Defining the Church Part II: Don’t Know Much about History

Mormons are proud of their history. So proud, they even do crazy things, such as dress up in clothes from the 1800’s and pull wooden handcarts across the plains. Members love to tell the tales of how the Church came into being and other faith-promoting histories. Even outside of church membership, the remarkable, and often uniquely intriguing Mormon history draws much attention.

Church history is also a source of conflict among Mormon counter-cultures. The most unsettling criticisms are often based on historical scholarship. For many Church members, the doctrines of the Gospel and the history of the Church are seen the same thing. Even discovering some minor aspect of history which offsets a member’s flawless view of Mormonism can be very challenging. Critics also use history as a standard for doctrinal accuracy. Church members and critics alike exploit Mormon history as a foundation on which gospel doctrines are able to stand, or upon which they crumble.

Much of Mormon belief is founded on historical events, namely, the restoration of the Church through Joseph Smith. In response, historians have meticulously scrutinized this man’s life. Unsurprisingly, dozens of published volumes cover his life. It is impossible to find one free of bias, for either the author believes Joseph Smith to be a prophet, or does not. Their respective beliefs are undoubtedly reflected accordingly.

Another source of history-based contention is the Book of Mormon. This book stands as a record of religious experiences among the peoples of the American continent from about 600 B.C. until 400 A.D. Many lives are dedicated to historical, anthropological, and archeological study to either prove or disprove this book’s authenticity. Predictably, tomes of “evidence” supporting both sides of the argument have been uncovered.

I am not a historian and do not pretend to be. I like history, and think we can all gain from studying those came before us. We learn from their mistakes and their breakthroughs. Nevertheless, history is not an appropriate foundation upon which faith or doctrine can be built or judged. For example, I try to read the Book of Mormon as a religious book, not a historical text. I may believe the events contained in that book are based on a true historical foundation, but I do not believe that historical accuracy matters, from a doctrinal perspective. Such books are written for a different purpose.

It is not my intention to be an apologist for Mormon belief. If it seems like that, I’m sorry (oops, there goes the apologizing again!). But, to comprehend Mormon history more easily, I like to put history into two categories. First, there is factual history, or historical events. For instance: World War II officially came to an end in the Pacific on August 15, 1945. Second, there is interpretive history. An example would be: The Japanese surrendered to the Americans for fear that the Russians would move in. There are many historians who believe this, and it may well be true. Nevertheless, it is a historical hypothesis based on pieces of evidence that historians are able to uncover.

Not all of Mormon history is pretty. The same is true for any religion. I would guess that the same could be said about our own life histories as well. Yet still, history is a wonderful learning tool that I hope we will all continually use. It will rightfully forever be a significant part of Mormonism. However, in our attempt to define “the Church,” I hope it can be seen as a component, and not as a foundation.

Next Week: Is There a Doctrine the House?

Defining the Church Part I: We the People

This week, I will begin a three-part piece entitled “Defining the Church.” Often, when people make reference to “The Church,” they are referring to different aspects. I view the Church as having three unique characteristics which make up what it is. When people talk about “The Church,” they are likely referring to one or more of these factors.

The symbol of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is its members. The late President Hinckley once told of being approached by a minister from another Christian church. The minister asked President Hinckley why the Mormons don’t use the cross as a symbol of their faith, and since they don’t use it, what is the symbol of worship for Mormons. In response President Hinckley answered: “…the lives of our people must become the only meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship."

Whether church members like it or not, this is true. Most of my work and school circles (outside of Utah) have consisted of very few Mormons (if any). Due to this, I find I am generally identified immediately as “The Mormon.” One friend even used to call me her “second favorite Mormon.” However, soon thereafter her “favorite Mormon” moved away, thus giving me the opportunity for promotion. Every time I saw her I was greeted by “my new favorite Mormon!” Just for reference, if any of my friends who know me as “Mormon” are reading this, I do have another name. It is Nils.

Another friend used to joke about me. A missionary companion, he would often tell me of fictitious teaching experiences when a young person, who was about to become a member of the Church, would ask a question that simply could not be answered: “If Elder Bergeson is a member of the Church, can it still be true?” It has been said that there is some truth in every lie.

I can feel better knowing that I am not alone. Either fortunately or unfortunately, all Church members are the reference by which their non-member friends and acquaintances define the Church. If they have had enough positive experiences with Mormons, generally they view them favorably. I have had many experiences when people, upon finding out I am Mormon, tell me “Mormons are some of the best people I know.” I tell them thanks, and that I let them know at the next big meeting. Other times, the response has not been so favorable.

