I just finished reading a novel my daughter recommended If We Were Villains by M.L. Rio. It’s a novel that contains a sort of murder mystery, abuse, retribution, relationships, friendship, and family, all through the lens of a group of Shakespearean actor students whose entire lives are consumed with performance and bringing the Bard’s words to life, both on and off stage. The book surprised me at times, but also caused me to reflect about the nature of theater, performance, human nature, and personal doubt.
My first feeling when my daughter recommended this book was pride that I had successfully instilled a love of theater in my kids. We’ve been taking them to the Utah Shakespeare Festival since the mid-90s (not her, since she was born later than that). We also have taken them to several Broadway and West End shows over the years. Once my second asked me in a whining voice, “Why do you always make us go to see these plays every year?” I replied, “Because I want my kids to be able to quote Shakespeare.” The glib response I got to that was: “What, ho?” I’ve never been more proud.
All of my kids participated in various theater work in high school as a result of this exposure: show choir, tech work, and acting. One of the books I like to read in anticipation of the annual plays is Harold Bloom’s Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. The book includes short essays on each of the plays, usually picking out a few of the key themes and exploring them slightly more fully.
Shakespeare will not make us better, and he will not make us worse, but he may teach us how to overhear ourselves when we talk to ourselves…he may teach us how to accept change in ourselves as in others, and perhaps even the final form of change.
Harold Bloom
Doubt, including self-doubt, is both the spark of faith, and of creativity. It is the spark of humanity. When I was 9 years old, I determined that the most important thing I could do in my lifetime was to understand people: myself and others. To understand the human condition. This is a lifelong undertaking, one that people like Victor Frankl, Shakespeare, Mary Shelley, and many others have contributed to, but nobody has completely cracked the code on what makes us tick. Those who attempt to understand it obtain a part of the story, and if they write, they leave some of that behind for others to build on.
Religion, like theater, is one place where these ideas are explored. Religion can also be like theater (but is not always) in enacting some of the themes of human existence through rituals. Live theater does this better, in my opinion, using language and relationships that can be interpreted and reinterpreted in new ways over time. If religion attempts to be relevant to human experience, it can only do so by acknowledging and embracing doubt as the starting point of both faith and human growth. If you don’t question, you don’t ponder your existence, you don’t attempt to understand what you are doing and why, you can’t grow. Instead you calcify in your existing state. Your relationships, including your relationship with reality and your own personal identity, remain static. Instead of having new life experiences, you have the same ones over and over, usually in a way that reinforces your existing, less mature perspective.
All literature involves the growth of characters, and for characters to grow, they must experience doubt: of themselves, of others, and of institutions. If they don’t doubt, they don’t grow. To modify E. Uchtdorf’s famous instruction: “Before you doubt your doubts, doubt your beliefs.” If Joseph Smith had never doubted his beliefs, there would be no Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. If he had never doubted his own worthiness, there would have been no first vision. If he hadn’t doubted his assumptions, his mind would have been closed to ongoing revelation.
Doubt, with its capacity to challenge and frustrate, becomes a driving force behind the creation of powerful theatrical works. It pushes playwrights to confront the limitations of their craft and explore new artistic territories.”
Tennessee Williams
Without doubt in religion, all religions become more of the same. There can be no new ideas introduced that cause us to re-examine tenets that have human origins from other bygone eras. Precedent and authority can take priority over revelation. We become comforable relying on what is unreliable. We seek certainty and “rightness” which are the enemies of growth; only self-doubt and self-reflection lead to improvement, more empathy, and more Christlike behavior. There is no repentance without self-doubt, only justification and rationalization.
Good theater is unresolved and doesn’t have a single interpretation. In a recent episode of the Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, her theater critic father insults his wife’s simple interpretation of a play they’ve seen, implying that she’s just not as good at understanding theater as he is because he has seen so many subtexts and themes that went over her head. When they spot the playwright eating in the same restaurant, the wife asks him what the play was about, and he provides a simple explanation that mirrors her interpretation. The theater critic feels like a fraud and a fool for reading too much into the play, but perhaps he shouldn’t. The best authors may not be aware of every subtext in their work. Human life is complex. This is the basis for reader-response criticism, which posits that the response of the reader or viewer is a valid form of critique in understanding a work, not merely the known intent of the author. A good author evokes a response, but that doesn’t mean that the response is always fully predicted by the author.
