Seth Payne

Like many New Yorkers, my initial reaction to hearing that a large Mosque was to be built 2 blocks from the World Trade Center site was one of shock and opposition.   I wouldn’t characterize my opposition as strident or terribly passionate;  I didn’t attend any anti-Mosque rallies downtown nor did I make my personal views widely known.  I did, however, oppose the Mosque’s construction simply because I felt that building such a large Islamic center of worship so close to site where nearly 3,000 people were murdered by radical Islamic extremists, was insensitive at best, and possibly nefarious at worst — although I  was never convinced of any ill intent at play.  The Financial District of Manhattan is not a residential neighborhood and I thought there were plenty of other, more suitable places in Manhattan, such as the Upper West Side where I live, for a Mosque of this size to be built (a demonstration to be sure of my ignorance of Islamic worship practices).

This past week while reading a conversation at the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board (MADB) I learned that my initial reaction was one borne out of ignorance and myopia.  In particular, there was one comment made by a poster, J Green, which changed my entire perspective on the matter.  I quote it here in its entirety:

My perspective from fighting elements of radical Islam in my profession in US Army Intelligence:

Objection to the center due to a perceived link between 9/11 and Islam is possibly the worst mistake we could make as a country in our struggle against terrorism and radical Islam because it represents another victory for AQ. In the midst of all this objection, they are receiving a return on their original investment in atrocity by scoring another hit in almost the same location, as well as all over the country and, apparently, among some on this board as well.

The center of gravity in assymetric warfare, counter-terrorism, and counter-insurgency rests with what is called information warfare (or information operations), essentially attempting to get your message accross to a targeted populace such that it influences them politically and culturally in order to leverage desired strategic results. (Our own doctrine is captured in Joint Publication 3-13, Information Operations.)

Since the beginning, Al Qaeda has tried to create an information operations message that defines this conflict in terms of a jihad between Islam and the “idolatrous infidels” (al-kufr al-mushrikin) of Christianity. On their intent to use the media to spread this message and create this paradigm, see for example the letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi captured in Iraq in 2005. Our own information operations plan seeks to take this conflict out of the false jihad/crusade construct and into the reality of terrorism and extremist criminal behavior.

Certainly the thousands of good Muslim men and women in the Armed Forces and State Department who served with me in both Iraq and Afghanistan would object to the paradigm that ties the 9/11 event to Islam. So would my good Muslim counterparts in the militaries of Iraq and Afghanistan. That many of us here in this country have done so is simply an indicator that Al Qaeda’s infomation operations campaign is gaining ascendancy over ours here in the US. Comments like the following make me worried not only from an intelligent perspective but from an Intelligence perspective:

[QUOTE FROM EARLIER IN THE THREAD:  

I see nothing in the plans to assuage the hurt, to calm the rational fears of those who have seen the hearts of an aggressive Islamic atrocity perpetrated on us, and not just once, not even twice, but a dozen times in the past few decades.  ]

If people here really believe this, then they have purchased Bin Laden’s message at the expense of our own.

When I read this I realized that I was, unintentionally of course, playing right into the hands of Al-Queda and the minority elements within Islam who seek to make this conflict appear to be between the West and Islam or Christianity/Judaism and Islam.  In truth, we are not at war or in conflict — in any way, shape or form — with the religion of Islam.  We are, however, in conflict with radicals who use violence, murder, and fear in pursuit of their own interests.  Why had I not seen this before?  It now appears so patently obvious and I sincerely thank J Green for offering his unique and enlightening perspective on the issue.

That fact is that radical and violent elements exist within all religions (except perhaps, in some Eastern traditions).  These violent elements have ebbed and flowed over the years.  It is true that radicals within modern Christianity and Judaism in the United States are *relatively* non-violent (of course we have the tragic murder of Abortion doctors and some ultra right-wing paramilitary groups to contend with).  Yet, if we go back to the settlement of North America by European Christians we find a history filled with genocide, atrocity, and mass murder.

It would, of course, be foolish to ignore the religious aspect modern Islamic radicalism.  However, we cannot allow ourselves to be drawn into offensive and inaccurate portrayals of Islam at a point in our history when forging positive and productive relations with Muslims around the world is a vital national interest.

So, let us oppose violence, terrorism and murder but let us do so without marginalizing the many millions of good, honest, and devout Muslims throughout the World who like us, seek peace and reconciliation.

I have been involved in the Mormon community online since 2006 or so when I began to study ex-Mormon narratives as part of my studies at Yale Divinity School.  A simple Google search will demonstrate that Mormonism on the internet is presented, discussed, analyzed, and debated in a variety of ways.

I have been a participant at two sites, primarily: The Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board (MADB) and the Mormon Discussions Board (MDB).  Apparently there is a long history  between these two boards but this drama predates my personal involvement by several years.

MDB is run and operated by Jason Gallentine, aka Dr. Shades.  It was Jason who first proposed the Internet vs. Chapel Mormon dichotomy.  Jason explains:

 The enormous popularity of the Internet has brought a vast amount of information into the hands of a great many people–information that, until recently, could only be accessed through inconvenient trips to far-flung libraries and archival repositories.  Nowadays, a simple visit to google.com places nearly any sort of information into the hands of the average user with only a few keystrokes.

