Mormon Leaders Must Become Tone Deaf

 Blog  Comments Off on Mormon Leaders Must Become Tone Deaf
Aug 132014
 

If Mormonism is to survive—or at least to survive well—its leaders must become “tone deaf.” Musically speaking, the last thing you want an aspiring musician to be is tone deaf. Tone deafness is not an inability to hear sound; it is the inability to distinguish pitch. Have you heard the expression “Can’t carry a tune in a bucket?” The tone deaf person has difficulty hearing the difference between high and low notes, for example, on a piano or other instrument. A tone deaf person might enjoy singing (and singing with great gusto), but will sound very…well…awful. In fact, it might even cause mental anguish to someone listening.

There are situations, however, in which a little “tone deafness” might be beneficial. Take the recent experience of a BYU-Idaho Institute teacher who resigned from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for example. The instructor, Kirk Caudle, mentioned during an online optional class discussion that the account of Brigham Young’s *transfiguration* into the likeness of deceased leader Joseph Smith was “not entirely historical.”[1] Word got back to local church leaders that Mr. Caudle essentially had stepped outside the box and did his own thinking.

Reaction was quick. Caudle was called in by the heads of the school’s religion and online learning departments for a 45-minute dressing down. Leadership had no problem with the content of Caudle’s class material; they did, however, have an issue with his “tone.” Apparently his tone did not take on an obsequious enough timbre. Consequently, BYU-Idaho did not renew his teaching contract. Historical accuracy is not part of the LDS Church-approved curriculum, and thought-provoking discussion is not allowed, unless the discussion follows pre-screened and approved talking points.

As Henrichsen reports;

When Caudle pointed out that students enjoyed his classes, he was told, “We don’t care what the students think. We just want you to teach the curriculum.”

The issue of tone goes far beyond the bounds of LDS academia. Lay members of the Church are often warned about their tone when asking questions or are instructed to “tone things down” when caught speaking in such a way as to put the Church or its leadership in a negative light. If members pursue getting answers to their questions or concerns about LDS history, doctrines, or policies, they might be threatened with disciplinary action if a particular ward or stake leader doesn’t like their tone. If their tone isn’t taken down in pitch—to, oh, say a low grovel—the threatened discipline may very well ensue.

Members of the LDS Church are not the only ones who must pass the test of tonal temperance. Non-members, ex-members, and prospective members must all undergo scrutiny to assure they are not even a half-step off pitch. Not enthusiastic enough about Mormonism? You’re too flat. Ask a probing question about Mormonism’s history or doctrines? You’re too sharp; as presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee learned when he asked if, according to LDS teachings, Jesus and Satan are spirit-brothers (the answer is yes).

A spokeswoman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said Huckabee’s question is usually raised by those who wish to smear the Mormon faith rather than clarify doctrine.[2]

So, who are the spiritual maestros filtering the timbre of “musicians” to ascertain if they are fit to participate in the “Mormon orchestra?” Who are the so-called experts who know the hearts and minds of those asking questions, giving information, or expressing opinions? Who determines whether one is trying to get clarification on a doctrine or trying to “smear the Church?” And does it really matter what the person’s motive is, even if it’s apparent? Truth is truth, right? If a teaching, doctrine, position, or historical event of the One True Church is actually an established fact, shouldn’t it be addressed with pride and candor, or in some instances with an apology and frankness?

Considering that members are leaving the Church in numbers that are of concern to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, perhaps a little tone-deafness would benefit the organization. Elder Marlin Jensen said at a Utah State University Fireside in November of 2011,

Maybe, since Kirtland we’ve never had a period of—I’ll call it apostasy—like we’re having right now.[3]

Instead, the Church is coming down hard on dissenters and information seekers alike. The ouster of Kate Kelly and John Dehlin[4] are recent examples, but the problem is more far-reaching than with persons of notoriety in Mormondom. Mormon missionaries are known for suddenly remembering impending “appointments” when questions by potential proselytes or street-preachers take on a tone of dissonance.

The freedom to ask questions with the expectation of receiving honest answers is foundational to a vibrant faith community. It engenders trust and builds confidence. “Coming clean,” as it were, usually garners respect from others. Perhaps the Mormon Church has too much to lose by employing candor and honest, open discourse, but it’s already losing on many fronts by its repeated resistance to transparency.