The job of the artist is to remind people of what they have chosen to forget.
Arthur Miller
In our lives, we choose to forget to be curious. We forget wonder. We forget to be present, instead wasting time dwelling on past wrongs or victories. We forget that we are more than the thoughts in our heads. Social pressures and tribalism cause us to forget the humanity we all share. When we enter the theater, we the audience start in a place of shared darkness. We sit together, as individuals, and embark on a journey of reflection that the actors bring to life. The words of a great play are timeless in that they can be interpreted in myriad ways. Different emphasis or gestures can bring new meanings to life for the audience. Choices made by the director and the actors can alter the relationships between characters, even without making a single change to the written word.
We aren’t the only ones who enter the theater experience in the dark. The actors also start from a position of doubt. Live theater in particular is subject to the transformative magic of a shared experience. Actors can be surprised by nuances in the material that they didn’t expect. They can be surprised by an audience reaction or a slight shift in a scene partner’s emphasis. A play often feels different on opening night than it does on closing night. It can be completely different with a different cast or director, even if the words are the same.
The thing that makes a good performance is doubt. If you don’t have any doubt, you’re not working.
Viola Davis
The best Church experiences I have had have been those in which people have honestly expressed doubts and self-reflection. I don’t hear as much of that anymore. We seem to have forgotten where the magic happens. Perhaps that will change with different leadership in charge. Current leaders don’t seem to be that invested in these ideas and experiences; at least that’s how it appears to me. A Church experience that sparks wonder and creates human reflection would certainly be more value than one that contributes to forgetting wonder and closing our minds.
- Do you find that your Church experience sparks wonder and self-reflection? If not, has it in the past?
- Have you found yourself transformed by live theater?
- Do you see a future for these ideas in the Church?
- How do you feel about doubt as a spark for personal growth and shared humanity?
Discuss.
Attending church has filled me with self reflection and questions all my life. For me the story of Joseph Smith and his honest doubts, prayerful questions and brave convictions in the face of threats and disrespect is central to my own identity and view of how to be a moral person.
The very idea that I should submit to authority without receiving my own witness feels without integrity to me. Talks that tell me to “Doubt not” actually make me doubt more. No one in authority gets to tell me what my thoughts will be. To even suggest that… 😤
I was a theater arts major for a while in college until I decided I just wasn’t good enough to make my living that way. I had a scholarship in theater arts, but really mental health is my first love. Literature and theater are a portal to think about human behavior
I firmly believe that organization’s within the Church (whether at the Ward, Stake, or general level) run much more effectively when they’re not filled by a bunch of yes-men. Any healthy organization needs leaders that regularly challenge each other’s ideas and outlooks. Without that, leadership becomes an echo chamber, which usually doesn’t end well. I enjoy reading stories about members of the Q12 and 1st Presidency disagreeing with each other frequently because it means that they’ve engaged in a healthy process to try to understand the Lord’s will. Doubt can be a form of revelation.
My dad, an architect, always repeated this phrase when it came to his creative vision: “efficiency is the enemy to innovation”. “Mormonism” is, by its nature, an innovative faith. Unfortunately, it can be weighed down by bureaucracy and red tape, which in turn stifles a creative outlook. We saw this first hand when it came to the removal of the Salt Lake Temple murals. Numbers and efficiency were emphasized over the creative innovations of earlier pioneers. Thankfully, the outcry from that decision prompted President Nelson to go back to the drawing board and find a more innovative solution to save the Manti Temple (build a new a temple six miles away to handle capacity, keep Manti fully preserved).
So yes, creative innovation is still possible within the Church, but that requires us not being afraid to express concerns.
A professor of mine, near retirement when I first knew her, had as a young woman been friends with an elderly Robert Frost.
They went to a conference together in which a student proposed an interpretation of one of Frost’s poems. During the QandA after the session, Robert Frost raised his hand. “I’d never thought of my poem that way before. I think I will now.”
Art is so much bigger than the intentions and ideas of the artist. In live theater it’s hard to escape this conclusion: the playwright is being interpreted by the actors who’ve been influenced by their director and are also impacted by the audience, the sets, the costumes…it all comes together in that ephemeral moment of performance to create meaning.