This has meant that a great deal of information regarding Mormonism’s early history and prior beliefs are now widely available–information which was, until the advent of the Internet, largely unknown by the average member.  Therefore, apologists for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are no longer able to just ignore certain issues and hope they go away.  They must now deal with virtually all the controversial aspects of Mormonism, since increasing numbers of LDS members are becoming aware of these issues.

A typical apologetic ploy is the “that was only his opinion” tactic.  By reminding readers that Mormonism never claimed its leaders to be infallible, any controversial or repugnant teaching of yesteryear–such as the Adam-God doctrine–can be dismissed as being only the prophet’s opinion.  Nowadays, with knowledge of such historical items becoming more and more widespread, that tactic has been put into “overdrive.”  Similarly, apologists are now spending a lot of time reminding readers that prophets in the Bible did and said many foolish things, so it would be absurd to hold modern prophets to a higher standard.

In this way, apologists have collectively (and perhaps inadvertently) redefined what most Mormons have been taught regarding the role and importance of prophets.  Unfortunately, and perhaps most importantly, the prophets themselves have never defined their own role the way the apologists have.  Therefore, a dichotomy has been created:  Mormonism as interpreted by the apologists, and Mormonism as interpreted by the average member and by the prophets themselves.

These two different schools of thought are typically encountered in separate venues.  Since Mormonism’s controversial issues are widely and freely discussed on the Internet, many apologists likewise seek to make their own views and interpretations known via the Internet.  By the same token, Mormonism’s chapels are settings for religious instruction and ordinances–as opposed to places for debate or argument–so only official teachings are shared therein.  Therefore, the adherents of these separate schools of thought can be termed “Internet Mormons” and “Chapel Mormons”–not because of the only places they inhabit, of course, but because of the places one is most likely to encounter them. Lest anyone be confused, I also acknowledge that Internet Mormonism–at least in its embryonic form–has been around much longer than the Internet itself has.  Again, the name “Internet Mormonism” merely calls attention to the place at which one is most likely to encounter this brand of Mormon thought. It also pays tribute to the fact that the Internet was the catalyst for the recent explosion of this particular brand of Mormonism.

Not surprisingly, many Mormons take issue with Jason’s proposed dichotomy.  According to the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR), a non-profit group dedicated to Mormon apologetics and the genesis for MADB:

The entire premise that one has to be either a “Internet Mormon” or a “Chapel Mormon” is itself setting up a “false dilemma”. There is no allowance for anything in between the two extremes. When people complain about not being able to determine what Mormons (collectively) believe, the real issue they miss is that the Church does not tell its members what to believe. There is a lot of room for divergent views, and the Church thrives on the idea that its members are a vital part of the search for truth. Personal revelation plays a significant role in every Latter-day Saint’s life. Ironically, many of the same critics who complain about not being able to “pin down” Church doctrine, also complain that the Church exercises too much control over member’s lives. The questions in the temple recommend interview have very little to do with doctrine and very much to do with actions. Ultimately Church leaders are trying to determine if members are dedicated followers of Jesus Christ—not whether they believe that the flood of Noah was local or global, or whether they believe that science contradicts religion.

Anti-Mormon critics want to label various views as being somehow heretical and not reflective of most Latter-day Saints. This allows them to artificially define two “camps” within the Church, who are allegedly pitted against one another. This, in turn, feeds the critics’ ongoing hope that the Church is destroying itself from within. Such a belief allows critics to more easily dismiss arguments that defend the gospel from their attacks. The truth is, there are Latter-day Saints along the entire spectrum between the definitions of “Internet Mormon” and “Chapel Mormon.”

Scott Lloyd of Salt Lake City’s Deseret News  has tentatively proposed a “folk vs. orthodox” Mormon dichotomy:

On the one hand, we have Mormons who seek to learn and understand the authoritative doctrines, policies and positions of the Church so as to use them as guidelines for their own faith, belief, worship. For the purpose of discussion, I shall call them orthodox Mormons.

On the other hand, we have Mormons who, for whatever reason — laziness, intellectual neglect, intransigence, invincible ignorance, whatever — cling to folk doctrine as though it were scripture. I shall call them folk Mormons.

To illustrate how this breaks down, here are a couple of applications:

A folk Mormon is convinced that all faithful Church members one day will be called upon to walk en masse to Jackson County, Mo., there to build the temple of the New Jerusalem.

An orthodox Mormon understands that the above notion is a tradition handed down from the early Utah period of Church history, when some Church members were convinced the Second Coming would occur within their lifetimes and they would have the opportunity to go reclaim their Missouri lands.

A folk Mormon is wedded to a traditional understanding about Book of Mormon geography (i.e. hemispheric or North American model) to the point of calling into question the faithfulness and loyalty of those who are not.

An orthodox Mormon knows that the Church takes no official position about locales for specific Book of Mormon events and thus understands that Latter-day Saints are not bound to accept one particular model over another.

A folk Mormon is prone to gospel hobbyism at the expense of a wholesome balance in scriptural and doctrinal scholarship.

An orthodox Mormon lives “by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God.”

Critics who are prone to attack strawmen are likely to focus on the folk-doctrine beliefs of folk Mormons as an excuse to beat up the Church, because such beliefs are often easy targets. They express frustration and resistance when told that such beliefs are not authoritative.

