On Conversations about Faith Crisis

I think a lot of us struggle with how to converse about our journey amid faith crisis with our traditional believing LDS family, friends, and church leaders.  Often, traditional believers want us simply to come back to traditional belief and set aside our doubts -- to "doubt our doubts" and retrench into reading, praying, and attending -- and all will be well.

Oh, if it were only that easy!

In contrast, when we come to realize that the dominant narrative of our whitewashed history and "the prophets cannot lead the church astray" is not true, then we feel compelled to share our perspective with our traditional believing friends and leaders, in a hope that they'll understand why we are having such challenges.

And the moment we open our mouths to question the dominant narrative, they stop listening, and we've gone into a different kind of relationship -- one where we hide our true feelings, "tolerate" each other, or simply part ways.

Is there a way through this impasse?

I believe there is a Middle Way through this -- a way of conversing about our faith journey in a way that helps our traditional believing friends understand us better, and helps us feel more inclusive and included with them.

Empathy requires us to put ourselves into the position of the other, to feel what they feel, to look back at ourselves through their eyes.  It's obviously a mutual process, but we cannot ask others to be empathetic.  We must learn to speak in a way that they understand.  We need to use the language of faithful Mormonism to express our journey as "part of" a faithful Mormon journey, rather than a "transition away" from true belief.

How do we do this?  How do we *honestly* talk about "faith crisis" while using terms, concepts, and language of Mormon faith?

I believe that the doctrines of our church have the answer to solve this riddle.  I do not believe we will get anywhere with using the framework of "faith transition" as a descriptor of what is going on.  Instead, I would like to frame the discussion in terms that the most faithful LDS not only would accept, but would embrace fully.  And the way to do this is to frame what is going on in terms of core doctrine and scripture.

What is the purpose of life according to LDS doctrine?  We often say that this mortality is a test, where we will be "proven herewith".  When we view that test in terms of a "final exam" -- a "judgment" -- it puts all of us into the form of judging ourselves and others as being "unworthy".  But when I studied the concept of the Trial of Faith in depth years ago, I discovered that the "trial of faith" is not a "test" in the way that we use the term.  The Trial of Faith -- the entire purpose of this life -- is *refinement": We are to be made pure by refining the gold within us: our divine nature.

So the first thing I would do is frame "faith crisis" as "trial of faith": we are going through an essential process that will bring us closer to god.  It's not a test, it's part of God's plan for us.

Second, I would try to make clear that the trial of faith is not successful if we revert to our old ways of thinking.  Again, Mormon Doctrine comes into play here: we are on a path of eternal progression -- we learn, line upon line, and precept upon precept, to come closer to god and understand the principles of the gospel.  As we go through our trial of faith, we will discover things that no longer serve us: teachings that while may be useful for us initially, have no longer served their purpose.

I would bring up at this point the entire blacks-and-the-priesthood thing.  Before 1978, many people in the church felt that this was God's plan, and framed the inequity as being a deserved, chosen position from the premortal existence.  Bruce R McConkie was a primary proponent of such thinking, yet when the revelation came out in 1978, McConkie recognized that they all spoke from limited understanding.  Perhaps the entire blacks-and-the-priesthood was a kind of trial of faith for the whole church -- the outcome of which was not to harden our position, but rather, to seek revelation from god, and when the church was ready for it, it received it.

Third, we need to understand, fully, that our purpose in this life is not a test of obedience, but rather, to learn through our own experience to distinguish good and evil.  The Garden of Eden narrative in the temple is case in point.  Unlike other Christians, we celebrate Eve's decision to partake of the fruit to make progress happen.  Without it, they would never have progressed. But it's important to recognize that "be fruitful and multiple" and "don't partake of the fruit" ended up being an impossible situation to obey both.  So Adam and Eve counseled together in their trial of faith, and made the best choice they could.  In so doing, they learned through their own experience to distinguish good and evil, and were stronger because of it.

We need to resist the urge to judge others on their choices amid their "trial of faith".  Some of us will leave the "Garden of Eden" of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Some of us will refuse to partake of the dogma of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (aka, "correlated doctrine").  These are all very tough choices to make.  If we stand by our doctrine that free-agency is the very essence of our humanity, we need to realize that each one of us is faced with choices, and one size -- or one choice -- does not work for everyone.

