Corinthians, Cosmos, Cruft, and Credence

The Apostle Paul once said in 1 Corinthians 3:16 - “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?”

Most often I hear this scripture interpreted in the context of the law of Chastity, saying that we need to keep ourselves morally “clean” to be worthy of God’s spirit being our companion. While this can be a valid and helpful interpretation, I believe that if we stop there, we’re missing out on a great deal of other meanings that can be drawn from this rich metaphor.

Bro. Engstrom gave a great SS lesson the other day about language in Isaiah, Job, Psalms, and Proverbs. He asked about the “why” behind the use of poetic language. Some of the reasons identified in the class highlighted the idea that these symbols can have many layers of meanings and they encourage us to wrestle with the interpretation rather than settling for “face value.”

Temple symbolism is one of the deepest wells we can explore, so why stop at one interpretation? In that spirit, my talk will explore the questions “how is the physical body like a temple?” and “how can the symbolism of the temple be applied to our every day lives?”

Review of temple symbolism:

Ancient temple physical structure:

• Outer court, inner court, Holy Place, Holy of holies.
• Holy of holies had ark of covenant, the top of which was the “judgement seat” where God’s presence was thought to dwell.
• Veil separates holy place from holy of holies.
• Altar of incense in front of veil symbolic of prayer being essential before going through veil.
• Environment progresses from less holy/worldly to more holy/godly

Ancient temple process structure:

• Inner court had a laver or “washing station” for ceremonial washings to prep for entry into Holy Place.
• Holy place has incense/prayer station, and some believe an oil station, to prepare for passing through the veil. Almost all priests officiating in the temple anciently stopped in the Holy Place (never entered the Holy of Holies, or passed through the veil)
• On Day of Atonement, High Priest makes sacrifice and sprinkles the temple instruments with blood to purify for preparation to enter Holy of Holies/God’s presence.
• This once-a-year Day of Atonement act was also seen as necessary for the mass forgiveness of the House of Israel’s sins by proxy of the high priest.
• No one except the high priest is ever allowed into the holy of holies.
• The people progress from physically/spiritually unclean to clean.

Ancient temple social structure:

• Ancient temple only allowed those descended from Levi (one of the 12 sons of Jacob/Israel) to officiate in the temple.
• “Narrowing down” of candidates:
• World —> House of Israel —> Levites —> High Priest
• Winnowing down based on authority/calling

Broad understanding of temple purpose:

• A meeting point between the physical realm and the spiritual realm
• Often depicted as a “journey”
• A place to “take bearings” on the cosmos (High Nibley)
• Cosmos = “system” in Greek: Temple process or “system” is a metaphor for other “systems”
• Tabernacle from root meaning “hut” also shares the same root as “tavern” a dwelling place - gathering place, protection
• Some criticize temples and churches as trying to “contain, trap, or overly define” God, but temples can also be seen as encouraging a link between abstract ideals and practical implementation; a place where physical is informed by spiritual
• Holy of holies represents the pinnacle of something. Often represents the dual nature of responsibility: knowledge or power mixed with the danger of that power. Vulnerability that needs valid protection, but can grant benefits if wielded appropriately.

The modern-day temple employs very similar symbols: washing, anointing, moving between rooms or chambers representing increasing holiness, prayer, veils, and moving from “the world” towards the presence of divinity, knowledge, power, and vulnerability. Even the temple recommend process can be seen as a winnowing down of candidacy for entrance - similar to the ancient requirement to be of the house of Israel, or of a specific tribe, or even to be a specific person with a specific calling.

You can’t really “fail” the modern temple experience (there are too many kind temple workers whispering the right answers in your ears), but there ARE symbols involved for having your knowledge tested (which would imply the potential to be rejected or to fail), and you can certainly “fail” a temple recommend interview! ;-)

Exclusivity… bad?

The temple process may appear exclusionary or exclusive on the surface because, in many ways, that is exactly what it’s doing… it’s taking a large group, the world, and selecting for a certain subset of the group to “advance”, then that smaller group is further reduced, until only the creme-de-la-creme makes it to the ultimate goal/reward. There’s a modern sentiment that this kind of exclusive-ism is a bad thing and any kind of winnowing process is negative… however we have many positive ways of framing this kind of exclusion that are acceptable socially:

• Pruning (in which we recognize good and bad branches in a plant and remove the cumbersome, intrusive, or undesirable ones) 
• Brainstorming (in which we start with a LOT of random ideas and narrow them down to a few good ones)
• Computer algorithms (in which a lot of random noise is reduced to meaningful data sets)
• The Scientific Process (in which many hypotheses are presented, and, ideally, only the testable, reliable, repeatable ones are adopted)
• Vetting individuals for a job (in which applicants in the workplace are interviewed and evaluated for suitability to specific employment)

For the scriptorians, here’s an example of how Jesus was “exclusive” and engaged in this kind of “temple-ish” behavior: He preached to the whole world and he preached to the 5000, but he called 12 to be closer to him, then among those 12 he called 3 to be “closest” to him. He had his own “outer court” and his own “holy place” and his own “holy of holies.” He even gave that super exclusive inner-circle special names… James and John were “The sons of Thunder” and Simon got renamed to “Peter.” They alone got access to the mount of transfiguration and the garden of Gethsemane.

Q1: How is the physical body temple-like?

If we take this broad view of the temple as narrowing down candidates on the way to a specific worthwhile goal, the body is FULL of these kinds of processes!