The categories (orthodox vs. folk Mormon) are archetypal, and I don’t insist that a person must be either one or the other. A generally orthodox Mormon could have folk Mormon elements in his attitude.

And I’m not yet saying this model is valid; I’m only thinking out loud here. It might be altogether unworkable, just as Internet vs. Chapel is.

While it is certainly true that some Mormons have a deeper interest in history, theology, archeology and apologetics in general, I don’t find these dichotomies in any way descriptive of how Mormonism is actually practiced.  In fact, in the majority of cases I believe how an individual views such issues a a global flood, the accuracy of the King Follett Discourse, or the relevance of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers to have any bearing, whatsoever, on how that person chooses to practice the Mormon faith.

Today in Sunday School we discussed the story of Job.  Personally, I believe Job is an apocryphal text — one of great literary value — but non-historical.  To open the lesson our Sunday School teacher asked who in the class believed the book of Job represented actual history or was merely a morality tale intended to convey specific theological conceptions.  I would say about 1/2 the class thought it was real history and the other 1/2 felt it was a morality tale.  That discussion took about 3 minutes.  We then moved on to the real point of the book of Job and had a very uplifting and spiritual discussion.

My point here, of course, is that it didn’t matter whether or not the people in this class felt Job was real history or apocryphal.  Such notions or beliefs had no impact whatsoever on the interpretive meaning of the text or on its potential spiritual applications.  In the end, the question of Job’s historicity didn’t matter.

Different shades of belief are common to any religious tradition.  Mormonism is no exception.  I simply question the stark and rigid dichotomies proposed by Scott and Jason.

It has been far too long since I have posted about Theo1689 — the infamous Canadian Christian apologist who is on a one-man message board mission to convince Mormons of the theological “error of their ways.”

For those unfamiliar with my previous treatment of Theo’s “Bible vs. Mormonism” views please see here, here, here, and here.

Here is Theo’s question:

Why do you believe hat you need to do “works” for salvation, when the Bible repeatedly teaches that salvation is “not by works” (Eph. 2:8-9, 2 Tim 1:9, Tit. 3:5, Rom. 4:1-5, Rom. 9:11,16, etc.)?

This is a very “tried and true” criticism of LDS theology and practice (at least in Evangelical circles), which teaches that in addition to having faith, one must also strive to live a good life in order to “qualify” for Christ’s salvation.

Let’s first take a look a the verses Theo cites (NRSV):

Eph. 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast.

2Tim. 1:9 who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace. This grace was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,

Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.

Rom. 4:1   What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. 5 But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness.

Rom. 9:11 Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose of election might continue, Rom. 9:16 So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.

Again we see that Theo makes a claim that “The Bible” argues for some position yet, at least in this case, he cites only one author:  Paul.  Any student of the New Testament will readily admit that Paul was not a fan of “the law.”  Indeed, it was Paul who led the effort in the early Church to remove the Jewish requirement of circumcision on conversion to Christianity.  Paul, even though himself an educated Jew, was truly the Apostle to the “gentiles” or non-Jews.  In his letter to the Galatians he chastises that congregation for being swayed by so-called “circumcision faction” (Gal. 2:12)  from the Jerusalem Church who, as far as we can tell, were preaching that certain aspects of the Mosaic law be kept as a part of Christian worship.  So, often when Paul is railing against “the law” he is referring to the Law of Moses, and not the simple act of doing good works of kindness charity etc.

It seems clear to me that Paul is not arguing that a Christian should not engage in good works but rather, that according to the theology of Paul, Christ’s salvific efforts nullify the Law of Moses completely.

I don’t believe that Paul would disagree with his contemporary Apostle James (Jam. 2:14-20):

James 2:14   What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. James 2:18   But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. 20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren?

Clearly James is advocating that a Christian’s faith is shown through his/her good works.  Indeed, “faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.”  James’ position is the Mormon position.

After all, Jesus did say “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15)

LDS theology teaches that Christ suffered and died in order to atone for the sins of the world and to enable the physical resurrection of the dead.  This theme runs throughout the entire Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants.  As an act of contrition and as a sign that a person has accepted Christ Mormonism teaches that doing good works is an important part of exercising faith.  The two are inexorably intertwined.

Now, speaking culturally — and not theologically — Mormonism has some issues here.  In my view, Mormon culture is far to concerned with individual behavior rather than the faith that motivates this behavior.  As a result, some Mormons have felt overwhelmed and have taken on themselves an unnecessary spiritual burden.  Fortunately, modern LDS theologians such as Stephen Robinson have begun to address this as have members of the LDS Church’s governing hierarchy.

Again we see here that Theo sets up a Mormon straw man in order to tear it down.  Unfortunately, if Theo would read beyond the writings of Paul and look perhaps, at the words of Jesus or even James, he might see that faith and works go hand-in-hand.  In Christianity they cannot be separated.  Faith should lead to good works and good works in turn, lead back to faith.

Without reservation I can state that Matthew 11:28-30 are my favorite verses in all the Christian canon.

The King James Version (KJV) reads:

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV):

Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

I find these verses inspiring and have, on many occasions, seen people exercise faith in the promise these verses contain. So often, their burdens have been lifted as they have found “rest for [their] souls.”

