Upload
jared-anderson
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/6/2019 Love Lying Integrity Interpretation
1/8
ON LOVE AND LYING:
INTEGRITY,IDENTITY, AND INTERPRETATION IN A PLURALISTIC MORMON
CULTURE
Jared AndersonFaith & Knowledge Conference 2011
Duke University
Imagine that you are organizing a dinner for your religious community. As you are
planning the delicious and healthy menu, you come across a problem: You discover that
the majority is allergic to precisely what the minority needs. What do you serve? How do
you nourish all, giving to each what is needed without triggering the others?
Here is the quandary as I see it: On one hand, the spirituality enjoyed by most believers
works. Within a clear framework of particular religions, God answers prayers, grants
miracles of guidance and healing, transforms character. Specific religious beliefs and
practices within a particular religious community provide great benefits. On the other
hand, I would carefully suggest that a rigorous, critical examination of religion
deconstructs every denomination it touches. I do not think it is possible to take seriously
both the conclusions of academic investigation and the literal and particular claims of
individual religions, though critical inquiry cannot fully challenge spirituality in general.
Thus the intractable problem: How do we sustain the straightforward belief of the
majority, while addressing the concerns of the minority who take the path of critical and
historical investigation? Unprecedented access to information and a google generation
predisposed to search it out makes this a crisis we must address immediately. On a
personal level, this is where we must balance love and lying, factor in integrity and
interpretation.
This paper will be unavoidably personal, as I take seriously the lack of a programmatic
right answer to this inherently insoluble paradox. I can only share how I have
negotiated these tensions in a satisfying and productive way, and make observations and
suggestions based on my experience. I would add, however, that I dont think this
paradox needs to be solved, only addressed. I suggest we grapple honestly with the
1
8/6/2019 Love Lying Integrity Interpretation
2/8
tension between faith and scholarship and move forward with an approach that
maximizes the benefits to as many people as possible.
It was teaching World Religions that convinced me that critical examination of religion
can only work in one direction. First, I need to distinguish spirituality from exclusive
claims of particular denominations. I maintain a firm belief in spirituality and believe that
in addition to the primacy of personal experience, scholarship, history, and even scientific
investigation can support the reality of spiritual phenomena. On the other hand, there are
philosophical, theological, and critical reasons for suspecting the claims specific
religions, namely:
1) If there really is a supreme Creator of the Universe who interacts with all things, it is
logical that He/She/They would be far beyond our comprehension.
2) Mormon theology (and I would say theology in general) supports the idea that
whatever Gods form or nature, God adapts Himself (I use the pronoun flexibly) to our
understandings, expectations, and limitations (see 2 Ne. 31:3, Ether 12:39; D&C 29:33;
50:12; 88:46, which all imply that God speaks to us in a way we will understand more
than the way things really are).
3) Finally and significantly, study of the religions of the world and human history
demonstrates that humans conceptualize gods and the divine in their own image. Sowhatever the reality of God and spiritual truth may be, human religions clearly constitute
cultural constructions designed to meet human needs and reinforce the values and
practices of leadership in the community. Most particular religions teach that theirs is the
true way, or at least the best way!
I believe that scholarship and critical analysis can support a denomination as beneficial or
even among the best, but not the Only True Church. So though I love the LDS Church
and find Mormon theology, scripture, and lifestyle better than any other religion with
which I am familiar, I gently suggest that the idea that Adam and Eve were Mormons and
the subsequent story of the apostasy and restoration of truth and authority is untenable.
Apologetic arguments and investigation can weaken counterclaims and thereby allow (or
create) room to believe, but they cannot, in my view, create an overall theory more
plausible than the academic ones they are opposing.
2
http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ne.%2031.3http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ne.%2031.38/6/2019 Love Lying Integrity Interpretation
3/8
Seeing value in what may be fiction works for some but not others, and inevitably
something is lost. It can be argued that not only do religious myths maintain power in our
lives, but that for most people, some of that power is predicated on taking myths literally.
Belief in a literal, loving Father you can talk to and will someday return and embrace
increases the effectiveness of prayer. Accepting narratives of healing at face value
establishes expectation for miracles in our lives. What do we do when certainty is
yearned for yet unattainable?
