FAIR

Youth

Rise Up Podcast – What Is Your Mission in Life?

by

Podcast: Download (29.9MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Rise Up is a show for the youth and young adults looking for answers and encouragement to the difficult and critical questions that some may face about the doctrines, teachings, and culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This episode is presented by Nick Galieti and uses portions of two devotionals from Patricia Holland, and Elder John H. Groberg, both given at BYU in 1989 and 1979 respectively.

What is your mission in life?

Some difficult questions about the Church arise from critics. While other difficult questions come from just living life. This week we approach the difficult question, “What is my mission in life?”

With this question comes several other, let’s call them “sub-questions,” that we often ask at the same time. “What job should I get?” “Where should I go to school?” “Is this a person I should date or marry?” Maybe even, “Is this Church true, or is the Book of Mormon true, and if so, then what?”

Because each individual is given the gift of agency, or the ability to spend the time we have been given in this life for what we choose, it would seem like a good idea that we use that agency in the best possible way. For that same reason, discovering and determining our mission and purpose in life is all the more intimidating.

I want to share with you some thoughts that I hope will reinforce the importance of finding our mission. Not because I want to make the question all the more intimidating, but because I think that the more we realize just how important the decision is, the more we will come to understand that because of this high priority, God has put in place all that is needed for us to discover our mission, but also to succeed in that mission. Knowing how important this is to God, may help us have more confidence to approach Him in prayer, knowing He is anxious to bless us with this knowledge.

As with the all the quotes that I share, I will leave you the link for to the full presentation for the posting of this episode at blog.fairmormon.org, so that you can spend time researching the main source, as well as the context in which the quote is given.

To start off, I want to share some parts of a presentation given by Sister Patricia Holland at a BYU devotional entitled Filling the Measure of Your Creation given back in 1989 when her husband, Jeffrey R. Holland was president of the University. She said the following:

YPDEV-1-45_LargeAll of us face those questions about our role, our purpose, our course in life—and we face them long after we are children. I visit with enough of you (and I remember our own university years well enough) to know that many of you, perhaps most of you, have occasions when you feel off-balance or defeated—at least temporarily. And we ask, ‘What will I be, when will I graduate, whom will I marry, what is my future, how will I make a living, can I make a contribution?”—in short, “What can I be?”

Take heart if you are still asking yourselves such questions, because we all do. I do. We should concern ourselves with our fundamental purposes in life. Surely every philosopher past and present agrees that, important as they are, food and shelter are not enough. We want to know what’s next. Where is the meaning? What is my purpose?

When asking these questions, I have found it extremely reassuring to remember that one of the most important and fundamental truths taught in the scriptures and in the temple is that “Every living thing shall fill the measure of its creation.”

Every one of us has been designed with a divine role and mission in mind. I believe that if our desires and works are directed toward what our heavenly parents have intended us to be, we will come to feel our part in their plan. We will recognize the “full measure of our creation,” and nothing will give us more holy peace.

I once read a wonderful analogy of the limitations our present perspective imposes on us. The message was that in the ongoing process of creation—our creation and the creation of all that surrounds us—our heavenly parents are preparing a lovely tapestry with exquisite colors and patterns and hues. They are doing so lovingly and carefully and masterfully. And each of us is playing a part—our part—in the creation of that magnificent, eternal piece of art.

But in doing so we have to remember that it is very difficult for us to assess our own contributions accurately. We see the rich burgundy of a neighboring thread and think, “That’s the color I want to be.” Then we admire yet another’s soft, restful blue or beige and think, “No, those are better colors than mine.” But in all of this we don’t see our work the way God sees it, nor do we realize that others are wishing they had our color or position or texture in the tapestry—even as we are longing for theirs.

Perhaps most important of all to remember is that through most of the creative period we are confined to the limited view of the underside of the tapestry where things can seem particularly jumbled and muddled and unclear. If nothing really makes very much sense from that point of view, it is because we are still in process and unfinished. But our heavenly parents have the view from the top, and one day we will know what they know—that every part of the artistic whole is equal in importance and balance and beauty. They know our purpose and potential, and they have given us the perfect chance to make the perfect contribution in this divine design.

This is where faith comes in: learning to trust God to guide our lives in such a way that we will actually get a to a point where our greatest potential is realized. While this may seem scary and even intimidating at times, starting with a simple desire to know our mission and purpose in life is huge step in the right direction. Sister Holland continues in talking about the importance of starting with the right desire.

The Lord. has promised us in D&C 12:7 that the only qualification required to be a part of this magnificent plan is to “have desires to bring forth and establish this work.”

Yea, whosoever will thrust in his sickle and reap, the same is called of God.

Therefore, if you will ask of me you shall receive; if you will knock it shall be opened unto you. [D&C 14:4–5]

Sometimes in our sowing and reaping and sifting, it may seem that God says “no” or “not now” or “I don’t think so” when what we want for him to say—what we wish our tapestry to receive—is an affirmative “yes” or “certainly, right now” or “of course it can be yours.” I want you to know that in my life when I have had disappointments and delays, I have lived long enough to see that if I continue to knock with unshakable faith and persist in My patience—waiting upon the Lord and his calendar—I have discovered that the Lord’s “no’s” are merely preludes to an even greater “yes.”

I have a five year old daughter who is incredibly headstrong and is very determined to get what she wants, when she wants it. But she is also learning that asking Mom and Dad the right way increases her chances of getting what she wants when she wants it. But, just as we may find with our earthly parents, our Heavenly Parents know what is best for us and when is the best time for us to get experience those blessings. In the times in my life when I have sought to find answers to prayers, wether they be prayers for answers to questions about gospel topics, or for what to do with my life, I forget that answers come in a couple different ways. They can be a yes, do that. They can be no, don’t do that, or they can be a not yet. That answer, “not yet.” is probably the hardest for me to get because when that answer comes I feel as if I have to guess as to when that answer turns into a yes. To further complicate things, sometimes, the answer that was a “not yet” can turn into a “not anymore-it is no longer the right thing to pursue.” I can echo Sister Holland’s statement, the Lord’s “no’s” are merely preludes to an even greater “yes.”