Eating is the most obvious, where a nutritional candidate is introduced into the system (or the “cosmos” of our body), it passes through and is temporarily held in various chambers each separated with a kind of “veil” and it is broken down into useful and non-useful parts. There are various “tests” performed to make this nutritional determination and the helpful parts are advanced into the “Holy of Holies” the bloodstream… and delivered to various celestial destinations like the heart, lungs, and brain, or to undergo further “trans-substantiation” into physical tissue. While, the non useful, non-nutritious stuff… well, it takes an alternate route we’re all familiar with… but even that route is part of a LARGER temple journey in which the parts disposed by the body are assimilated back into the ecosystem (a different, larger “cosmos”… the “eco-cosmos”). Next time you take a bathroom break, maybe stop to consider the “temple-ness” of your body!! But more-seriously, In this way, we could think of partaking of the sacrament as a very literal temple experience!

Breathing is a similar temple experience where a wide net of gases is taken in from “the world” and refined down to the specific subset of gases our body finds useful, while the rest is expelled as CO2. The nose, mouth, esophagus, and lungs are full of “veil”-like structures and “chambers” which filter dangerous particles and eventually enrich the blood with oxygen. The latin word “spirit” literally comes from the same root as “to breathe” (that’s why the creation story says that God put Adam’s spirit into him, aka: the breath of life)… so literally “breathing” infuses your “temple” with a kind of “holy spirit!”

Dreaming might also be seen as a temple-like winnowing where our brains take a myriad of random inputs from our recent experience and attempt to make sense of them, processing, discarding, and experiencing emotions and ideas while we sleep. I’ve sometimes experienced a “holy of holies” feeling when awaking from a dream where confusing ideas have been rearranged in a way that now makes good sense.

Biological reproduction is another temple-like process, I won’t go into detail here… but think about it: the outer court, the holy place, the holy of holies, only the single individual high priest allowed through the veil where a spirit of God is invited to begin its own temple journey.

This is rich symbolism!

Q2: What Temple Symbolism is there in Everyday Life?

Missionary work is a temple-like process. Missionaries cast a wide net knocking on every door and stopping every person on the street, then they work their way down to a small group of people to regularly teach, then “the elect” who show enough interest to separate themselves from the world choose to take the next step of commitment… there’s even a baptismal interview process to further the exclusivity! The “holy of holies” here is baptism and the GoTHG.

Friendship and dating follow a similar process where we start wide and winnow down. We move from superficiality to intimacy. The “holy of holies” here is vulnerability and visibility into our “true selves.”

Life itself begins with passing through a “veil” and entering a “chamber” that we call a body. This is a temple process. Built into this process are many failsafes and quality-control checks that favor positive outcomes. This “chamber” (our body, our tabernacle, our temple) ideally marches ever closer to divinity, from holy, to holi-er, before we pass through the final “veil” which is death which leads to achieving a “holy of holies” final state.

Zoom Out: Belief as the "Holy of Holies"

At an even broader level, there is a bridge within us that, like the temple, connects spiritual and physical: that bridge is our thought processes - which treat “information” as candidates to be vetted.

We are inundated constantly with a barrage of random stimuli. Our sensory system has a “free” involuntary initial filter to this deluge of input… that’s why we can be in a busy room full of people and concentrate only on the conversation at our specific table. This is a very useful “veil” and allows us to function without being overwhelmed, more narrowing happens in a more deliberate way further downstream.

Choosing which ideas “make it” and which to discard is essential to our happiness, survival, and sense of fulfillment. This is a holy, temple-like process. The “holy of holies” here? The adoption of ideas, also known as “Belief.”

If you picture the temple process as a metaphor for target practice (moving from the easy outer edges towards a challenging center), then the bullseye is the “holy of holies” or the most desirable or impactful outcome. Our internal belief system is treated as the “holy of holies” by many people, organizations, and entities… our beliefs are highly sought after ground. Our beliefs are the target of political rhetoric, religious discussion, and most prevalent today: advertising.

If you really BELIEVE you need to look a certain way or act a certain way, then that will drive your actions, especially your spending. Protecting our belief system, keeping it “holy ground”, meaning it is very rarely tread and only by ideas that have been fully vetted, is wise. That’s not to say we aren’t open-minded, the outer courtyards are open to all, but there is a valuable narrowing process as “ideas” move closer to “beliefs.”

The exercise of our agency in regards to IDEAS is a crucial responsibility associated with responsible living. The things we choose to believe lead to our actions and become the foundation for our habits, and eventually our character. When bad ideas, or falsehoods are adopted as true beliefs, bad things happen.

Structural Revision: Who watches the watchers?

One last question: Are temples intended to be static, unchanging, pillars of absolute truth? In regards to our internal, bodily temples, will the same structures that worked in the past suffice for the future?

The portability and flexibility of Moses’ ancient tabernacle may be instructive. It was constructed of lightweight, easily-rebuilt and easily-moved materials. It was designed to literally be torn down and rebuilt infinitely as the children of Israel traveled through the wilderness in a variety of circumstances and environments.

Modern temples, while similar to the ancient in some ways, have significant differences from their ancient counterparts.

We have even seen in our lifetimes significant revisions to modern temple ceremonies.

President Nelson recently gave a talk about the major foundational revisions being done to the Salt Lake City temple which have required extreme measures and put the temple out of commission for a significant time period. He used that process as a metaphor to encourage us to assess and evaluate our own “foundations.”

If you’re anything like me, the temple of my “metabolism” certainly doesn’t work the same way it did when I was a teenager… I’ve had to change how I eat, sleep, and breath as I’ve matured (often to my dismay). Why wouldn’t our internal beliefs function similarly?

