I was listening to a podcast recently in which they abandoned their usual format to simply have a discussion of listener-generated “condundrums.” These were questions like:
- Would you rather live in a world without electricity or a world without plumbing?
- Would you rather be unable to admit to having read War & Peace or to be compelled to admit to having read Atlas Shrugged?
- Would you rather give presents and get none OR get presents and give none?
This got me thinking about possible conundrums for Mormons based on the online discussions I sometimes read. Here are a few for you to think about and comment on:
- Would you rather be able to ask any Church leader anything (and they have to answer openly & honestly) OR to be able to tell any Church leader anything (and they have to listen and understand it). Depending on your answer, be sure to share what you would ask or tell.
We’ve all had really bad bishops from time to time, so here’s the next conundrum:
- Would you rather be able to have ward members vote bishops in, and you’d all have to live with him as bishop, OR would you rather be able to vote a bad bishop out but have no say in the original selection?
One thing that I often hear non-believers claim is that they would give anything to be able to believe again because it would smooth over relationships and make life easier, so here’s one for the non-believers / skeptics out there:
- Would you rather still believe as you once did OR have stopped believing at an earlier point in your life (with a lower sunk cost)?
- If you served a mission, would you rather have served for six months longer OR six months shorter?
And here’s one for believers, one I have often wondered about:
- Would you rather be born in the covenant (receive the gospel as the assumption you operate under from birth), but feel like you didn’t really choose your religion, OR receive the gospel as an adult potential convert and risk not accepting it? If you were a convert, do you wish you had the other experience, and if you were born in the covenant, do you sometimes wish for the other experience?
Here’s one for the hand-wringing parents who don’t like all the talk of sad heaven:
- Would you rather have a wonderful, close, loving relationship with your kids in the present but no real hope for a Mormon eternal family (e.g. temple sealed, church-going), OR would you rather have a distant, perfunctory, conditional relationship with your kids now, but the hope of an eternal family? Honestly, this one feels like a real choice a lot of Mormons are making right now.
- Would you rather have kids who obey you out of fear of disapproval OR kids who love you but do things you don’t want them to do? (That’s probably the same question put another way).
Let’s quit with the heavy topics, and talk about more dinner conversation conundrums. Here’s one:
- If you could eliminate a Church policy or rule for everyone but yourself (you still have to observe the policy), what would it be?
This is one I’ve personally wondered, often:
- Would you rather if the Church eliminated all sexism and racism, but your ward members were still sexist and racist, OR if the ward members were not at all sexist or racist, but the Church as a whole still embraced sexist and racist ideas?
Here’s a political one:
- Would you rather have a POTUS you hate, whose platform you disdain, but who won the election fair and square OR a POTUS whose platform you fully support who had to cheat or suppress votes to win?
Back to a ward level question:
- Would you rather the Church have full financial transparency, and find out that a lot of it was going towards things you disapprove OR would you rather the Church retain opacity while secretly doing a lot of good in the world in ways you will never know?
- Would you rather pay 5% tithing, but have to clean the Church every week and attend every ward event OR pay 10% tithing and never have to clean it again and only have to attend what you want to attend?
I mean, you could also do what I do and just skip lame activities and not clean the Church… Here’s another ward question:
- Would you rather be in a ward that is unfriendly and judgmental, but does a lot of well-organized, inspiring good in the community OR would you rather be in a friendly, accepting ward that is pretty uninspiring?
I suppose that question goes to the heart of what is most important to you at Church: sense of community or sense of purpose. One more ward question:
- Would you rather be the smartest person in the ward, OR the dumbest?
- Would you rather be the richest person in the ward, OR the poorest?
Alright, let’s switch to Church leadership at higher levels again:
- Would you rather be able to change one topic in General Conference to a topic of your choice (e.g. switch any talk of “Covenant Path” to “Black Lives Matter”) OR cut General Conference to two sessions only, but have no control on the subject matter (e.g. it could be all Covenant Path, prosperity gospel, and Family Proclamation)?
Here’s a crazy question about Church leadership to consider:
- Would you rather find out definitively that several apostles had seen and talked with Christ in their role OR that several apostles didn’t have a testimony at all and were just faking it all along to fill a role? (No implication that there is an equivalence between these two things!)