Because of this, the quest to discover what is our mission in life, is an ongoing and repeated effort. Elder John H. Groberg gave a really good presentation at BYU back in 1979 entitled, “What Is Your Mission?” He also talked about the importance of finding our mission, and implied the importance of re-discovering or reconnecting with our divine work over and over again throughout our lives. He ushers in this process of discovery with this quote:

Groberg,JohnH-bw“Let me begin by asking you a very simple question. The question is this: What is your mission? You might think, “Well, I served in Japan,” or “I served in Virginia,” or wherever, and that is fine; but it is not what I am asking. I mean—what is your mission now? What is your mission in life? What does God expect you to accomplish during your sojourn here upon the earth? And, are you doing it?

I hope that in the next few moments, with the help of the Spirit of the Lord, we can all realize, if we have not realized it before, or, if we have known it, reaffirm in our lives the importance of at least three things: first, that God, our Father in Heaven, does have a specific mission for all of us to fulfill and perform while we are here upon this earth; second, that we can, here and now in this life, discover what that mission is; and third, that with His help we can fulfill that mission and know and have assurance—here and now in this life—that we are doing that which is pleasing to our Father in Heaven. These are all very important concepts; and they are all true.

If we do not know what our mission is, if we are not sure, if we are uncertain as to whether we are in fact fulfilling it, or if we do not have the positive assurance in our lives that our actions and our performance are pleasing to our Father in Heaven, then it does not really matter what else we are spending our time doing—it is not as important as finding out what we should be doing and having the assurance that we are doing it. Or to put it another way, if we are really interested in doing our Father’s will we had better pay the price—whatever price is necessary. We had better pray however fervently, study the scriptures and listen to the Brethren however intently we need to, or in short do whatever is required so that we can have the assurance that we are doing what our Father in Heaven wants us to do—that we are moving in the general area of the mission he has for us to perform. Obviously, that mission will be different for each of us.”

I want to share my testimony that God can and does reveal His will for our lives to individuals all over the world. I know that he has done that for me in my life at different times. I have also witnessed that people will encounter trials, they may even experience trials of their faith, that will cause them to question their life path. Others may be searching for an answer to other difficult questions, and feel that they are not able to find answers to those questions or overcome those trials. When this happens some feel that the option to give up, to stop trying to live gospel standards, is their best option given the circumstances.

Others may even consider that they must not be loved of God, or that maybe there is no God because he is being silent in their lives. I have felt similarly in some trials that I have experienced and in its own way those feelings can be very scary. When this happens some come to a decision that much of what they believed in their life prior to that is either a lie, or some kind of wasted effort. However, the level of doubt I felt during those times of trial, has been exceeded by the level of assurance and peace that I know feel after having heard the voice of the Lord confirm to me, my life’s mission.

There are things that need to take place in order for us to be receptive to God’s voice, to the influence of our Divine Parents. We need to first, have the willingness mentioned earlier, a willingness to not just want an answer, but, as Moroni put it in Moroni 10:3-5, we must listen to God’s voice with real intent. In this case, real intent is not just really wanting to know, but really wanting to follow the answer that is given. Only doing what God wants if it matches what we want is not obedience, nor is it wise. I can say with surety, that God lives, and that he does guide us back to him if we are willing to follow the path that he will place in front of us, regardless of the challenge that may lie in that path.

Next, look to the unique talents with which the Lord has blessed you. Look at who you are, and the experiences you have, no matter how tragic they may appear. These experiences can be utilized in the work of blessing others, and bringing comfort to those who stand in need—to bring others unto Christ.

For some, our purpose may have little to do with career, or education. For some it might be that, for a time, God may need us to simply be there for someone else. To be a disciple of Christ, to be a comfort to those who stand in need of comfort. This is not a diminished calling, or mission in life. We don’t have to be famous, we don’t have to be rich, sometimes the opposite is what the Lord has in place for us at any given time. The answers are different for each person, therefore, it is important that each person spend time in prayer and meditation to discover what the Lord has in store for each individual. Consequently, this also makes it difficult to pass judgement on the choices of others. This is also why we should not rush the process of coming to know our mission in life. The answers will come. They may not come right away, but they will assuredly come to all who seek with real intent. God is not a revelation vending machine. We don’t just pay a price and get the revelation as soon as we ask for it.

There is much more to consider with this subject, so I would recommend listening to the full talks from both Sister Holland and Elder Groberg as those talks will offer additional insights in this effort to find your mission in life, and to live in such a way so as to fulfill it. For now, Sister Holland shares these thoughts with which we will conclude.

When my daughter, Mary, was just a small child, she was asked to perform for a PTA talent contest. This is her experience exactly as she wrote it in her seven-year-old script.

“I was practicing the piano one day, and it made me cry because it was so bad. Then I decided to practice ballet, and it made me cry more; it was bad, too. So then I decided to draw a picture because I knew I could do that good, but it was horrid. Of course it made me cry.

“Then my little three-year-old brother came up, and I said, ‘Duffy, what can I be? What can I be? I can’t be a piano player or an artist or a ballet girl. What can I be?’ He came up to me and whispered, ‘You can be my sister.’”

In an important moment, those five simple words changed the perspective and comforted the heart of a very anxious child. Life became better right on the spot, and as always, tomorrow was a brighter day.

The Lord uses us because of our unique personalities and differences rather than in spite of them. He needs all of us, with all our blemishes and weaknesses and limitations.

So what can I be? What can I be? We can be what heavenly parents designed us and intend us and help us to be. How does one fill the measure of his or her creation? We do so by thrusting in a sickle and reaping with all our strength—and by rejoicing in our uniqueness and our difference. To be all that you can be, your only assignment is (1) to cherish your course and savor your own distinctiveness, (2) to shut out conflicting voices and listen to the voice within, which is God telling you who you are and what you will be, and (3) to free yourself from the love of profession, position, or the approval of men by remembering that what God really wants us to be is someone’s sister, someone’s brother, and someone’s friend.