As it stands LDS leaders would “like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony,”[5] with everyone—Mormon and “gentile” alike—praising “the man who communed with Jehovah.”[6]  And since that’s as highly improbable as a bass becoming a coloratura, Mormon leaders had best hearken to the countless individuals crooning (on or off key) the chorus of Billy Joel’s hit song, “Honesty.”[7]

 

 

[1] Henrichsen, C. (2014). BYU-Idaho religion instructor leaves church. Approaching Justice. http://approachingjustice.net/2014/08/05/byu-idaho-religion-instructor-leaves-church/#comments

[2] Quaid, L. (2007). Huckabee asks if Mormons believe Jesus, Satan are brothers. Deseret News. December 11, 2007. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695235240/Huckabee-asks-if-Mormons-believe-Jesus-Satan-are-brothers.html?pg=all

[3] Henderson, P. & Cooke, K. (2012). Special report: Mormonism besieged by the modern age. Reuters. January 31, 2012. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/31/us-mormonchurch-idUSTRE80T1CM20120131

[4] Connor, T. (2014). Will Mormon podcast host John Dehlin be excommunicated. U.S. News. June 26, 2014. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/will-mormon-podcast-host-john-dehlin-be-excommunicated-n139526

[5] New Seekers. (1971). Buy the world a coke.

[6] Phelps, W. (2014). Praise to the man. Hymnal. https://www.lds.org/music/library/hymns/praise-to-the-man?lang=eng

[7] Joel, B. (1978). Honesty. A matter of trust – the bridge to Russia. http://www.billyjoel.com/music/matter-trust-bridge-russia/honesty

Honesty is such a lonely word
Everyone is so untrue
Honesty is hardly ever heard
And mostly what I need from you

The Pitfalls of Spiritual Pragmatism Part 2

 Blog  1 Response »
Jun 192014
 

I need to elaborate on the last paragraph of Part 1.  There are times when it just isn’t possible to leave the LDS Church, as much as one might like to. It’s easy to tell someone, “Well, if you don’t believe it’s true, just leave;” another thing quite entirely when the person’s circumstances are complicated. I’ll admit that I used to see this issue as black and white. In my zeal I would have pounded the pulpit and said, “Truth at all costs. You can’t support the Church when it’s clearly false!” Now, I’m not so hasty.

In my case I had the support of my husband, even though he wasn’t ready to leave the Church at the time. But what is a person supposed to do when their spouse threatens to divorce them, or worse, to divorce them and seek full custody of the children? What do they do if they’re in their senior year at BYU and will get expelled if they leave the Church)? What should a person do if they’re employed by the LDS Church and are within a couple years of retirement? Should they quit at age 55 or 60 even though it will mean possibly starting over as a Wal-Mart door-greeter?

These are tough questions with no easy answers. I don’t think we can make judgments about the character of those who stay in the Church to save their marriages or keep their children. We can’t point our fingers and accuse them of caring more about family or career or education than they do about their relationship with God. That would be unfair and unkind. I wouldn’t encourage them to live under of false pretenses, but to find a way to be able to express and practice their real beliefs. If necessary, a person can leave Mormonism without leaving the Mormon Church, at least while his or her spouse comes to terms with the situation.

I also firmly believe that if the person has come to what’s often referred to as “saving faith” in Jesus Christ of the Bible, God will provide a way for him or her to be able to live authentically. He will give wisdom, courage, and guidance. There is no one-size-fits-all answer. If you are in a difficult circumstance like one of those above, I encourage you to trust God, lean on him, stay prayerful, read the Bible for strength and comfort, and follow his leading. Do what you can to work toward a mutually acceptable solution with your TBM (True-Blue Mormon) spouse to accomodate a dual-faith relationship or family.