Here’s my favorite one to wrap it all up:
- Would you rather live one day in Church History (e.g. visit the 19th century) OR live one day in the future of the Church (50+ years from now)?
Pick the conundrums that appeal to you and discuss your answers in the comments.
Wheat & Tares 
This is amazing. The vibration ….. I just mentioned this in my episode 23 at least two conundrums that are for 2020. Lol
* at least two conundrums
* at least two conundrums
Correction
Not really a conundrum but I did have the choice of serving ONE MONTH longer or shorter on my mission. I entered the MTC on Feb 14 but because of how new missionaries were scheduled to enter, couldn’t leave until March 1 of my last year. This was in Mexico in the 80’s and for a brief time they would not allow American missionaries in which cut down on the number of missionaries available ( the only missionaries coming in were Mexican). As a result, the mission president asked me ( and others) to stay on an extra month if we could to avoid closing down some areas. I was never an enthusiastic missionary and I really wanted to go home and even had a decent reason for doing so ( I’d get home just as the term for my university was beginning). But I really loved my president and he had asked so humbly, that I stayed. And that last month was really one of the best of my mission because I chose to be there. (Rather than succumbing to the social pressure that got me there in the first place). I look back at that last area I was in very fondly.
I would prefer to “ have stopped believing at an earlier point in [my] life (with a lower sunk cost)”. At least 49 years sooner. For most people in my life, it’s not enough for me to support them, but have different beliefs. There is a lot of turmoil. Most of it is subsurface.
Would I opt out earlier with lower sunk cost? Absolutely! I have a happy marriage and great kids, but essentially having a mixed faith marriage is not something my wife and I bargained for.
I’ll add my own question? Would I rather get my 2 years back from my mission but no guarantee that my life experience would reflect all I learned from a mission, or keep the mission experience, including the two lost years as a missionary? I’d skip a mission and assume I’d learn those experiences elsewhere in a less costly manner (time perspective, not financial). Neither of my sons want to serve a mission and frankly I don’t blame them. My wife who is also an RM wants them to serve a mission soooo badly. See previous paragraph about mixed faith marriage.
I would definitely rather have a close relationship with my son even if he made choices I didn’t approve of. I’ve seen both sides of it with my parents and my in-laws and I know that holding your kids at arms’ length to guilt-trip them into coming back to the fold absolutely does not work.
I would love to see full transparency from the church. I can only think that would help them make better choices with their resources anyway.
If I had the chance to perform “inception” on one of the brethren I would definitely introduce them to the concept that there’s nothing wrong with LGBTQ.
And if I had the choice between the brethren admitting they had seen Christ or admitting they had lost their faith—I honestly can’t choose. I’d love to see either of those things. I don’t think it would change my beliefs either way, but the church could only benefit from the apostles actually being real with us.
I’m with Toad. Stop believing at earlier age. My wife and I make it work. I can’t complain. But it would have been easier just to have stopped believing before marriage, before mission, before BYU, and developed connections as a non-believer.
Unbelief can be as didactic & inflexible as belief as many, prolly myself included, regularly demonstrate on W&T. Still waiting for someone, ANYONE, to “solve” the mystery of existence. Sorry but if I have to chose between self-replicating molecules or Jesus, my heart will incline towards the latter.
Lots of good ones! Although seems like there are two resonating most with people so far, including me.
I’d rather force a GA to listen to something and I’d tell them people are leaving because the church isn’t offering them community or connection and that the church needs to rip the bandaid off, stop pretending prophets know everything, and make (real) room for people across the spectrum of belief. Oh, and polygamy was and is wrong and just admit it and the anti-LGBT worship of the heteronormative family is also wrong and male-only priesthood is wrong and just admit it. You’ll lose people short term but it’s the only path forward and it’s the right thing to do.
On still believe vs stop earlier, stop earlier (but only by a few months!). I was really on the fence about tithing in 2019 but decided to go ahead and pay it. It was a windfall year for me (I never have and probably never will make that much money in one or even several s years again) and it was a lot of tithing, esp since we paid on gross. Weeks later the 100B news came out. I’m still processing that and trying to get over it but I’m having a hard time letting go. Pretty mad anytime I think about it. Would have been a ton of money split between charities who really needed it and my kids’ educations and my retirement. Ouch.
