Occasionally, throughout church history, the Prophet has made some pretty specific and remarkable declarations about the future. But I think most of the apocalyptic prophecy we need is already on the books (in the Bible and so on). By far, most of what a Prophet does day-to-day is raise a voice of warning, pointing out through divine inspiration what our civilization's secular wise men are not sensing.
Here is an interesting article, not written (as far as I know) by a member of the church: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/08/are-macroeconomic-models-useful.html. The author creates a simple but meaningful metaphor as he compares predicting earthquakes to predicting macroeconomic events. He points out that even though neither science has developed to be able to predict catastrophe, both have some usefulness.
In Sunday School, we used to sing a song about a wise man building his house on a rock, and a foolish man on sand. The wise man built his house upon the rock because of natural disasters. Prophetic guidance is a rock; Jesus himself referred to revelation from the spirit to Peter as the rock upon which the church itself should be built.
While there are specific historic examples of explicit and accurate prophecy, most of the prophetic direction I have seen in my life did not so much predict fallout as protect from it. If individuals live according to sound principles, they will mitigate risk from large catastrophes when they do appear, whether they be natural, financial, or social. In addition, if the world as a whole would stop living near the edge and heed prophetic direction then many of the disasters themselves would be avoided.
For example, many members (including myself) felt inspired by and followed the direction of President Hinckley starting in 1998 when he said "Now, brethren, I want to make it very clear that I am not prophesying, that I am not predicting years of famine in the future. But I am suggesting that the time has come to get our houses in order." (http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/10/to-the-boys-and-to-the-men?lang=eng). (By the way, the distinction between daily directive inspiration and mountaintop revelatory experiences is not a revolutionary idea for members of the church.)
Of course, many people weathered the storm well even unaware of the Prophet's warning. But perhaps not all of them did so with the same confidence and peace that those of us not living near the edge enjoyed.
Now, while hindsight and macroeconomic research allow us to begin putting in to place regulatory policy that will prevent another 2008 housing-induced crisis, I think that a world following sound principles would have avoided ever building such a "house on sand" as the mortgage derivatives market turned out to be.
"I don't think our models are very good at detecting accumulating stress", says the author in the earlier article. He is talking about natural earthquakes and unnatural financial upheavals. But perhaps that applies to our morality as a society as well: The short-run and long-run scientific models for worldly morality look very attractive, but it is my opinion that the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a prophet, and constant heed is worthwhile because he has a spiritual gift to detect accumulating stress that science cannot model, and that he does point in the right direction for relief.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
My son joined the Mormon church. Why are you splitting up my family?
I know that these changes can seem hurtful. And since we're all imperfect, we probably don't do everything we can to make them go smoothly. But I have every confidence that your son's (or daughter's) decision will bless your family, and especially your grandchildren, in the long run.
Please know that they are not rejecting what you have taught them about Christianity. Quite the opposite; people who join the Mormon church are generally starting to take what they've been taught very seriously, and they're finding that we can answer some questions for them that form as a result of their search. The things that are most central to your child's Christian upbringing will remain in tact. That includes belief in Christ as the only way to heaven, and respect for the Holy Bible. Many of the other things you have taught them about, such as the importance of the prophets and apostles, and taking care of our bodies and our families, will come to have deeper meaning.
The only thing they are setting aside is the brand label they have carried since childhood. Ironically, we have been trying to teach our children to get rid of our label ("Mormons") all along. We'd prefer to be called members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But we acknowledge that this is a mouthfull.
If you choose to view this decision as if your child is throwing away the Chevy you gave them or trading it in for a Ford (or vice versa, as you wish), then this change could be hurtful. But let me offer you a different way of looking at it: In our view they are simply discarding the logos and bumper stickers and attaching some additional parts. We see those added parts as necessary for Christianity to function well and according to its original design, and we can offer scriptural evidence for that, if you want. You don't have to agree, and you might not find those accessories tasteful, and we respect that, but please choose to see your child's decision to "accessorize" their Christian beliefs as loving care for the gift you gave them.
Please also know that we do not ostracize, exclude, or shun those that are not of our faith. Many have accused us of this. It's a silly accusation. We are under a mandate to visit, to love, and to serve everyone. We make a special effort to reach out and love and serve those who are not of our faith or who have distanced themselves, whether they are our neighbors or our family members or our friends in the community.