When I speak of spiritual pragmatists, I’m not referring to people in difficult circumstances with painful decisions to make. I’m speaking about people who know something is false or wrong, but stay with it for the sake of convenience. It “works” for them so why stir the pot? This brings me back to my brother-in-law and the woman from my former ward. They admitted to not believing the Church is true; but in Fast & Testimony Meetings, Family Home Evenings, and at other times in front of their children, grandchildren, relatives, and LDS friends they can still be heard declaring,

“I know the Church is true. I know Joseph Smith was a true prophet. And I know the Church is being led by true prophets and apostles today.”

Essentially, they are lying, and it seems like they justify those lies through pragmatism:

“The Church might not be true, but it gives a good framework for my family to live within.”

Don’t they realize that their spouses and kids look up to them and depend on them, not only for physical protection, but spiritual protection as well? Do they not see that their loved ones trust them—trusting and believing their very words—and they aren’t even speaking truth? How tragic. They “go from bad to worse, deceiving others and being deceived themselves” (2 Timothy 3:13).

When I was a devout Latter-day Saint, I held to the “correspondence theory” of truth (and still do). I thought that the Church was true because I trusted that the information given to me by Mormon leaders corresponded with the facts.

For example; I was taught that Joseph Smith, Jr. found plates of gold along with a device—like spectacles of some sort—known as the Urim and Thummim (referred to in the Bible, Exodus 28:30). He ostensibly put on these spectacles, which were attached to a breastplate, and carefully pored over each character etched on the plates until the proper meaning appeared, and this is how the Book of Mormon was translated.

Furthermore, I was taught that the 11 witnesses to the Book of Mormon saw the gold plates and handled them. So, along with the good feelings I received when praying to know if the Church was true, my beliefs were based on what LDS leaders, teachers, and Church manuals said happened. I had no reason to believe the Church was not being forthright about its history and origins.

Eventually I discovered that Smith did not use any such device as the Urim and Thummim, but rather used a stone he found while digging a well. He placed this stone in his hat, put his face into the hat, and dictated words to a scribe. Additionally I learned that the so-called witnesses to the Book of Mormon never saw the gold plates with their physical eyes, as implied in seminary, Sunday school, and over the pulpit; but with their “spiritual eyes” (in other words, their imaginations). And whatever it was they handled, or “hefted” as church literature says, was covered by a cloth. For all anyone knows they could have lifted a box of rocks.

When I discovered that what I was taught didn’t correspond with reality, I could no longer in good conscience remain a participant in such an organization

I agree with the Mormon 11th Article of Faith, which states: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” I do not insist that others believe as I do, just as I would not want others insisting I believe as they do. What I want is transparency in religious institutions so that the members and/or investigators can make informed choices. Not everyone wants to be pragmatic about their spiritual walk. Many individuals want an authentic relationship with God, and I am one of them. Truth does indeed matter and is too precious to be pragmatic about.

This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent (John 17:3).

 

<Return to Part 1>

The Pitfalls of Spiritual Pragmatism Part 1

 Blog  Comments Off on The Pitfalls of Spiritual Pragmatism Part 1
Jun 102014
 

I noticed something interesting when I mow the lawn. I tend to mow like I vacuum. Conversely, my husband tends to vacuum like he mows. I was pushing the lawn mower back and forth as if I was sucking up dirt from a carpet, and two things occurred to me. First, maybe it isn’t my shapely legs that neighbors stare at when I’m doing yard work. Maybe they’re wondering why that nutty woman is “vacuuming” her lawn with a Toro Super Recycler Personal Pace Mower; and second, there could be a spiritual application at play.

The grass was getting cut, but not very efficiently. When my husband vacuums (rare occasion), he’ll go up and down the length of the room in nice little rows, which—in my opinion—doesn’t get all the dust up. It takes going back and forth over the same area from different angles to ensure all the dust and allergens are getting picked up. So why do we mow and vacuum like we do? Because it’s what we’re used to and it works; maybe not so efficiently, but for the most part the job gets done. When someone suggests a better way, our first inclination is that our way is good enough.

However, what if “good enough” isn’t the best way to do something? More to the point, what if “good enough” is actually detrimental? For example, getting grades of C’s and B’s (good enough) won’t get a person into an Ivy League school. Daily exercise (good enough) won’t keep people healthy if they smoke, drink excessively, or include a lot of sugar and processed foods in their diets. Doing only what it takes to get by results in mediocrity and in some cases failure.