Otherwise, I wouldn’t care to know the truth that much earlier because most of my choices even based on untruths turned out great, my transition was a slow gradual burn but I think I needed that to not totally lose my mind, and my kids are still young enough that I feel like I can shepherd them better on a nuanced or non-believing path. I feel for people who raised kids in the church and their own kids are now turning against them for having left. I hope to avoid that.
You’re so right about sad heaven being a real choice. That’s something else to tell church leaders!
I for sure would want to find out some of the apostles were faking it because otherwise it would really really depress me to find out Jesus and God were as small minded, punitive, exclusive, can’t make up their minds, sexist, homophobic, and for many years racist, etc., etc., that had been taught to me.
I’d love to know how many in leadership are faking it. Whenever I listen to general conference and hear all the adoration for the beloved prophet, all I hear is “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”.
I actually like RMN like some of his reforms but I’m scratching my head, wondering if anyone has ever cracked open an Old Testament to see how “beloved” a prophet is supposed to be.
It feels more like the prior article: Pluralistic Ignorance & Unpopular Norms… they’re shouting as loud as they can that they’ve fallen in line with the mainstream.
I would love to hear the apostles share experiences with Jesus, so much. I wouldn’t want to hear that any of them had faked their testimony, but I’d be delighted to hear some share what doctrines or policies they are uncertain of. I suspect they simply don’t discuss them publicly.
As for visiting the church in the past or future, definitely the future. We can read a lot about what the church was like in the past, but I really don’t know what to expect in the future church. A whole lot can change in 50 years, or very little. Hard to say. I really wonder what church might be like when my kids are my older than I am now.
Add me to the get out of the whole thing earlier crowd.
As a 73yo woman coming of age in a pre-1990 consciousness the church shaped my life in countless ways that simply don’t fit and never did. Still, I bought into the Mother in Zion thing for far too long and then, after the church was unmasked by their efforts to squash gay civil rights (after they’d trashed Black’s and women’s civil rights), I found myself without choices and the rational for the ones that had already defined my life.
I’m grateful for a really good and supportive marriage. My husband “gets” me — always has and always supported me within our own private world. He does well enough for us to live in comfort without a supplemental salary. Reason enough to try not to be bitter, but it’s really hard a lot of the time.
Great post! On the question of choosing General Conference topics, if one could require the speakers to talk about Black Lives Matter, I think you’d simply get basic compliance with the topic which would amount to no more of what we get today (“God loves all his children and is no respecter of persons” and “racism has no place in the Church”) along with at least one warning that while Black lives do matter on an individual basis, this does not constitute God’s acceptance of the BLM organization’s political and social objectives (though we would find out who is carrying on Ezra Taft Benson’s anti-communist legacy). There would certainly be no talks aimed at the United States’ particular difficulties with race and I am convinced there would be no talks about God wants racial equity in education and hiring, whether God is angry with the differences in family wealth based on race, or whether rebalancing government spending priorities away from traditional policing toward other social services is Christ-like. I doubt we would even get much more than a passing reference to Official Declaration 2 and certainly nothing new on where the racial ban on priesthood and temple ordinances came from. All in all, I suspect it would be a pretty boring conference.
Thank you for the fascinating, thought-provoking post Angela.
“Would you rather live one day in Church History (e.g. visit the 19th century) OR live one day in the future of the Church (50+ years from now)?”
Definitely the latter. I love studying history and occasionally fantasize about living in different historical eras, but that has never been the case with any period of Church history for me. It’s either boring or dreadful. It’s never come to life for me the way the Roaring 20s or Enlightenment-era Europe have (and I think the Church itself is responsible for sucking the life out of its own history). And of course all the issues with “faith-promoting” Church history versus the actual history, but that’s a topic for another post.
But for me to get a peek at what the Church will become in 50+years would be of tremendous value. If by chance the Future Church becomes something so abominable that I couldn’t bear the thought of my descendants being associated with it (and sometimes now I feel it is headed in this direction), I would return to my present time and resign my membership, saving me and my future progeny a great deal of trouble and expense. Same thing if the Church ultimately peters out into irrelevancy, which also seems like a probable outcome in the next half century. But if the Future Church turns out to be wonderful, radically inclusive, warp-capable (or something else far beyond my imagination), then it can give me enough hope to stick with it during the present.