I bear my testimony that each of you has a purpose. It is different, it is distinct, it is divine. God lives. God loves you. And I do, too. I say this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

FairMormon-Rise-Up-iTunes-logo

RiseUp Podcast: What I Learned In My First Year With FairMormon

by

Podcast: Download (17.6MB)

Subscribe: RSS

NGFairMormon is an organization that seeks to offer faithful answers to difficult or critical questions about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as LDS Church or Mormon Church). FairMormon does this through an effort called apologetics, which comes from the greek word aplogia—which sounds like someone is apologizing or are saying sorry for something. The origin of term really speaks to the effort to defend one’s position or beliefs. This can be done through scholarship, it can be done by people simply being a voice in defense of elements of culture, doctrines, and other activities. When it comes to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, FairMormon and its volunteers are engaged in apologetics in the sense that we seek to defend the Church, its positions, and its doctrines using reason, research, and scholarship.

FairMormon has a wikipedia style database with answers to critics, to specific questions about church doctrines and history, and so on. There is also a blog that features book reviews, articles, and podcasts or on demand radio style programming with interviews, and other information that falls under the heading of apologetics. That’s where I come in to this whole thing—podcasting.

My official registration as a volunteer at FairMormon began on February 18th 2014. In the year prior to becoming a volunteer, I had entered the world of podcasting with my show, The Good Word Podcast, where I interviewed LDS (Mormon) authors and writers about their various works. In the course of producing and hosting that show, I had been given the opportunity to interview Michael R. Ash about his book Shaken Faith Syndrome, published by FairMormon.

The episode/interview was recorded then went live on the Internet some time later. In the time before the interview, and in between recording the interview and it being made public, I did some research on the organization and was impressed with the mission and purpose of FairMormon. After having a wonderful lunch meeting with Steve Densley the Executive Vice-President of FairMormon, I was brought on board as manager of the FairMormon podcasting effort.

Since that time I have produced, hosted, or supervised the production, of 5 different on going shows with over 100 total podcast episodes, and started the FairMormon Internet Radio Station. More importantly I have been introduced to and acquainted with some notable individuals, learned some important truths (as well as some falsehoods), and become more aware of issues surrounding the day to day experience many have with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have learned a great deal about my own abilities to manage time (producing that many shows as a volunteer is no easy task), but I have also learned other things that have added to my faith. While not everything I have learned I would put into the category of “constructive” or “true,” because I know these things, I can better know truth when I read, hear, or see it.

While I have learned far more than 10 things during this first year with FairMormon, they can fit into some categories or general principles. Each learning experience I have had, supports my choice to be a part of this apologetic effort. So here are the 10 main things that I have learned (or had confirmed) in my first year of volunteering at FairMormon:

1) We are all children of God our Eternal Father and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is lead by His Son Jesus Christ. God has called a Prophet and Apostles to lead this church, to bless the lives of those who have ears to hear.

2) Joseph Smith Jr., while a fallible man subject to the same conditions and purposes of a mortal experience, was, by the Grace of God, given the authority to restore the Kingdom of God to the Earth. Through the Church that Joseph Smith Jr. helped establish, all mankind may be granted the opportunity to return to God’s presence renewed, and eventually perfected as well as find lasting peace in this life and in the life to come.

3) FairMormon is not the true church (or a church at all), it is not lead by a prophet, but is filled with volunteers that seek to defend and build up the Church through their best efforts in scholarship, reason, and with whatever talents the Lord has blessed them. These volunteers are fine people who have, at times, become a verbal dartboard by those who disagree with the Church, its leaders, or its teachings.

4) Many people feel an emotional and spiritual pain when encountering doubts about their faith. This pain can be severe and ought not to be ignored or marginalized.

5) Having doubts does not equal having questions. Doubts are questions without accepted answers. Doubts can quickly grow into disagreement if given the wrong “fertilizer.” With the presence and love of an all-knowing God, there is no question that does not have an answer. If given time, patience, and faith, all questions can be answered. The answers require work, study, faith, and trust to obtain. When the answer comes from God, that answer will build faith in Him, and in his Church.

6) There are individuals in this world who have perpetuated the need for organizations like FairMormon. Some of these individuals are quite gifted, and charismatic in their efforts to discourage belief or conviction of a divine Church, its leaders, or its teachings. Much of the rhetoric of such critics are filled with a volatile cocktail of hurt and anger that resonates with those who are experiencing the pains that come with doubt.

7) My impression is that over the last 10-20 years, more critical questions or aggressive posturing against the church has come from those disaffected with the church, in other words those from within, than from those outside of the church’s membership.

8) One never knows the influence for good that they may have as they are “about doing good.” I have received emails, friend requests, and other in-person compliments and expressions of gratitude with the work that I have been doing with FairMormon than I would have expected. We are all capable of doing more good than we currently realize. As Bonnie Parkinson once offered as sound Christian advice, “never suppress a generous thought,” I would add, never suppress a generous act. (BYU Devotional, Personal Ministry: Sacred and Precious – 13 February, 2007)

9) Volunteering for FairMormon is a generous act.

10) On occasion I wonder why I have dedicated so much time and effort to a cause and an organization that at times seems to have more critics than supporters, but I do not regret it. I feel that I have made a positive contribution to a theology, a community, and a church and cause that I believe, in such a way that can have a profound ripple effect across the globe—for good.

I am grateful for the opportunity I have had to help people through their trials of faith, and to personally have an enlarged perspective on my faith as well as the many ways that God works through individuals to bring out his righteous purposes. I am grateful that the Lord has seen fit to bless me with enough talent and opportunities to be a part of this effort.

Nick Galieti – 2015

FairMormon-Rise-Up-iTunes-logo

RiseUp Podcast: Trying to Serve the Lord Without Offending the Devil

by

Podcast: Download (31.6MB)

Subscribe: RSS

FairMormon-Rise-Up-iTunes-logoPrimary Source: November 15th, 1994 BYU Devotional – Elder James E. Faust

When it comes to living our lives, we have a lot of choices placed before us. We have our choice of schools to attend after high school, or even a choice of career path. Spiritually speaking, we have a choice to make. When viewing the world around him, even Joshua in the Old Testament dealt with this same question. In Joshua 24:14-15 he was speaking prior to his death and reflecting on the different choices that he made in his life when he recorded this often quoted passage:

14 ¶Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord.