When this intractable conundrum collides with the culture-changing information
provided by the internet, the crises of faith and activity ensue. The current approach of
evading problems, affirming traditional interpretation, and at most brushing on a veneer
of apologetics can propel people into either agnosticism or Gnosticism. Either questioners
feel dissatisfied and alienated by a community they often still love, or Internet
Mormons, like Gnostics of old, read the same texts and attend the same meetings as the
majority while secretly coming to radically different conclusions. This is not just an LDS
problem; a majority of atheists are under the age of 35. But the literal and exclusive
claims of Mormonism intensifies the tension between faith and knowledge.
So how do we proceed? I hope that the Church will increasingly adopt an approach that
continues to provide the simple narratives that enable people to enjoy the practical
benefits of their religion, but that they will also provide the framework for the more
complicated reality. Given the ever increasing chance most people will come across
potentially troubling information, this preparation is vital. This is not to say that we
should throw the messy picture at everyone! Few if any would want their parents to sit
down with them and say I just wanted to spend a few quality hours with you and tell you
every mistake I have ever made. At the same time, it is critical we all understand our
parents are human, so when we come across that journal entry or story, we have the
framework to handle it. My other hopes for the Church in general would be that those
faithful who are trying to deal with the complex issues be seen as resources rather than
being disciplined or marginalized (hopefully this is not happening?) and that every
3
8/6/2019 Love Lying Integrity Interpretation
4/8
priesthood leader is trained to tell the inquisitive: It is ok to have questions and there
is more than one way to be a good member of the Church.
Proper understanding of issues such as the humanity of Church leaders, the role of
agency, the influence of personal expectation and cultural presuppositions on revelations,
and human nature in general would both be consistent with a straightforward faith but
also prepare the believer for a more complex understanding. This approach would enable
the decreasing majority who never comes across further information to better deal with
the challenges of life. But for the increasing population who comes across information on
the internet or through friends, this preparation would also help the believer both
incorporate the new information andhelp them understand the need for the simple
narrative! So ideally he or she would say I never heard of that before, but I can
understand how that fits into my belief and why the simple story accomplishes the
purposes of a spiritual life.
To bring up just one example of how this works, I believe that the 1838 account of the
First Vision most likely reflects not what happened to Joseph, but his theology of the
time. I believe he had a vision of Moroni, another where Jesus forgave him of his sins,
later came to the understanding the members of the Godhead were distinct individuals
(and there were a plurality of Gods), and then his 1838 account told a simple, effective
story that described what was true in his view, if not what was historical. Given the
evidence and precedent we have, can we think of an equally effective narrative for
general consumption?
I will turn now to how I apply this perspective in my own life. I actually take a very
practical approach to this issue. This is my experience; but I do not desire to export it
whole cloth to others. I accept as valid all approaches that work for people, from taking
everything at face value, to being reassured by apologists, to tackling primary sources
and figuring out what you believe. Each of us must forge our own world view. My main
concern is to encourage a worldview that meets spiritual needs but also minimizes
vulnerability to new information. The rhetoric of just ignore disconfirming information,
4
8/6/2019 Love Lying Integrity Interpretation
5/8
be quiet and obey simply does not resonate with a generation that googles every
question, that can reach millions with a blog or YouTube video, and voices its opinion on
everything from political debates to American Idol and advertisements.
I try to share information with people based on their desires and preparation. When a
member of my ward told me he wanted to learn more about religion, I asked him whether
he wanted the Institute approach, or academic approach, and explained each. He replied
Institute, and I respect that. In another memorable experience, at the end of missionary
exchanges I was having a discussion with one companion and the other Elder said,
Brother Anderson, if what you have is the gift of knowledge, I dont want it! I remain
realistic of the fact that for the majority of believers, the details simply do not matter. I
dont want to know how my car works; I just want it to get me from point A to point B. I
would never want to deconstruct some one's religion so they cant drive it.
In order to be as honest as possible, I speak with extreme precision. Instead of Moroni
wrote I can introduce an idea with In the Book of Moroni we read I bear my
testimony about how beautiful I find the idea of the Atonement and how I am grateful for
the ability to improve my character because of the power of God in my life. I bear my
testimony that the Book of Mormon is inspired of God. I do not bring up the fact that I do
not necessarily have a testimony of the Atonement, or that I have doubts about the
historicity of the Book of Mormon. I speak in such a way that most assume I am agreeing
with them, but if people want to hear more about my views, they can ask me and I can
explain one-on-one if appropriate.
