Jonah,

I wanted to move your question here because I think its an important one and I don’t want it to get lost inside the other two conversations growing within the original thread about feminist Mormonism on Patheos. It may end up with just the two of us talking, but that’s fine. I’m intrigued by the question and interested in seeing where the conversation leads us.

Your question was about if it more important for us to engage in self-discovery or to engage self-transcendence? Forgive me if my paraphrase is inaccurate. It was longer and probably a little more complex than that, so please correct and clarify as needed.

I have already answered your question elsewhere, but let me expand upon that answer by providing some personal information, which I hope will serve as an anecdotal example to support my thesis.

I have had two wives and a brother tell me I am a narcissist. These are important people to me. They know me more intimately than most, and the accusation troubled me. I don’t have the personality that allows me to blithely reject their judgment, but I do nonetheless have the sense that their judgment is somehow flawed. Perhaps this is born of a natural desire to exonerate myself and stand innocent of the accusation, but I don’t think so. I don’t think so because I also have a sense that I may not be innocent and the sense that the question of my innocence depends upon what it means to be a narcissist.

So my mind naturally turned to examine what they might have meant by the accusation. The second wife wasn’t familiar with the word, but she read it in a journal the first wife had written in rehab and it stuck. They understand the term to refer to a self-love that prevents one from caring about others. The accusation was meant by both of them to hurt rather than to instruct, so I think it reasonable for me to see the accuracy of their accusation as damaged by the motivation behind it. My brother, on the other hand, understands the term differently than it is understood in popular parlance. Nevertheless, I don’t know if he is accusing me of being unconditionally selfish or if he is employing the term as metaphor, drawing an analogy between me and the Greek youth who fell in love not with himself, but with a mediated (and, therefore, inauthentic) image of himself. He gets cagey when I have tried to discuss the subject with him, so I am not certain as to the nature of his accusation. As to the intent behind it, I suspect it too was meant to hurt rather than instruct, but I cannot be sure.

Understanding human nature allows me to understand that I am genetically predisposed to be self-interested, but not just self-interested. I am, as all humans are, more complex than that in that I am also genetically predisposed to suspend my self-interest (at least temporarily) in the interest of another or to see my self-interest and conjoined with the interest of another. Am I selfish? I am. But am I selfish to an extent beyond that to which I am innately predisposed. I don’t think so. But if this denial is merely self-protection, if I am, in fact, selfish to an unnatural degree, to an unhealthy degree, then that would most likely a product of my environment. It would also be something with real moral weight and something I should struggle to transcend. But, let’s continue on to the other sense of narcissism.

After a great deal of painful introspection, I have come to the conclusion that I am a narcissist in the metaphorical sense of the word. I don’t, however, see myself as born this way, genetically predisposed to invent, adopt, and protect an inauthentic self-image. (I don’t think anyone is. I can’t see the evolutionary pay-off for such thing.) As I stated elsewhere, I grew up in the paradoxical nexus of feelings of inadequacy and delusions of grandeur, and what is the narcissist but one who doesn’t know who he is or what his place in the world might be? I suspect those questions of identity are answered for most of us by our environment, but I also believe there can exist simultaneously other environmental forces that interfere with the transmission of that hypnopaedic message of self-identification, producing sometimes the psychic dilemma: “Am I shit or am I God?”

I don’t see this as true for everyone. Sure, everyone suffers moments of self-doubt, but this doubt, I think, is more particular than universal, manifesting itself in questions like, “Am I doing the right thing?” not “Am I worthy of love and respect?” Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the people I know who seem to have a strong clear sense of themselves really don’t. But if everyone is plagued with the latter kind of self-doubt, then that would imply a nativist origin, and as I said before, I can’t see the evolutionary pay-off for a species to be born to such a predisposition. Of course, this psychic dilemma could be instead a social meme that is passed down generationally to one extent or another through social interaction and not through our DNA. Whatever the case may be, I don’t feel understanding the origin of the dilemma is all that important.

What is important is that I gained a valuable insight about myself that I don’t regret despite the fact that the acquisition and possession of it was painful in the extreme. I had thought of myself as someone with a strong, clear sense of self and I was ashamed to discover how much of that “self” was role-playing. I was also deeply embarrassed by the thought that others had seen it before I did. I didn’t want to be that guy. Not at my age.

I hope I am not misunderstood here as spouting New Age, self-help bullshit. I don’t expect to know my authentic, original kernel-self before I die. No one can do that. I also don’t care about discovering what the forces were that prevented me from organically acquiring a strong, clear sense of myself. I simply care about examining each aspect of me I have carried with me for so many years, determining if it is authentic, and casting it aside if it is not.

My leaving the church was in some sense part of this process. I am not saying that the church made me inauthentic, but I was inauthentic while I was in the church. And that fact makes irrelevant, at least for me, the discussions we have had about staying engaged with the church in order to exert change from within. That’s not me. I am not an agent for social or moral change. I liked the costume once, but I took it off. It didn’t fit. I know there are people who are sincere and effective agents for social and moral change. I’m just not one of them and I value that discovery about myself.

The comments I made about Mormon feminism specifically and feminism generally are in some sense part of this process. In years past, I would have bent over backwards to be seen as fair-minded about the repression of women by men. It wouldn’t have felt like an act to me. It would have felt like a true display of my fair-mindedness, or rather of what I perceived others to define as fair-mindedness. My opinions on the subject today may be flawed, but I am no longer going to measure my words in order to be socially acceptable. I am instead energized by the argument the expression of those opinions produced. It is a valuable argument that offers to persuade me to refine my opinions. I would be a fool to avoid it for the sake of maintaining “polite discourse.” Those who know me and love me will continue to love me despite my boorishness. Those who can’t get past it, didn’t love me to begin with, so fuck ‘em.