15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

When Jesus Christ was ministering personally on the Earth both in the Old World and in the Book of Mormon lands, he made a rather declarative statement that leaves little room for confusion. A statement that invites the one who hears it, to search their heart and make an assessment of where they are at in their life. In Luke chapter 16:13 or in 3 Nephi 13:24 we read: “No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.” The bible dictionary teaches us that the word Mammon is aramaic for “riches.” In other words, this scripture is saying that you cannot serve both God and the things of this world.

In my time with FairMormon, and even for some years prior to volunteering, I would come across a variety of people that seemed to struggle with this idea. When I say struggle, it isn’t something that they consciously notice. To a certain extent, we all will have time in our lives where it seems like we might be serving one more than the other. But there are those who Try to Serve the Lord without Offending the Devil. It is a concept that was addressed by Elder James E. Faust at a BYU devotional back in 1994. I want to share some of his council with you, not only because he says it better than I could, but also because it is important to hear the voice of the Lord’s chosen apostles. They have been blessed with the ability and spiritual capacity to guide us through some tough questions we might have about how to approach our lives. Here are some highlights from that presentation.

In the great universities of the world, one does not often choose to speak of the influence of Satan. Perhaps it is not cool to address this subject, but I choose to do so anyway. Someone said in these few words: “I have heard much about the devil. I have read a great deal about the devil. I have even done business with the devil, but it didn’t pay.” Your generation lives in a day when many things are measured against the standard of social or political correctness. Today I challenge that false doctrine of human behavior. The influence of Satan is becoming more acceptable. Elizabeth Barrett Browning said, “The devil is most devilish when respectable”

It is not good practice to become intrigued by Satan and his mysteries. No good can come from getting too close to evil. Like playing with fire, it is too easy to get burned: “The knowledge of sin tempteth to its commission” (see Joseph F. Smith, GD, p. 373). The only safe course is to keep well distanced from him and from any of his wicked activities or nefarious practices.

However, Brigham Young said that it is important to “study . . . evil, and its consequences” (DBY, p. 257). Since Satan is the author of all evil in the world, it would therefore be essential to realize that he is the influence behind the opposition to the work of God. Alma stated the issue succinctly: “For I say unto you that whatsoever is good cometh from God, and whatsoever is evil cometh from the devil” (Alma 5:40).

My principal reason for choosing this subject is to help young people by warning them, as Paul said, “lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices” (2 Corinthians 2:11). We hope that young people, unfamiliar with the sophistries of the world, can keep themselves free of Satan’s enticements and deceitful ways.

I owe my text to Elder Marion G. Romney, who, at a BYU devotional in 1955, stated: “Now there are those among us who are trying to serve the Lord without offending the devil.” This is a contradiction of terms. President Romney goes on:

Must the choice lie irrevocably between peace on the one hand, obtained by compliance with the Gospel of Jesus Christ as restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith, and contention and war on the other hand? [Marion G. Romney, “The Price of Peace,” Brigham Young University student body, March 1, 1955, p. 7]

Yogi Berra is reported to have said, “If you come to a fork in the road, take it.” But it doesn’t work that way. The Savior said,

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. [Matthew 6:24]

Today many of us are trying to serve two masters: the Lord and our own selfish interests, without offending the devil. The influence of God, our Eternal Father, urges us, pleads with us, and inspires us to follow him. In contrast, the power of Satan urges us to disbelieve and disregard God’s commandments.

In another address President Romney continues:

The consequences of [mortal man’s] choices are of the all-or-nothing sort. There is no way for him to escape the influence of these opposing powers. Inevitably he is led by one or the other. His God-given free agency gives him the power and option to choose. But choose he must. Nor can he serve both of them at the same time, for, as Jesus said, “No man can serve two masters: . . . Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” [Marion G. Romney, CR, October 1962, p. 94]

Here then is the challenge, in what issues do we see this “riding the line,” or trying to serve the Lord without offending the Devil. One current issue that is causing some discord or one where one may feel that is walking that line, is the issue of Homosexuality or Gay marriage. Elder Faust addresses the issue this way:

The Church’s stand on homosexual relations provides another arena where we offend the devil. I expect that the statement of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve against homosexual marriages will continue to be assaulted. Satan is only interested in our misery, which he promotes by trying to persuade men and women to act contrary to God’s plan. One way he does this is by encouraging the inappropriate use of sacred creative powers. A bona fide marriage is one between a man and a woman solemnized by the proper legal or ecclesiastical authority. Only sexual relations between husband and wife within the bonds of marriage are acceptable before the Lord.

Any alternatives to the legal and loving marriage between a man and a woman are helping to unravel the fabric of human society. I am sure this is pleasing to the devil. The fabric I refer to is the family. These so-called alternative lifestyles must not be accepted as right because they frustrate God’s commandment for a life-giving union of male and female within a legal marriage as stated in Genesis.

I suggest that the devil takes some delight every time a home is broken up, even where there is no parent to blame. This is especially so where there are children involved. The physical and spiritual neglect of children is one of the spawning grounds for so many of the social ills of the world.

Sometimes these issues are not so charged. Sometimes these issues involve matters of temptations and personal conduct, and not necessarily social issues. Elder Faust continues with this counsel:

I now turn to milder ways of not offending the devil. Nephi has given to us the pattern or formula by which Satan operates:

And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance. [2 Nephi 28:21–22]

C. S. Lewis gave us a keen insight into devilish tactics. In a fictional letter, the master devil, Screwtape, instructs the apprentice devil Wormwood, who is in training to become a more experienced devil:

You will say that these are very small sins; and doubtless, like all young tempters, you are anxious to be able to report spectacular wickedness. . . . It does not matter how small the sins are, provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into the Nothing. . . . Indeed, the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. [The Screwtape Letters (New York: Macmillan, 1961), p. 56]

So-called small sins include the challenge to the “sin laws” that seek to control forms of gambling, alcohol, and drug consumption. Some who wish to appear broad-minded say, under the guise of not imposing religious belief, “I don’t drink or gamble, but I don’t think we ought to have any laws to control others that wish to.” This completely ignores the health and social costs to society of the vices. They foolishly argue that laws cannot control human behavior. My long legal career has led me to conclude that all criminal laws have a moral basis.

