"I actually had a some bad experiences concerning the subject you wrote about last week. First, everyone in my apartment called every other religion the church of the devil in reference to 1 Nephi 13-14. I would like to know more about [what Nephi refers to as] church of the devil... if you have time someday because I protested by saying it was just a representation of people that knowingly preached false doctrine, false doctrine in itself, and people that work iniquity, not a specific church such as the catholic church or any other religion in itself. I would like to know what scholars and the apostles and prophets have said concerning the church of the devil. Thank you!! Love you have a great week!
I also had a member rip a JW pamphlet (more like a big pass along card) out of my hands and tear it up saying: "I'm of the church of Christ not the church of the devil like them,"... and I also got called apostate a lot this week. I'm beginning to think that I should not share my views because they just cause tension."
Dear Luke,
I anticipated continuing with my series of letters about Lesson 1 this week, but I think a good response to this email is much more important. Misinterpretations of 1 Nephi 13-14 and Joseph Smith - History are largely at the root of discord between Mormonism and other churches. That's very unfortunate. I think you did a fantastic job explaining what the "church of the devil" refers to in 1 Nephi 13-14. I know dad sent you a link to an article titled, "Warring against the Saints of God." That's about the best answer I can give as well. You could look at Fair Mormon's site if you want. They make it clear that there has been a great diversity of opinions among leaders on the subject throughout the history of the Church. That's the best I've got since I have not been able to find any official statement. I'll include a little bit about the abominable creeds mentioned in Joseph Smith - History next week.
But I am much more interested in the final sentence of your response, "I'm beginning to think that I should not share my views because they just cause tension." I felt that way many times on my mission, and, for the record, I was also called apostate many, many times on my mission. I'm not apostate and neither are you. Take it with a grain of salt.
I wrote you about large scale harmony between religions a couple weeks ago. Let's call that inter-religious harmony. There's also a smaller scale of intra-religious harmony. The same principles apply. Diversity and cooperation are key. Without diversity, we have a boring piece, indeed. Without cooperation, we have an ugly piece to listen to as the dissonance of notes pain our ears.
In fact, Elder Wirthlin's quote, which I adapted in the other email, originally referred to intra-religious harmony. This time I'll include a paragraph of context. Elder Wirthlin said, "Some are lost because they are different. They feel as though they don’t belong. Perhaps because they are different, they find themselves slipping away from the flock. They may look, act, think, and speak differently than those around them and that sometimes causes them to assume they don’t fit in. They conclude that they are not needed.
Tied to this misconception is the erroneous belief that all members of the Church should look, talk, and be alike. The Lord did not people the earth with a vibrant orchestra of personalities only to value the piccolos of the world. Every instrument is precious and adds to the complex beauty of the symphony. All of Heavenly Father’s children are different in some degree, yet each has his own beautiful sound that adds depth and richness to the whole."
I included the context because it expresses the danger of anything that is not intra-religious harmony. For the purpose of this letter, I'll generalize the diversity in two camps. One camp is liberal, questioning, and progressive. The other camp is conservative, unquestioning, and traditionalist. But instead of harmonious diversity, we often see a culture of mutual exclusivity and authoritarianism between the camps. It is a culture that says, "I am right and righteous, and you are wrong and apostate." I feel very strongly that this is a big contributing factor of the "faith crisis" among millennials that the Brethren are so concerned about. It is no secret that our generation is more liberal than preceding generations. It is also no secret that it is most often the liberal minority camp which ends up being falsely labeled as apostate by those who hold no authority to make such judgments. Feelings of being ostracized and loneliness and discomfort and rejection, drive liberal millennial Mormons away, and I sympathize with them. They are in large part victims of an ugly and persisting culture. Perhaps you felt something similar.
There is no need to argue about your specific viewpoints. There's no need to try to convince people that you are right. You don't need to share your ideas if you don't want to. But you must stand up for diversity of opinion and against labels and exclusivity! The lack of diversity brought on by exclusivity is more than just boring. I fear that it could lead to the demise of the Church that we love. Let it be known that it is OK to be a Mormon and support gay marriage, just as much as it is OK to be a Mormon that opposes gay marriage. It is OK to be a Mormon and be pro-choice. It is OK to be a Mormon who doesn't believe abortion is right under any circumstances. It is OK to be in-between. It is OK to be a Mormon and support the legalization of marijuana. It is OK to oppose the legalization of marijuana. It is OK to be a Mormon and believe in Socialism. It is OK to oppose Socialism. It is OK to be a Mormon and a feminist. It is OK to be a Mormon and support traditional gender roles in family. In short, it is OK to be an ultra-liberal, far left, Sanders-supporting democrat Mormon, and it's just as OK to be an ultra-conservative, far right, Trump-supporting republican Mormon. It's OK to believe in evolution. It's OK to believe that other Churches lead to salvation. It's OK to disagree with the new policy concerning the children of gay marriages. It's OK to not "know" everything. It's OK to doubt. It's OK to believe that prophets make mistakes. It's OK to believe that the priesthood ban was a mistake. It's OK to believe polygamy was a mistake. Here's a kicker: it's OK to believe that the Book of Mormon is not historically true. There is room for diversity in the great tent of Zion!