I hope that helps.
Please know that they are not rejecting what you have taught them about Christianity. Quite the opposite; people who join the Mormon church are generally starting to take what they've been taught very seriously, and they're finding that we can answer some questions for them that form as a result of their search. The things that are most central to your child's Christian upbringing will remain in tact. That includes belief in Christ as the only way to heaven, and respect for the Holy Bible. Many of the other things you have taught them about, such as the importance of the prophets and apostles, and taking care of our bodies and our families, will come to have deeper meaning.
The only thing they are setting aside is the brand label they have carried since childhood. Ironically, we have been trying to teach our children to get rid of our label ("Mormons") all along. We'd prefer to be called members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But we acknowledge that this is a mouthfull.
If you choose to view this decision as if your child is throwing away the Chevy you gave them or trading it in for a Ford (or vice versa, as you wish), then this change could be hurtful. But let me offer you a different way of looking at it: In our view they are simply discarding the logos and bumper stickers and attaching some additional parts. We see those added parts as necessary for Christianity to function well and according to its original design, and we can offer scriptural evidence for that, if you want. You don't have to agree, and you might not find those accessories tasteful, and we respect that, but please choose to see your child's decision to "accessorize" their Christian beliefs as loving care for the gift you gave them.
Please also know that we do not ostracize, exclude, or shun those that are not of our faith. Many have accused us of this. It's a silly accusation. We are under a mandate to visit, to love, and to serve everyone. We make a special effort to reach out and love and serve those who are not of our faith or who have distanced themselves, whether they are our neighbors or our family members or our friends in the community.
I hope that helps.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
What about evolution?
Remember, this answer does not represent the position or doctrine of the church. It is my own. Many faithful members of the church have come to different positions on the subject. Some take a hard line to the side of science, some to a traditional understanding of creation, and some have worked to reconcile a middle position between the two.
I took AP Biology in High school too. I followed it up with some courses in psychology and in anthropology at the University of Minnesota. All of them depended heavily on a foundation of evolutionary science. All have been beneficial to me. I recall one lab evaluation where I was to order a set of human skulls chronologically according to its features; I performed well and enjoyed it. While I knew there was a conflict between the traditional interpretation of the modern biblical record and the science’s current claims, it did not bother me at the time. Nor does it now.
And it shouldn’t. F. Scott Fitzgerald said that “the test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” That is certainly the case. Here are two axioms that apply to evolutionary biology or genetics, and to every other branch of the sciences, for a believer in the restored gospel:
1. Belief in the one does not necessarily preclude belief in the other. Accepting evolution does not mean that you must abandon your faith in the plan of salvation, or vice versa.
2. Science and scripture are both progressive (or evolutionary, if you will). That is to say, we believe in ongoing revelation and correction in both. God never changes, and neither does history or scientific fact. But our understanding of both does change – and often.
So my answer is this: I very much enjoy the study of evolution, and the other sciences as well. I read about them, study them, I try to stay on top of the latest research. I think you should too. I never became a scientist (I did at one time want to be an astronomer. And later I wanted to be a chemical engineer. Neither worked out.) But I have had the privilege of knowing a few great scientists. The ones I have known are men of principle and faith. They have adapted varying views of these things; no doubt each has had varying degrees of spiritual and intellectual struggle to arrive there, but they are solid in their convictions. Darwin himself, though agnostic in his practices, never became an atheist, and in fact said that it is “absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist.”
Now, I do have some strong opinions about the people who have latched on to evolution as a tool for undermining the faith of others. I think Darwin would be disappointed in them. They are like the people who cannot separate their politics from their religion; sincere and enthusiastic, but misguided and immature… and lacking in intellectual potential. Their behavior bears the angry hallmarks of the dark religion. One of my favorite examples of this is their insistence on using a flawed, simplistic example in education. No doubt you’ve seen it: the picture of the two different-colored peppered moths on a tree. It claims that microevolution occurred in a species of moth in London; as the trees became darker in color from the pollution of the industrial revolution, so did the visible camouflage colorings of the moths, a form of natural selection that afforded protection from predators.