I now come to some even milder forms of trying to serve the Lord without offending the devil. Having a temple recommend and not using it seems mild enough. However, if we live close to a temple, perhaps having a temple recommend but not using it may not offend the devil. Satan is offended when we use that recommend, going to the temple to partake of the spiritual protection it affords. How often do we plan to go to the temple only to have all kinds of hindrances arise to stop us from going? The devil has always been offended by our temple worship.

I want to add my own voice to the principle and importance of temple work as a way to help protect us even from our own desires that might not fall in line with God’s principles. When one spends time on the internet or in reading material that some would call anti-mormon, or even material that is is critical of the Church, the leaders of the Church, or otherwise, it can take a toll on our spiritual immune systems. It starts to wear people down and bring a sort of unhappiness into their lives that slowly creeps in, poisoning the spirit of peace. It is the power of the temple and temple service that can cast aside that anger, and helps us to find a place for the peace that comes from feeling close to the Lord.

Elder Faust concludes:

I wonder how much we offend Satan if the proclamation of our faith is limited only to the great humanitarian work this Church does throughout the world, or to our beautiful buildings, or to this great university, marvelous as these activities are. When we preach the gospel of social justice, no doubt the devil is not troubled. But I believe the devil is terribly offended when we boldly declare by personal testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and that he saw the Father and the Son; when we preach that the Book of Mormon is another witness for Christ; when we declare that there has been a restoration of the fullness of the gospel in its simplicity and power in order to fulfill the great plan of happiness.

We challenge the powers of darkness when we speak of the perfect life of the Savior and of his sublime work for all mankind through the Atonement. This supernal gift permits us, through repentance, to break away from Satan’s grasping tentacles.

We need not become paralyzed with fear of Satan’s power. He can have no power over us unless we permit it. He is really a coward, and if we stand firm, he will retreat. The apostle James counseled: “Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7). And Nephi states that “he hath no power over the hearts” of people who are righteous (l Nephi 22:26).

Satan has had great success with this gullible generation. As a consequence, literally hosts of people have been victimized by him and his angels. There is, however, an ample shield against the power of Lucifer and his hosts. This protection lies in the spirit of discernment through the gift of the Holy Ghost. This gift comes undeviatingly by personal revelation to those who strive to obey the commandments of the Lord and to follow the counsel of the living prophets.

I emphasize that fasting and prayer is a great way to receive the moral strength and spiritual strength to resist the temptations of Satan. But you may say this is hard and unpleasant. I commend to you the example of the Savior. He went into the desert, where he fasted and prayed to prepare himself spiritually for his ministry. His temptation by the devil was great, but through the purification of his spirit he was able to triumph over all evil.

I testify that there are forces that will save us from the ever-increasing lying, disorder, violence, chaos, destruction, misery, and deceit that are upon the earth. Those saving forces are the everlasting principles, covenants, and ordinances of the eternal gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. These same principles, covenants, and ordinances are coupled with the rights and powers of the priesthood of Almighty God. We of this church are the possessors and custodians of these commanding powers that can and do roll back much of the power of Satan on the earth. We believe that we hold these mighty forces in trust for all who have died, for all who are now living, and for the yet unborn.

I pray that we will dedicate our lives to serving the Lord and not worry about offending the devil. I also pray that through the spreading of righteousness, the evil hands of the destroyer might be stayed and that he may not be permitted to curse the whole world. I also pray that God will overlook our weaknesses, our frailties, and our many shortcomings and generously forgive us of our misdeeds. I further pray that he will bring solace to the suffering, comfort to those who grieve, and peace to the broken-hearted, and I leave this witness and testimony and blessing with you in the holy name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Mormon Fair-Cast: Peoples Choice Podcast Awards

by

Podcast: Download (8.7MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Neds Used Car Smile ThumbStop what you are doing – right now and do this. We really need you to do this.

We need your help to get nominated again for the People’s Choice Podcast Award. In 2011 and in 2013 we made the list of nominations for our religious podcasts and in 2013 we won best religious podcast. We really appreciate your support on that. In 2012, we were beat out by an atheist group. We would rather that not happen again.

In order for us to be nominated again, we need your help NOW. Time is very short. We need you to nominate us.
We also need you to send this to your Facebook and Twitter. Spread the word! Tell your friends!
Nominate the Mormon Fair-Cast Podcast for the People’s Choice Podcast Award.
Go to this link:
Scroll down to “Religion Inspiration”
Type in the following in the two boxes:
Podcaster Name: Mormon Fair-Cast
Our Podcasts have several hosts and themes. They are as follows:
Nick Galieti is our Podcast manager. He is the host for three podcasts:
Front Page News is a new podcast series Nick does with Cassandra Hedelius. They review the previous week of The LDS Church and members in the press.
The Articles Of Faith is a show where Nick interviews scholars and other notables.
Rise Up Podcasts Nick gears toward the youth.
Julianne Hatton does a podcast series called Faith and Reason.
These are interviews with Mike Ash and his book on evidences of The Book of Mormon.
Ned Scarisbrick does a podcast series titled The 4th Watch. It is based on the story of Jesus meeting his apostles while walking on the water during the 4th watch of night and keeping our focus on the Savior through the storms of life.
Ned Scarisbrick does a second series titled Fair Issues. These podcasts are based on articles that support the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Steven Densley Jr.  podcasts are titled Keeping the Faith. This series which centers on dealing with contemporary issues and criticisms of The Church.
We have other podcasts as well. Perhaps you would like to join us.
Please nominate us, and please listen.
Thank you,

 

Scott Gordon
President
FairMormon

WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANKS FOR LISTENING.

Questions and Apostasy

by

scripture-study-258662-gallery[The follow was written by DeeAnn Cheatham, a volunteer with FairMormon.]

Occasionally statements arise asserting that Mormons are not allowed to ask questions. Some go even further by contending that certain people were excommunicated or might face discipline simply for “asking questions.” This is puzzling, because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded by a young man precisely because he asked questions. Additionally, Church leaders teach that asking questions often leads to revelation and is part of the learning process.

