To everyone who wants prayer in American public schools

To everyone who wants prayer in American public schools: I say fine. That's a great idea. In fact, it would be much more convenient, especially for the dhuhr, if it were led by school officials. That way, no students would have to worry about drawing attention to themselves when they take out their individual prayer mats at whatever time they deem best. After the recitation of adhan and iqama over the public address system, the gym would probably be the best place to gather for school prayer. That way, everyone can say the prayer together and no one will feel left out. There could even be markings on the gym wall to ensure that everyone knows the exact direction to Mecca.

What's that you say? You don't want to take part in these prayers? I will remind you that Allah's mercy is great for those who believe in him and obey, but he has little patience for infidels. Nevertheless, you will not be forced to take part in school prayer. You may sit around the edges of the gym and watch. Everyone is free to participate or not. There's no need to feel you are being discriminated against, just because you choose not to take part in the historic American tradition of school prayer.

You're still not satisfied with this arrangement? I thought you were the one who wanted school prayer in the first place! Oh, I see... you only want school prayer in the manner of your religion. Well, I'm sorry to say that not everyone believes in your religion, and we can't have school prayers for every possible religion! That would be ridiculous! Why don't you just pray silently to your own god while everyone else is reciting the school prayer?

Still not good enough? Okay, how about this compromise. Instead of trying to shove any particular religion into public schools, why don't we just focus on educating the students instead? Let's not have an official school prayer for any religion. That way, no religion gets special treatment. No one needs to feel offended, embarrassed, or left out. You can pray to your own god or gods, on your own, whenever you like, and everyone else can do the same if they choose to do so. It's too bad you're not okay with the school prayer solution I suggested earlier, because it would bring glory to Allah and would be really convenient, but I suppose I can live with the compromise.

Now that I think about it, I guess the compromise is more in line with the First Amendment, anyway. No school prayer means your children and mine will not be discriminated against for abstaining from a prayer they disagree with. It means your children and mine will not be forced to sit awkwardly and silently through a prayer they disagree with. It means no official state endorsement of a religion you or I disagree with. That works for me. Doesn't it work for you?

A modest dress code proposal

Stolen directly from Dissenting in Part: a BYU student asks that the university mandate school uniforms because the current dress code "obviously [is] not strict enough."

I think the student's suggestion of standard-issue BYU T-shirts and pants to enforce modesty is a good one, but the problem with this suggestion is that it doesn't go far enough. Obviously there's no modesty problem with men (except for the fact that the modesty problem is all in their minds), so men should be allowed to wear whatever kind of BYU T-shirt they choose. Women should be required to garb themselves from head to toe in a burqa, lest any exposed skin accidentally titillate an unsuspecting male student, teacher, or General Authority. The sale of BYU burqas could be a great source of revenue for the school during these tough economic times. And I know plenty of men who grew up in cultures where they had this dress code, and they loved it. It's a win-win-win situation all around.

Main Street Plaza

I just noticed that my last post was highlighted over at Main Street Plaza. Thanks, chanson! For anyone who doesn't know already, MSP is a community for anyone interested in Mormonism, and most of the posts provoke good thought and discussion. If you like my blog, I think you'll like MSP as well. Give it a look!

Avoiding personal apostasy

In this month's Ensign, there is an article entitled Avoiding Personal Apostasy. It's pretty much what you would expect. It addresses none of the real problems with church doctrine, history, or evidence. It assumes that those who leave the church do so because they want to sin, they are offended, or they find fault with church leaders. Naturally, any substantial criticism of the church or its leaders can't possibly be true, and must be an indication of personal apostasy which came about for one of the above reasons.

I won't even bother addressing the majority of the article, except to say that the reason for my unbelief, and the unbelief of many others I know, has nothing to do with anything Elder Claudio D. Zivic assumes must be the cause. As with everything I believe or disbelieve in life, for me it comes down to evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and in my view, the evidence for the LDS church's extraordinary claims is woefully insufficient. The only way I could hold a literal belief in the LDS church would be for me to decide ahead of time that I would believe, and then twist and interpret the evidence to fit the belief. I did that for long enough to know that I can't do it forever. Plenty of people are able to do it, but I am not one of them.

What concerns me more is the paragraph in which Elder Zivic casually dismisses the possibility that the LDS church is in error. In fact, he goes even further, dismissing the possibility that the LDS church could ever be fundamentally in error. He says,

We need not be concerned about the possibility of another apostasy of the Church of Jesus Christ. We have the privilege of living in the dispensation of the fulness of times. This gospel dispensation, which began with the Prophet Joseph Smith, is the last one before the Second Coming of the Savior.

