My Feeble Attempt at Building Bridges and Hoping to be Understood
This is my feeble (if long-winded) attempt at bridge building and understanding.
I'd be lying if this was easy to commit to paper. But I have to. Rarely have I felt this level of compulsion to write. To share what I have to say.
Let me try. Here's a start.
My faith is not what it once was. Surety has been replaced by hope. Which probably isn't a bad thing. The focus is more on fundamentals of belief and the actions they bring.
I have absolutely struggled with the theology, doctrines, practices, policies, and culture surrounding the faith of my youth.
I'm open and honest about that. But I worry that's not always returned. The honest assessment that we all struggle with the teachings and guidance of such a large church. It would be inhuman to not struggle.
I bring this up because it boggles my mind at times to think that I share faith with and worship the same God as those who would seek power. I struggle to see how we can both be correct in worship. How both supplications can be equally received by divinity. But the more I think about a loving God and the equal diversity and universality of the Human experience the more I wholeheartedly believe he has room for all of us.
I've written about earnestness. I've written about the call of true service in my life. More than once. I feel that still. And I am sure there are plenty of other people who feel the same way and have come to the same or different conclusions. I get there are legitimate differences in interpretation. There are valid differences in prioritization. And we all have to wrestle with the inherent contradictions of our holy texts and sometimes ambiguous revelation. But there are also times when we said we would follow the leadership we sustained. That we would turn to them for guidance. For clarity in that interpretation.If we profess a faith, and we choose to break on things we should own that. That's part of our agency, faith, and growth. I have hope there is room in the tent for all of us to struggle. I worry that we have a predominant iconoclastic culture that is smothering that.
To a lot of people The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is synonymous with conservative values and the GOP. Voting records in the USA and exit polls would bear that out.
I question and ask that all who hear me question that nearly sacrosanct proposition. That we realize that the current President of the Quorum of the Twelve was right to say, "We should never assert that a faithful Latter-day Saint cannot belong to a particular party or vote for a particular candidate." That we recognize that any participation in the political process in this country will require a compromise of our values. It will potentially illustrate the struggles we have with doctrine and policy. And it will illuminate what values we prioritize most.
It can often seem easy to demonstrate why that prioritization leads one to vote for and participate in the dominant political party of the church. And what is about to follow is not meant in anyway to be an indictment of conservative ideology. No this is a plea to recognize how it should not be viewed as the only, right, or equivalent to gospel point of view.
I know there are several reasons why someone would look at the doctrines and policies of the church and choose to vote for conservative policies and politicians. Mostly because there was a decent chunk of my life when I participated in conservative politics. And some of those policies and priorities have stuck with me to today.
So let's have a good faith look at where the doctrines and ideology of the Church align with conservative values, where alignment is ambiguous, and where it leans or aligns with more liberal values.
First. Rule of Law. It's enshrined in the Articles of Faith. The Constitution is considered a divine document. The GOP has the reputation of being the rule of law party. In many ways. And the overall mindset and legal philosophy behind things like originalism bear this out. It's a fair assumption and framework. One that makes sense with a literal textual interpretation of a Constitution viewed as divine. Others may view it differently. I've come to question originalism at times. But it would an absolute statement of bad faith to say that it would be inconsistent with the teachings on the Constitution and the culture that surrounds it in the Church.
Next would be trans issues. The Proclamation on the Family. The current stances in Amicus briefs and in official policy. On this issue it's the current GOP platform with softer edges. It's one of the issues I struggle with the Church's positions most. But I would be lying if it didn't telegraph perfectly. And it's one of my strongest breaking points. It heartens me that the handbook now includes some language on intersex individuals and more nuance about transgender members. But it's not enough to eliminate the struggle I feel about the issue. My experience with the trans people I know and love in my life, professional experience, and increased education all influence how I view this issue. It would be disingenuous of me to not illustrate that my policy decisions are influenced by a decided break with the doctrine I grew up with.
Now let's get on to more nuanced issues. First up Gay rights. This one could drive people either way. The Proclamation on the Family makes it clear that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. The Church even went out and support various propositions on ballots to that effect. But they also supported the Utah Compact. Had a Mormon and Gay site. Have acknowledged the inherent nature of being gay. They also supported the Respect For Marriage Act. I can honestly see people supporting various political positions that reflect the stances of the church. Once again prioritization comes into play. Personal experience. Who is in our life. And what we choose to support more. It's a complex messy issue. One that weighs heavy on various members of the Church past and present, current or ex. I don't see that complexity being solved anytime soon. I err on the side of supporting LGBTQ rights these days. But given the doctrine of the Church and the history, there is a good faith argument to support a conservative interpretation of the issue.
Next up is another heavy topic. Abortion. The Church's stance is highly nuanced. No abortions with carefully delineated acceptable exceptions for rape, incest, and the health and life of the Mother. In today's political climate that sadly means that we are forced to choose between laws that do not allow for those exceptions or laws much more permissive. I understand the position of those who desire more absolutist positions and legislation on abortion. I vehemently disagree. I believe that agency demands we allow the opportunity for the exceptions to be meant and that means backing laws that are much more permissive than the Church's stance. Choice, freedom, I believe demands I support that right and trust people to make the correct decision between themselves, their medical provider, and God.
A place where I feel the Church more aligns with liberal values is in the stewardship of the Earth. Environmental stewardship including the acknowledgment of climate change. Making moves to change practices to address that. It's a small and simple thing that leans more toward a liberal policy.