Unfortunately, the picture is a lie. The moths (it was later discovered) were bred in captivity by a scientist and stuck to the tree for a photo. Why? Because the peppered moth doesn’t come out during the day, doesn’t rest on trees, is rarely seen in the wild, and its natural predator – the bat – is BLIND. Yet to this day the moth is the poster child for “evolution in action”. I only noticed it because it was in my high school biology book, then my anthropology book, then my psychology book… I noticed the exact same picture was used each time. I thought, “Don’t they have any more examples of microevolution? If it’s a proven scientific concept, why do all these different disciplines use the exact same example and photo?” I smelled a hoax, and when I did a little homework, I found out I was right. Of course, this hasn’t stopped them from using the picture in textbooks. It’s still in my kids’ textbooks today – with no mention of the fact that the picture is faked.
Does this prove evolution is wrong? Of course not. It only demonstrates that there is much more work to be done before we can pretend to understand everything. The same applies to theoretical physics, by the way, and the various PhDs in that field who believe they have somehow “proven” God’s existence wrong (ironically this is a violation itself of scientific principles). Whether it is gaps in the fossil record or the lack of a unifying field theory, science has holes. Scientists have to learn line-upon-line and precept-on-precept just like us Deists, and sometimes (often) they have to make adjustments due to “further light and knowledge”.
One other interesting side note from the LDS perspective: While one set of evolutionary geneticists are depending on their science to disprove the biblical history, another set has embarked on a quest to disprove Book of Mormon history using genetics (the arguments and rebuttals on that can be found elsewhere). They need to coordinate their efforts together, because there’s a problem: The Book of Mormon, of course, was published in 1830, decades before Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species”. (Darwin’s famous voyage of discovery on the Beagle was in 1831). “Origin of Species”, published in 1859, was the first book to overcome the rejection of the concept of transmutation by scientists. So if the Book of Mormon was made up, it sure was ahead of his time scientifically, because only the Book of Mormon asserts the existence of generational trait change in populations due to environment – microevolution and natural selection - well before it was a scientifically accepted fact. Award fifty points to the Joe Smith team. I guess they should have pinned a Nephite and a Lamanite to the tree for that photo for the textbooks.
The upshot of all of this is this: whether you choose to study science or some other discipline, you would do well to learn revelation. Revelation is a difficult process – it is not cut and dried. It is iterative, nuanced, and subtle. But it is as real as things you can see and measure. And it can help not only reconcile perceived differences, it can help advance the science even further.
I took AP Biology in High school too. I followed it up with some courses in psychology and in anthropology at the University of Minnesota. All of them depended heavily on a foundation of evolutionary science. All have been beneficial to me. I recall one lab evaluation where I was to order a set of human skulls chronologically according to its features; I performed well and enjoyed it. While I knew there was a conflict between the traditional interpretation of the modern biblical record and the science’s current claims, it did not bother me at the time. Nor does it now.
And it shouldn’t. F. Scott Fitzgerald said that “the test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” That is certainly the case. Here are two axioms that apply to evolutionary biology or genetics, and to every other branch of the sciences, for a believer in the restored gospel:
1. Belief in the one does not necessarily preclude belief in the other. Accepting evolution does not mean that you must abandon your faith in the plan of salvation, or vice versa.
2. Science and scripture are both progressive (or evolutionary, if you will). That is to say, we believe in ongoing revelation and correction in both. God never changes, and neither does history or scientific fact. But our understanding of both does change – and often.
So my answer is this: I very much enjoy the study of evolution, and the other sciences as well. I read about them, study them, I try to stay on top of the latest research. I think you should too. I never became a scientist (I did at one time want to be an astronomer. And later I wanted to be a chemical engineer. Neither worked out.) But I have had the privilege of knowing a few great scientists. The ones I have known are men of principle and faith. They have adapted varying views of these things; no doubt each has had varying degrees of spiritual and intellectual struggle to arrive there, but they are solid in their convictions. Darwin himself, though agnostic in his practices, never became an atheist, and in fact said that it is “absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist.”
Now, I do have some strong opinions about the people who have latched on to evolution as a tool for undermining the faith of others. I think Darwin would be disappointed in them. They are like the people who cannot separate their politics from their religion; sincere and enthusiastic, but misguided and immature… and lacking in intellectual potential. Their behavior bears the angry hallmarks of the dark religion. One of my favorite examples of this is their insistence on using a flawed, simplistic example in education. No doubt you’ve seen it: the picture of the two different-colored peppered moths on a tree. It claims that microevolution occurred in a species of moth in London; as the trees became darker in color from the pollution of the industrial revolution, so did the visible camouflage colorings of the moths, a form of natural selection that afforded protection from predators.