We can make meaning individually, but the really good stuff comes, I think, when we pool our knowledge and experiences and do it together. This happens sometimes in church. We have a critical mass of people in my ward willing to be real enough for some discussions to get good.
But this kind of meaning-making—you’re so right—requires doubt and humility. Robert Frost has to cede his authority to his own words. I don’t think our Institutional Church is capable of that sort of grace or humility. It would be difficult for any institution. Vulnerability is hard.
If you have all the answers you don’t need to be curious.
I agree with josh h.
I would add a related statement.
“If you afraid of and/or uninterested in asking the questions, you don’t need to be curious either.”
Ay, there’s the rub. When the prophet says something, do we choose question marks or exclamation points?
I love the theater. Prior to meeting my wife, I never attended anything other than a middle school rendition of The Ransom of Red Chief. Since then, I”be seen more than I can remember both on and off Broadway, Shakespearean and non (we even made the pilgrimage to Austria and did a tour centered around The Sound of Music). Have I been transformed by live theater? Yes.
Does church attendance spark wonder and self reflection? Yes. But only because I rarely attend the LDS church anymore. Since confessing my doubts
in the church, I no longer have a calling (most recently my EQ Pres asked if I could be the quorum’s community service coordinator (because I do a lot of that already) and said yes. But as the conversation went on and I expressed my “one true church” doubts, he withdrew it).
As a result of not being tied to a calling, I now attend other faiths in addition to my ward. I’ve attended Jehovah”s Witnesses, Catholic, Community of Christ, Methodist, Fundamental Baptist, Evangelical and Pentecostal (currently on my list is Judaism and Unitarian). Each service is different, Each service brings about joy, surprise, the spirit. Each service brings with it a completely different cast of performers, all expressing their love of God in their own way (one service had live music louder than ANY rock concert I’ve ever been to)! Since I’ve been doing this, I see humanity in a way I never have before. And it is beautiful.
I love the theater. Prior to meeting my wife, I never attended anything other than a middle school rendition of The Ransom of Red Chief. Since then, I’ve seen more than I can remember both on and off Broadway, Shakespearean and non (we even made the pilgrimage to Austria and did a tour centered around The Sound of Music). Have I been transformed by live theater? Yes.
Does church attendance spark wonder and self reflection? Yes. But only because I rarely attend the LDS church anymore. Since revealing my doubts in the church, I no longer have a calling (though a couple months ago, my new EQ Pres asked if I could be the quorum’s community service coordinator (because I do a lot of that already) and said yes. But as the conversation went on and I questioned the “one true church” claims, he withdrew it).
As a result of not being tied to a calling, I now attend other faiths in addition to my ward. I’ve attended Jehovah”s Witnesses, Catholic, Community of Christ, Methodist, Fundamental Baptist, Evangelical and Pentecostal (currently on my list is Judaism and Unitarian). Each service is different, Each service brings about joy, surprise, the spirit. Each service brings with it a completely different cast of performers, all expressing their love of God in their own way (one service had live music louder than ANY rock concert I’ve ever been to)! Since I’ve been doing this, I see humanity in a way I never have before. And it is beautiful.
“Doubt” feels like a dirty word along with “fail” and “quit.” In reality they are all just weights on the barbell of life – they can crush us or make us stronger.
Theater has a special way of allowing us to explore and try on new roles and ideas with no risk beyond the cost of a ticket and some time. Plus it’s just fun.
Church should be that same way in its ideal form – a community we can rely on through the challenges in both life of faith. It does exist – I was lucky and grew up in a Mormon community like that. Unfortunately, it’s very easy (maybe easier) for a church community to become judgmental, dogmatic, and insular.
Hawkgrrrl:
I am always impressed by the nature of your analysis in your posts whether I agree with it or not but I must say the analysis in this post is particularly impressive. Thanks
It seem a bit silly now, but I remember a production of South Pacific at my high school that was totally transformative. I had to see it twice. To that point, I had little to no experience with live theater and had no idea how much energy it produces. Fast forward to a production of Macbeth at the Utah Shakespeare Festival, which gave me insight into how professional actors could bring an audience to the edge through thoroughly consuming performances.
And then I forgot that I love live theater for a while.