I believe our internal, bodily, temples should follow a similar pattern, especially where our beliefs are concerned. The Apostle Paul said “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” What might it mean to “put away” some things as we mature?

I’m also reminded of the saying: “Many of the opinions and beliefs I hold about myself today were formed by an uninformed, immature child.”

I find it helpful sometimes to step back from thought patterns I take for granted and ask: “Do I REALLY believe that? Why?” I also sometimes ask myself: “What belief do I have that is driving this behavior? How might I go about adjusting this belief for a more favorable outcome?” This is a holy temple process.

I believe we should be regularly attending “the temple”… to me, “attending” or “attending to” the internal temple of my body and mind means evaluating the construction or structure of the system itself and being willing to add chambers and veils (which might also be called “boundaries”) but also being willing to discard distorted or
negative components.

Successful mastery of this “inner temple of belief” will create ripples that will expand out to positively affect all the other concentric surrounding “temples” we’ve discussed.

When Jesus died, the scriptures say “And the veil of the temple was [torn] in [two] from the top to the bottom.” This was symbolic of a MAJOR revision in exclusivity and orthodoxy in regards to the Plan of Salvation. It symbolized that divinity, aka “God’s presence,” was no longer withheld from mankind behind certain un-necessary veils or gate-keepers, and ALL were empowered to enter the “Holy of Holies.”

What other temple processes abound IN us and AROUND us? Where do we need to add veils and chambers? Which should be torn out?

Mass Movements and Self-Disdain

 (Thummim's notes from reading The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements)

My thoughts on mass movements engendering disdain for self:

"The Fall" and "The Natural Man"

Both teach you there is something fundamentally flawed about your existence.

With the fall, it's something completely outside your ability to "solve/cure"

Only the "org" provides the solution for that (Jesus)

But Jesus is withheld based on obedience to the org, so they are the gatekeepers to your not being "flawed"

With the Natural Man, that is within our power to influence

So a "battle" is created, lines are drawn

But, again, the org tells you what kind of thoughts and actions come from the Natural Man, so again, obedience to their set of values/world view is required for "freedom"

This is a thought that's been rolling around in my head for a few months: "is it better to make someone think they're in a war when they're not, or to make someone think they're NOT in a war when they are?"

The answer, of course, is "neither" is best, but if you had to choose one, which would you?

Which would leave a worse psychological scar?

This question reminds me of Pascal's Wager (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager)

Where he posits that you stand to lose less believing in God than in running the risk of going to hell/missing out on Heaven

But, I wonder if that's practically true considering the psychological fallout of God based belief systems...

(Such as hindering ambition/self-confidence)

(And belief in intrinsic worth, not bestowed by an outside source, such as "being a child of God" as an example of worth being subtly linked to God rather than wholly intrinsic)

If you're constantly seeking rebirth, you may miss out on living your actual life.

It's funny cuz I still get red flag mental warnings exploring these thoughts because they echo the rhetoric of "antichrists" in the BoM.

(Religion produces a fanatical mind)

"Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a ​​​frenzied​ mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so" Alma 30:16

That's Korihor

Nehor's philosophy is interesting, but he gives it in a larger context of acknowledging a fundamental need for redemption, but not going so far as to say "you have never been broken" - he just says "Free salvation for all!"

"they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life" Alma 1:4

One thing the True Believer book points out is that mass movements evolve from early idealist passion to late bureaucracy and stuffy formalism.

I definitely see that in the study of church history. The early church was super raw and not much like the "lawyers in suits" church of today (to good and bad effect on both ends of history)

But the page I posted links that change to an internal shift from self-sacrificing ideals to self-interest... when people start using the movement to advance their position/career, (aspiring to be general authorities) the movement has lost something of its initial core appeal/idealism/vigor.

I also thought the proposed link between being self-hating and being judgmental (minding other peoples' business) was interesting at the end of that page.

I keep having the image of the Morpheus (from the Matrix) meme come into my head with the caption: "What if I told you... there is no war to fight and that you are already whole?"

But the matrix is a good example of telling someone they're NOT in a war when they actually are.

Are there any good examples from books/pop culture where it's the opposite? Telling someone they're in a war when they're not actually? If you stretch the definition, Star Trek TNG "inner light" might fit (where Picard lives a life trying to save a planet that's long dead).

Seems like it usually goes the other way... Truman Show, Ender's Game...

We, culturally, seem to have a good bead on the "fool's paradise" stance/story.

My current hunch is that the "you were never in a war" revelation, while immediately relieving (like waking from a bad dream), would feel like the orchestrators of the illusion were much more manipulative than the inverse scenario.

My Temple Recommend

(Thummim wrote this after having a meeting with his Stake President about being "re-fellowshipped" into the church in which the Stake President denied the re-fellowshipment stating that the church's temple recommend questions couldn't be answered "correctly" by Thummim)

My Temple Recommend

Umwelt: German word meaning “The world as it is experienced by a particular organism” - used to refer to the quality of a living organism’s experience of reality. A great podcast about “umwelt:” (https://after-on.com/episodes/022)

Example: How a bat “understands” reality via sonar and has never lived underwater vs. a mantis shrimp (https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/segments/211178-rip-rainbow) that has a small brain but 16 color-receptive cones in its eyes and never lived on land vs. a human who has a relatively large brain, but no sonar and only 3 color-receptive cones and a life lived almost-entirely on land.