Unfortunately, the picture is a lie. The moths (it was later discovered) were bred in captivity by a scientist and stuck to the tree for a photo. Why? Because the peppered moth doesn’t come out during the day, doesn’t rest on trees, is rarely seen in the wild, and its natural predator – the bat – is BLIND. Yet to this day the moth is the poster child for “evolution in action”. I only noticed it because it was in my high school biology book, then my anthropology book, then my psychology book… I noticed the exact same picture was used each time. I thought, “Don’t they have any more examples of microevolution? If it’s a proven scientific concept, why do all these different disciplines use the exact same example and photo?” I smelled a hoax, and when I did a little homework, I found out I was right. Of course, this hasn’t stopped them from using the picture in textbooks. It’s still in my kids’ textbooks today – with no mention of the fact that the picture is faked.
Does this prove evolution is wrong? Of course not. It only demonstrates that there is much more work to be done before we can pretend to understand everything. The same applies to theoretical physics, by the way, and the various PhDs in that field who believe they have somehow “proven” God’s existence wrong (ironically this is a violation itself of scientific principles). Whether it is gaps in the fossil record or the lack of a unifying field theory, science has holes. Scientists have to learn line-upon-line and precept-on-precept just like us Deists, and sometimes (often) they have to make adjustments due to “further light and knowledge”.
One other interesting side note from the LDS perspective: While one set of evolutionary geneticists are depending on their science to disprove the biblical history, another set has embarked on a quest to disprove Book of Mormon history using genetics (the arguments and rebuttals on that can be found elsewhere). They need to coordinate their efforts together, because there’s a problem: The Book of Mormon, of course, was published in 1830, decades before Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species”. (Darwin’s famous voyage of discovery on the Beagle was in 1831). “Origin of Species”, published in 1859, was the first book to overcome the rejection of the concept of transmutation by scientists. So if the Book of Mormon was made up, it sure was ahead of his time scientifically, because only the Book of Mormon asserts the existence of generational trait change in populations due to environment – microevolution and natural selection - well before it was a scientifically accepted fact. Award fifty points to the Joe Smith team. I guess they should have pinned a Nephite and a Lamanite to the tree for that photo for the textbooks.
The upshot of all of this is this: whether you choose to study science or some other discipline, you would do well to learn revelation. Revelation is a difficult process – it is not cut and dried. It is iterative, nuanced, and subtle. But it is as real as things you can see and measure. And it can help not only reconcile perceived differences, it can help advance the science even further.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Do you believe the Book of Mormon is a literal history?
Yes, I do.
There has been quite a discussion lately about the Book of Mormon. The attitude of some people, including parts of the scientific community, is that the Book of Mormon has “finally” been definitively proven wrong and we can “move on” without having to walk on eggshells around the faith of this strange religion full of angels, gold plates, and polygamy.
Not so fast.
The Book of Mormon itself has always stipulated that the remnant of its people were changed genetically between the time of their departure from Israel and their discovery by Columbus. Joseph Smith never asserted that the Jews and the American Indians even looked alike physically, much less genetically. Quite the opposite; the Book of Mormon is full of assertions that the people were changed dramatically in appearance. How else would God carry that out without rewriting their genetic code?
In fact, the Book of Mormon’s assertion that the Lamanites’ physical changes (specifically, their darkened skin) was a curse due to wickedness is a politically-incorrect concept that has been criticized vocally (by the same people who point to genetic research as evidence of Book of Mormon flaws!)
Additionally, the Book of Mormon is not the story of a single group of people. Nor is the known secular history of the indigenous peoples that was collected during the European exploration and conquest the story of a single group of people. Admittedly, members and even some high ranking leaders have been quoted attempting to shoehorn genealogies and geographies to make the specific American Indians that we have today pure descendants of specific groups in the Book of Mormon. And there may be some errors in those statements. Fortunately, Mormons do not believe their leadership is infallible.
Critical to an understanding of the doctrines and thought of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an understanding of two topics: agency and revelation.