Thankfully, we took a President’s Day trip to NY a few years ago and saw Mockingbird, Network, and the Ferryman in one weekend. It remains one of the best weekends of my life. Apropos of nothing save that the unexpected happens in NY, Bill and Hillary Clinton showed up at the Mockingbird performance. Edward Norton materialized outside the stage door after we saw Bryan Cranston’s Network. (Honestly, his role in that production required so much energy, I have no idea how anyone does that every night. Truly amazing.) Since then we’ve seen Mockingbird again on Broadway and Hadestown. I can’t get enough any more and look forward to someday taking my daughter, a toddler now, to the theatre. We will start ASAP.
I’m glad you mentioned doubt because I feel like it is the sibling of humility. While trying to tamp down the righteous indignation his children justifiably feel, Jeff Daniels’ Atticus Finch walks a fine line between doubt and justice in Mockingbird. He tries to teach them that justice is hard won and life is complicated, so maybe reserve some judgement and consider the tragedy of the perpetrator as well as the victim. I guess credit goes to Harper Lee and Aaron Sorkin, who wrote the play, for achieving a level of nuance.
Did my church experience spark wonder? Not really, no. How does one find wonder in a belief system that teaches rock certainty and discourages questioning and doubt?
“How does one find wonder in a belief system that teaches rock certainty and discourages questioning and doubt?”
By receiving greater light and knowledge. Remember, our belief system encourages asking, seeking, and knocking.
It does not, Jack. Countless are the numbers of people who have asked, sought, knocked and then either left or been ushered out because they came to the wrong conclusion. You know this to be true.
“God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what He will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them.”
That’s the kind of knowledge I’m talking about. Every one of us has the opportunity to grow in light and knowledge as fast as we’re able. The wonders of mortality — as wondrous as they may be — do not compare to the wonders of eternity.
That was not my experience, Jack. It was not the experience of many, as you know. But why not comment on your experience with doubt as a fundamental part of human nature and what you may have learned from the wonder that is live theatre? Have you nothing to add to the actual subject of the original post?
I apologize for posting twice, but I feel the need to respond to Jacks comment on receiving greater light and knowledge by asking, seeking and knocking.
My wife of 33 years is 58 years old. Her father was twice a bishop and her mother was RS Pres who knows how many times. She was raised in the gospel and did all the things she was taught to do and tried to believe what she was taught to believe. She was baptized, read The Book of Mormon, daily prayer, graduated seminary, married in the temple, accepted every calling (including YW President) and asked many times with a sincerity of heart if the gospel was true.
She never received an answer.
For over 30 years she kept this to herself and only revealed it when I came to her and confessed my own faith transition. She said the most difficult time for her was when I was serving as bishop because she felt like a fraud. I feel so bad that for the first half of her life, she lived under the assumption that if you “fake it ’til you make it” the testimony will come.
Not always. And not everyone.
jaredsbrother,
Funny thing is–I’m a theater guy. I’m working on the score for my 12th musical. I love the process of building a story and getting the various artistic mediums to work together–and then finally watching the whole thing come together in production. It’s really quite miraculous–akin to the creative process the brought the universe together, IMO. You start with the raw elements–and somewhere down the road you’re amazed at how it has grown into a full blown piece that others want to be apart of.
With regard to the doubts that are involved in creating a work for the stage–they’re incessant. But their are the right kinds of doubts and the wrong kinds of doubts, IMO. The right kinds are those that are born of belief. The wrong kinds are those that are born of disbelief. The former opens they way to looking for a solution beyond what doesn’t seem to be working while the latter walks away from the project because of what doesn’t seem to be working.
As it pertains to religion: that’s why Alma says that the Lord is merciful to those who believe–because he can work with them even though they may have doubts about certain elements of the gospel.
Call me Mark,
One of the challenges to living the gospel is continuing to slog through the more mundane aspects that come with the territory. That was a huge lesson that ancient Israel had to learn. Their deliverance from Egypt was accompanied by lots of “fireworks.” It was really quite a show. But, by and by, when they removed further into the wilderness those flashes of magnesium ceased–and they had to settle for the long burning embers. Even so, it was during those relatively quiet forty years in the wilderness that they became prepared to enter the promised land. And so it is with us. The vast majority of saints are prepared by degrees over a lifetime of living on manna–the words of Christ.