I would go as far as to say that as a loving last resort, even lying could be justified. When
neither precise communication nor tactful silence is an option, and a full honest answer
would be destructive to the faith of the listener, I would support a noble lie. Some will
see this as sophistry or disingenuous, but I see it as prioritizing love and valuing the
functionality of religion over full or even representative disclosure in every smallest
question. I would also offer the reminder that we negotiate our communication and
identities constantly, though we would prefer to avoid the term lying. And rightly so,
5
8/6/2019 Love Lying Integrity Interpretation
6/8
since this negotiation of proper sharing is a natural and necessary part of relationships,
not to be cavalierly branded as deception. On one hand, we navitage greater or lesser lies
and loyalties and integrities constantly, whether we realize it or not. At the same time, it
is worth noting that with explicit lies, even justified ones, something is inevitably lost.
Here is how that works for me. I see this as more translation to the worldview and
expectations of the listener than outright deception. Our relationships constantly confront
us with a hierarchy of truths. Though we have all sorts of thoughts and views, still we
censor ourselves based on our love for our spouses, or our desire to keep our jobs for
example. One vital balance to this approach is we must be sure we are molding the truth
out of love, not the desire to deceive or escape consequences. In order to have integrity,
we should also feel peaceful with the prospect of explaining the full truth and previous
careful sharing of it if the situation demanded it. It is tragic when a spouse or Church
cannot accept the truth of our views or natures. But do we then need to abandon the
marriage or community? Owning our choice to prioritize relationships over disclosure
when necessary can bring peace to painful dissonance. I would add that it is
tremendously beneficial to have some individuals or a community where you can be fully
honest about your views and identity. Ideally your closest loved ones should be in this
inner circle, but either way this is where internet communities can literally be a godsend.
Now that I have bared my perspectives, borne my nuancimony if you will, one could
confront me with a variety of questions: Arent I lying when I answer the temple
recommend questions with simple yes or no? Am I not manifesting a lack of integrity
when I speak words that, though technically true, I know very well are being understood
differently by my audience? Do I have integrity in my faith community if very few know
what I really believe? Am I really a Mormon if those in authority would question that
status if they knew the details of my world view?
Though I experience rare sensations of loss where I wish I could be that scholar who
despite all his learning still believes the standard stories, I am very happy with my
spirituality. I see religion as a symbolic system that points to a reality that, though
6
8/6/2019 Love Lying Integrity Interpretation
7/8
unknowable, really does WORK. Miracles do happen, religion really benefits people,
people experience visions and answers to prayers. Religion is a shortcut to accessing
metaphysical insight and power few would be able to access otherwise. So I use the
Mormon language, for example, to interact with and point toward transcendent principles
I do not understand. And for me, the Mormon language and framework works. This is my
faith language. These are my people. With this understanding of my faith, I can both be
agnostic but also trust in the power of faith, prayer, ordinances, and religion in general,
about as much as I did when I accepted things literally.
I think this view even has advantages over a more straightforward acceptance of Mormon
theology. I appreciate being able to talk to anyone without knee-jerk prejudgment of
God says that is wrong. My view of spirituality both encompasses and transcends
Mormonism. It makes sense to me that God would give everyone as much truth and
saving principles as they will accept. Religion for me is about maximizing Love, Growth,
Peace, Joy, and increasing Freedom and Consciousness. As I have said, I think
Mormonism does this better than any other religion of which I am aware, and has the
potential to do it far better. Further, a more open, even agnostic approach to Mormonism
and religion in general preserves benefits while minimizing costs. If Mormonism were
not the only true Church, if every point of accepted theology were not true, if we ceasedto exist upon death, would we still make the same choices? I hope so. If not, it is worth
reevaluating such a risky gamble. We must make religion our own, forge our own
understanding and meaning that both respects and justifies our understanding of spiritual
reality.
I am also acutely aware that not everyone sees things as I do, however. So in my
discussions with individuals and groups,I try to speak in such a way that they will
receive the same meaning and message as I receive with my nuanced views and beliefs.
In translation, there is formal equivalence with word for word correspondence, and
dynamic equivalence with thought for thought correspondence. But the goal of
translation is to effect in the reader or listener of the target language the same feeling and
experience enjoyed by the original audience in the source language. For me, this is how
7
8/6/2019 Love Lying Integrity Interpretation
8/8
love, lying, integrity and interpretation fit together. I translate what I think and feel based
on my best understanding of where my audience is, motivated by love. I hold beliefs and
spirituality sacred, both mine and those of others. If I know that my words and
experiences will be interpreted differently by my listener in such a way it does not respect
the sacred nature of our differences, to show integrity to love and individuality I will
translate myself in such a way so that my listener gets my deep meaning, even if on the
surface I must translate yes to no and no to yes.
8