First, people have been saying this kind of thing about the end of the world for millennia. Christians have been saying it ever since Jesus was said to have preached that the kingdom of God was near at hand, and that many within the sound of his voice would not taste of death before they saw the Son of Man coming in his glory. Seriously, the second coming has been "any day now" for two thousand years. Joseph Smith, Sr., the first patriarch of the LDS church, gave many, many blessings during the 1830s and 1840s, in which he claimed that the receivers of the blessings would live to see the Second Coming. Shouldn't we start to suspect that maybe "imminent" doesn't mean what we think it means?

Second, and more importantly: "We need not be concerned." The prophet will never lead us astray. Never mind that the prophet led us into polygamy. Never mind that the prophet implemented institutional racism for 130 years. Never mind that the prophet is still implementing institutional sexism. Never mind that the prophet made up a "Egyptian alphabet and grammar" that bears no resemblance to actual Egyptian, and used it to translate a history of Abraham from papyri that have nothing to do with Abraham. Never mind that... never mind that... oh, never mind anything that's not in the Sunday school manual. Anyway, thou shalt not criticize the prophet, and don't worry yourself about any of these "apostate" ideas. We need not be concerned.

It frightens me whenever anyone uses the words "we need not be concerned", especially in reference to religious belief. Advising others to abdicate their responsibility to think critically about their beliefs, and advising them to follow their leaders without question, is extremely dangerous. It's not the kind of advice that would be considered valuable in any arena except religion. "We need not be concerned" leads to tragedies like the Peoples Temple suicide, the September 11 martyrs, and to take a Mormon example, the Mountain Meadows Massacre. This is not melodrama for its own sake; this is what happens when you think you have God on your side, and are not concerned about the possibility of being wrong.

I much prefer the words of my favorite LDS prophet (if I have to pick one), Joseph Smith, Jr. He said,

We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God . . . would despise the idea.

Others, in the extreme exercise of their Almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When the elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves.

Need we be concerned about the possibility of being led astray? Despite the assurances of Elder Claudio D. Zivic, there is, indeed, cause for concern.

Religious ignorance is faith's ally

Lately I've been reading 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God by Guy Harrison. I like it. Last night, the following passage struck me as interesting, so I thought I would share it.

[O]ne of the fastest ways to turn a believer into a nonbeliever is religious education. Teach someone, especially a child, an honest and objective overview of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, traditional Chinese beliefs, Buddhism, animism, Sikhism, Judaism, Jainism, Bahism, plus the basics of a few extinct religions, and there is a good chance that this enlightened person will have a hard time convincing themselves that one of these belief systems is valid and all the others are not. Religious ignorance is faith's ally. Religious education is faith's enemy.

I've found this to be true for me as well. It's interesting to me how fundamentally similar the claims of many religions are, and this becomes increasingly clear as one learns more about other religions. Each set of religious followers is as convinced of their own religion's truth as the others are of theirs. Usually based on the same evidence, too: experience, testimony, visions, miracles, holy writings, etc. How is one to judge the truth of one religion over the others with such conflicting claims? Why is my religion more likely to be true than any other religion? Because it's mine? Because I happened to be born in this place at this time in history? I doubt it.

How to discern good spirits from evil ones

In church today, one of the lessons was about how to discern good spirits from evil ones. Very practical stuff, of course, but I was surprised that no one mentioned the "three grand keys" that were revealed by Joseph Smith, which give specific steps for detecting whether an other-worldly being is really an angel or a demon. It's such an important scriptural principle, in fact, that I will reproduce it here in its entirety. Those of you who are not Mormon or have never been Mormon will probably be skeptical that Mormons actually believe in this wonderful piece of literature, but I promise you it's real.

Doctrine and Covenants 129
1 There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones—
2 For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
3 Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory.
4 When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you.
5 If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand.
6 If he be the spirit of a just man made perfect he will come in his glory; for that is the only way he can appear—
7 Ask him to shake hands with you, but he will not move, because it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his message.
8 If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him.
9 These are three grand keys whereby you may know whether any administration is from God.