Having said that, I don’t mean to convey the idea that you and your wife just gave up. My guess is that there’s more complexity to your story–and I don’t want to judge your situation. Even so, I can’t deny that my wish for all who have left the church (for whatever reason) might one day find their way back and partake of the blessings of the fulness of the gospel.
Your kid replying “what, Ho” to you is hilarious. Theater is magical. I just discovered Andrew Scott as Hamlet on YouTube and it’s my new favorite take on the material.
Church used to spark wonder. I used to get a big thrill out of the epic nature of scripture stories, along with their mysterious otherworldliness.
At a certain point, though, that curiosity led me to questions that butted heads with the correlated narrative. “Further light and knowledge” (I.e. historical context) about the Bible reveals its pluralistic, legendary nature. Satan is an invention of the 6th century BCE and is not the serpent in Genesis. Moses is most likely a composite folkloric figure rather than a real person, etc. There’s a whole lot of wonder there, as the past is such a strange foreign country, but it’s a wonder that looks less like Cecil B. DeMille and more like Dan McClellan.
In the case of the BoM, no historical context for an ancient origin is available. You can’t learn a single damn new thing about the BoM if you treat it as ancient. You can only fantasize. Whereas if you treat it as what is is—a 19th century text—you can learn all kinds of things about it relative to Joseph Smith and his life and times. So again there is wonder there, but it takes you far afield from the correlated narrative.
“You can’t learn a single damn new thing about the BoM if you treat it as ancient.”
Have you listened to Nibley’s Teachings of the Book of Mormon?
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi/70/
They can be found on YouTube as well.
Jack, Nibley is reading historical context into the BoM text by assuming univocality and literalism across all the books of LDS scripture, which is a mistake. But even Hugh Nibley can’t add actual historical context into the BoM because contemporary sources from anywhere in ancient America are so mismatched with the BoM text that faithful scholars can’t even pin down a specific location for its events to have taken place (this is not an invitation to explain why a particular geographical model is a slam dunk in your opinion. It’s not. None of them are).
All one can do is, as Nibley does, use Biblical context to infer and infer and infer. And inferring to that degree without any actually data is just fantasizing. Without contemporary sources that mention Teancum, we’ll never learn a single new thing about Teancum. We’ll never learn a single new thing about Alma. We’ll never learn a single new thing about cureloms or senines or the geological cataclysm of 33 CE. And that’s the problem.
Getting back to the OP, if one follows their doubt and curiosity to the logical conclusion re: BoM context (namely, that the data all support a 19th century origin), that’s a problem for church leadership if they want the members to all believe the correlated narrative. So the solution is to try to put guardrails on people’s curiosity and squash doubt. This leads to people feeling trammeled and ignoring the guardrails or it leads to people creating feedback loops of confirmation bias-supporting ideas that ignore logical fallacies in order to sustain themselves. At best, you end up with Nibley-type scholarship which runs a mile wide and an inch deep. At worst you get a bunch of dudes sitting in a basement debating which one of them is “the One Mighty and Strong.”
What do we know about the man Jesus outside of the canon? Very, very little. And yet I hope we don’t allow that paucity of information to undermine his teachings–let alone his claims about who and what he was. Even so, there are ways of know that the Savior is who he says he is without relying on scholarship. And so, if Nibley is making inferences to a group of people who have (more or less) the testimony of Jesus–then he’s doing more than just propping up fun ideas. He’s expounding upon things that resonate at the deepest levels with those whom he’s teaching because of what they already know. In that light the Book of Mormon becomes a reservoir of knowledge to those who receive it as an inspired text regardless of its seeming lack corroboration by other sources. If we learn by the spirit of revelation that the BoM is true–then it’s likely that someone like Teancum was a real person. We can at least know that much–plus whatever else the BoM has to say about him and his circumstances. And then we can hope that more corroborating information will made available in the future.
In an attempt to try to tie some of the conversation between Jack and Kirkstall back to the OP, it’s well known that works of theater and other forms of art can move and inspire us. Why then does it matter so much if the Book of Mormon is “true?”
“Is the Book of Mormon true?” is such a binary, reductive question that frankly misses the point. Does something have to be 100% true to have power and influence?
Make a list of the most influential books and plays in human history – how many are fictional? (Hint: a lot) To Kill a Mockingbird, 1984, Don Quixote, The Lord of the Rings, The Odyssey…Harry Potter…the entirety of Shakespeare.