Readers of this blog know that I view metaphysics as unknowable. This is not to say that metaphysics do not exist; I personally believe that they do. However, if metaphysics do exist, it is impossible for us, as human beings limited to five senses, to discern and state that a particular metaphysical axiom is the Truth. Thus, when I say that I believe in God, for example, I am not stating, axiomatically, that God exists. I am merely stating that according to my own religious experience, I have faith that there is a God. Thus, as I cannot know there is a God, my personal belief compels me to hope there is a God; that there is a purpose to life beyond sheer randomness. I cannot know this, but I hope for it.

The reason I am drawn to these particular verses is that while they may be interpreted in terms of metaphysics, they can also be read as pragmatic.

The simple fact is that the human condition makes all of us “weary” from “carrying heavy burdens.” These burdens may be physical, financial, emotional, or spiritual but for every person they exist. Carrying these burdens is part of being a human being. Thus, these verses apply universally.

Consider verse 29. Jesus invites all to take upon themselves his yoke. The use of the word yoke, of course, refers to the mechanism attached to two animals (usually oxen) when these animals are used to pull heavy loads. Thus, Jesus is inviting individuals to join him in a partnership — to be yoked together with him in the struggle of carrying heavy burdens. This verse also make use of a simple if/then statement. If you take upon the yoke of Jesus, you will find rest.

This is where I see the KJV and NRSV diverge slightly in their meanings. Notice that the KJV invites readers to “learn of [Jesus]” while the NRSV invitation is to “learn from [Jesus].” Through the use of the word of, the KJV implies that simply learning about Jesus, and perhaps developing faith in Jesus — through some sort of metaphysical action — will bring about the ultimate rest and lifting of burden.

Conversely, but subtly, the NRSV translation indicates that listeners/readers should learn from Jesus and implies, but does not explicitly state, that it is the things learned from Jesus that enable a person to “find rest unto their souls.” And what is it, exactly, that Jesus wants listeners to learn from him?; that he is “gentle and humble in heart.” This theme of meekness and humility fits perfectly with the Sermon on the Mount found earlier in Matthew.

I prefer the NRSV translation in this instance because it puts significant onus on the listener/reader to not only learn about Jesus, but to adopt the gentle nature, humility, and meekness of Jesus. Now, I am not saying that the KJV does not encourage the adoption of these traits. However, action on the part of listeners/readers is made a bit more explicit and requisite in the NRSV. Thus, rather than listeners/readers needing to rely on a metaphysical process to bring rest to their souls, the NRSV text requires them to adopt a certain set of traits and characteristics that will bring upon the desired rest. As a Pragmatist, I find this notion incredibly appealing because it is a proposition that can be tested and tried to see if the consequences of adopting Jesus’ qualities does in fact, bring rest to the soul.

Having said that, I cannot discount the importance of hope. When carrying heavy burdens, individuals must maintain hope that their situation can improve. I might add however, borrowing from the words of James, that hope without works is dead. When burdened with emotional, financial, and physical burdens we cannot simply hope that our situation will improve. We must also act. If unemployed, we must actively seek employment. If suffering from emotional or physical stress we must seek out the help of our families, friends, and neighbors. We cannot simply hope for our situations to improve and expect to find rest from our burdens. We must work to overcome our burdens with the encouragement and help of our family and friends.

Too often we are too proud to ask for help when it is genuinely needed. Asking for help requires first, the recognition that we cannot overcome our burdens alone and second, the humility to admit this fact to those who care about us.

Even Jesus, when suffering in the Garden of Gethsemene, asked for the help and support of his friends, the Twelve.

Thus, I believe the message of Jesus here is simple but quite profound: we should not carry our burdens alone. Instead, we should be “gentle and humble in heart” in asking for relief not only from God, but also from our friends, families, congregations, coworkers etc… It is my belief that God most often provides help, not through the miraculous, but through the kindness and charity of those around us.

One of the unfortunate consequences of the marginalization of Mormonism in American culture is the persistence of an “us vs. them” attitude that is pervasive throughout Mormon culture.  From its beginnings, Mormonism faced tremendous religious criticism (as does any new religious tradition) from mainstream Christianity.  This religious criticism subsided (but did not disappear) when the Mormons moved from Illinois to Utah  in an effort to exist in relative isolation.

From 1852 through the end of the 19th century, Mormonism faced its biggest challenge from secular forces who were concerned about both the Mormon practice of polygamy and the political influence of Church leaders within the Utah territory.

In the latter half of the 20th century Mormonism again came under significant attack from so-called Christian “counter-cult” movements (Isn’t it ironic that this link takes you to a domain called Religious Tolerance when the site itself promotes nothing but intolerance?).  Within popular vernacular the word, cult, has incredibly negative connotations and usually conjures up images of Jim Jones and the People’s Temple.  Evangelical Christians are the most likely to marginalize Mormons by labeling them as “cult members” but there are some areas, in the United States at least, where more mainline Christians Churches have joined in on the “Mormonism is a cult” bandwagon.

It is no wonder then, that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints get defensive when their religious beliefs, the policies of their Church, and the Church itself receive criticism.  As a result, Latter-day Saint culture often reflects a black and white worldview that is divided into pro-Mormons and anti-Mormons.  Of course I speak in generalities here.  Not every Latter-day Saint holds to this view but it is pervasive enough throughout Mormon culture — as a remnant of the Mormon past — that I believe it deserves to be addressed.