Agency is this: The ability to make decisions for ourselves. In order to progress and grow as children on this earth, we had to be separated from the presence of God to be tested and tried. If God interferes in our agency – our ability to choose - it would inhibit that growth. The expectation that faith must be provable is unreasonable under that system.
A real understanding of that teaching means that members should not expect their religion to be provable by a genetic test. Or by an incontrovertible prophetic prediction. Or a large-scale carefully attributed miracle. I would go so far as to say that if the Lord had expected genetic tests to demonstrate to the world that the American Indians are pure descendants of the house of Israel, he might have prevented those tests from becoming developed.
That is not to say that we do not have plenty of evidences for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. But it is to say that they will likely not be strong enough by themselves (that is, without a witness by the spirit) to prove our case. For example, part of the evidence that has convinced me personally comes from the textual understanding of human behavior and motive and interaction. I am impressed and even awed by the insights there – things that would not have been available to the experience of the text’s young, relatively uneducated frontier translator. The older I get the more it awes me. The very best fiction writers of our day all lack something that the Book of Mormon has in terms of depth.
On to Revelation: Revelation, whether written scripturally, received as impressions personally, or announced prophetically, has never been a simple thing. It is nuanced. It is complex. It is revisable. It is revocable. It is local, variable, applicable. There are cultural and linguistic imperfections introduced by its recipients and its interpreters.
Our belief in a pure source and pure revelation, and in the designation of an authorized mouthpiece of it for governing the church (a Prophet) does not mean we believe in any sort of infallibility other than the Savior’s. It takes a lifetime of effort to learn to receive, interpret , act upon, and interpret revelation. People –individuals and even prophets – make mistakes. Misapplication, misinterpretation, mispronunciation, and misattribution plague the process.
The only way to eliminate all of those things is to have God himself appear and speak on every subject at every time in perfect language… and that would interfere with our development and our agency. One cannot expect revelation to come easily, to be easy to recognize, to be fulfilled the way we expected in each instance. One cannot hope to put time frames to it, or to be able to test it and prove it scientifically.
Be assured that that does not make revelation – scriptural, personal, or prophetic – less real, less pure, or less relevant. It just makes it harder. But that is as it is supposed to be. That approach to revelation is not new; it is Biblical. The reformers understood it. The Savior understood it. Moses understood it.
We are all born (whether “Mormons or not”) with an innate sense of revelation (we call it the “Light of Christ”). When we become old most all of us seem to draw toward it again. It is magnified further if we choose to be baptized under proper authority and to make and keep covenants to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost. We enhance its usefulness and our understanding of it as we gain experience, struggle to understand it, and use it to bless others.
I am confident that, for all of its "problems", revelation is alive and well in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and in my own life.
I acknowledge that some may see this as a cop-out. A blanket explanation for failed prophecies, for religion generally, for the so-called conflicts between faith and science. I suppose that is in how we choose to see things. I choose to see things through a lens of faith. That has served me well throughout my life. It has not removed life’s difficulties, but it has given me tools for enduring it well and for blessing others in the process, and for feeling peace. So I am going to stick with it.
Now, I know that some members of the church have taken an even more progressive approach to dealing with some of these topics. They believe that we should see the Book of Mormon as parable, perhaps a well-inspired metaphor. And that reconciles the account in their minds. That is up to them. Perhaps they are right and I am wrong. They are welcome to believe as they choose. But for me, I still have more than enough evidence that the Book of Mormon, with all of its oddities and whatever imperfections it may exhibit, is exactly what it claims to be – a translation of the sacred understandings of a few different groups of people and their dealings with our God.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Why don't Mormons like "The Book of Mormon Musical"?
[Disclaimer: Like many if not most Mormons, I haven't seen The Book of Mormon Musical, so I'm depending on here-say to form an opinion. Very unfair, I know. But all will be explained.]
The simple answer: I think Mormons dislike the Book of Mormon Musical because it makes fun of us. No one likes being made fun of.
Are we uptight? Perhaps. Or perhaps not. As a culture, Mormons have had plenty of self-deprecating humor. I've seen little skits at activities at church, comics drawn by members (some of the tamer ones even published in our own magazines), and in the last fifteen or so years an entire genre of Mormon humor flicks has developed in the film-making world, all poking fun at our culture. The only reason that you haven't heard of movies like the "Singles Ward" or "Church Ball" or "The RM" is that the humor is largely lost on people outside the culture. (The movie names themselves are the first indicator that cultural understanding is prerequisite to enjoying the humor).