One that I recall from a comment string (I think it was here at W&T but I could not readily find it) was whether it would be better for the Church to make more concrete declarations on some issues (even if those declarations go against what I/you personally believe) or leave the issue vague and let people decide for themselves and continue bickering and arguing amongst themselves about it.
If memory serves, the issue under discussion was some kind of gender role question (like whether or not the Church truly accepts working mom + stay at home dad scenarios) where the Church doesn’t really seem to say one way or the other. Another example that comes to mind is creationism vs. evolutionism. Or maybe questions around use of birth control.
It seems to me that there are several issues where the Church does not officially declare one side right or wrong. These issues often seem to be the source of some bickering and infighting in the Church. As uncomfortable as that infighting is, and as easily as a clear statement from the Church could settle the infighting, I’m not sure I want the Church to make declarations in these issues.
@MrShorty I agree that we could do with less declaring by the Church so that we feel free to think for ourselves. I do think that where the Church has previously taught things it now implicitly but not explicitly disavows (like prohibitions on birth control), it should explicitly disavow those teachings.
@Jack Hughes that’s a really good point. I’m becoming convinced the Church is going to drift into irrelevancy and so am relatively unconcerned about my children remaining involved. If I saw a really amazing version of a future Church maybe I would change my mind. I suppose we could just *assume* that the future could be amazing and try to create that future … but it seems largely out of my hands since the reason I think it’ll drift into irrelevancy is because of the leadership’s failure to accept input from members or admit to problems.
Elisa: you rock!
MrShorty: I totally agree that I’d prefer the Church take fewer official stances and leave things open to personal interpretation, although there are definitely many cases in which this has steered us wrong (e.g. the delay in congratulating Biden has given air to many conspiracy theorists in our midst).
Jack Hughes: I am in the same place as you about visiting a day in Church history or a day in Church future. I am very curious about 50+ years from now for the same reasons you list, and not at all interested in visiting the past for the reasons you list.
Not a Cougar: Great point! I hadn’t considered that if they had to speak on certain topics, they’d only bungle it if it wasn’t what jazzed them, but that’s obvious now that you say it. For example, if they want to give breath to both “black lives matter” and “property must be protected,” there’s very little chance they would connect the dots that black lives were property, and slaves escaping to freedom was considered theft in the US (the black person was stealing…him or herself…from the owner / master). That mindset sure hasn’t changed a whole lot. We still like to side with companies over employees, with big insurance over sick people, with wealthy suburbanites over poor people.
Alice: I definitely get where you are coming from. I’ve heard so many people in online groups say that they wish they could still believe, but it just doesn’t ring true to me. It’s like if you changed political parties, but wished you could still be your former party. No you don’t. Your values and views have changed. I don’t think we are wired that way. But of course, your late change in views makes it so your participation in groups like this are still a thing, and we are all the richer for your inclusion.
Andy & Stella: Yes, I think this would be much more interesting to me as well, and along the same lines, I would love to know if Trump is faking it or believes what he’s saying, not because it has bearing on whether I believe it, but because it’s an interesting question, whether another human is sincere or not. We are set to default to believing others, and to assuming they are sincere. Finding out someone is not is always surprising to us in the moment, even if we suspected it all along. But by contrast, finding out they talked to Jesus just sounds like Joan of Arc madness to me. I don’t know what to make of it. I do know people who fake things. I don’t know people who talk to Jesus (except perhaps in symbolic or one-sided ways). Like dreaming they are talking to Jesus makes sense to me and kind of works for me.
Elisa: I agree about my preference to create understanding in one of the apostles on an issue rather than to ask a question of one of them. I suspect that has something to do with my confidence in myself being higher than my confidence in them. Probably so. I certainly have more experience with my being on the right side of issues (in my own opinion, obviously), as do we all.