What does “true” mean anyway?
Is it true that the BoM is a perfect archaeological record of ancient America?
Is it true that it has inpired millions of people to try to live better lives?
Is it true that it has been used to defend some terrible things?
Is it true that real people have died fighting for and against it?
Is it true that it is indeed another testament of Jesus Christ that came from the Americas…even if it might have been 19th century America instead of ancient America?
“Is it true?” as it is usually intended is a meaningless question. There are many better questions we can ask of the Book of Mormon.
The Pirate Priest,
It’s certainly true that great works of art can convey profound truths. To track Macbeth’s arc and fully comprehend how and why he becomes a murderer is rather frightening. There’s a profound truth there for all of us to wrestle with. Even so, when we’re talking about the kind of truth that is contained in the Book of Mormon–it goes beyond questions having to do with ethics or morality or what-have-you. It is a cry from the dust — from real people who lived a long time ago — telling us that we are in a fallen condition and that we are in need of transformation through the atonement of Christ. It speaks of realities that the world cannot know except through the gift of revelation and prophecy. And so, it’s one thing to learn what we can through the instrumentality of our own industry and genius and quite another to learn greater truths through an higher agency–truths that open us up to the reality of a cosmic context that we were not aware of before.
Fascinating topic. The power of art is it can capture and convey the majesty of life. Art tells the true story of our feelings and experience – our hopes, fears, beauty, vileness, good, evil, etc.
The illustration of these qualities transcends the question of whether the portrayal is literally real. For example, the story told in Les Miserables is true and real, even if the characters are not. Great art imitates life. Sometimes life imitates art. When a real person exemplifies a powerful message we take special note. But we appreciate the great message even when the characters are not real.
It is human nature to blend the real with the unreal. We embellish the biography of real people as if they are fictional characters to be molded into a more perfect form of what we imagine. We see this clearly in the myriad of fake stories about George Washington and other persons of historical significance.
The problem of embellishment is it is abused to swindle and cheat and gain advantage over others. We see this currently with the politician George Santos who is a total fraud of a person – his fakery is rather astounding. So we do need to be cautious and aware of what is true and what is fake, or else we risk being exploited and cheated.
A particular challenge I see with the LDS church is the current leadership does not appreciate the power of story and it is rejecting the story without offering a replacement. It needs to be appreciated that Hinckley and Monson both were active all their lives in shaping and telling the Mormon church story. They lived, breathed, wrote and told the story. The story was real to them even if the facts were stretched, embellished or never existed.
RMN wants to tell a different story. In fact he wants to do away with the traditional LDS church story and create something new. It is not exactly obvious what the new story is. We do know RMN doesn’t care for the classic “Mormon” story and the pageants and the American pioneer emphasis. And we know he is willing to undercut past leaders and their teachings. Fine. But what is the new and better story?
RMN doesn’t have one. Well, he thinks he does but it is a claim, and not a story. The claim is the LDS church is the TRUE church. But without a story that claim is just words.
RMN has put the church leadership in a tough spot. He is asking them to defend the church truth claims at the same time they disavow the legitimacy of past church leaders! I wouldn’t sign up for that assignment. I have sympathy for those who have this assignment and would wish to pass from it. For this is a stupid predicament to be put in.
A decade from now the LDS church will have returned to the Mormon story – to its roots – or it will become another “Protestant” church unrecognizable from the Mormon church that existed before 2020.
One Hundred Years Ago, BH Roberts was the church’s go to person to answer correspondence about the BoM. He received a letter with 6 questions that he could not answer. He anguished over the problem for many months and presented he findings to the Q15. The results of these secret meetings are summarized in this doctoral dissertation.
https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/6712
Roberts’ findings were recently published. Reading this book and the feeble attempts by Mormon apologists to explain his analyses left me little doubt that the BoM is a 19th century creation. I still love the BoM and it’s power to bring me closer to Christ. Those of you who want to hang on to the historicity, should not read this book or the dissertation. Here is a summary of the book.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_of_the_Book_of_Mormon
A Disciple,
The way I see it–ours is a story about the Kingdom. Events involving the Kingdom since 1820 have to do with its restoration in the latter-days–and what a wonderful story that is. Even so, there’s a much larger story to be told–and now’s the time to start telling it, IMO. And that’s the story of the Kingdom in its cosmic framework. It’s a story that has a very deep past and an endless future–and as we have begun to cross the broad threshold of the Millennium it seems only fitting that we allow the larger, eternal narrative of the Kingdom to begin to emerge in all of its power and beauty.