Is it the vulgarity and the profanity? Many articles have pointed that out. Lacing a show about Mormons with profanity and grotesque or sexual humor is like filling an Amish show with references to technology and automobiles. It just doesn't fit. In fact, its presence in the musical is why we won't go see it. Despite being a very musical-friendly culture, we don't even get to laugh along at ourselves with our friends in the arts, while they make fun of us, because the language is so bad.
For me there's something even more personally offensive than the vulgarity. It is the stereotyping of Mormons as naive. But perhaps I shouldn't be offended by that; in its own subtle way it may actually be the funniest thing in the whole Book of Mormon Musical.
Perhaps, to some degree, many missionaries start out with a certain naivete; most are unscarred by addictions or extramarital intimacy and too young to have seen much of death or illness. But that criticism evaporates rapidly as Mormon missionaries live among the people in nearly every country in the world, speaking their language, wrestling with not only religious questions but unimaginable social and economic and familial problems.
I and my companions come home at 21 years old knowing more about the world than most Americans will know in a life time. In my small congregation there are fluent speakers of Korean, Japanese, Spanish, German, Portuguese, Croatian. And among my closest friends are fluent speakers of Russian, Afrikaans, Dutch, French, Arabic, Chinese, and Mongolian.
In the 24 months that straddled my exit from teenager to full adulthood, I saw it all. I counseled with families who had seen their own children and brothers murdered in a popular uprising, with the victims of rape, with children who had become addicted to crack cocaine by the age of 8, Dads who lost their jobs or struggled with alcoholism, moms struggling with the emotional aftermath of an abortion, families wrestling with revelations of an adulterous affair or a teenage pregnancy, with victims of sexual abuse and incest, with the loved ones coping with a suicide, a miscarriage, death from accidents or incident to old age. I have helped bail people out of jail. I have seen down the wrong end of the barrel of a gun and felt one pressed at the back of my head on more than one occasion. I have been explicitly propositioned (by both genders, by the way), I know what a crack pipe, cocaine, marijuana, and acid look like, and I can tell when someone is on one of them (and probably even distinguish which one). I can pick out a glue huffer from a mile away. I know what anxiety, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorders look like when there's no medicine to treat them. I know what dying from cancer and AIDS look like too.
By the way, it's not all bad: I have also played chess with professors, engaged diplomats in conversation on history and world affairs. I have trained teachers, taught English, represented my church in an appearance before a world religion class at a catholic seminary. I have played soccer in the streets with children and in formal games against Chilean men (including a police precinct. We won.) I have climbed a small mountain, eaten foods that we don't have time to describe here, washed clothes on a board and showered in cold water (many times), and knelt in prayer with many, many people of varying ranks in Chilean society.
And I have done all of that in a second language. Before the age of 21.
I would love to know this: How many languages do the writers and producers of The Book of Mormon Musical speak? How many years have they spent fully devoted to helping others? Are any of them qualified to counsel people struggling with addictions and relationship struggles? Or do they perhaps belong on the other side of the table? By the way, a couple of years of high school language classes and camps does not make you a linguist or even count as "speaking a language", despite what you have posted on the "Info" section of your Facebook Page. Nor does "having a friend who comes to you for help and has lots of problems" make you a counselor. Only naivete could produce such a delusion.
The rest of the world (outside the U.S.) laughs not at Mormon naivete but at American naivete; at best a nation of tourists, and at worst viewed as a very sheltered and arrogant people. Mormon Missionaries are the only demographic in American society that are a meaningful exception to that rule. We Mormon Missionaries are in many ways the cultured, the cosmopolitan. (That's why Salt Lake City was so ideal for hosting a Winter Olympics, by the way.)
Fortunately for you, Mormon Missionaries aren't the types of people to make a whole production of mocking the rest of you for your naivete.
The simple answer: I think Mormons dislike the Book of Mormon Musical because it makes fun of us. No one likes being made fun of.