I would like to think of myself as living proof that such a black/white dichotomy is at best incomplete, and at worst harmful to members of the LDS Church and others ancillary to it.

Critic

I believe there are two major types of LDS critics; those who are critical of particular Church policies and practices, and those who are critical of specific LDS truth claims.  If I am to be considered a Mormon critic, I would fit in the former category as I have no real interest in the veracity of Mormon truth claims.  Granted, when I get together with my Mormon buddies who find such things interesting, we’ll discuss Mormon doctrine critically — meaning we will analyze specific doctrinal truth claims in an academic, rather than a strictly spiritual way.

Frankly, I have no real interest in criticizing Mormon truth claims, even though there are many I don’t personally find plausible (see below).  The same theological and historical criticisms of Mormonism have been around for a long time.  I have nothing to add and even if I did, I have no interest in doing so.

So, while I am not a critic of Mormon truth-claims; I am a critic of some LDS Church policies.  Namely, I vehemently disagree with the Church’s stance on Same-sex Marriage and I have made my views public on several occasions.  Most of my criticism of the Church’s stance came right after the Proposition 8 fallout in 2008.  I have many close gay and lesbian friends and one, in particular, who’s Mormon family disowned him after he “came out” in 2008.  I want to stress that this is not typical of Mormon families.  Most Mormon families with gay or lesbian members struggle with it, but in the end they ultimately accept their son/daughter/sibling despite the fact that Mormon doctrine is clearly opposed to homosexuality.  My open criticism of this policy came as a result of my personal relationships with friends who were deeply hurt by this particular Church position.

Having said that, I become extremely frustrated when people try and label Mormons as “homophobic” or “bigots” etc…  Its just not that simple.  My mother, for example, absolutely adores my gay friend Devan but she supports the Church in its policy.  This is not bigotry.

The other Church policy I have been openly critical of is the one-year waiting period required to receive what is known as a temple sealing if they chose to have a civil ceremony first.  I understand the origins and intent of the policy but at this point in time I feel it does more harm than good.  Additionally, it only applies in the United States (and perhaps Canada).  Most countries require a civil wedding ceremony.  In those countries the Church does not require a waiting period.  To me the current policy is antiquated and counter-productive.  I would not be surprised to see this policy change at some point in the next 5-10 years.

Apostate

Am I an apostate?  My own personal views are rather heterodox and some things I enjoy (in terms of the Word of Wisdom etc…) are certainly heteroprax but I think it is completely inappropriate to call me an apostate. I love attending Church and participating in Church  activities.  Simply put, I like being a Mormon and as I’ve stated above, Mormon truth-claims are really not all that important to me.  Serving within my Mormon community is what matters.

Within the online Mormon community there is an intelligent Mormon apologist named William Schryver.  In particular, Will is incredibly well versed in the issues surrounding Mormonism’s Book of Abraham.  Unfortunately, Will’s style is incredibly confrontational and Will has, on more than a few occasions, discussed those whom he considers to be members of a “fifth column” within the LDS Church.  To my knowledge, Will has never identified me as being a member of this (imaginary) “fifth column” but he has been quite vocal about John Dehlin — the founder of Stay LDS and Mormon Stories — being a part of this (imaginary) “fifth column” movement.

John and I have corresponded through email and I know John’s goal is to help people — like me — who decide they don’t accept some or all of Mormonism’s specific truth-claims find ways to stay Mormon and navigate Mormon culture as a non-believer.

My intention here is not to criticize Will in particular.  Rather, I am being critical of this attitude that exists within Mormon culture.  Quite simply, it can potentially drive people away.  For Will, or anyone else, to claim that heterodox Mormons are part of a conspiracy to change, alter, or possibly even “bring down” the Church only serves to make those with different viewpoints feel unwelcome and unloved.

In my Ward here in Manhattan I encountered no such attitude.  My Bishop knows and trusts me, as do my ward members.  Yes, my views are heterodox, but they are my own.  I am no advocate.

Apologist

In many ways I do consider myself to be a Mormon apologist — or at least a defender who is willing to discredit absurd and idiotic attacks on the LDS Church.  Some of my previous blog posts demonstrate this type of apologetic.  See here, here and here for example.

Granted, I am not trying to defend the historicity of the Book of Mormon or the authenticity of the Book of Abraham — I believe both to be apocryphal.  However, I will defend Mormonism against offensive and absurd attacks.  For example, consider this lovely and insightful commentary which comes to us courtesty of Greg Laden discussing the fact that the State of Utah would like to count Utah residents serving two-year missions overseas or domestically in the 2010 census.  The title of Greg’s post is “Utah wants to count Mormon Missionaries in census.”  The post itself contains this little nugget:

But they can’t, because they don’t freakin’ live in Utah.

But I wish they did. Hey, has anyone noticed a marked increase in these drones from Utah in South Minneapolis lately? What do they think they are goig to accomplish there?

In Greg’s comment section I stated the following:

“Drones from Utah …”

What insightful commentary. These are young men and women who voluntarily, and at their own expense go out and proselyte, yes , but also engage in countless service projects in communities throughout the world.

So you don’t agree with their religion … when they knock on your door just say “no thanks.”

I served a mission for the LDS Church at my own expense.  I spent a large chunk of my mission on the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation where we were involved in many service projects ranging from caring for the sick to assisting in larger community activities.