I would rather tell a leader something than ask a question. With due respect, I learned long ago that leaders don’t necessarily know more than I do. No question, I would rather have a wonderful, close, loving relationship with my child now than to have a polite relationship in hopes for the right check mark on some list in the future. Isn’t it all about developing wonderful, close, loving relationships, rather than struggling to fit in a predetermined box? Please, please, please cut GC to two sessions. Having a say in topics doesn’t guarantee content of a talk. Absolutely, I would rather learn of a GAs experience seeing and talking with Christ than learning he was faking it to fill a public role. I would take no pleasure in the latter. Past or future: future!
@Angela fair point about wanting to talk rather than listen because I think I’m right. But actually it goes much deeper than that. It’s a human need to feel heard and understood, even if the listener ultimately doesn’t agree or do what you want. It is much easier to accept a decision I don’t like (whether at work or church or home) if I feel like the decisionmaker genuinely understood and considered my perspective.
My biggest problem with the Q15 is that I just don’t get any sense that they actually *understand* the experiences of a lot of women, LGBTQ folks, people of color, etc. etc. etc. If they do, they certainly aren’t acting like it and they certainly aren’t saying anything other than shallow platitudes in talks. During Ordain Women, for example, I would have been pretty happy if someone at General Conference had just said, “We know there are many women who feel pain at being excluded from priesthood ordination. We understand and are sorry for that pain. While the Lord has not revealed to us at this time that we should expand priesthood ordination to include women, we all need to do better to ensure that women’s voices are heard and talents are developed, and we need to mourn with those people who are hurt by our priesthood structure.” That’s not the outcome that I wanted, but at least I’d feel like there was some kind of understanding.
Instead, we get gaslighting: “If you are sad that you don’t have the priesthood, it’s because you don’t understand the priesthood. You shouldn’t be sad about the priesthood. Study more. Be more righteous. Have patience and you’ll eventually realize we are right and you are wrong.” And of course, that’s a lot more direct than they were because they didn’t want to *acknowledge* that there are unhappy women in the Church That’s condescending, insulting, and shows a total lack of understand the issues. Someone who views the issue in that way isn’t someone whose decisions I trust to be based on sound information or deserving of deference.
So I would want to speak and be understood. Maybe they wouldn’t change. But it would be something to feel heard. I’ve spent my lifetime listening to our leaders and trying to makes sense of and implement the things they have said, even when it’s gone against what I personally wanted. They could consider repaying the favor.
As Jack Handy once said, “I’d rather be rich than stupid.”
Oops. That’s not a conundrum, that’s more of a deepity.
@Angela C: It’s interesting to contemplate what it would look like—RMN declaring he had seen Jesus. It would probably seem a little like Joan of Arc madness to me too, but is it really all that different from Joseph Smith saying he had seen Jesus? I imagine my family members reacting to it, and all I can picture is elation.
I don’t know what to make of it either. Do the brethren really see themselves as prophets and seers who neither see nor prophesy? Or do they see themselves merely as caretakers and interpreters of Joseph Smith’s revelations?
How do they reconcile that? What is it like to be the president of the church, to have “We Thank Thee O God For a Prophet” sung at you day in and day out, to know the membership assumes you to talk to Jesus, and then to not have any sort of burning bush moment to back it up?
DHO is on record as saying that neither he nor any apostle he’s aware of has had an experience “like Alma the Younger” but that his witness is based on more subtle spiritual experiences “like so much dust on the windowsill or so much dew on the grass.” I don’t know how many members are aware of that statement though (outside of the exmo Reddit and progmo blogs).
I remember hearing an interview with Gordon B. Hinckley a few years back and thinking, ok, he gets inspiration like the rest of us—doesn’t sound like Jesus is appearing to him, (to them), or speaking to them audibly. We are all using the same system, except that I’m not directing a church (and we might have different impressions/guidance/answers.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/mormons-hinckley/
Indeed, what is a testimony? Let’s be more forthright and start singing We Thank Thee O God for a Platitude – good better best, doubt your doubts, lift where you stand, give Joseph a break, stay in the boat (or around the campfire), ponderize, ongoing restoration, perfection pending etc
Since there hasn’t been much discussion of some of the proposed conundrums, I thought it might be fun to give my take on those:
I like the idea of being able to vote out bad bishops. I prefer it over voting on them in the first place just because I already hate the idea of people “campaigning” for leadership positions and that seems like it would be inevitable with such a system. Having the ability to vote out would be a nice protection.