Often people are just as pragmatic about spiritual matters as they are about household chores. In other words, if it works it’s good enough. When asked how he could reconcile the problems of Mormonism—historical revisions, doctrinal changes, and other evidence against its veracity—a former brother-in-law of mine said something to this effect: “It doesn’t matter to me. Those things don’t matter to me. Membership in the Church works for my family.”

Shortly after I left Mormonism, a woman from the ward came over to try to convince me to come back. I explained to her my reasons for leaving and why I could no longer believe the Church was true. Exasperated, she finally said, “Look, I don’t really believe the Church is true either, but it’s good for my kids and my husband. It helps them think right.”

Now, I don’t know exactly what she meant by “It helps them think right,” but I don’t think I would be too far off by presuming she meant that “Mormonism works” for her family. It works by giving structure and a sense of purpose to its members, rules to govern themselves by, and accountability. Those are good things, right? Well….not so fast. Many harmful groups and philosophies offer structure, purpose, rules, and accountability. Street gangs, for instance. Communism. Fascism. Radical Islam. Fundamentalist polygamist sects like the one headed by Warren Jeffs.

Structure, purpose, rules, and accountability are only as beneficial or good as the source imposing them. Responsible, loving parents; honest local governments; ethical businesses; educational systems that encourage freedom of thought and expression are examples of positive and constructive ways in which the preceding attributes can be used. When used to impose control, restrict freedom, demand conformity, gain allegiance, and induce fear, they become tactics that destroy personal growth, choice, and responsibility.

At its root, pragmatism is little more than an outward expression of the end justifying the means. Obviously, there are times we must deal with an issue pragmatically. If something is broken around the house, sometimes we just have to “Jimmy-Rig” it until a more permanent or better solution presents itself. But when pragmatism becomes the primary method by which we run our lives, we leave ourselves open to error. My former brother-in-law and my friend were making salient decisions affecting their eternal lives based on pragmatic views:

“So what if the Church isn’t what it claims to be. At least it teaches good things.”

“It doesn’t matter if it’s false. It works for me and mine.”

Let’s see how well that philosophy works in secular matters:

“So what if it’s a scam. 20 cents on every dollar actually goes to help people.”

“It doesn’t matter if it’s dishonest. It helps my family be better off.”

If something isn’t what it claims to be, it’s phony. It doesn’t matter if “good things” come from it. By knowingly participating in something untrue, you are supporting deception. Think of it this way, can counterfeit money be used for good? Yes. It can buy food for the hungry, pay a poor person’s utility bill, and put gas in a struggling college student’s car. I don’t know how widespread a problem counterfeiting is, but probably the majority of people passing on the fake bills don’t even know it’s counterfeit. But what about the counterfeiters? They know it’s wrong. They might ease their consciences through rationalization, but ultimately they realize if they are caught they will go to prison. Or maybe they’ve gotten away with doing it for so long they actually believe they’re contributing to society by stimulating the economy.

My friends please listen. There are people in churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples all over the world who are there for pragmatic reasons. Many individuals—the religious and the unreligious—join groups or organizations because it’s the practical thing to do. It could be family tradition, convenience, appearances, making connections, politics, or to simply feel good about themselves. Each of us needs to examine our affiliations and see what they are resting on, especially in regard to worldviews and spiritual pursuits. You might look for answers to the following questions:

  • What is the origin of this church organization (the one I go to or the one I’m considering)?
  • What was the general character of its founder(s)?
  • What do they teach about God, Jesus, salvation, and the Bible?
  • Does the organization require membership as the basis for living eternally with God?
  • Do their claims align with the facts, insofar as they’re able to be verified?
  • Do the leaders discourage questioning?
  • Does leadership deny or minimize wrongdoing when the evidence shows otherwise?

If the answers demonstrate reason for concern, do further research. If the evidence points to falsehood, deception, or serious error, it’s time to leave. How important to you is truth? Make a self-evaluation. Consider what message you’re giving your children and grandchildren by choosing spiritual pragmatism. It’s like saying that being part of the club is more important than personal integrity, that convenience is more important than honor, and that self-gratification is of more value than worshiping God “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).

 

<Continued in Part 2>