I wonder when the last time Greg gave up two years of his life, at  a cost of  $400 – 500 per month to provide service to others.  Greg, if you are reading these please chime in.

Anyone who criticizes Mormon missionaries is going to get an earful from me.  As I told Greg, if you aren’t interested just say “no thanks.”  There are a lot of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Subway here in NYC at times, each of them handing out copies of the Watchtower or Awake magazines.  A simple and polite “no thanks” does the trick.  These Jehovah’s Witnesses have a faithful conviction.  I respect them for that.

As far as my academic work on Mormonism is concerned, I have always tried to place Mormon history, theology and practice within its proper context.  There have been times when we have made big mistakes but those mistakes must be understood in context to avoid falling into the trap of presentism.

In truth, I believe I am a loyal critic, a heterodox Mormon, and a defender of my faith tradition.  If there is a fifth column within Mormonism I have yet to receive my membership card.  Maybe it’s time for me to email John Dehlin again…..

On this Mother’s Day I feel compelled to pay tribute to my incredible mother.

My Mother was only 32 when, with five children ranging in age from 2-10, my father (age 36) passed away from a sudden and completely unexpected heart attack. I can only imagine how absolutely terrifying this must have been for my mom – to be left alone to raise five children (4 of which were adopted no less).

Over the years our family faced some significant challenges but my mother always put her children first. She sacrificed her own comfort and desires to provide for the needs of her children. I am the youngest (age 33) of the five children and today, all of my siblings have wonderful families of their own and have become good, kind, and honest human beings – very much as a result of my mother’s sacrifice and her willingness to put our needs above hers.

It is only as I have gotten older that I have realized something else about my mother that is quite extraordinary: her incredible and sincere love for those within the community as well as her absolute commitment to lessening or alleviating the suffering of others.

To this day, my mother actively seeks out those in need of aid and comfort. She is constantly visiting the sick, visiting those in hospice care, or helping young mothers with newborns by caring for their older children or by providing meals.

My mother has consistently extended the hand of fellowship to those who are without friends, to those who feel abandoned, and to those who feel completely alone within this world. There are some who may never have felt love from another human being were it not for my mother’s unconditional acceptance of them and their struggles. My mother cares not about who you are, where you are from, or what mistakes you may have made in this life. She accepts people as they are and lets them know that at the very least, one person sincerely cares for their well-being and recognizes the unique value that exists within them.

My mother is a committed Latter-day Saint and currently serves as president of the Relief Society (Mormonism’s women’s organization) within her local congregation. She has served in this capacity many times over the years. As president, her primary responsibilities are to care for the poor, the sick, and those in need. During the massive flooding in southwest Washington State a few years ago she helped coordinate a massive relief effort that positively impacted literally hundreds of lives by providing the essential needs of shelter and food during this incredibly tumultuous time.

At times I have encouraged my mother to slow down, to relax, and to take time for herself – all, of course, to no avail. I have come to realize that my mother will work to tirelessly serve others until she takes her last breath. That’s just who she is and it is how she will always be.

I believe that the best thing my mother has given — and continues to give – my siblings and me is her example of selfless love and charity. She inspires all of us to be better people, to serve those around us, and to have compassion for those who suffer. Her example and influence will be felt within our family for generations to come.

Mom, on this Mother’s day I want to thank you for who you are, for who you have helped me become, and for the countless hours you have given in service to others. I love you more than you will ever know.

Dear Ed,

It was with great surprise that I saw your comment on Jack Meyer’s Clobberblog. It’s good to see you out there in the blogosphere.

Before writing anything else I want to express my sincere concern for you and your family. I understand you have had significant health problems of late and I hope you are on the path to full recovery.

I had the opportunity to work briefly with your son Jason in 1998 and 1999 when we were both at Safeco in Redmond, WA. I enjoyed working with him and if Jason’s character is any indication, then you must be a fine father. Any criticism contained in this letter is not aimed at you individually. Rather, my concern is with your work, writings, and ministry.

I have written previously about how anti-Mormonism significantly contributed to my academic development. It was through the process of checking claims, evaluating sources, and then drawing my own conclusions that I learned how to think academically. My first exposure to anti-Mormonism was your book “The God Makers” and so I suppose that I have much to thank you for.

I have been a Mormon all my life and, barring some unforeseen circumstance, plan to remain a Latter-day Saint for the remainder of my life. I am, however, mostly a non-believer in the specific truth claims of Mormonism but, in my view at least, that’s all really beside the point. I enjoy attending Church and the fellowship of my fellow Mormons. For the most part, they know I’m a non-believer but I am accepted and loved within the Church community — contrary to the caricature of Mormonism you portray in your work.

I have, over the past few weeks, taken the time to re-browse through both “The God Makers” and “The God Makers II” and have been utterly amazed at how much of “your” research is completely lifted from the work of Jerald and Sandra Tanner. Without “Mormonism: Shadow or Reality” there would have been no “God Makers” and yet, you claim your work to be a “shocking expose” of what the Mormon Church really believes. The Tanners beat you to the punch by a couple of decades it would seem.

