard that some statues of Jesus Christ in South Korea have Asian eyes and Asian facial features. I think that’s quite nice, actually, and I certainly don’t view it as a deceptive portrayal. If the LDS Church actively suppressed the known photos of Joseph Smith, I might have a problem with modern renditions of him. But this is just artistic freedom. The physical appearance of Joseph Smith is not an LDS article of faith.

I once went to the Wikipedia article on Joseph Smith and saw the standard portrait of him. Then I clicked on the German version of the article and was shocked to see an early photograph of Joseph Smith that I had never seen before. His hair was arranged in a way that was apparently quite stylish in the 1840s but today looks like something from the Munsters. If this photo appeared on the cover of every Book of Mormon, I think the LDS church would be somewhat smaller today.

[oasis]

I am active in the Toastmasters organization, and I have learned two sure-fire methods to grab your audience by the throat and keep them focused like a laser beam on what you are saying.

Method 1: Begin by saying, “I have a terrible confession to make…” and dive deeply into some terrible sin or error you have made in your life. Unclear whether this would be appropriate for an LDS testimony talk, but your audience will hang on your every word.

Method 2: Talk about the audience, not you. This is even more powerful than Method 1. Give examples of how people in your ward act out their testimony in deeds instead of words, and how their actions have inspired you. (Avoid mentioning anyone by name, but if you must then get that person’s permission before you speak.)

The last Fast and Testimony meeting I went to was many years ago. I have forgotten everything from that meeting except for one thing: a woman who described how the ward responded with a stream of compassion and kindness when the woman’s marriage was stressed to the breaking point. Everything else I heard that day, sadly, was parrot chatter.

[oasis]

Old-Timer wrote:

However, I would suggest strongly that you take the initiative and talk with him about it proactively. I don’t think you should even appear to be trying to hide it from him.

Very wise advice. If you’re not a patriarch, perhaps some day you should be. :angel:

[oasis]

“Wear pants to church” campaign? Never heard of it. But I bet Mormon feminists don’t try to smoke cigars.

Back to topic: I would never ditch a friend who was willing to be my friend. But there are some uncomfortable realities that I have to think through before I re-investigate the LDS church. I have a real-estate business partner who happens to be gay and who lives in another unit of a building that we jointly own. He and his same-sex partner will see me coming and going Sunday mornings in a suit (and pants) and will naturally ask where I am going, because such behavior is considered very odd here. He was a Protestant missionary in Latin America in his youth and is very interested in church things. I can’t lie to him, and yet if I tell him I am attending a Mormon church all you-know-what will break loose and our business relationship will become very frosty.

I didn’t mean to sound like I was shrugging off all my old friends. I’m just predicting a lot of uncomfortable conversations. Thanks for your support and advice, though… much appreciated!

[oasis]

Hi church0333,

I feel awkward sharing my thoughts about testimonies because my experience with the LDS church has been a 25-year trek through the desert with an “oasis moment” every five or ten years. A few months ago I entered one of these moments and am feeling a very solid, very hard-edged force pulling me back to the Church. I don’t know yet where it will lead.

I like your idea of talking about different types of testimonies. I would just add that “testimony diversity” is much more than just strength and weakness, or various points that you might plot on a single straight line. It’s a multidimensional type of diversity, and the testimonies of different people might not be different points on the same line or even in the same plane. They might diverge in really fundamental and skewed ways. Of course, all of this is just my opinion, so don’t take this as new canon.

Many of the testimonies I have heard over the years make certain assumptions that I don’t believe are accurate. One of those assumptions is that the word “true” has only one meaning. When LDS people hear, “The Book of Mormon is true,” they often regard “true” as a synonym for “historically accurate.” But I just checked my dictionary, and “true” has 12 different meanings. “True” can, of course, mean “accurate or free of falsehood,” but it can also mean “correctly aligned.” We say a compass points “true north,” or we talk about a “straight and true” path. I seem to recall hearing carpenters talk about perfectly straight surfaces as “true.” This was always how I regarded the Book of Mormon, as correctly aligned with God regardless of its origin. It may be free of falsehood and may be historically accurate as well, but that’s not why I regard the Book of Mormon as true. The Book of Mormon teaches certain principles, and people who follow the Book of Mormon are led into correct alignment with God. This satisfies my definition of “true.”