While there may indeed be instances where church policy has not been followed, it is clear that LDS church policy allows members the freedom to question. Even questions where the intent is not to find answers but instead to challenge church doctrine or leaders are not grounds for church discipline unless the questioner becomes public and sustained in their advocacy. Below are some statements from church leaders that substantiate this point.

From a First Presidency Statement this past June:

We understand from time to time church members will have questions about church doctrine, history or practice. Members are always free to ask such questions and earnestly seek greater understanding. We feel special concern, however, for members who distance themselves from church doctrine or practice and, by advocacy, encourage others to follow them.

Simply asking questions has never constituted apostasy. Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine. (June 28, 2014, First Presidency Statement)

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a current apostle in the LDS church stated:

We have the concept of apostasy. It is grounds for Church discipline…

Apostasy, being rare, has to be carefully defined. We have three definitions of apostasy: one is open, public and repeated opposition to the Church or its leaders. Open, public, repeated opposition to the Church or its leaders — I’ll come back to that in a moment. A second one is to teach as doctrine something that is not Church doctrine after one has been advised by appropriate authority that that’s false doctrine. In other words, just teaching false doctrine is not apostasy, but [it is] teaching persistently after you’ve been warned. For example, if one were to teach that the Lord requires you to practice plural marriage in this day, it would be apostasy. And the third point would be to affiliate and belong to apostate sects, such as those that preach or practice polygamy.

So, we go back to the first cause of apostasy — open, public and repeated opposition to the Church and its leaders. That does not include searching for a middle ground. It doesn’t include worrying over a doctrine. It doesn’t include not believing a particular doctrine. None of those are apostasy. None of those are the basis of Church discipline. But when a person comes out publicly and opposes the Church, such as by saying, “I do not think anyone should follow the leaders of the Church in their missionary program, calling these young people to go out and preach the gospel,” or whatever the particular issue of the day. And when you go out and begin to “thump the tub” and try to gather opposition and organize opposition and pronounce and preach against the Church — that can be a basis for Church discipline. [http://newsroom.lds.org/article/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary]

Clearly, apostasy is going much further than simply “asking questions.” But even if “questioning” doesn’t lead to church discipline, are church members discouraged from asking questions?

During the most recent General Conference we receive this counsel from Apostle Russell M. Ballard:

…having questions and experiencing doubts are not incongruent with dedicated discipleship. Recently, the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles stated: “We understand that from time to time Church members will have questions about Church doctrine, history, or practice. Members are always free to ask such questions and earnestly seek greater understanding.’

Remember, Joseph Smith himself had questions that began the Restoration. He was a seeker and, like Abraham, found the answers to life’s most important questions.

The important questions focus on what matters most—Heavenly Father’s plan and the Savior’s Atonement. Our search should lead us to become kind, gentle, loving, forgiving, patient, and dedicated disciples. We must be willing, as Paul taught, to “bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.” [Elder Russell M. Ballard, “Stay in the Boat and Hold On!” October 2014 General Conference]

Pres. Dieter Uchtdorf, a member of the First Presidency of the church , affirmed:

In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly, that was restored by a young man who asked questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth. It may break our hearts when their journey takes them away from the Church we love and the truth we have found, but we honor their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, just as we claim that privilege for ourselves [Pres. Dieter Uchtdorf, “Come, Join With Us,” October 2013 General Conference].

Later in the same talk he stated:

It’s natural to have questions—the acorn of honest inquiry has often sprouted and matured into a great oak of understanding. There are few members of the Church who, at one time or another, have not wrestled with serious or sensitive questions. One of the purposes of the Church is to nurture and cultivate the seed of faith—even in the sometimes sandy soil of doubt and uncertainty. Faith is to hope for things which are not seen but which are true.

Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters—my dear friends—please, first doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith. We must never allow doubt to hold us prisoner and keep us from the divine love, peace, and gifts that come through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Elder Holland, also an Apostle, counseled in the April 2014 General Conference:

Last observation: When doubt or difficulty come, do not be afraid to ask for help. If we want it as humbly and honestly as this father did, we can get it. The scriptures phrase such earnest desire as being of “real intent,” pursued “with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God.” I testify that in response to that kind of importuning, God will send help from both sides of the veil to strengthen our belief [Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, “Lord, I Believe,” April 2013 General Conference].

And in the 2003 October General Conference, President James E. Faust, then a member of the First Presidency stated:

This morning I would like to bear a humble testimony to those who have personal struggles and doubts concerning the divine mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Many of us are at times like the father who asked the Savior to heal his child with the “dumb spirit.” The father of the child cried out, “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.” To all those with lingering doubts and questions, there are ways to help your unbelief. In the process of accepting and rejecting information in the search for light, truth, and knowledge, almost everyone has—at one time or another—some private questions. That is part of the learning process [Pres. James ‘E. Faust, “Lord, I Believe; Help Thou My Unbelief”, October 2003 General Conference].

The prophet Joseph Smith received these revelations, encouraging us to ask questions:

“If thou shalt ask, thou shalt receive revelation upon revelation, knowledge upon knowledge, that thou mayest know the mysteries and peaceable things—that which bringeth joy, that which bringeth life eternal.” (D & C 42:61)

“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, blessed art thou for what thou hast done; for thou hast inquired of me, and behold, as often as thou hast inquired thou hast received instruction of my Spirit. If it had not been so, thou wouldst not have come to the place where thou art at this time.” (D & C 6:14)

One can easily see from these quotations, that rather than trying to control or squelch questions, LDS church leaders believe that sincere questioning can lead to answers and revelation.

Finding answers requires faith. While Heavenly Father may not come down and give explicit explanation for all of one’s questions, He can and will guide us in our search for answers. The key to receiving such guidance is to ask in faith, and then exercise that faith by acting on it. Wavering rarely, if ever, leads to answers from God. One must commit to the Lord, take the leap of faith and live the gospel. There are no shortcuts. Alma taught us in Alma 32 to “awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.” (Alma 32:27)

Elder David A. Bednar counseled:

Please notice the requirement to ask in faith, which I understand to mean the necessity to not only express but to do, the dual obligation to both plead and to perform, the requirement to communicate and to act [Elder David A Bednar, “Ask in Faith,” April 2008 General Conference].