Frankly, I’m uncertain how to label of contents of “The God Makers II.” I suppose I could call it research but again, much of the ideas of substance contained within the book (there are a precious few) could have been lifted from the Tanner’s newsletters from that time. Of course, I recognize that in the early 1990s you, along with Bill Schnoebelen, had been seriously criticized by the Tanners for your joint promotion of the so-called Lucifer-God doctrine within Mormonism. The Tanners pretty much ripped you guys apart and I heartily applaud them for it. While I do find much of the Tanner’s work to be sophomoric and simplistic, I must give them credit for being true to their sources (with one notable exception about the First Vision). I have spoken with Sandra several times and found her to be quite pleasant and I was left with the impression that she is a woman of integrity.

Unfortunately, your work lacks integrity. When “The God Makers” was described as “religious pornography”, I felt that to be an apt and fitting characterization.

The problems with your work in “The God Makers” and “The God Makers II” have been well documented elsewhere. However, I feel compelled to draw your attention to your absolute butchering of John Taylor’s statement regarding Joseph Smith. You know the one I”m talking about. To me, this simply shows that you are more interested in shocking the sensibilities of your mostly evangelical readers. Even recently on your blog you repeat:

The Mormons thank God for Joseph Smith, who claimed that he had done more for us than any other man, including Jesus Christ.

You and I both know that this is a complete fabrication.

In any case, I wanted to let you know some of my favorite portions of your work. For the sake of brevity, I’ll keep my list of examples to three.

• Your claim that Mormons are attempting to overthrow the United States Government. I don’t think there’s much more to add here. The sheer idiocy of this notion speaks for itself.

• Your claim that Mormon leadership holds members in tight control and excommunicates anyone who dares to disagree with Church leadership. Well Ed, I’m living proof that this claim is untrue. I have openly critisized the Church for years for its stance against the legalization of gay marriage. Some of my other work takes aim at traditional Mormon orthodoxy. Guess what? I’m still around. No one in Church leadership has ever even mentioned my heterodoxy and it really doesn’t seem to be a problem for anyone. Do I expect to be asked to teach Sunday School? No. But I am very confident that Church leaders are not plotting my excommunication. Feel free to contact them if you have a concern about this.

• Because of the great respect I have for those involved I won’t discuss details but due to a specific chapter in “The God Makers II”, you lost a libel suit against a public figure!!! Do you know how difficult it is to lose a libel suit in the United States — especially when it involves a public person? This is quite an accomplishment and stands as a testament to integrity lacking in your so-called “research.” The fact is, you have been willing to prostitute your good name all in an effort to make Mormonism and its leaders look silly.

The irony of course is that openly mock the beliefs of Latter-day Saints, supposedly in an effort to introduce them to the “real Jesus.” Ed, you are an evangelical — you hate everything from Yoga to Shriner’s hospitals. For you to mock one set of religious beliefs while maintaining your own “mockable” doctrine really strikes me as very odd.

In closing, I do want to thank you for your work as it stands as an incredible example of how NOT to be an honest, rigorous, and thoughtful researcher. This truly does sadden me because as I mentioned before, I’m quite confident that you are a good man.

But, I guess when you have found your shtick, its best to stay with it.

Sincerely,

Seth Payne

For my one or two (thanks Mom) loyal readers I must apologize for the delay in putting this post together.  A paper which I recently presented at the American Academy of Religion’s Mid-Atlantic regional meeting has taken up most of my free time between school and work.  For those of you who have an interest in learning more of my own personal views on Joseph Smith’s teachings about apotheosis, please do read my paper.

In previous posts here and here, I have answered, as best I can, why the Biblical text does not consistently present a form of strict monotheism.  In particular, I have illustrated that early Israelite religion was most likely henotheistic and that strict monotheism came as a result of late theological developments.  This post will focus on Mormonism’s actual teaching on the plurality of gods.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tomorrow I will be presenting a paper at the American Academy of Religion’s Mid-Atlantic regional meeting. The topic is Mormonism’s unique theology of gender.  In my paper, I offer up a perspective on Joseph Smith’s teachings regarding exaltation and sexuality which may seem foreign to some “modern” Latter-day Saints.

Essentially, I argue that Joseph Smith’s teachings — both public and private — as well as his own practice of plural marriage show no indication of celestial procreation.  In my view, Smith’s teachings and practices make much more sense when viewed within the context of individuals becoming part of the larger Abrahamic covenant.  My argument’s strengths are that it relies on contemporary sources and gives them primacy over later recollections of Smith’s teaching.

The biggest challenge to my line of reasoning is the Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt.  Pratt claims that in 1840, Smith explained that celestial offspring was the purpose of plural marriage.  I am skeptical of Pratt’s account for reasons given in the endnotes of my paper.

In any case, if you would like to read the paper in its entirety, you can find it here:

Mormonism and Same-Sex Marriage: Towards a Mormon Theology of Gender

The recent controversy surrounding the Tebow Super Bowl advertisement has given me reason to reflect on the ethics of abortion and I feel motivated to share my thoughts on the subject.

Before doing so, however, I feel it necessary to disclose my absolute disdain for James Dobson and Focus on the Family. Dobson’s anti-gay rhetoric and activities are dangerous and unchristian. I want to be very clear that I do not, in any way, support, endorse, or condone Dobson and his Focus on the Family organization. Of course, my dislike of Dobson goes well-beyond the gay issue as he has shown his religious intolerance by excluding Mormons from supposedly ecumenical prayer activities because, much like Matt Slick, Dobson does not deem Mormons worthy of the name Christian. Jesus ate dinner with prostitutes, tax collectors and sinners but Dobson won’t pray with Mormons. Go figure.