I have spoken of the compensatory habit I have of speaking my thoughts out loud so I could hear how they sounded and in hearing, discovering if they are rationally sufficient. This habit is in a weird way helpful to this process of self-discovery. My writing this now is also my way of hearing my own thoughts about having been accused of narcissism, and thus, in some strange and ironic sense, a part of this process.

I keep speaking of these activities as being only “in some sense” a part of this process because I don’t want to over-determine the origin, nature, and purpose of these activities.

So back to your question: “Is it more important that we seek to understand ourselves or that we seek to transcend ourselves?” It seems to me this question poses a false dichotomy. I do not see these two struggles as mutually exclusive. I see them instead as roughly sequential, while also being recursive rather than linear.

At first, I have felt angry, ashamed, and depressed by the discovery that I am not the cinematic image I had created for myself. I think it took me a few years to get past it, but now I feel liberated and something close to exultant. The opportunity to unpack the authentic “me” by divesting the inauthentic could end up being both a gift of self-discovery and of self-transcendence.

How could it ever be an either/or proposition?

Nahum

Last Sunday’s General Conference address by Elder Boyd K. Packer caused, in the words of LDSLiving.com, “quite the stir in nonmember communities.”  It seems to have caused quite a stir in the LDS community as well (see this posting on “The Times and Seasons” discussing the talk as an example).  Then came word Wednesday that the official transcript of the discourse had been published, with key (and controversial) passages altered in an apparent attempt to tone them down (see here and here and here for analytical takes on the changes).  Most commentators take the changes made to Elder Packer’s published version to signal official disapproval of Packer’s word choices, and an attempt by the Church to officially distance itself from some of Packer’s statements.  While this is certainly a possibility, I believe another interpretation is possible, one grounded on historical episodes in the Church’s past.

Even in the days before television and the internet, Church leaders have struggled with the problem of speaking plainly to Church members, while at the same time knowing that words spoken in General Conference and other formal settings would be recorded and broadcast to non-members around the world.  President Brigham Young discussed this problem in 1857 when addressing a group of Saints in Salt Lake City’s “Bowery”:

“Our Sermons are read by tens of thousands outside of Utah.  Members of the British Parliament have those Journal of Discourses, published by brother Watt; they have them locked up, they secrete them, and go to their rooms to study them, and they know all about us” (JD 5:99).

This recognition presented a problem to Church leaders — how to speak freely to Church members, while avoiding the controversy that would come from those outside the Church, who may not be familiar with Church doctrine and practices, and thus misunderstand what was being taught?  And how to speak the “hard doctrines” to members, while avoiding the ridicule from those unaccustomed and unfamiliar with these deep theological ideas?

Brigham Young solved the problem by maintaining tight control over what was published outside Utah.

“Brother Heber says that the music is taken out of his sermons when brother Carrington clips out words here and there; and I have taken out the music from mine, for I know the traditions and false notions of the people.  . . . In printing my remarks, I often omit the sharp words, though they are perfectly understood and applicable here: for I do not wish to spoil the good I desire to do [abroad].  Let my remarks go to the world in a way the prejudices of the people can bear, that they may read them, and ask God whether they are true” (JD 5:99-100).

Brigham Young thus employed editorial license to walk the balance between speaking to Church members while simultaneously knowing that his words, his “sharp words”, might be misunderstood or cause more harm than good among non-members.  By altering the sermons before publication, he watered down the passages that might create controversy and ill-will.

A similar situation occurred with President Gordon B. Hinckley when he was asked by a San Francisco Chronicle reporter if he believed that man could become like God:

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?
A: I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about.
Q: So you’re saying the church is still struggling to understand this?
A: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. Knowledge, learning, is an eternal thing. And for that reason, we stress education. We’re trying to do all we can to make of our people the ablest, best, brightest people that we can.

President Hinckley realized that his words would create ill-will among the non-Mormon community if he forthrightly (and honestly) admitted that the LDS Church has, as one of its core doctrines, the idea that man can become gods.  So, he soft-pedaled his answer in order to avoid that controversy.

(more…)

The upcoming 30-minute documentary following Sunday’s General Conference addresses the problem of pornography “consumption” by members of the LDS Church.  There is data to support this concern:  In a February 2009 analysis of anonymised credit card receipts, Utah ranked first in porn “consumers” in the nation, with 5.47 of every thousand homes with broadband access subscribing to porn.  This is more than double the number of users in the neighboring states of Idaho and Montana (1.98/1.92 subscribers per thousand), and in the same subscription neighborhood as Alaska (5.03/thousand) and Mississippi (4.30/thousand).

But why is porn consumption so high in Utah?  With its predominantly Mormon culture, one would expect that overall usage would be fairly benign, on par perhaps with Utah’s neighbors.  What is behind this high demand?  Certainly the Mormon Church itself is concerned, having addressed the use of pornography in most General Conferences over the past ten years, as well as numerous Priesthood and Relief Society lesson manuals.  Most discussions of pornography use by Church leaders refer to it as an “addiction”, used primarily by men, and Sunday’s upcoming documentary will frame it in similar terms. (more…)

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.

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…)

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…)

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…)