Much of my experience with society, and especially the church, has encouraged me to “adjust” my thoughts and beliefs to a “standard” mould. To think “convergently” (tending to come together) rather than “divergently” (different, deviating). Ideas that deviate from the mainstream generally (and understandably) cause church-goers (and people in-general) to feel uncomfortable and potentially threatened. I believe, though, that growth most-often occurs from such discomforting circumstances. I have tried to become more aware of my personal tendency to put up walls of “protection” and defensiveness when my beliefs are challenged or alternate points of view are offered. Ultimately, this is always an enriching, expanding experience (despite the discomfort).

The LDS temple recommend (or “worthiness” interview) process is a unique example of an implicit expectation for “convergent” thinking since there are “right” and “wrong” answers laid out in black and white (or so most interviewers and interviewees believe). I’ve been on both sides of the temple recommend table as interviewee and interviewer and been a part of discussions with other interviewers about their experience with administering temple recommend interviews. Anecdotally, it is rare for anyone to provide more than a few sentences for each question, and most of the time only single words (the “right” words) are offered.

There is often an “unspoken” understanding during a temple recommend interview that both people are operating within the same “umwelt” and that the interviewee’s definitions of the temple recommend words are the same as the interviewer’s, but more importantly, that they are both “in tune” with “God’s” definitions of these words (ie: “the truth”). I have found that most church members tend to have a strong belief in “absolute truth” (likely in no small part due to the talk given by Spencer W. Kimball titled “Absolute Truth” https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/spencer-w-kimball/absolute-truth/). There are other scriptures and talks that support this idea of “things as they really are” and the belief that, the closer you are to God, the closer you are to the one, true, “umwelt.”

I appreciate the ideal of seeking to approach “absolute truth,” but I believe most people (myself included), and regardless of calling in the church, overestimate their proximity to this truth. The point is moot though because the irony is that, when I have high-confidence that I have “the answers” to the questions of life, I am less capable of learning and growth than someone who believes they don’t know or are lacking knowledge (see the Dunning-Krueger effect/bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect). The uncomfortable, labor-intensive, state of questioning is the foundation of humility and growth. When answers are embraced as definitive and absolute, learning ends.

In Buddhism this is called “Shoshin” the “Beginner Mind” and is encouraged when studying any subject, despite one’s expertise in the field. A beginner mind is curious, accepting, open-minded, comfortable with not knowing, questioning of assumptions, sees unlimited possibilities - its primary energy is expansive. It stands in contrast to the “Judging Mind” which is protective (focused on the negative and “what could go wrong?”), judgmental, cynical, uses “should” language, critical, close-minded, know-it-all, focused on “fixing,” blame-oriented, black-and-white, limits possibilities, views mistakes as "bad” instead of stepping stones to experience and knowledge - its primary energy is restrictive.

Truly understanding a person’s beliefs (epistemology - from the Greek - ἐπίστασθαι “To know, understand, or be acquainted with”) is an, unfortunately, impossible task that is limited on many levels (unique life experiences, genetics, birth order, sensory perceptions, health, socio-economics, thought processes, word definitions, education, etc.) No matter how good at listening and empathy a person is, a communication session will always end up with all parties capturing only a limited portion of the intent and content of the others’ beliefs. Both sides will take knowledge away only as filtered through their unique umwelt. There is no “perfect” communion. This, I believe, is an important thing to remember during a temple (or worthiness) interview.

Rarely does a temple recommend interviewer ask deeper questions to try to get into the “umwelt” of the interviewee. If they did, they would likely first encounter the “standard” agreed-upon, “convergent” umwelt that is communally-shared amongst church members. However, if the interviewer were to dig even deeper, and take on a much-more-serious responsibility, perhaps to form a friendship of deep trust with the interviewee, they would discover that underneath the first few layers of shared umwelt is an umwelt wholly unique to that individual - a perspective that diverges from everyone else. Wouldn’t it be nice if church leaders had the bandwidth to engage each and every person at this level? Usually, though, they don’t have the time/energy to assume the responsibility of deeply empathizing with an interviewee. This necessitates faith in a higher power and trust/confidence in the interviewee to be engaging productively with their personal umwelt.

Is the top-level “communal” umwelt valid? Probably, but it is not necessarily as “rigorously-honest,” on a personal level, as we like to tell ourselves. There is an implicit understanding that we’re discussing the tip of an iceberg and, yeah, there’s a lot of stuff under the surface, but most interviewers trust the interviewee to have solid reasoning beneath their simple “yes” or “no” answers. That trust has a kind beauty to it.

One issue (I’ve experienced personally on both sides) is when an interviewer picks up the responsibility to know the interviewee’s deeper umwelt (a daunting and impossible challenge even for the best of people) and discovers that it does not match their own, and by presumptive transference, is not in accord with the “absolute truth” or “umwelt of God.” When this happens, the interviewer can become a “Judging Mind” gatekeeper that builds a wall of exclusion rather than a larger table accommodating of a differing perspective. It becomes easy for the interviewer to forget that their own perspective on “truth” (including personal interpretation of “doctrine”) is as-limited as the interviewee and that both points-of-view are equally-valid (though both are wholly-incomplete). In an attempt to “steady the ark” the interviewer substitutes their own umwelt as the “one true” umwelt. 

The following is my attempt to express, with rigorous honesty, my current umwelt (which is, intentionally, in a constant state of flux as I continue to try to be open to new ideas) as it relates to the first four LDS temple-recommend questions. Why the first four? Because they are in the sticky arena of “epistemology” (belief rather than action) and are most-likely to cause conflicts between the interviewer’s and the interviewee’s umwelts. A big part of this will be spent “defining” terms, likely in a non-traditional (though, I believe valid) way. My sincere hope is that there is a fully-fellowshipped place at the table of LDS belief for me and my point of view: 

• 1) Do you have faith in and a testimony of God, the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost?