You can find the Tebow ad here.

The Ethical Question

When approaching the question of abortion I believe we must separate the moral question from the political question. We must first examine if abortion is indeed unethical and only then, can we discuss how the matter is to be dealt with in the public square.

It seems that the central relevant issue to the moral question of abortion regards the definition of life, when it begins, and under what circumstances it is morally justifiable to end it with purpose and intent. In the case of abortion, or course, we are dealing with at least two lives: that of the mother and that of the unborn child.

Reasonable people would agree that life has value in itself and as such, is something to be protected and preserved under normal circumstances. Life is unique, it has meaning, and at least in the case of human beings, is self-aware.

The first problem then, when considering the question of abortion is defining the term “life” and then determining, as best we can, when it begins. In the case of a pregnant mother this question is easily answered. She is alive. Her life has value and thus, we have a moral duty to protect her life as best we can.

Determining if an unborn fetus is indeed a “life” is a much more difficult question to address. Both sperm and egg separately represent potential life and when they come together they can eventually produce life, which is easily recognized and valued. However, at what point does this potential life become actual life? I contend that there is no objective and definitive answer to this question. Thus, any conclusion drawn is the result of a subjective definition.

However, we can clearly see the development and growth of the human fetus as it matures inside its mother’s womb. We can observe it becoming less dependent on its mother as it progresses towards birth. At some point, well before birth, the human fetus is capable of surviving outside the mother’s womb – albeit with the miraculous aid of modern medicine. Given these facts, I propose that if a fetus is capable of surviving outside its mother’s womb, it is, for all practical purposes a life and as such, has value.

For the sake of simplicity let us only consider the first three months of a mother’s pregnancy. In this case we have both the life of the mother, and the life – or potential life – of the unborn fetus. As has been mentioned above, it is impossible to determine if the fetus represents life or potential life without introducing subjective definitions. Therefore, it is morally imperative that we give preference in this situation to the life and well being of the mother because we know, without question, that she is “a life.” Given the subjective nature defining “life” it is impossible to employ a universal ethical framework in this type of situation. There are simply too many potential variables at play. Thus, the decision to abort, or not abort, must remain solely with the mother and those whom she chooses to involve in the decision-making process.

Having said that, I am troubled by so-called late-term abortion simply because these aborted fetuses can survive and sustain independent life separate from their mother. But again, I am reluctant to state unequivocally that late-term abortions are universally immoral. There are too many variables at play and this type of difficult choice must remain with the mother, her close associates, and her doctor.

The Political Question

Before continuing, it must be stated that we must operate – in terms of ethics and morality – within the world as it actually is and not as we wish it were. In the real world women seek out abortions. Some, if not most of us would prefer that if a woman is not ready to be a mother, that she not become pregnant. But, life is unpredictable. Teens have sex – too often unsafely. Condoms break. Sometimes birth control pills don’t work. I know of women who, with their tubes tied have become pregnant. I know of men with vasectomies who have impregnated women. Despite our best planning, things don’t always play out the way we hope they would. Again, whether we approve of it or not, some women will always seek out abortions.

Given 1) that we value not only life but quality of life and 2) women will seek out abortions whether legal or not I fully support legal access to medically safe and regulated abortion. I do so for several reasons. First, If a woman chooses to have an abortion, I would rather that she do so in a manner that protects her health and life. My academic advisor taught at Vanderbilt during the 1970’s and was a close associate of the Dean of the Medical school. He taught both pre and post Roe v. Wade and told me that before the Roe v. Wade decision botched “back alley” abortions were one of the most common emergencies seen in the hospital. Post Roe v. Wade, these emergencies all but disappeared. Granted, this is purely anecdotal evidence but I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the account.

It seems to me then, that those who oppose abortion universally fail to fully account for the value and well being of the mother. They promote a lose-lose situation wherein both the fetus and the mother experience incredible harm. Legal abortions – at the very least – protect the life and well being of the mother. If the goal is to protect and cherish life, it is better to protect the known life of the mother rather than harm both known and potential life by forcing women to seek abortion in unsafe conditions.

I believe there are a few things we can all agree on:

1) Women will seek abortions whether legal or not.

2) Abortion as a form of birth control is morally ambiguous at best.

3) It is in the best interest of both mother and fetus to promote an environment where abortions occur less frequently.

So, how do we achieve this? I have a few thoughts:

1) We educate young people (and adults) about safe sex and promote both abstinence and the proper use of birth control.

2) We promote alternatives to abortion by making adoption a viable option. We streamline the adoption process and provide counseling and care for both the birth mother and the adoptive parents. We eliminate the prohibitive costs of adoption.

3) We avoid the extremes and employ a more balanced approach to the issue by dropping the “us vs. them” rhetoric that so often characterizes this debate.

4) We allow states to regulate abortion procedures to ensure that they are safe and that mothers are fully aware of the risks, both physical and psychological of participating in an abortion. Also, it is absurd to allow teenage girls to obtain abortions without parental notification. Parents have a right to know if their child is going to undergo a major medical procedure. Of course, there are circumstances such as incest where such notification is problematic but this is why we have a judicial system. Laws can be written in such a way as to protect both parental rights and the interests of pregnant minors.