Though much discussed, I do want to be on record for wanting a close relationship with kids, regardless of their beliefs. But don’t believe in the doctrine of sad heaven anyway.
If I could eliminate a church policy for everyone but myself, is it cheating to say I would eliminate keeping women from ordination/leadership, if I am a man? Or ending the church’s ban on gay temple marriages if I am straight, but father of gay child? I would prioritize the former because I suspect once there were more women in Q15, the latter would fall quickly.
Surprisingly to me, after some thought, I realized I would rather have been born in covenant than be an adult convert. I doubt I would choose the LDS church as an adult, but as a child I think I benefited in many ways from my parent’s participation in the church. (Richard Rohr’s first half of life vessel.) As an adult, I have had plenty of chances to make more informed decisions about the extent of my belief and participation.
I would choose a ward that was not sexist and racist with a church that is, simply because that best represents my current situation and I have learned I can have meaningful communion in such a community even if it’s institutional dogma is very whacked. I know that is selfish.
All in on rhe choice full financial transparency. That way I can decide if my tithing money should go to LDS church or some other cause. 10% tithing should cover building cleaning, but those whose activities leave big messes should be charged extra.
Would take a friendly but uninspiring ward over a whitened sepluchure.
Would rather be the dumbest person in a friendly and tolerant ward. (Is that cheating?)
Would prefer to be richest in ward. Have been the poorest before and that wasn’t so fun. (Not so friendly and tolerant ward.)
And then a final thought on a much-discussed conundrum. Others have made a compelling case for going to live a day in the church’s future. But I would go as a fly on the wall to the day Joseph Smith claimed to have gone to get the gold plates the first time. If I saw that there were really gold plates and the ancient artefacts he claimed and that he was really rebuked by real angel, it would give me some reason to continue to take Joseph seriously, and wrestle with his ideas, despite all his mistakes and ego, and to keep some hope and effort in the movement he founded.
10ac: Agreed about voting out bad bishops rather than voting them in, and for exactly the same reasons. I’m totally willing to believe that a lot of people can be an OK bishop, but the truly bad apples that get picked should be weeded out.
On the elimination of a Church policy, I can think of many policies that I would be willing to adhere to, but would prefer to be in a Church with people who aren’t scrupulously adhering to them and imbuing them with meaning. For example, I don’t care much about the Word of Wisdom. I don’t feel compelled to drink alcohol or coffee, but I would definitely rather be in a congregation of people who aren’t making these things into an overzealous litmus test, a signifier of good and bad, for things that are ultimately kind of silly markers. As you say about ordination, I’d be totally fine if women were ordained, yet I could not be. That would still result in so so many improvements to policies and culture that we have no hope for right now. I’d even be fine if the practice of Temple Recommends as compulsory for callings were completely done away with, but I personally had to go through the interview every other year. I hate the process, but I would make that sacrifice to give everyone else the freedom to carry their own thoughts without scrutiny from some well meaning dentist. I’d love to live in a world where people’s thoughts are private, and their innocuous behaviors like Church attendance and coffee drinking are not carrying social consequences. I would not, however, be as sanguine about it if I had to pay 10% tithing and nobody else did. I would be irritated by that.
I don’t regret my childhood upbringing in the Church. It does give one the freedom to develop at a pace that works for that person rather than feeling the social pressure all teens feel without the safety net provided by the Church. It’s like as a mother when you tell your kids that if they ever want to get out of a situation, all they have to do is say “My mom would kill me if I did that.” It’s totally not true, but if that let’s them save face while getting out of a bad situation, they can say whatever they like about me, the parent, to do so. The highest value I have from my upbringing is the lifelong close-knit friendships from growing up and attending Mutual. Even if we aren’t always still in touch, and hardly any are still active in the Church, we all still really care about each other, wish each other well, and would do anything for each other that we could reasonably do. I roll my eyes at some of their politics from time to time, or their life choices, but if any of them reached out and said “I need a place to stay” or “I have cancer and need help. Can you come?” or “My husband is abusive and I need money to get free from him” I would find a way to make it happen. No questions asked. I am still close with some high school friends in that way as well, but literally I feel that way about all of my Church friends from YM/YW.