Are we uptight? Perhaps. Or perhaps not. As a culture, Mormons have had plenty of self-deprecating humor. I've seen little skits at activities at church, comics drawn by members (some of the tamer ones even published in our own magazines), and in the last fifteen or so years an entire genre of Mormon humor flicks has developed in the film-making world, all poking fun at our culture. The only reason that you haven't heard of movies like the "Singles Ward" or "Church Ball" or "The RM" is that the humor is largely lost on people outside the culture. (The movie names themselves are the first indicator that cultural understanding is prerequisite to enjoying the humor).
Is it the vulgarity and the profanity? Many articles have pointed that out. Lacing a show about Mormons with profanity and grotesque or sexual humor is like filling an Amish show with references to technology and automobiles. It just doesn't fit. In fact, its presence in the musical is why we won't go see it. Despite being a very musical-friendly culture, we don't even get to laugh along at ourselves with our friends in the arts, while they make fun of us, because the language is so bad.
For me there's something even more personally offensive than the vulgarity. It is the stereotyping of Mormons as naive. But perhaps I shouldn't be offended by that; in its own subtle way it may actually be the funniest thing in the whole Book of Mormon Musical.
Perhaps, to some degree, many missionaries start out with a certain naivete; most are unscarred by addictions or extramarital intimacy and too young to have seen much of death or illness. But that criticism evaporates rapidly as Mormon missionaries live among the people in nearly every country in the world, speaking their language, wrestling with not only religious questions but unimaginable social and economic and familial problems.
I and my companions come home at 21 years old knowing more about the world than most Americans will know in a life time. In my small congregation there are fluent speakers of Korean, Japanese, Spanish, German, Portuguese, Croatian. And among my closest friends are fluent speakers of Russian, Afrikaans, Dutch, French, Arabic, Chinese, and Mongolian.
In the 24 months that straddled my exit from teenager to full adulthood, I saw it all. I counseled with families who had seen their own children and brothers murdered in a popular uprising, with the victims of rape, with children who had become addicted to crack cocaine by the age of 8, Dads who lost their jobs or struggled with alcoholism, moms struggling with the emotional aftermath of an abortion, families wrestling with revelations of an adulterous affair or a teenage pregnancy, with victims of sexual abuse and incest, with the loved ones coping with a suicide, a miscarriage, death from accidents or incident to old age. I have helped bail people out of jail. I have seen down the wrong end of the barrel of a gun and felt one pressed at the back of my head on more than one occasion. I have been explicitly propositioned (by both genders, by the way), I know what a crack pipe, cocaine, marijuana, and acid look like, and I can tell when someone is on one of them (and probably even distinguish which one). I can pick out a glue huffer from a mile away. I know what anxiety, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorders look like when there's no medicine to treat them. I know what dying from cancer and AIDS look like too.
By the way, it's not all bad: I have also played chess with professors, engaged diplomats in conversation on history and world affairs. I have trained teachers, taught English, represented my church in an appearance before a world religion class at a catholic seminary. I have played soccer in the streets with children and in formal games against Chilean men (including a police precinct. We won.) I have climbed a small mountain, eaten foods that we don't have time to describe here, washed clothes on a board and showered in cold water (many times), and knelt in prayer with many, many people of varying ranks in Chilean society.
And I have done all of that in a second language. Before the age of 21.
I would love to know this: How many languages do the writers and producers of The Book of Mormon Musical speak? How many years have they spent fully devoted to helping others? Are any of them qualified to counsel people struggling with addictions and relationship struggles? Or do they perhaps belong on the other side of the table? By the way, a couple of years of high school language classes and camps does not make you a linguist or even count as "speaking a language", despite what you have posted on the "Info" section of your Facebook Page. Nor does "having a friend who comes to you for help and has lots of problems" make you a counselor. Only naivete could produce such a delusion.
The rest of the world (outside the U.S.) laughs not at Mormon naivete but at American naivete; at best a nation of tourists, and at worst viewed as a very sheltered and arrogant people. Mormon Missionaries are the only demographic in American society that are a meaningful exception to that rule. We Mormon Missionaries are in many ways the cultured, the cosmopolitan. (That's why Salt Lake City was so ideal for hosting a Winter Olympics, by the way.)
Fortunately for you, Mormon Missionaries aren't the types of people to make a whole production of mocking the rest of you for your naivete.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)