• Short Answer: Yes

• Detailed Answer: 
• Faith - My definition: a belief without proof. I interpret this as leaving possibilities open.

• Testimony - My definition: a religious conversion or experience. I believe “testimonies,” in a religious context, are largely emotion-based. I value emotions, but do not rely on them as indicators of absolute “truth,” but believe they can help point us toward people, experiences, and ideas that are useful/helpful/growing/healing to us and which may push us toward an expanded umwelt. I do not believe a person must believe such “testimony” experiences to indicate literal truth, but rather as pointers toward things that are beneficial/helpful to that person. I do not conflate “goodness” with literal truth. Example: reading about Levin in Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina is deeply inspiring to me and instructs me (provides me with a “testimony”) about what I value - however I do not believe Levin was a real person.

• God - My definition: the ideal version of myself. This idea is an internal drive for excellence and improvement. Is there the possibility of an organizing force behind reality? I don’t believe that possibility can be entirely ruled out (faith). God, to me, is a sense of amazement and wonder at the many things about reality, existence, consciousness, and beauty, that defy logical explanation. God is the sense that “there’s more out there I don’t understand.” I believe “Eternal Father” is one title that limited humankind has given to this force. I believe “Divine Feminine” is also an important piece of “God.” I believe there are other equally-valid titles for “God” (also limited by the foibles of limited human umwelts) such as “Allah,” “Vishnu,” “YHWH,” “Elohim,” “Adonai,” “Wisdom (Sofia)”, etc. Sometimes I like to call it “Big Good” (stolen from this awesome podcast: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/match-made-in-marrow)

• His Son Jesus Christ: I believe the “divine Jesus” (Christ = Messiah/anointed one/king) is a symbol for perfect empathy - an expression of mankind’s deep-seated need for understanding and being “seen,” loved, and accepted for one’s own, natural, intrinsic, identity. His story calls to humankind to leave behind bitterness, judgement, grudge-holding, and the idea that love must be earned and to reject our natural leaning to only bestow love/approval when a person fits a specific mould. I think there is significance to the narrative of his “son-ship” as an example that we, ourselves, are “offspring” of the “God Ideal” and that, as a son has the DNA of his parents, the potential for divinity, goodness, and value reside naturally within us.

• The Holy Ghost - My definition: There is a collective set of needs, drives, desires, and aspirations shared amongst all humankind. These are communicated in subtle ways, often non-verbally, between friends, associates, family-members, and society as a whole. One “name” for this communicative power can be “The Holy Ghost” - but there are other names, like instinct, ambition, empathy, kindness, intuition, duty, the gut, etc. Is it possible that there is a super-natural (read as “not yet understood”) component to this communication? Yes, I leave the possibility open. Is it ok to call it “The Holy Ghost?” Yes.

• So yes, I leave open the possibility (faith) for these things, and even embrace and value the ideals they represent, but leave quite a bit of room for others’ beliefs and don’t pretend to know any of these, largely-unprovable, things with a high-level of certainty.
   
• 2) Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and of His role as your Savior and Redeemer?

• Short Answer: Yes

• Detailed Answer:
• See definition of “testimony” from answer 1.

• Atonement - My definition: This is a component of the Jesus narrative that I appreciate deeply. I believe every person has a deep need to feel absolution for mistakes they’ve made and damage they’ve done to others. To me, the Atonement is a belief-structure that aids individuals to psychically “let go” of the past and to undergo healing for giving/receiving mental trauma. This “permission” to forgive oneself is healing to societies. The belief that humans also should move on and forgive others, even for seemingly-impossible situations, is also beneficial. I believe that, for most people who have committed or endured especially difficult levels of trauma, it is necessary for them to have an “equal and opposite” epic or super-natural “narrative” that is perceived to be sufficiently powerful to overcome the mentally taxing burden they carry. Anything that can assist a person in this kind of healing is deeply valuable.

• My Savior/Redeemer: Both of these titles tie into the explanation of the Atonement given above. I believe that the injunction/ideal to forgive myself and to forgive others applies to me as well as to other productive, conscientious members of society. When I have sought to practice these ideals, my life has been enriched. I find the narrative beautiful, inspiring, and useful. I leave open the possibility that it is literally true (testimony/faith), but do not consider that “literality” important to my daily practice of living.
   
• 3) Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

• Short Answer: Yes

• Detailed Answer:
• See definition of testimony from question 1.

• Restoration - My Definition: I believe the LDS faith has pushed forward many helpful ideas that have contributed to human beings living good, productive, helpful, happy lives. Some of these ideas align well with concepts that were present in early versions of Christianity (the gospel/“good news” taught by Jesus). Calling that “restoration” makes sense to me. Many religions founded in early America were “restorationist” and focused on a close/careful reading of the Bible and questioning the status quo in favor of closer adherence to the text. I don’t believe the church is perfect, or that it’s even super close to how the “church” (small group of people) worked in the times of Jesus. Nor do I believe the church has a great track record of abandoning troublesome/wrong/bad ideas in a timely manner. These foibles, though, can be seen (and I choose to see them this way) as part of the beauty that goes along with participation in any organization (such as a family, a friendship, or a country). The blend of good and bad, the annoyances and frustrations, the fighting for change, the discussion of disparate ideas, the give and take of life, is constructive (this is demonstrated well in this amazing talk: https://www.eugeneengland.org/why-the-church-is-as-true-as-the-gospel) I don’t even really think the church is a whole lot better than other religions when you take the time to research the good other organizations do. I don’t believe there is a divine destiny that the church is building toward… other than a macro-level version of the “destiny” I believe in for each human individual, which is to learn, adapt, create and generally improve ourselves and contribute to “big good.” I appreciate the teaching of Paul in the New Testament about the “unity of the faith” which, I think, can be interpreted as a union of all religions/belief systems into a whole that abandons the things that divide (dogmatic doctrine) and embraces the ideals that unite.
   