And lastly, I think we need to teach the principle of Love as the Connecting Principle of the Atonement.  We need to embrace the diversity of our culture rather than force conformity.  Heavenly Father has given us differing gifts -- this is in our scripture and doctrine -- and we need to embrace love for one another -- active, practical, practicing love for one another -- as the core of LDS doctrine.  This means that we lift each other's burdens, mourn with those who mourn, and comfort those standing in need of comfort.  Love never fails -- our Relief Society motto.  When we embrace god's unconditional (perfect - teleios) love (agape - the pure love of Christ), then we cannot exclude or excommunicate anyone for their lack of belief or for whom they choose to love.

So why bother with all this?

I truly believe that our "trial of faith" is more than a "faith crisis", and is definitely not a "faith transition" from one kind of faith to another.  If anything, the refinement of our faith is part of our "Plan of Salvation", of eternal progression, where we are not static beings, but those embracing higher principles as we grow on this journey of eternal life.

We have not lost our faith.  Instead, our faith is being refined -- we are growing closer to a personal relationship with god, while setting aside those things which no longer serve us.  This is a cause for celebration, not pride or arrogance, but of deep gratitude for this amazing journey.

Not everyone is at the same point in this journey.  As we embrace a more inclusive faith, we need to as well, include our traditional believing LDS brothers and sisters as neither against our journey, nor inferior to our place on the journey.  We need to find that which is in common, and realize that in loving and serving one another, we can grow together.

When we speak in supportive love to our friends, family, and leaders, we can grow together in that Love.  We need to set aside our own angst and language of faith transition, crisis, and nuance, but rather, share values through our common Mormon language and doctrine.  Then, and only then, will we change hearts and minds: both ours and theirs.

And we then can become One.

On Being Pro-Choice

I remember distinctly, years ago, when my very good conservative friend asked me what my position was on abortion.  At that time, oh, some thirty years ago, I did not have an opinion.  He was shocked.

So I went on a quest to figure out what I really believed.  At first, like many other republicans at the
time (yes, in those days I was a reliable republican), I was utterly horrified at the tragedy of abortion. But I also worked with a woman who had had one -- and to her, it was truly one of the hardest and most soul-searching moments in her life.  This made the issue very real to me.

I realized, from the woman I worked with, that there was a personal element. When a woman doesn't choose to become pregnant, I hardly thought it fair to require her to carry the child of her rapist -- she didn't have a choice, and yet such an ordeal would have life-long implications. Likewise, cases of incest, and the health of mother or child -- all seem to indicate that there are some cases where abortion can be justified. I landed on a position: that abortion should be allowed in the cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother or fetus.

Perhaps not coincidentally, my personal position landed exactly on the same position held by the LDS church.  I hope this wasn't confirmation bias, but it seemed reasonable.

But then, I had to also realize, "Who decides?"  And in considering this, even if I am personally opposed to abortion on demand or for convenience, I realized that this choice is not mine to make -- it's entirely in the hands of the one person who must make that choice: the woman.

I choose, therefore, to be firmly "pro-choice".  I see this position is fundamental to our values as Americans and critical to my personal faith.

Here is my journey through this issue:

The "pro-choice" position is not "pro-abortion". Can I be "pro-choice" and be against abortion "on demand"? Of course. The motivation behind "pro-choice" is to enable people to make their own choices as to what will happen with their own bodies. So pro-choice is about the freedom for women to choose what they can do over their bodies without religious or state intervention.

And yes, as long as a fetus is dependent upon a woman's body, then her choice matters, completely.

As Mormons, we should have a more enlightened position on this issue, and if we understand our own doctrine, we should be pro-choice. We do believe, firmly, that we should have our agency to choose, so the very nature of the "pro-choice" decision is in harmony with our core doctrines.  But it's not just about being Mormon here -- it's a fundamental issue that goes deep to religious belief and why such "choice" should be taken out of the hands of the State, for the "pro-life" position establishes one religious interpretation over another, and thus violates the First Amendment establishment clause.

