“That’s Not My Mormonism”

There’s an entry up on the Huffington Post, by Mette Ivie Harrison, to which I would like to respond just a bit:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mette-ivie-harrison/thats-not-my-mormonism_b_14484376.html

Sister Dr. Harrison lists ten propositions that, she says, she “sometimes hear[s] either preached directly or indirectly about Mormonism which [she] reject[s].”  I will list them and comment on them in turn:

1. God loves us only if we are worthy of being loved. His love is not unconditional. 

I know the speech (by President Russell M. Nelson) to which she’s referring, and I know that some were upset by it.  I think, though, that there’s a possible fallacy of equivocation involved here.

I have absolutely no doubt that God loves all of his children, even those who have sinned grievously or who have rejected him.  In Moses 7, we see God weeping — to the utter astonishment of Enoch — over the suffering of those who have turned their backs on him and on his other children.  He doesn’t cease caring for them.  His love is at least as deep as that of minimally decent mortal parents, who often still love their children even when those children are behaving hatefully or self-destructively.

But there can be no question that the scriptures routinely describe a different kind or intensity of divine love for those who serve him and his children, who seek to do his will.  That cannot be denied; the evidence is everywhere in the Standard Works.

What I fear is that some are trying to use the idea of unconditional divine love in a way that would undercut the significance of living the Lord’s commandments.  In the end, this view suggests, he’ll save everybody even if they violate covenants, disregard God’s law, and refuse to repent.  And that, I think, is dangerous.

That said, I’ve always inclined toward something like universalism, and I’ve long loved Pope John Paul II’s response to a question about whether Christians are obligated to believe in Hell.  “Yes,” he replied.  “But we can hope that it will be empty.”

I take both conditional and unconditional divine love very seriously, but I don’t believe that we can be saved in a state of either indifference to divine law or defiant refusal to repent.  Fortunately, I also believe in repentance and progress beyond this life.

2. We cannot disagree with prophets and apostles of the church and still remain in God’s good graces.

We need to be really careful here.  Obviously, there are trivial matters where disagreement is perfectly alright.  Does Elder X cheer for the Yankees and enjoy eating liver?  I hate both liver and Yankees, but I don’t think many would imagine that my salvation is imperiled by that fact.

On the other hand, there are very fundamental topics regarding which, if we disagree with the Brethren on them, we should either reconsider our stance or be prepared, if we speak out, to have our membership in the Church questioned.  Is there a God?  Is Jesus his divine and redeeming Son?  Was Joseph Smith a prophet?  Does the current president of the Church hold and exercise the keys of authority?

Between those two limits, however, there is a broad area of potential disagreements where different people will draw the lines differently.

There are certainly a few secondary theological issues where I myself have disagreed with some apostle or other.  And I would be more than happy to say so in the presence of that apostle.  I expect that he wouldn’t care very much; my overall loyalty to Church and Kingdom, I think, is both manifest and consistent.

It’s clear, though, that many will have in mind such issues as same-sex marriage and the ordination of women.

Here, I would be very careful.  I don’t think that the unity of the Church or the necessary teaching authority of the Brethren is strengthened by the presence of a vocal “loyal opposition” in the Kingdom.  And rejection of the Church’s position on certain issues sometimes verges dangerously close upon open disagreement with its fundamental moral teachings.

3. What we wear is more important than what we say or do.

This, I’m afraid, comes across to me as a bit of a caricature.  There may be some who occasionally act as if this is what they believe — I’ll probably eventually blog some about my experiences and feelings regarding such weighty matters as the priesthood uniform of white shirts — but I think that the folks who’re being accused of holding that what we wear is more important than what we say or do would indignantly reject such a characterization of their stance.

4. What we eat or drink or show the world outwardly matters more than how we treat our fellow humans. 

Similarly for this one.  I’ve never, ever, heard such a statement in the Church, and I doubt that anybody would sign on to the proposition above.  It seems more a hostile caricature than an accurate description of what those under accusation really believe.

5.  There are some sins that Christ did not atone for and that we will have to suffer for ourselves.

I’ve heard this one, and I know that we’re often taught that murder and the sin against the Holy Ghost cannot be forgiven.

I need, sometime, to formulate an express position on this matter, but, as I say above, I’m inclined toward an ultimate universalism.

Whether I can get there all the way, theologically, is another matter.  I have hope for repentant murderers.  I know that they exist.  But I do think that God will respect our agency and that there are, sadly, some who will obstinately persist in defiant rejection of the grace so fully proffered to them by God.  They cannot be forced to heaven.  I doubt that there will be many of them, but there may be some.  And that is what I understand, ultimately, as the sin against the Holy Ghost.

6. Children can be separated eternally from parents they love and who love them dearly by choosing a different path than Mormonism.

Again, God will respect our agency.  He cannot force repentance on anyone, and he cannot grant salvation/exaltation to the unrepentant.  So, in that sense, separation is a distinct possibility.  But it remains the choice of the agents involved.

I hope that those who reject the Gospel will return to it, in this life or in the next, and I have enormous faith both in the ordinances of the temple and in the never-ending love of parents (particularly those who’ve been celestialized and who are, accordingly, freed from the infirmities of mind and body with which we struggle here), but the possibility of permanent rejection must remain open if our agency is not to be compromised or overruled.

7. God makes us suffer because it is the only way to improve us to His level.

I’m not sure that I’ve ever heard this proposition taught in church.  But a simple modification will, from my point of view, make it thoroughly orthodox:  “God puts us into a world where we will likely suffer because it is the only way to improve us to His level.”

8. Expressing anger and hurt makes others uncomfortable and therefore is not what God wants us to do. We must repress any negative emotions because it looks bad.

I’ve encountered Latter-day Saints who seem to feel that public acknowledgment of hurt or imperfection or questions must be suppressed, and I regard that as a profound error.  Candor and honesty are to be preferred.

But there should probably be limits, though I’m not the one to draw lines or to draw up clear rules on such a matter.  There is such a thing, I think, as inappropriately maudlin public wallowing in emotion, as well as emotional blackmail.  And some things may or may not be appropriate for public disclosure.  We’ve probably all had the experience of receiving Too Much Information from someone.  But, again, honest genuineness is to be preferred.  One of my most memorable experiences was, a number of years ago, giving a gospel-oriented fireside at the Utah State Prison that is located at Point of the Mountain.  I loved it.  The questions that we discussed were from the heart.  These were men who were all there under sentences of 10-25 years.  In other words, they hadn’t simply failed to pay parking tickets.  They knew that they had done serious wrong, and they knew that I knew it, and there were no pretenses.  So the discussion was startlingly honest and genuine, and it was a spiritual highpoint in my life.

This seems to be something of a restatement of (2), above.

I’ve had, and I have, some criticisms of Church leaders in the past, and I don’t always completely agree with Church leaders today — though I’m quite orthodox and although I genuinely deeply respect them.

But, again, I would be really careful here.  It’s rather like not publicly criticizing one’s family.  One doesn’t have to be servile, but open criticism of family members should be minimized as much as possible.  Unless, of course, one doesn’t mind destroying relationships, damaging the family’s public reputation, and causing serious fissures within the family.

10. Wealthy members have proven they are following God’s will by their worldly success and therefore deserve to be elevated in the church hierarchy.

Once again, this seems more caricature than sympathetic and accurate representation of another’s position.  I don’t think that I’ve ever actually heard anybody advocate such a proposition, and I suspect that nobody would actually be willing to “own” it.

But, just in case anybody out there is tempted by such a thought, it’s thoroughly wrong, and false doctrine.

I’m curious:  What do you think of these ten propositions?