gesmith60,
There’s been a lot of work done since the days of B. H. Roberts. And most of the quandaries that he was tasked with answering have very good explanations these days. Even so, everything that B. H. Roberts did with respect to apologetic arguments vis-a-vis the Book of Mormon was for the purpose of preparing the brethren (and the church) to defend it. And neither he nor any of the leadership were ever in doubt as to the BoM’s authenticity during that process.
That said, I’m glad that you love the Book of Mormon in spite of any questions having to do with its historicity. I agree that what matters most is that we are drawn closer to the Savior by the power of its teachings.
Jack, I do not want to hear Saints telling “the story of the Kingdom in its cosmic framework,” if by cosmic framework we teach things outside of this world, like plurality of Gods, etc. All that we need to teach begins with Adam, and the very little before mentioned in Abraham about a council. We know nothing else, and we should not teach what is not plainly taught in the scriptures, and only in the scriptures. The scriptures are silent on heavenly parents, and we should be similarly silent. There may be truths out there, but all truth need not be taught or insisted upon, especially if it will cause people to stumble. Paul wrote about that. We should use the wording that scripture uses. Shortly after I joined the Church, I saw a 20/20 or a Nightline or some other story about the Church, and they interviewed a female student at BYU who announced on camera that it was her destiny to become a goddess. The scriptures teach that we can become joint heirs with Christ, and that is good enough for me. People in Utah do not know how jarring it is to hear people say that they are going to become goddesses. I am happy not going beyond where the scriptures end. But so many people want to teach other things, and I think that they go beyond the mark, as Jacob discussed.
Georgis,
I agree 100% that we have to measure the word carefully–according to the capacity of the world to receive it. And I believe that the apostles are excellent gatekeepers with respect to sacred knowledge. Even so, I was speaking in terms of opening a new chapter so to speak–wherein we begin to allow the true nature of the Kingdom to be known. One day the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the see. And so, at some point we’ve got to start moving beyond the story of our “mormon” pioneer heritage (without losing it) towards a more complete narrative that will have a full flowering as fast as the earth is prepare to receive it. In fact, my sense is that the development of such a narrative will be inevitable as we continue to move across the broad threshold of the Millennium–and especially as we continue the great work of making temple worship available to peoples throughout the world.
Jack,
The Mormon Pioneer story contains two critical elements. One is that people built something tangible – they built fully functioning and vibrant communities where none previously existed. That is an amazing accomplishment and the people who made it happen deserve tremendous credit. I am certain they felt tremendous satisfaction.
The second critical element is the Mormon Saints and Pioneers were different and that difference created opposition. Even in Utah there was a difference between the “Gentiles” and the “Mormons”. Outside of Utah the Mormons were viewed as peculiar and they faced discrimination. Yet despite that bigotry, and because of it, the Mormons were strong in their resolve and conviction.
It is true that the Mormon Pioneer story is receding into the past. I’m.all for looking forward and preparing for the Lord’s kingdom on earth. But where is this kingdom? Where are the plans? Where are the members actually tasked to make something tangible happen?
The corporate church may have plans. Temples are being built. New stakes and church operations are being opened in far flung countries. But there is nothing new for members to do. Members are not involved in kingdom building! In fact members of 2023 are doing less for the church than members of 1983 did. In 1983 there was scouting and church sports and church pageants and road shows and church plays and so many other church activities. The church of 1983 provided tangible experience for members to do something of value . What do members of 2023 have that is motivating and that empowers members to build and create?
And where is the opposition? What are the common threats we face? If you can still find the General Conference talks of the 1970s, go read them. The General Authorities of that era spoke with clarity about the wickedness of the world, the dishonesty of governments and the threats to our moral and economic well being. Today? General Authorities speak obtusely. They don’t dare speak with clarity about the sins of the people and of society lest they offend – and all too often it is active members that would be offended!