To me, this passage is evidence of only one thing. Well, actually two things. First, Joseph Smith apparently did a lot of drugs. Secondly: the devil, the father of lies, the author of sin and master of deceit... is the stupidest con man ever. According to this passage, the reason "a just man" won't offer to shake hands is because he is unable to deceive. And the devil, because he is trying to deceive you as to his ability to shake your hand, will offer his hand but you won't feel it.

Now, I don't claim to be a genius, or of any special intelligence whatsoever. But it occurs to me that this may not be the devil's most effective method of deceiving you. Specifically, why wouldn't he just pretend to be "a just man" and tell you he can't shake your hand? Or is the devil unaware of this little loophole in the order of heaven?

Joseph Smith really enjoyed making up stuff like this to keep people's attention. It works as long as no one thinks too hard about it. I'm reminded of Stan's exclamation in the South Park episode All About the Mormons: "Mormons actually know this story, and they still believe Joseph Smith was a prophet?" Yep, they do. But I think these three keys must be a little too grand for my limited earthly comprehension.

Perspectives on Church History from the Community of Christ

A few months ago, I came across a message from Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) president Stephen M. Veazey, regarding church history principles. But the person who told me about it had copied and pasted the text, modifying a few names and presenting it as the words of LDS church president Thomas S. Monson. I pretty quickly realized it couldn't have been written by any leader of the LDS church, because it says things like this:

Because of my exploration of various credible works, and probing discussions with historians, some of my previously held notions have been challenged and adjusted in the face of additional knowledge. The “apologetic” approach to church history—presenting our story in as favorable a light as possible—is not sufficient for the journey ahead. That approach does not evidence the integrity that must be fundamental to our witness and ministry.

and this:

If we say that a book on history is the only true telling of the story, we risk “canonizing” one version, a tendency we have shown in the past. This blocks further insights from continuing research. Good historical inquiry understands that conclusions are open to correction as new understanding and information comes from ongoing study.

I could imagine someone like Joseph Smith saying these things, or Joseph F. Smith, or even David O. McKay. But I cannot in my wildest imaginations see Thomas S. Monson saying them. First, he would have to admit that it is possible for his own notions to be challenged and adjusted in the face of evidence, which would imply that he is capable of learning "additional knowledge" he doesn't already have. Second, he would have to admit that the whitewashing of LDS church history in recent decades has been a mistake, which would imply that church leadership is capable of making mistakes. Third, he would have to admit that serious study of church history (i.e. from actual historians who examine source materials from outside the faith-promoting manual) is a valuable endeavor, and can actually give us a more accurate picture of the early church than what is taught each week in Sunday school.

I don't see any of this happening anytime soon. Instead, we get talks from Boyd K. Packer telling us that some things that are true aren't very useful. And in the latest General Conference, we are told that doubt is one of the "destructive Ds", and that unfavorable descriptions of the church are untrue and unfair. There is no nuanced discussion about when or where doubt or skepticism may be appropriate, or criticism of the church might be fair. Doubt is always wrong, and as Dallin H. Oaks reiterated during the Frontline story on the Mormons, it's wrong to criticize leaders of the church even if the criticism is true.

Here's the thing. Truth has nothing to fear from scrutiny. If something is really true, then it will stand up to thorough investigation. Examining all the evidence can only confirm the truth. So if the church-approved version of LDS history is true, then why is it taboo to study history from other credible sources? Why is it wrong to be unsatisfied with taking church leaders' word for it, and to examine the evidence for oneself? Why are we counseled against reading anything that is not faith-promoting? What is there to fear? The truth has nothing to fear, but irrational belief certainly does.

In my opinion, contrary to what Kevin Pearson says in the General Conference talk linked above, doubt is not "a negative emotion related to fear," which betrays a lack of self-confidence. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Fear is what kept me from acknowledging my doubts for a long time. In critically examining my own beliefs and doubts, rather than succumbing to fear, I have begun to overcome it. Rather than revealing a lack of self-confidence, I have become more confident in my ability to discern truth, and in my ability to handle many other areas of life as well. I don't have all the answers, but I am no longer afraid of not having all the answers.

If the LDS church's attitude toward its own history were more in tune with Stephen Veazey's statement, I would feel a lot more at home in the LDS church. I would love to have discussions about actual church history in Sunday school. Not because I want to tear down people's faith, but because I find the subject interesting and I would like to explore it with other people who claim to care about it. Unfortunately, this is not possible for two reasons: most members don't actually know very much about church history; and discussing anything that challenges the faith-promoting story is essentially verboten. It doesn't have to be that way. It hasn't always been that way. But I also don't see it changing anytime soon.