The LDS Church has a position on abortion, that in the cases of rape, incest, and the *health* of the mother and fetus, abortion is allowed (the leadership would prefer to have the woman and man counsel with the Bishop in these cases). No woman should be forced to carry the offspring of her rapist, or of an abusive, incestuous man. No woman should be forced to sacrifice her life to preserve a fetus. There are also cases where the fetus is so non-viable that its death in utero would cause serious health risks.

We may say that such cases are rare, but there are enough of them to justify consideration of them in enforcing "pro-life" laws. Who arbitrates such things? How do you define "rape"? If a husband rapes his wife, should she have to accuse him of rape before the law before she has an abortion? What if she is dependent upon him for income?

These issues are thorny at best, and the law is a very blunt instrument to determine what a woman can do with her own body.

But there is much more here. We may say that the scriptures say, "Thou shalt not kill". Yet, what in scripture defines life? What constitutes a "life" in the law? In scripture, "life" was equated with "ruach" in Hebrew, "pneuma" in Greek, and "spiritus" in Latin -- all having the same meaning: "breath". In other words, a "life" according to the scriptures always began at birth's first "breath" and not before. (Evangelicals will raise the "before thou was formed in the womb" in Jeremiah, and the how the fetus of John the Baptist leaped in Elisabeth's womb; but these cases are ambiguous at best as to when life starts -- more on this later).

The Torah is even more specific on this. In Exodus 21:22-25, we read:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

This is the ONLY instance in scripture that refers to a woman losing her fetus: "so that her fruit depart from her" explicitly means the loss and death of the fetus. The consequence was that the man who caused the injury would pay the husband for the inconvenient loss of a potential offspring. That's it. But if an mischief follow -- that is, if the woman is then killed, then the person as then -- and ONLY then -- committed murder.

So where did this idea that abortion is wrong come from?

In Rabbinical Judaism, the Talmudic scholars postulated that life probably started before birth -- after all, a woman feels life in her womb during the second trimester, as the fetus' nervous system is beginning to operate. So, to prevent any possibility of violating the law, the Rabbinical approach was to build a fence around the law -- make it impossible to violate the law -- by restricting abortion.

Catholicism went further. To Catholics -- and hence, all protestants, the human soul does not exist before conception -- they have no belief in pre-mortal existence of humans. Thus, when a child is conceived, then a "new life" has begun to form -- one with an immortal soul. So, the logic goes, if you terminate a pregnancy, you are killing an immortal soul created by god.

This brings us to the real reason abortion is an issue in politics today. As part of the "Southern Strategy" to push Catholics and socially aware evangelicals toward the Republican party, the minds behind the Nixon and Reagan machines decided to make abortion a party issue. It was brilliant -- it forced most Catholics to move from being very socially liberal democrats to one-issue Republicans. We need to call this issue for what it is, and what Hugh Nibley called it: A Decoy.

But back to the doctrines about abortion. Mormons do not share these Jewish and Christian beliefs as to when the human soul begins. Mormons believe that the human spirit is co-eternal with god and exists before this life. Moreover, the spirit fully enters the body only at birth -- although you won't find this explicitly stated. The evidence for this is (1) that Jesus Christ visited the Nephites and Lamanites on the night before his birth, just hours or minutes before he was born over in the Jerusalem area, some nine hours ahead of the New World. (2) Temple work is never performed for still-born children. While there is no doubt that parents feel the loss of their still-born child, the church does not actually do ordinance work for them. Again, these aren't widely talked about things, but they are inherent to the doctrine.

Thus, whenever we get into a discussion as to whether abortion should be allowed or prohibited, the question comes into whether we are establishing a religion here. To prevent abortion is to establish one religious view over another. To support choice is to say that if your religion says that abortion is evil, then by all means, don't have an abortion. Pro-choice is the only acceptable alternative that separates church and state and allows us to freely exercise our religion according to the dictates of our own conscience for ourselves. We should NEVER have the right to force our religious views on others.

So as a Mormon and an American, I firmly believe that "pro-choice" is more than just a pro-abortion/anti-abortion issue. It's fundamental to the core principles of our democracy.