Elder Scott also reminds that we must try our faith to receive answers.

Faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith” (Ether 12:6). Thus, every time you try your faith—that is, act in worthiness on an impression—you will receive the confirming evidence of the Spirit. As you walk to the boundary of your understanding into the twilight of uncertainty, exercising faith, you will be led to find solutions you would not obtain otherwise. With even your strongest faith, God will not always reward you immediately according to your desires. Rather, God will respond with what in His eternal plan is best for you, when it will yield the greatest advantage. Be thankful that sometimes God lets you struggle for a long time before that answer comes. That causes your faith to increase and your character to grow [Elder Richard G. Scott, “The Sustaining Power of Faith in Times of Uncertainty and Testing,” April 2003 General Conference].

Even when asking questions, one may not receive or find answers to all of them. It is wise to focus first on the most important questions–Does God exist? Will He speak to me? Was Jesus his son? Was Joseph Smith a prophet?” Having received affirmative answers to these questions, it is easier to be patient and move forward with confidence when another question does not result in an immediate response.

Leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have allowed and even encouraged its members to ask questions. If one truly wants an answer from God, then the key is “ask in faith, nothing wavering.” (James 1:5–6) Of course, not everyone wants or expects an answer and may even be disingenuous in their intentions. But simply asking questions is not grounds for church discipline or censure, and never has been.

If anyone claims that they were disciplined “just for asking questions,” you can be certain there is more to the story.

Why Do They Leave? III

by

[This entry originally appeared at Forn Spǫll Fira and is reposted here with the author’s permission.]

Thus far, in my examination of the data from the NSYR I have looked at some of the scattered clues in the NSYR analysis. (The first post is here, the second post ishere.) The NSYR actually devoted an entire book to the subject of youth losing their religion and their way, called Lost in Transition. I have already noted that intellectual reasons play a smaller role in youth losing their faith than behaviors or events. I am here interested in only those intellectual reasons that the NSYR found for people losing their faith. This post will look at reasons assembled in the first chapter of Lost in Transition for why youth of all religions become secular. [Read more…] about Why Do They Leave? III

Working Together to Save Youth in a Secular Age

by

[This post originally appeared at Difficult Run and is reposted here with permission from the author.]

The following trio of recent posts outline various perspectives on why Mormon youth and young adults leave the Church and what can be done about it.

The discussion has already become somewhat politicized, but I think that the similarities in Bokovoy’s and Wilson’s approach outweigh the differences. In this post I’ll talk about reconciling them, and also bring in Gee’s important, data-based perspective.

Bokovoy’s primary point is that the struggles young Mormons encounter with their faith are the result of encountering real, problematic facts from Mormon history. As a result, he asserts that:

We need to alter our approach and stop giving students the impression that there is never any good reason to doubt or question their faith. Instead, we need to help students incorporate questioning as a meaningful contribution to a spiritual journey.

Wilson, as the title of his post indicates, begs to differ. His primary argument is that “It is not the facts themselves that challenge the youth, but the narratives through which the facts are presented and contextualized that challenge them.” Superficially at least, we have a contradiction between Bokovoy and Wilson.

According to Wilson there’s a deeper problem, however: “The more fundamental problem is that often our youth, not to mention many adults, lack the kind of nuanced approach to information that they require to be able to evaluate the facts in distinction to the narratives about the facts.” He later writes that “both apologetic and critical explanations… are merely provisional explanations.” It seems to me that the nuance Wilson is calling for, and the ability to separate facts from narratives, is primarily about being able to avoid taking academic or scientific claims as non-provisional and authoritative and instead “to incorporate questioning.” (Those are Bokovoy’s words.)

The chief difference, then, is that Wilson wants to prepare youth to question secular authority (“They [members] should feel free to take a cafeteria approach to the secular and scholarly information.”) and he blames Bokovoy for stating instead that they should question prophetic authority. But I’m not sure Bokovoy actually did suggest greater questioning of religious authority and, as Wilson admits, both apologetic and critical perspectives are provisional. The two views can, to a substantial degree, be reconciled.

First, however, let me point out that Wilson’s critique of the role academia and science play in society is absolutely correct. He writes that “’Science’ is functionally little more than an appeal to a culturally acceptable authority which they are expected to accept largely on blind faith.” This is true. Nibley’s words about “the black robes of a false priesthood” apply even more today1, and should be expanded to include the white lab coat along with the black graduation gown. This isn’t an attack on reason or the scientific method, but rather an observation that (not necessarily due to anyone’s intentions or desires) the combination of increasingly sophisticated and specialized scientific knowledge and increasing reliance of society on the results of that knowledge have conspired to create a situation where there is a serious risk that any sentiment packaged as scientific will be accepted as authoritative. To a lesser extent, this is true not just of science, but of academia in general.

This means that secularism now functions as a de facto religious outlook without being widely recognized as one. This allows narratives, philosophical claims, and normative judgments made under the banner of secularism to pass as objective and authoritative.2 This in turn means that secular critiques of religion have an unearned advantage (to Wilson’s point) and also that when religious people encounter troubling facts about their own history that don’t require any particular secular narrative to seem troubling (to Bokovoy’s point), secularism is always there on the fringes as the default fall-back position. In either case: the playing field is slanted towards secularism.3

Getting back to a partial reconciliation of Bokovoy and Wilson’s perspectives, Wilson’s central point is a general one about epistemology: “Few narratives can successfully assimilate all of the known data, which, as I have mentioned, is always only a subset of reality anyway.” Or, to use language I’m more comfortable with, we’re all busily engaged in the act of constructing models or narratives from the raw material of the facts and ideas we encounter in our lives. We never succeed in constructing models or narratives that successfully integrate all the facts and ideas that we’re aware of, and even if we could, we’re only personally aware of a very small number of the facts and ideas that are available to be known. Therefore, all our models and narratives are provisional.