I totally feel that I HAVE chosen a non-sexist, non-racist ward with a sexist, racist Church because the latter is the only thing on offer, and the former is unfortunately, a mixed bag. I’m not sure whether my new ward qualifies on the whole thanks to the pandemic, but since the median age is under 80, they are probably better than the institutional Church.
As to being the richest / smartest in the ward, I think that both of these things can contribute to personal well-being. If you surround yourself with people who have less than you, you feel better about your relative position (they say happiness is linked to the feeling that you are better than 75% of those around you). However, there’s a staying problem with being the smartest person in the room. I also think about the narcissism and arrogance that can evolve when you are surrounded by intellectually inferior people (clearly NOT where Trump got his narcissism), and it would make it hard to feel that you had anything to learn from these inferior beings. But being more wealthy can actually make you feel more charitable and needed. Being smarter makes you feel like they are morons, and you have nothing to learn from them. Dumber people are irritating, particularly if they are incurious, whereas poorer people are basically the same as you but with less money (despite the assertion of so many that poor people lack virtue). Also dumber people (I mean, depending on just how dumb) tend to not know they are dumb, whereas the poor are confronted with their limits all the time. Poor often goes with humility, but dumb seldom does.
I’m not sure about the plates business because what if the plates he retrieved were like the Kinderhook plates (totally fake)? How would you know the difference? Just because they looked ancient wouldn’t mean they were, although it might mean he was sincere vs. a fraud (and the existence of physical plates certainly does lend credence to a lot of our original story as a religion, or rather the lack of plates casts doubt). I’m still more interested in the future, though. I wonder about the relevance of all religions in the future, but particularly what ours will be like given just how much it has shifted in my lifetime.
I grew up outside of Utah and had an awesome church/Scouting experience. My mission was super and beneficial (so I would have gone for an extra six months). But in retrospect, I would have been better leaving the church in my early 20’s. It would also eliminate some of the related burdens my three oldest children bear due to their activity in the church.
POTUS elected fair and square – let the chips fall where they may.
Full financial transparency for the church – eliminates the guesswork on things to which I would object.
If I could retain my current level of smarts, I would gladly be the dumbest in my ward. If I had to become the dumbest, I’m not sure I could remember when garbage day is. E.g., “‘Ye do err’ is Hebrew for ‘in not knowing the scriptures'”. And of course, we were all too nice to correct it.
I would rather know some apostles are faking it. Then what they do would make more sense. If I truly believed they were conveying what God told them, I think I would have to entirely stop believing in God. (I already don’t believe in the “God” they describe.)
Angela C,
You have thoughtfully articulated in a way much better than I could a lot of ideas that that went through my mind as I was thinking about my choices to your conundrums. Thanks!
I choose to love my children fully and completely in this life. It’s the only guarantee we have. How sad to ruin your relationship only to find out there is no “sad heaven” we all get in, but now your children aren’t all that excited to spend eternity with you. (I also don’t believe in sad heaven so this isn’t a hard choice)
I would like to go back in church history. I would really like to see what was so appealing about the early church and it’s message that my ancestors were so willing to abandon all they had to get on a ship and immigrate to a new country only to have to exit that country under threat and start yet again with almost nothing in an inhospitable desert. And nary an unkind word in their copious journal entries. I wouldn’t have the faith if I were asked to do it today.
I wish I could have admitted I didn’t believe it all earlier. I wish the pressure from family to go along to get along wasn’t so powerful.
I would LOVE the apostles to confirm they have spoken with God/Jesus. If they speak FOR God I’d like to know they speak TO God.
And I know this isn’t one you asked us to answer, but, plumbing. Definitely would rather live without electricity than plumbing.
Also, where is this friendly and accepting ward? I am willing to relocate.
Thank you, Angela. That was very kind.
I would also like to travel backwards in Church history. The writing seems to be on the wall regarding the future, at least from my perspective; the only uncertainty seems to be the timeline/sequence behind accepting same-sex marriages, continuing to significantly revise temple ordinances, continuing to dumb down curriculum, etc. In terms of influencing my activity in the Church, getting to the bottom of certain truth claims involving history could help me to stick around. That said, if I had a crystal ball and could see the Church pulling a 180 with regards to financial transparency, tithing, humanitarian aid, etc., I could possibly be convinced to stay. It would take a miracle to make that happen, however.