• 4) Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?
• Do you sustain the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators?
• Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local leaders of the Church?

• Short Answer: Yes (I group these 3 questions into one because my perspective is similar regardless of the level of church leadership)

• Detailed Answer:
• Prophet/Seer/Revelator: I believe this is a mythic term for someone deeply concerned and devoted to the leadership of a religious group (similar to the Pope or the Dalai Lama). I believe this dedication and concern provides unique insights into life. This “see”-ing of “seers” from a unique perspective, and their association with like-minded/similarly focused leaders, allows them to “reveal” perspectives for their followers’ consideration that can potentially enrich their lives (though there have been some historically short-sighted members of this group). I do sustain him in this role, mostly because of his high-level of experience within church leadership - though I do not have high confidence that he is in literal communication with a higher power any more than any other responsible, meditative, concerned human. The question of “the only person authorized” seems paranoid to me, but I don’t have a problem with the church maintaining leadership restrictions according to its internal policy.

• Priesthood Keys: I believe “Priesthood” is a term for those who are tasked with the administrative functions of a religious organization. I don’t believe they are endowed with any extra “ability” or “power” that is not available to (again) any responsible, meditative, conscientious, concerned human. The “keys” in question, I define as the responsibility given to perform certain religious rights that have beneficial communal and personal ceremonial value which point us to “God” (as-defined above - our best, ideal, selves) and “Jesus” (as-defined above - the ideal of empathy, understanding, acceptance, and forgiveness).
  
  
  
  
   

Exclusivity

 (an email to Thummim's daughter when she was questioning the importance of the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" referred to often as GoTHG)

Exclusivity

My thoughts specifically on the topic of “exclusivity”:

I think we emphasize, or perhaps hyper-focus on, “exclusivity” in the church too much. It is obvious, from my perspective, that women regularly perform “miracles” on par with “Priesthood-holders” and that people from other faiths experience spiritual guidance and direction on par with the guidance and direction received by “those bestowed with the GoTHG.” I don’t believe it’s necessary to draw a line that undervalues the experiences of others in order to make our experiences feel more “legitimate” or “valid.” 

To be perfectly honest, the expressions of exclusion around the GoTHG, the Priesthood being only for male-gendered humans, “the only true and living church on the face of the earth with which God is well-pleased,” and “a chosen people” all give me an icky feeling (or at least feel like an incomplete, mortal-skewed, interpretation of something bigger).

It makes more sense to my mind and heart that God would be working with people within the languages and cultures that have arisen around the world and giving his stamp of approval to EVERY GOOD THING that they do that aligns their wills closer to His in whatever degree. I don’t imagine Him tsk-tsking the Muslims for expressing their desire to follow His will by taking a pilgrimage to Mecca or God raising an eyebrow at the Buddhists that attempt to live a life free of base desires by committing to a practice of regular meditation.  I think some of the practices found in other faith traditions might be on par or even better-than our version of “receiving the GoTGH” - but ours is a GOOD thing to do! 

The GoTHG is a way to demonstrate humility and submission to something larger than ourselves, and take on the commitment and responsibility to follow a power bigger than ourselves. I like the dual symbolism of the physical (external) act of baptism bookended with an internal resolve to change our “insides” (the way we see and think before we decide to act). I like the symbolism of the acceptance of the “fire” that accompanies the GoTHG because in many ways it is committing to trials and difficulties that will “burn away our impurities” as we try to walk the path of following a higher, holier, power that will create friction (heat) with our baser natures. 

It’s beautiful symbolism, but it’s not, imo, the “ONLY” or the “BEST” symbolism for the process people follow to make real, deep, commitments to living better lives and changing their hearts. By focusing on/giving a lot of time to the “exclusivity” topic/question we might be missing “the forest for the trees.”

As legitimate counterpoint, I think there might be some good reasons for “exclusivity” being tossed into the mix on these topics. The best I’ve been able to settle on (so far) is that, at certain times throughout history, it was necessary to galvanize people under a united banner of identity to accomplish some of God’s purposes. 

The kind of unity necessary to the task brought with it the less-desirable side-effect of excluding others, but that exclusion was not/is not “doctrinal” to God’s plan. There is a larger discussion to be had here around “identity” in-general including “identity politics” and how that might differ from “identity in religion.” But I’ll save that for later! ;-P

The Good in "Church Culture"

 (Transcript of a talk Thummim gave)

The Good in "Church Culture"

Topic from Bishopric member: “How fellowshipping with other disciples of Christ blesses us individually and collectively”

"Fellowship" Always Leads to Good Feelings?!

The term “fellowship” has been particularly important to me recently because I was recently returned to “full fellowship” in the church after a time period of being “disfellowshipped.” 

So, being allowed to give a talk is a pretty big milestone in that process!

The main question that came to my mind after considering this topic, to be 100% honest and considering my recent experiences feeling somewhat marginalized in the church, was: “Does associating with church members always leave me with a positive ‘blessed’ feeling?” 

My immediate response was “heck no!” - sometimes I feel judged, sometimes ignored, sometimes misunderstood, sometimes disappointed, sometimes frustrated, sometimes bored, sometimes angry, sometimes ashamed, sometimes I’m left feeling like there’s something wrong with me.

