The War

I recently became very frustrated in reading the back and forth between two friends in the Mormon History community. One is a believer; one isn’t. They were discussing a certain historical incident, the 1832 attack on Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet, and Sidney Rigdon, his assistant, at the Johnson family farm near Kirtland, Ohio.

There is no reason to go into the specifics, but I noticed a certain dynamic at work and realized that it is a dynamic that is played out over and over again in the Mormon Studies arena.

Why is it so difficult for the historians, whether they are amateur or professional, to carry out a civil and respectful conversation and arrive together at a consensus or, at least, a near consensus?

Let me start by giving the answer, and then I’ll work my way through my reasoning.

The answer is: The stakes are too big. (more…)

Joining Nahum in the ranks of the impotent, facts apparently have little power – especially when they are used to counter misinformation. This article from The Boston Globe relates specifically to political belief and voter behavior, but it shouldn’t be too difficult to see the correlation to other realms of belief. From the article:

Most of us like to believe that our opinions have been formed over time by careful, rational consideration of facts and ideas, and that the decisions based on those opinions, therefore, have the ring of soundness and intelligence. In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information.

Is the LDS Church making a concerted effort to educate and teach tolerance to its members on the issue of illegal immigration, albeit indirectly? Consider: on Saturday the Deseret News published a lengthy article addressing “myths” of illegal immigration that largely debunked common notions of the country losing billions to immigrants via unpaid taxes, lost jobs, healthcare, welfare, etc. Then today KSL had an editorial endorsing Salt Lake City police chief Chris Burbank who has come under intense criticism for his negative assessment of Arizona’s new law.

This may absolutely be a coincidence but I doubt it. Historically the church has used its news outlets as a way to have its views heard. Officially the church has been cautious in its comments but has always emphasized compassion and understanding for “millions of people.” I think it’s safe to assume they aren’t referring to pissed off tea partiers angry that their lettuce-picking job went to an illegal immigrant.

After seeing the church on the wrong side of the Prop 8 issue (yup, I’m still devastated and I don’t think I’ll ever get over it) it’s so heartening to see them take the compassionate track on an issue with some of the most vulnerable in our society demonized, even called “mules” by the governor of Arizona recently. That said, I’m still disappointed over the church’s obsessive paranoia on speaking out on any issue except gay marriage. I don’t understand how a church with the name Jesus Christ in its title doesn’t have an “official position” on war, torture, healthcare, the environment, the death penalty, and yes, illegal immigration. Moral issues go beyond right-wing boilerplate like gays and abortion, and the church’s silence on these issues is perplexing. Then again, perhaps I’m foolish for thinking I know how the church would come down on these topics that strike me as morally important.

When I stopped going to church, it was a decision based upon years of wrestling with its truth-statements.  I had stopped believing.  I didn’t leave angry.  I didn’t want my tithing back.  In fact, I worried about the sociality and opportunity to grow through service that I was missing by not remaining active on some level.  I believed that the church offered social and spiritual benefits that gave people a sense of purpose, ethics, and comfort.  I still felt that being raised in the church can make bad people good and good people better.  Though many of my Mormon friends and family members have sinced worked very hard to dissuade me of this notion, I still tend to believe it. (more…)

Last night PostSecret included another Mormon-related card. This one is interesting in that it generated quite a bit of searching for the blog behind the “Faking It” sentiment. A number of links showing up in the search engines turn out to be malware, but the actual link is listed here after the jump… (more…)

I have heard Obadiah say, “I choose to believe.”  I have also heard other Mormons speak of their faith as a choice.  Like Obadiah, these other Mormons seem to be well read enough to recognize their religion is not without historical or theological problems, but they still feel there is sufficient evidence in their lives to make the choice of belief.  None of these Mormons deny the contribution of environmental influences to that choice, but only insist that such influences are not fully determining, and, therefore, do not render the act of choosing a mere delusion of agency.

(more…)

It’s not like I wanted to be a monster. Often one arrives here unwillingly, organically. In my case, I served an LDS mission among evangelical Christians and found their critiques of my tradition fairly easy to fend off. At some point in my early twenties I wanted to become a “servant of my Father in Heaven” by becoming a competent defender of my tradition. Unfortunately, in Mormonism, as one ties down one loose end, five more pop up in the process. For me, as the years rolled by and I studied more and more, the tapestry of my tradition didn’t just unravel—it dissolved. (more…)

Interesting article in Nature this week reporting on Italian researchers and their findings with brain surgery affecting spiritual experiences. (more…)

I have a problem with the assertion that one way of knowing is superior to another way of knowing.

The “spiritual” way of knowing is claimed as a form of experience, but of what kind is this experience if it is not had through the five senses?  How can we be sure that a spiritual substance has moved through us delivering its own special brand of experience instead of the experience being produced by uncommon brain activity brought about through a particular neurochemical admixture.  It seems certain that certain people can produce these experiences at will (either through training or by means of a genetic predisposition), but why is this means of perception unavailable as an autonomic function to the majority of humanity?  (more…)