Of course, we have a slight issue with Joseph Smith claiming the Book of Mormon is historically accurate. If it’s not, don’t we have a horrible problem on our hands?

Maybe not. Another assumption I hear in testimonies is connected to our understanding of the concept of a “prophet.” When most people think of “prophet,” they think of a Moses-like figure descending a mountain with stone tablets that literally contain the dictated commands of God. I would bet that many LDS people think of Joseph Smith as a Mosaic celebrity who functions as a robotic proxy for God. I have always regarded prophets as artists, not orators who channel the exact words of God. When I was at the Louvre last month, I didn’t try to analyze the truth or falsehood of the paintings. I didn’t wonder whether the Mona Lisa was a real woman or not. I just experienced the paintings on their own terms and contemplated the ways in which they changed me and my understanding of the world.

I really don’t know the origin of the Book of Mormon. I have some doubts about how historically accurate it is, and some parts of its creation (like the missing 116 pages) strike me as a less-than-perfect unfolding of God’s will. I tend to believe that Joseph Smith was not deliberately deceiving people. If he was secretly dictating from a previously written document, then the missing 116 pages wouldn’t have been a big deal, because he could simply have re-dictated those missing pages from his secret source. I think the evidence supports the belief that the Book of Mormon flowed from Joseph Smith’s mind. Maybe part or all of it was inspired by God, but in ways we will never understand. The important point is that the Book of Mormon set into motion a vast unfolding of something good and noble: a worldwide church centered on the teachings of Jesus. And if that church brings us into correct alignment with God, isn’t that the only important thing?

[oasis]

Called to Serve wrote:

Just be sure to wear pants.

Your comment is far more amusing than you perhaps realize. I live in an ultra-liberal city, and until recently there was no law against public nudity. Last summer it was not unusual for me to walk to the bank or the post office and see one or two nude men strolling around. A while back the city government did outlaw nudity in restaurants, and nude persons were required to put a towel down before sitting on public benches. I’ve even seen nude bike riders, although I’m not exactly sure how they do this comfortably. In any case, things spun out of control in late 2012, but I cannot possibly repeat the details here because polite people do not discuss such things. Public nudity was finally outlawed altogether a few weeks ago.

So the suggestion to “wear pants” isn’t as silly as you think… at least not where I live.

I could go on and on about this ultra-liberal city… most of the churches here are ultra-liberal as well, and they have carefully purged all traces of gender from religion. There’s a long list of word replacements in common use. Words like Lord, King, and Father are swapped out for Sovereign, Ruler, and Parent. “Does God Change His Mind?” becomes “Does God Change God’s Mind?” Even “God” is too male for many churches; the politically correct term is “God/Goddess,” often abbreviated in strange ways (e.g., “May God/dess bless you,” which I have seen many times at the bottoms of emails).

I’m getting off topic, but it raises an interesting point that I am only now beginning to appreciate as I write this post. If I return to the LDS church in this unusual city, I’m going to lose a lot of liberal friends who will find my choice of religion utterly incomprehensible. Que sera, sera.

[oasis]

Thanks to all for your words of support. Good advice, which I plan to follow.

But one nagging question: If I start attending church, what do I tell people? After all, I moved into their ward in 1998 and this is the first time I come to their church… what am I going to say, “It took me a long time to unpack?” I just want to melt into the everyday church and re-experience the LDS faith as an ordinary consumer, but if I start blabbing that I was inactive for all those years, I’m afraid that it will lead to some awkward conversations and a lot of raised eyebrows from people I don’t know.

Is it better to just show up to church one day unannounced, or would it be wise to talk to the bishop first so I know what to expect?

And by the way, has the dress code changed in the last 15 years? Do LDS men on the California coast wear suits to church these days? I haven’t worn a necktie in so long that I don’t even know where my neckties are. (Maybe I should finish unpacking.)

[oasis]

I drifted away from the LDS church 16 years ago, and last week I found myself humming “The Spirit of God Like a Fire is Burning.” It was my favorite LDS hymn ever. I wondered whether YouTube had a nice version of it, and I came across the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2roSedIy84” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2roSedIy84

It’s really inspiring and brings me to tears sometimes. Whoever made this is very talented indeed. It’s pushed me deep into contemplation about whether it’s time to return to the Church.

[Author]

Posts