So we are in an unfortunate situation where the church membership is fragmented. As culture has become more focused on personal needs, so too have members. Opposition is no longer external forces that threaten our welfare, but rather opposition is what each individual feels and experiences. Opposition is personal. Consequently, the leadership is unable to unify the church in a common cause.
Perhaps the focus on the pioneer story was a crutch that covered the social cracks that were growing in the church. Regardless, the cracks are now evident. Latter-day Saints need a revival. They need something to rally around. They need a great cause that can produce real results that can provide a legacy for future generations.
I wrote a start of a comment right after this was first posted and then became sidetracked by HVAC repairs and life in general, but coming back to it, I’m inspired to try again. I haven’t followed the most recent tangents so this comment doesn’t refer to that, but instead refers back to the OP.
In my experience coming up in the church, doubt has been unjustly demonized as a danger to faith, and I learned that examining it should be avoided. But doubt (or perhaps to be more precise, uncertainty) works in tandem with curiosity, and together facilitate exploration, discovery, tension and resolution, profitable failure, and all kinds of creative, productive actions.
I love what Kirkstall said about the church’s problem with members’ doubt and curiosity, which threaten the correlated narrative that is promoted by church leaders as inspired of God. And their solution is to put “guardrails on people’s curiosity and to squash doubt.” Also, to shame those members whose curiosity and creativity are too strong to be controlled, making an example of them to instill fear/shame in those docile enough to reject being inspired by these others’ creative approaches.
As Kirkstall points out, members feel trammeled, they may ignore the proverbial guardrails, and may also “create feedback loops of confirmation bias-supporting ideas that ignore logical fallacies in order to sustain themselves.” This last part is especially toxic to truthful creative work.
I don’t know much about Nibley’s scholarship, but I do recognize the phenomenon of my own church experiences that “run a mile wide and an inch deep.” Where something seems to have the weight of truth, or the gravity of reality, until you need to immerse yourself in that protection, and discover it’s simply too shallow, or too unsupported by dependable truths. And that’s the milder of deficits due to those confirmation bias loops. Kirkstall’s worst case, “ A bunch of dudes sitting in a basement debating which one of them is “the One Mighty and Strong,” is truly terrifying.
I don’t experience doubt/uncertainty as a magic spark. Instead it’s just a normal part of everyday life, always in the background, sometimes noticed, sometimes ignored, usually benign. But occasionally it brings anxiety, like when I feel a need for certainty but have to face the unknown factor anyway. I don’t wonder why we keep such a strong grip on our biases and/or denial. However when I calm myself and examine the nuts and bolts of uncertainty, I find that enough growth can happen and eventually adequate dependability to keep going.
At times the question has been asked “Where are our Miltons and Shakespeares?” and where is artistic genius found among our members, most recently by Pres. Kimball, IIRC. First and foremost, such a question says more about our cultural elitism than anything else. But I also believe the stifling of doubt and maligning uncertainty as a weakness contributes to a parched climate for the most gifted among us.
I think the hedge building (or guard-railing as it were) in the church around the arts also makes a poor environment for ordinary members to have enough experience as patrons to learn what sparks and transforms their souls. In my life as a perennial art student and patron, I’ve been exposed to a lot of leaders sermonizing and critics pontificating about the proper role of The Arts for latter-day saints/respectable people. I’m older and cranky, and I very much dislike reading someone’s dry expounding at length about the mysterious and mythological value and functions of art upon the human soul, while at the same time holding in reserve a hypothetical limit to what is edifying. I think they should go to the gosh dang museum and the performance already, to all of them — educate yourself with every variety that piques your interest until you find the Art that stokes a fire. And then commence the search for the next one.
I patronize a lot of art stuff, willy-nilly, so I may overlook something, but the one live performance that comes to mind is seeing, by sheer luck, a performance of Philip Glass’ opera Akhenaten at the Metropolitan Opera in New York. The performances were interrupted by pandemic shutdowns. I would never have opted for that on my own, without a push, and I was blown apart by it. The music was never-heard-before magic, the background story — hidden, erased Egyptian history, the staging! Live orchestra in the pit! Jugglers! I won’t explain because I can’t. I’m all worded out. But if you like opera, you gotta look into this one. I think it’s available to stream. I came home and listened obsessively to the score, and stalked it online, and was well rewarded with a ton of fascinating tangents.