Another possible conundrum: Should the Church continue to construct temples? Or should it do a lot more to help the poor? I vote for the latter.
rogerdhansen: I sometimes wonder if the Church finds “the poor” to be an intimidating problem. The irony is that with so many Republican and Republican-leaning leaders, they don’t seem that invested in solving poverty at the government level either. There are deeper problems to address with poverty: drug addiction, our stance toward crime and freed criminals, mental illness, and systemic inequality. We seem to have a lot of opinions about how poor people should be to qualify. They need to deserve our help, and our requirements for that can be arbitrary and unhelpful and simply get us off the hook. Yesterday, I met a homeless woman (and her cute dog) who have taken up residence on the sidewalk in front of our business. I asked what she needed, and went to the nearby convenience store to buy her some snacks and a big drink. She seemed like a regular person to me, no noticeable mental illness, very polite and nice. I wanted to buy her a place to live, but I really couldn’t think how to make that happen. If I had enough to build some free housing, and help people like her get on their feet, get a job, etc., that would be very satisfying. Instead, I had to settle for giving her a bag of really overpriced high protein snacks, and a few sweets. As I was leaving, I noticed there was another person there with her under some blankets. I don’t know her story, and I have no training in this. It would be incredible to find out that the 10% I’ve been giving my whole life went toward housing people, helping them toward drug-free, safe, sheltered independence.
@rogerdhansen
I agree deeply. Until towards the end of the twentieth century the church had fewer temples and made significant efforts to help vulnerable populations. Primary children collected their pennies to contribute to Primary Children’s Hospital, encouraged by the understanding that their donations helped sick children brought from other countries where care wasn’t available. Members in New Zealand built a church college. A high school was built and operated in Mexico. Colleges, universities, and hospitals were built.
Could we consider these institutions to be, in a sense, sacred? Could we consider them, in ways, to be temples?
Roger Hansen’s work building play structures is beautiful and sacred in many senses of the word. Providing a place where children enjoy one another, build friendships, experience joy, and exercise their bodies–I think we could consider this sacred.
We could build housing for the unhoused. Provide healing spaces. Ensure the hungry are fed. Fund research searching for causes and cures for addiction and mental illness. We have the resources.
Roger Hansen, one of the first things I thought when the story of the 100 billion came out is “That’s why they are building so many temples. They don’t know what to do with the money”. I really do think church leaders have no ill intent at all regarding money. They aren’t enriching themselves off it. The church was poor and struggling for so long but they had a system that got them out of financial difficulty and they have kept the same system even when money started piling up really, really high. I see the church making huge efforts to get people educated and teach skills to get out of poverty but there is a very deeply engrained “self-reliance” ethic that prevents just giving people things. It will be interesting to see what changes happen next.
+1 for the idea that we are building temples because we literally don’t know what else to do with all the money and it’s an easy way to create an impression of “progress”.
+2 for the idea that we are building temples for no good reason. I think they are more valuable as visible markers of supposed progress/expansion, as Elisa mentions, than anything else. My impression is that even in a non-pandemic situation, many of them are mostly empty most of the time, at least the ones outside the Mormon corridor.
You also have the Jana Riess conundrum: Should I give my tithing to the Church, or should I allocate my 10 percent as I see fit? I’ve chosen the latter.
Hard to even think of that as a conundrum, rogerdhansen. The choice is quite clear. If you have any intention for your gift to do any real good in the world established, transparent charities are the way to go.
For our part, we give to the local NPR station and various watchdog groups and groups that support marginal populations.
@rogerdhansen I made that choice as well. I would be curious to know how many did so this year after the 100B bombshell.
Fwiw I know people who were transparent about that at tithing settlement and the bishop said “whether you consider yourself a full tithe payer is between you and God. If you consider yourself a full tithe payer, that’s what I will put.” Which seems to be what Jana did.
I didn’t go into that with my bishop, just said “no” and he was very kind about it. Very positive experience.
Conundrums:
Is it worse to be feminist or racist?
Is it worse to be intellectual or DezNat?
I don’t understand how these can be conundrums, but in my world they are.