There were many awkward, uncomfortable, embarrassing, and offensive experiences while I was disfellowshipped (and after!). One example is when a bishopric member showed up at my house very excited about extending me a new calling and, after he had expressed his vision and how inspired he felt the calling was and extended the invitation, I had to explain my situation. That was a tough one!

Another time, my wife and I had a difficult conversation and she vented her frustrations to her mother (my mother-in-law). My mother-in-law called our bishop who contacted my wife's "ministering sister" (visiting teacher), who then came to our doorstep feeling an "urgency from the Spirit." She then forced her way past me into our house after I'd expressed appreciation for her care, told her it wasn't a good time to visit, and that my wife was safe. After my wife confirmed to this anxious sister that everything was ok, the sister and I had a truly-awkward conversation about how forced-entry into our home was not appropriate.

If you served a mission, I’m sure you can think of that one companion (or in [redacted Bishopric member]’s case his first 3 or 4 companions) that consistently clashed with you.

My internal discussion eventually boiled down in my mind and heart to pinpoint “church culture.” I know the term “church culture” is loaded nowadays and some people hate when it’s used, so I want to briefly define how I’ll be using it: 

To me, simply, "church culture" is the set of practical outcomes that arise from our beliefs - be they “good” or “bad.” 

Using "Church Culture" as More Than a Defense (An Expanded Definition)

The term “church culture” is usually used defensively, as a way to distinguish the purity of church doctrine from the stumbling way we all go about understanding and trying to implement those ideals. D&C 1 speaks of the ideal church, but adds the caveat that the perfectness mentioned is spoken of “collectively and not individually.”

So, when someone is insensitive, or uninformed, or deliberately ignorant, or confrontational, or cliquey, or shaming, or just downright rude. We can ease our own (and any onlookers’) minds by invoking the healing balm of “Oh, that’s just a church culture thing.” Or, if we’re more scripturally inclined, we can quote D&C 1 and say “well the church is only perfect collectively, not individually.” We might even quote Jeffrey R. Holland and say “Imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we.”

However, I believe “church culture” shouldn’t only be a negative term. There are real, good, healing, helpful, building, educational, and beautiful things that get expressed through our “culture” too! It’s a distorted point of view to think that “church culture” is exclusively negative. 

To be honest, the practical, rubber-meets-the-road, lived “culture” that arises from our doctrines, teachings, history, and scripture, is a pretty mixed bag, especially when it’s piped out through human beings. It would be grossly inaccurate to say that we humans have got this “living the gospel” thing wholly figured out.

Dualism, Opposition, Yin & Yang (Good in the Bad)

So imagine the conundrum of “church culture” represented as the ancient Chinese yin and yang symbol. The white side represents the “good,” the black side the “bad.” They flow into and around each other but, in the main mass of each, the other side is surprisingly-represented by a contrasting dot (the black in the white, and the white in the black) Or the good in the bad and the bad in the good.

The Wikipedia definition of yin and yang is profound: “Yin and yang is the concept of dualism, describing how seemingly opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another.” Let me re-read that […]

This concept might feel familiar to you if you know Lehi’s words in 2 Nephi: “For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, […] righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.”

What is helpful to me is to step outside of the strictly black vs. white, good vs. bad, argument and consider what good is in the bad (the bad in the good is a topic for another day...). To find the white dot amidst an apparently black swirl. This expanded perspective can transform what was originally considered as a “bad” experience to become building blocks for learning and growth. I believe this is part of what God was teaching Moroni when he said “I give unto men weaknesses that they may be humble, and if they humble themselves, then will I make weak things become strong.” Sometimes we have to dig around a lot to eventually see the white dot swirling around in an immense black pool, but that digging is part of the solution.

I would like to take this idea of “positive in the negative” one step further and propose that the offense we give and receive, the hurt feelings, the misunderstandings, the boredom, the judgement, the disappointment, in sum “the failures of each of us to live the gospel as it should be lived” is a deliberate and intentional part of the Plan of Salvation. 

A "Feature" Not a "Bug"

How nice it sounds, on the surface, to live in an idyllic paradise where we never hear any ideas that rub us the wrong way or stir up our defensiveness or clash with long-held ideals. Where "time doth softly, sweetly, glide, hate and envy ne’er annoy, roses bloom beneath our feet, all the earth’s a garden sweet, making life a bliss complete" (as one hymn puts it). 

But, where all thoughts and feelings are convergent, there can be no growth. That’s what Lehi just told us. Tension is integral to the whole, without it, the system would fail.

If you’ve ever read Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, there’s a REASON Elizabeth finds most men boring - they’re so annoyingly... agreeable. Throw a Mr. Darcy in the mix and suddenly every aspect of Elizabeth’s life is MUCH more interesting because of the opposing point of view he introduces.

In fact, the statement about perfectness being applied to “the church collectively and not individually” has this conclusion already implied within it... How can you speak of the perfectness of a whole while disparaging its parts? This is illogical… unless it’s possible that the collective is “perfect” due directly to the “imperfectness” of the individuals… that imperfection is a desired property of the system as-designed. 

To put it in programming lingo: “It’s a feature not a bug.”

Marriage as a Metaphor for Activity/Fellowship In the Church

The old nursery rhyme says “First comes love, then comes marriage” - but Martin Luther wrote “Marriage is the *school* of love.” Meaning that, what leads us to marriage is usually a poorly conceived, probably naive, shadow of love, and what comes out of the tension of a marriage is the true definition of love. The church and the relationship between its members can be compared in this way to a marriage. Michael Novak, a Catholic writer, wrote about marriage:

“Marriage (aka: Church Membership) is an assault upon the lonely, atomic ego. Marriage is a threat to the solitary indi­vidual. Marriage does impose grueling, humbling, baf­fling, and frustrating responsibilities. Yet if one sup­poses that precisely such things are the preconditions for all true liberation, marriage is not the enemy of moral development in adults. Quite the opposite.