That was a simple one. Now onto the two that I feel most strongly drove me toward a more liberal or democratic policy position over the years. First would be Immigration. The Church's stance is in direct odds with the current administration. Other than a blanket admonition to follow the law every desired outcome and even action of the Church is toward a much more liberal immigration policy. A desire to allow families to stay together, have access to work and residence without citizenship has been the position of the Church for well over a decade. The Church has always had a strong presence in helping refugees and immigrants. I think our history is the impetus for that. The Church has even opened and partnered on immigration welcome centers. I would be hard pressed to see how the current conservative regime's take on immigration is in line in anything that the Church has advocated and spent hard earned dollars to support.
Finally we have to talk about Race. It's a touchy one. One we have not always risen to the occasion for. But in my lifetime I believe there has been a focused and deliberate effort to forward diversity, human rights, and begin to address racism in a more direct manner. We only have to look back to the summer of 2020 to see Elder Oaks speak out about what was happening in the George Floyd protests. Remarking the need for racial inequality to be addressed. That the protests were predominantly peaceful. And that Black Lives Matter. One talk was over the pulpit at conference the other was at BYU shortly after. It struck me. That talk referencing the need to dismantle racism was combined with President Russell M. Nelson's admonition to lead out on addressing prejudice. That call struck me. I have been much more aware to the issue. I recognize that I can do things to address it. In my observation only one current party is addressing it at this time.
That's how I sum up some of the most volatile subjects of our time. And it's a mixed bag. None of us I believe that live up to all of these in a duopoly of two parties. So what do we do. We compromise. Right. All of us.
I'm not perfect at following the path before me. I struggle with doctrine but I do my best to lay it out for all to see. I try to be an open book about these kinds of things To be understood.
The scriptural admonition that has always spoken most to me is to to do it unto the least of these. Others may view that call differently. They may prioritize the various scriptural commissions differently in importance and scope.
What's crazy is in this complicated modern age, agreement is more difficult. Being of one mind creating a semblance of Zion often feels nearly impossible.
One thing I did to know what to do, was to start looking at the actions of the church. Where did they get the information they used? What media outlets did they partner with? What organizations did they work with? And ask myself why.
I don't know what it is. But I am obsessed with finding the original sources for quotes and information. I don't want to misquote or misunderstand something. I need the context. I want to read the page or the whole source a quote is from. Footnotes with a google search and often library visit has been my process for a very long time. I decided to look at where information shared in General Conference came from. The top source from what I could find was The New York Times followed by the Washington Post. Then I looked at the Newsroom and saw the same thing, and also additional references to ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC news articles and reports. There were also corrections issued on reports by CNN and CBS listed.
I then started looking at interviews given by President of Church. My mind first went to the Larry King interview of Gordon B Hinckley from my youth, that was on CNN. I looked saw that Russell M Nelson gave a large interview for an article in the Atlantic and just three weeks ago submitted a piece about peacekeeping to Time magazine.
What I found interesting in my search was that the sources most often quoted, or places they were interviewed were sources that I have been told were unreliable for bias. Sources that were savaged by people I shared a pew with when I would use them. How can that be reconciled? I don't think that they would view these sources as irredeemable if they use them this way. You can use other sources too. But the veracity of these sources maybe shouldn't be assumed as invalid. Basically let's not impugn the sources the leadership of the church uses. Doing that should not infer that we are impugning other sources.
That led me to the next rabbit hole. Partnerships. Who has the church spent their time and money on. The Church has worked with and donated money to the Red Cross, USAID, multiple refugee organizations, and even established a scholarship with the NAACP.
Those are some of them. And a lot of these groups are ones that are often vilified by conservatives. I struggle to square the level of animosity people of the Church feel about groups we partner with. Especially when we look at groups that often vilify us a Church or it's members.
I don't know how to say this. But a lot of people hate Mormons.
We have to be aware of that.
Organizations hostile to our faith will in time demonstrate disregard or hostility to us. They will us for votes and funding. Then hang us out to dry.
To some being non trinitarian or having an added book of scripture renders us a heretic in the least. Some congregations and pastors will go as far and call us a demonic cult. For others our policies render us an enemy.
Finding places where our policies and respect for our faith align can be difficult. I am not the best at giving space to those who compromise differently than I do. Especially when it comes to the groups we associate with. Part of that is borne from interactions I've had, the prejudices and inequities I rarely faced and which philosophies espouse them.
I have to own that. And we have to realize how we are often viewed and how we are often used.
Once again I write all of this not to divide. On the contrary. I write this to demonstrate how we can have diversity of thought and action in the widest community. The greater community. How righteous desire can shape and mold us.
We have active members, inactive members, ex-mormons, and members of more diverse denominations that are all influenced the common culture and heritage we share.
If anything the last few weeks have shown is that we need each other.
It's my genuine hope that the ACLU, democratic party, Federalist Society, and GOP all have members and ex members of the church of all atripes. And that they are all motivated by specific values that call to them. That they prioritize. I hope they are not motivated by animus towards others but a desire to create positive policy. I think that's rhe only way to hold this community together in worship, belonging, and even family.
Our church has survived political rifts and divisions before. One only has to look at some of the interactions of Hugh B. Brown and Ezra Taft Benson to realize that. We're not always going to agree. And that in and of itself is difficult but we need people to embrace and leave space of differences of experience.
As a group. As a broader body of people related to and as members of the Mormon community we need to focus on coalition building. Specific policies and actions. Much more than a party loyalty. And we need to always have a deep look at what we do support and why. Everything has trade offs. What are your biases and priorities? You have them. Own them, and understand them. Be aware of blind spots that are inevitable in focus. Examine how you break on doctrines standards and policy. If we can all do that truthfully we’ll be better off. And we’ll learn how to find more common ground and belonging in the future.
Comments
Post a Comment