A former Mormon Peace Corps volunteer who served in Romania told us her story of when she arrived in the country. She had not told anybody of her religion, but she was from Utah. Not long after arriving, one of the staff members took her aside and had a serious talk with her. She was told that as a Peace Corps volunteer, she was not to participate in proselytizing activities. They made her feel very uncomfortable and scared to participate fully in her religion, all without her even revealing her religion. Talk about guilty by association. Fortunately, Emily and I did not meet the same negative attitudes, and we were actually encouraged to participate actively in our Church life (of course, as Peace Corps volunteers we don’t engage in formal proselytizing, but then again, no Mormons do, save the full-time missionaries).

Mormons, like it or not, the world has got their eye on you. People know who you are, and see you as the symbol of Mormonism. I want to know how you feel about this. Is it accurate? As for non-members or former Mormons, please tell me your thoughts on this matter. How much of your definition of Mormonism is based on people you know who participate? What experiences have you had with Mormons in the past which have greatly influenced your perception of them, either for good or bad?

Next Week: Don’t Know Much about History

Mormon Thinking in "Mormon Times"

On Tuesday, August 19th, Mormon Thinking was featured in the weekly column, "Bloggernacle Back Bench," authored by Emily W. Jensen from the Mormon Times (affiliate of the Deseret News). Take a look and see what you think! Thanks to Emily Jensen for writing about the blog!

How to Lose Friends and Irritate People

I recall a priceless missionary experience – My companion and I left the apartment one morning and were immediately approached by two Russian “Babuskas” (VERY old women). It was obvious they had something important to tell us. I greeted them and at once one responded: “Boys! You need to know that the book you read wasn’t written by God. It was written by a man who was possessed by the DEVIL!”

I thought this was an odd conversation starter, but being friendly and curious, I questioned them as to what they meant. They said they were missionaries from another church, and during our brief conversation, they frequently made mention of our foolishness for reading a book of the devil. Finally I cut them off with a question. “So, you seem to be familiar with the Book of Mormon. I take it you have read it?”

“NEVER!” they cried with gusto. “We would NEVER read a book written by the devil!!”

Another post-mission experience – It was General Conference time, and together with some returned missionary friends, I attended a couple of sessions in the Conference Center. For those who are familiar with this event, you are aware of the circus-like element which accompanies this otherwise peaceful religious gathering. Many protesters, usually from other churches, come from near and far to express, on behalf of God, His obvious displeasure with Mormons. To ensure their message is heard, they adopt various colorful methods of sharing their feelings. Some yell, others silently display scripture-covered billboards strapped to their backs, and others use creative visual aids such as burning effigies of church leaders. Literally thousands of Mormons pass them each day, but most ignore them. Despite their collective effort, they don’t seem to win many converts or sympathizers. As we walked past them, I turned to my friend and said: “We had a hard enough time getting people to listen to us even when we were polite!”

The moral of these two stories is this: People do not react well to being told they are wrong. And this goes for everybody. If you want to have any type of influence in the eyes of another, don’t go out of your way to tell them how wrong they are, either verbally or non-verbally. When somebody finds out I go to church and rolls their eyes, they lose some of my respect. Family members who don’t go to church don’t appreciate hints that they might not be able to see their friends in heaven, the masked invitations to activities, or the periodic scriptural passages taped to the bathroom mirror. And the list goes on…

I don’t think that we are unable to respect the beliefs of others. I believe the real problem comes from our own delusions of grandeur. We subconsciously feel that others are yearning to have our wisdom imparted upon them. Jesus Christ said “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” We recognize the meaning of not passing judgment on other people, but perhaps He was also telling us not to judge ourselves. If we judge ourselves as superior, supposing that others have never thought about the same issues that we have, and pass premature judgment on our own ultimate eternal standing before God, then perhaps we have broken this commandment.

I would love to hear your opinions.

Ebony and Ivory

In Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith, Anakin Skywalker says to Obi-Wan Kenobi: “If you’re not with me, you’re my enemy!” To this, Obi-Wan replies: “Only a Sith deals in absolutes.” He realizes that by taking this view, Anakin has become hopelessly corrupted by extremism. Soon after seeing this movie, I was in an institute class where the teacher used a similar phrase in reference to the Gospel: “If you are not with us, you are against us.” I suddenly sat upright, and felt myself reaching for my lightsaber, realizing that the Sith must have infiltrated the Church Education System.