Joseph Smith famously said, "By proving contraries, the truth is made manifest," (History of the Church 6:428). My fear of the great detriment that lack of diversity can have on the Church is born from this concept. If one "camp" is driven out, one of the contraries will no longer be represented, and it will be difficult for truth to be made manifest. Joseph Smith also said, "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." Agree on those things. Let the appendages give rise to beautifully diverse schools of thought. I like to visualize it like this.
This is known as "The Tree of Forty Fruit." Sam Van Aken, conceptualized this tree and brought his goal to quite literal fruition. He said of it, "There are hundreds if not thousands of individual stone fruit varieties or cultivars within the family of stone fruits including peach, plum, apricot, nectarine, cherry, and almond. Within each of these species of fruit there is extraordinary variation in color of blossom, bloom time, leaf pattern, fruit size, form, color, texture, and taste. Due to the similarity of their chromosomal structure it is possible to “graft” these varieties together to form a single tree." The trunk is built of the fundamental principles of the Atonement, the Godhead, and love. These principles are comparable to the chromosomal similarity which allow the limbs to be grafted in and contribute to the beauty of the whole. The limbs are the appendages, which produce the magnificent diversity of foliage, fruit and blossom which Van Aken described.
Now, even if one doesn't agree on the core doctrines, there's no reason to ostracize him for it. For many years, my only testimony was simply that the Church taught good principles. I wasn't sure about Joseph Smith or even the existence of God. Let those with doubts grow, and support them. As long as we are all honestly seeking the truth, and seeking to do good, it's OK.
I want to to conclude with several disclaimers. I want to make it clear that I was not professing my personal views in the perspectives I listed above. I agree with some and disagree with others, but I know that there are upstanding, worthy, temple recommend holding members which hold each one of those views. That needs to be known. I have friends who I love which have drifted away from the Church because they have views which they feel are not compatible with the Church's doctrine. I respect them, and I respect their decision to leave the Church, but I also respectfully disagree with them in one regard. Their views are, in fact, compatible with the Church's doctrine. Their views are not, however, compatible with the ugly and persisting culture of authoritarian exclusivity.
From my experience in South America, the liberal, questioning, progressive camp is virtually non-existent. They seem to have a very conservative culture in the Church. I imagine it is somewhat like the Church's general culture during the mid to late 1900's. I don't believe they have the same type of faith crisis among millennials that we have in the United States. It is still important to help them to open their minds to other opinions. As I said in my last letter, it is only after one has opened his mind to new ideas that his heart can explore with real intent, and eventually find truth. It just might be wise to understand and consider the cultural background of your audience. Be careful and sensitive about how you approach things.
If sharing your viewpoints causes tension, consider that maybe you are being arrogant. I understand that it can be frustrating. I've been there. But understand that an enlightened mind is in no way superior to a believing heart. Never seek to instill doubt in others. If you feel that sharing a certain viewpoint might instill doubt in a companion's heart, maybe it would be better not to share that viewpoint. Just focus on helping to open minds to new ideas, helping others to be more tolerant of conflicting ideas, building faith in others and yourself, and helping to promote a culture of harmonious diversity.
I also realize that I am biased. The very title of this letter witnesses that. I have two reasons for expressing bias in this letter. The first is that I do, in fact, have my own opinions as surprising as that might be. The other is simply because conservative, unquestioning, traditional views are already widely accepted within the Church, while liberal, questioning, progressive views are not so widely accepted. I want to reiterate that I am not in any way trying to downplay the value of conservative, unquestioning, traditionalist members. They are just as valuable and needed. Diversity is essential.
As you gain experience in your mission, you will gain the respect of your peers. Whether called to leadership positions or not, you can have the influence of a leader. Use your influence to teach your fellow missionaries to love unconditionally in the truest sense of the word, which is to say, regardless of differences of opinion. Use your influence to teach your peers never to judge the spiritual standing of another. If you have to, use your influence to teach other missionaries that they have no authority to label others as apostate.* Use your influence to promote a culture of faith, and harmonious diversity. All of these things echo the teachings of Christ in an environment dominated by the authoritative and exclusive culture of the Pharisees. You might consider studying the four gospels through that lens in your personal study.
I love you, Luke! Stay strong! Endure to the end.
*The irony is actually kind of funny because the way they use the word, they themselves are apostate since they are labeling others as apostate without the authority to label others as apostate. That authority is given to disciplinary councils under the keys of judges of Israel, that is, either a stake president or a bishop. But you probably shouldn't call them out on that because it will only escalate the tension.
No comments:
Post a Comment