Being married and having children (aka: being active in the church) has impressed on my mind certain lessons, for whose learning I cannot help being grateful. Most are lessons of difficulty and duress. Most of what I am forced to learn about myself is not pleasant. . . . My dignity as a human being depends perhaps more on what sort of husband and parent (aka: a Church member) I am, than on any professional work I am called on to do. My bonds to my family (aka: my church) hold me back from many sorts of opportunities. And yet these do not feel like bonds. They are, I know, my liberation. They force me to be a different sort of human being, in a way in which I want and need to be forced.”

Constructive Tension, Confrontation, & Opposition are Gifts

I’ll end with a few quotes from one of my favorite talks by Eugene England called “Why the church is as true as the gospel:”

“Just before his death, Joseph Smith […] wrote, “By proving con­traries, truth is made manifest.” By “prove” he meant not only to demonstrate logically but to test, to struggle with, and to work out in practical experience. The Church is as true—as ef­fective—as the gospel because it involves us directly in proving contraries, working constructively with the opposi­tions within ourselves and especially between people, strug­gling with paradoxes and polarities at an experiential level…”

“It is in the Church especially that those with the gifts of vulnerability, pain, handicap, need, ignorance, intellectual arrogance, social pride, even prejudice and sin—those Paul calls the members that “seem to be more feeble”—can be accepted, learned from, helped, and made part of the body so that together we can all be blessed. It is there that those of us with the more comely and world-honored gifts of riches and intelligence can learn what we most need—to serve and love and patiently learn from those with other gifts.

But that is very hard for the “rich” and “wise” to do. And that is why those who have one of those dangerous gifts tend to misunderstand and sometimes disparage the Church— which, after all, is made up of the common and unclean, the middle-class, middle-brow, politically unsophisticated, even prejudiced, average members. And we all know how exasper­ating they can be! I am convinced that in the exasperation lies our salvation, if we can let the context that most brings it out—the Church—also be our school for unconditional love.”

Here’s hoping we can expand our definition of what the “blessings” are that arise from "church culture" and the fellowship we share with the wide variety of individuals we rub up against here. As the Psalm says: 

Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.

Rules of Engagement

 (an email I, Thummim, sent to my therapist with thoughts on having healthy, difficult, conversations. This was after having a session with him and then listening to one of his podcasts.)

Rules of Engagement

Something that “called me out” from listening to your podcast was the idea that demanding a conversation begin a certain way or follow certain rules as prerequisites or “rules of engagement” may have “unhealthy” consequences or contribute to the “dance” of endless frustration in a relationship.

What I heard was that often partner “A” will demand partner “B” show up to a conversation perfectly calm and collected and “rational” with a respectful tone of voice. If those “demands” are not met, then partner A feels justified in withdrawing or disengaging from the conversation. You’ve mentioned that women will often beat themselves up for showing up angry and frustrated when attempting to express themselves to their male partners with self-talk like: “I should have been more respectful, it’s no wonder he reacted the way he did.” You help them see that their response and heated emotions are perfectly normal, because there really ARE things happening in the relationship that ARE frustrating and anger-inciting.

I felt called out because I have made that request multiple times in my relationship. I’ve said: “Can you adjust your tone, I’m feeling like I’m getting a lecture which is making me super defensive.” This ties back to me having a very aggressive mother that would often use a particular tone of voice when scolding/lecturing/disciplining me and others in my family (my attachment history/scars). 

After listening to you mention this exact request/demand as a common thing men do, I’m now reconsidering whether that is “fair” or simply a manifestation of my avoidant tendencies… to want to “escape” any and all uncomfortable feelings rather than “stay engaged” in a conversation.

After our last session, I had a question from the opposite perspective. Hopefully this isn’t just me being defensive and demanding “tit for tat.” But here it is: We shared an occasion where my wife was triggered into a series of difficult memories by something my daughter said. I was unaware of the depth of her experience and pain, but saw her crying when we got home and asked her if there was something on her mind. She responded that she didn’t want to talk about it and needed to sort her feelings out. I took her at her word and gave her some “space.”

Later she shared that she actually wanted me to “stay with it” and draw out what she was feeling and that she took my “withdrawing” as a sign of a lack of care/affection. She also said that she’s afraid of “which version of me” will show up at these conversations, so she does some “water testing” and, if she determines I’m in a non-optimal mood (ie: not as attentive, loving, caring, affectionate, repentant) as she “needs,” then she will defer the conversation to another time. The fact that I didn’t stay engaged to “draw out” what was wrong, was a sign that I was “unsafe” to have the conversation with at the time.

This led to an extended period of “tension” between us until she decided to send me an email listing what was on her mind. I was at work on a particularly busy day and responded quickly to her email rather than taking more time to respond completely (my bad). She, then, took that as another sign of my lack of care / affection because she wanted a more detailed, engaged, email response.

So, the question is: Are these equivalent cases (or classes) of demanding a partner follow specific “rules of engagement?” These both seem, to me, to be examples of someone potentially finding excuses to “fuse” to whatever narrative allows them to escape from the difficult conversation. Are these legit needs that a person can have “boundaries” around and feel entitled to the respect of those boundaries? Is it healthy? Is it productive?