After realizing that I left my lightsaber at home (I do have one, and yes, I have battled many a Sith Lord – see picture below), I pondered this concept, and realized how this statement of “absolute” can be very misleading. It is a concept embraced by those who prefer to see the world in black and white. Black and white thinking is what leads many people to extremism, fundamentalism, racism, and all those other horrible “isms” that plague our world. By putting people into one of two categories, such as either right-wing or left-wing, religious or heathen, saved or damned, patriot or traitor, etc., it gives people little room to express any individual reservations which might lie outside either extreme.

At the same time, it can be used to express that some facts are either true or false. For instance, the existence of God has an element of absolute to it – either a supreme being does exist, or one does not. Though the nature of that fact may be disputable and unknowable, the fact itself has an answer.

To further complicate the issue, there are biblical origins to this concept. In Luke 11:23, Jesus Christ says “He who is not with me is against me…” However, in Mark 9:40 this is expressed differently: “who ever is not against us is for us.” These two similar passages convey very different ideas. Understanding context is vital.

Mormonism, like all other religions, is often faced by this confusion of extremism and truth. In Doctrine and Covenants 1:30, Jesus Christ claims that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is “the only true and living Church upon the face of the whole earth.” This scripture is often erroneously paraphrased as “the only true Church.” To many, both Mormon and non-Mormon, this statement portrays a sense of extremism, that the Mormons are right, and all others are wrong. There are two major mistakes in this thinking. The first is the drop of the adjective “living.” These are not two separate characteristics of the Church. “True and living” is in this regard a single adjective, describing the nature of this church and why it is true. The second is the belief that being the only true and living church, that all others must be false and dead. If Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior of mankind, and other Christians believe it also, both have a similar belief in the same truth. If different churches, peoples, groups, etc., all share a majority of common beliefs or interests, then it is impossible to say that only one is completely right and the others are all completely wrong. In short, no Church, individual, or any entity can claim sole possession of truth.

Within the world of Mormonism, this same confusion often leads to the struggle between those who believe that the Church of Jesus Christ is founded in truth, and those who do not. With both sides guilty of trying to persuade the other using arguments based on extremism rather than truth, my question for this week is this: Can these two groups accept each other on equal grounds, and if so, how can this be done?

The Taxonomy of Mormonism

There are many species of Mormon human, or Homo mormonius, which include Mormons, non-Mormons, ex-Mormons, Jack Mormons, Post-Mormons, and Molly Mormons to name a few. In addition, there are various sub-species, which include active members, inactive members, less-active members, and hyper-active members.

Like every religious, social, or cultural genus, there is a great amount of diversity within the Mormon religious and cultural community. There are many members who have grown up in the Church, have attended Mormon religious services and have participated in the church culture for their entire lives. There are many who join the Church later in life and find that the Church represents the answers to life they have been seeking. There are others still who come to the conclusion that they do not believe in the doctrines of the Gospel and/or do not wish to participate in church-related activities. There are other members who become so caught up in the Church that nothing else has any significance in their lives, and they limit their worldview to the finite Mormon universe.

However, with this spectrum of diversity within the Mormon family, certain species unfortunately come into conflict with one another from time to time. In general, the greatest schism exists between those who have chosen to be active and participating members of the Church, and those who have chosen not participate. By the sheer nature of this argument, both groups feel they are in possession of greater truth, and at times may demonstrate feelings of superiority towards the other group.

Though I am not a resident of Utah, I spent most of my childhood in this predominantly Mormon state. During my formative years, I was not an “active Mormon” and thus found myself to be a religious minority. Since I did not share the same faith as many of my Mormon peers, I was often quizzed on my (lack of) faith, scorned, or rebuked for my deficient desire to participate in the religion that many valued so dearly. Together with my non-Mormon friends, we would snicker from the sidelines as we watched our Mormon contemporaries participate in what we thought was fruitless worship.

Later on, I would embrace Mormonism as I learned more and determined that it was a spring of truth that I wanted in my life. Suddenly, the Mormons received me with enthusiasm, claiming a miracle had occurred, while many of the same non-Mormon friends to whom I had been connected suddenly treated me as if I had fallen, and had been brainwashed by religion.

While living in California, a non-Mormon friend told me stories of spending time in Salt Lake City. He was amused by the fact that the community so naturally and willingly polarized itself. Both were visible and obvious, with the Mormons openly showing their pride in their religion, while the non- or inactive Mormons (most often the youth) went to great lengths to appear as “un-Mormon” as possible, even adopting extreme styles of physical appearance. In this way, they were symbolically showing their perceived freedom from the Mormons.

Why is it that these two groups tend to fail in seeking common ground? We will address this question further next week. Until then, I would love to hear what you think about it.