Wilson directs this observation primarily at secularism and as a matter of practicality that makes sense. Secular authority is ascendant and its status as quasi-religious authority is largely unrecognized. It cries out for critique. But the observation that all models and narratives are provisional is not limited to secularism, and it includes not only auxiliary, apologetic arguments offered to bolster and positively contextualize prophetic and scriptural statements, but the religious conception of the prophetic and scriptural statements themselves.

Assume for a moment that prophets and scripture are infallible and sufficient. Even in that case, we would still have to go through the messy, error-prone, human process of interpreting and synthesizing their words to construct our own narrative or model. Which means that the resulting narrative or model—even in a world with prophetic and scriptural infallibility and sufficiency—would remain provisional. This means that one can affirm Wilson’s trenchant criticism of secular authority and still make room for Bokovoy’s argument that we ought to “incorporate questioning as a meaningful contribution to a spiritual journey.” Not because we ought to necessarily question prophetic or scriptural authority more than we do, but because we need to be prepared to question the provisional models and narratives we construct from those authoritative statements.

This does not, of course, reconcile every difference between Bokovoy and Wilson. The greatest difference that remains is still the question of what is actually causing youth to leave. Is it, as Bokovoy asserts, the mere existence of troubling facts? Or is it, as Wilson argues, a nefarious suite of narratives which accompany those facts? The first response is that the common thread to Bokovoy’s and Wilon’s approach–espistemic humility and questioning–works in both cases. So there’s a sense in which it doesn’t matter, since the solution to both diagnoses is the same.

It’s still essential to ask the question of what is really going on, however. And what we find is that from a big picture perspective it might very well be that neither Bokovoy nor Wilson are right about the primary problem. This is where John Gee’s post comes in.  Gee’s post is based on analysis of data collected by the ongoing National Survey of Youth and Religion. The project involves tracking the religious lives of thousands of American youths and conducting in-depth interviews with them about their religious lives. As Gee notes:

Unfortunately, the data published by the NSYR does not directly address the issue of why some Latter-day Saint youth become atheist, agnostic, or apathetic. It does, however, delve into the reasons why youth in general choose that path.

Gee then outlines the main factors that (for youth as a whole) tend to lead out of religion and into secular life:

  1. Disruptions to routine
  2. Distractions
  3. Differentiation (e.g. attempt to create separate identity from parents)
  4. Postponed Family Formation and Childbearing
  5. Keeping Options Open
  6. Honoring Diversity
  7. Self-confident Self-sufficiency
  8. Self-evident morality (i.e. moral truths are so obvious that religion is superfluous)
  9. Partying

He concludes:

What is interesting about this list is that for the most part, intellectual reasons play a secondary role in conversion to secularism. This is not to say that intellectual reasons play no role, or that certain actions have no intellectual ramifications. The list is mainly behavioral or event driven rather than philosophically driven. Doubts in religiously held beliefs do not show up on the list.

It’s possible that Mormon youth are very different from the general trend, and that while youth of other traditions leave because of behavioral reasons, Mormons leave because of doubts. But that’s not a good starting point given the data, especially since advances in understanding of human behavior4 provide us with a model where intellectual deliberation serves as an after-the-fact rationalization of decisions made non-rationally on the basis of psychological, social, and emotional factors.

Luckily, as I’ve noted previously, Mormonism stands out as a group that is able to transmit behavior and information to rising generations better than other faith traditions. Based on our existing relative strength at transmitting theology, culture, and behavior, we are in a good position to pivot and meet this challenge. So let’s get to work on teaching epistemic humility and questioning now. Let’s take Bokovoy’s critique to heart, and prepare our youth to deal with uncomfortable facts. Let’s take Wilson’s critique to hear, and prepare our youth to view secular authority with due skepticism and discernment. And let’s also keep an eye open towards the data-based approaches like Gee’s to see what other changes, especially related to behavioral considerations, we can take to meet the challenge of keeping the flame of faith burning in a secular world.

1. Leaders and Managers

2. This goes a long way towards explaining Neil deGrasse Tyson’s popularity and the rise of the New Atheists generally.

3. I’ve written more on the relationship between Mormonism and secularism that you can read here, here, and here.

4. E.g. Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind

 

Getting It Wrong: How Not to Save LDS Youth in a Secular Age

by

lehis-dream_1440x9601-vision-tree-of-life-lds[This entry originally appeared at Sixteen Small Stones and has been cross posted here with permission from the author.]

By J. Max Wilson

For those of you who may not already know, during the last few months there has been a bit of an intellectual brawl going on among a handful of influential Mormon academics. The most recent verbal scuffles have revolved around significant changes at BYU’s Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, formerly known as the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS).

I may make some observations about the Maxwell Institute controversies in a future post, but today I have some thoughts related to a specific essay by one of the contributors to the recent debates:

Brother David Bokovoy is a brilliant young professor of languages and literature with a speciality in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. On December 26th, he published a blog post entitled “How to Save LDS Youth in a Secular Age“. [Read more…] about Getting It Wrong: How Not to Save LDS Youth in a Secular Age

Why Do They Leave? II

by

[This post has been cross posted from Forn Spǫll Fira with the permission of the author.]

This is the second in a series of blog posts covering the sociological data scattered through the publications of the National Survey of Youth and Religion (NSYR) about why youth leave their religion for secularism. (For the first post, see here. For Latter-day Saint retention rates, see here. For where those LDS who leave go, see here.) We should remember that the NSYR initially came into being to test ideas circulating in Evangelical scare literature that U.S. teenagers were leaving in droves to become pagans and Wiccans. So as a study it was actually designed to detect if youth are leaving and what might be the reasons for doing so. What they found was that “U.S. youth are not flocking in droves to ‘alternative’ religions and spiritualities such as paganism and Wicca” (Smith and Denton, Soul Searching, 32, 311-312 n. 1).

The last post focused on a list of factors for why youth become secular. I suspect that the list was not exhaustive, but all the factors were prominent. In this post I want to look at a specific set of intellectual ideas that were common among youth of all denominations. In the first wave, of the 3290 youth surveyed (Smith and Denton, Soul Searching, 292), 267 had in-depth interviews lasting from 1.5 to 3 hours (Smith and Denton, Soul Searching, 302); this included 21 Latter-day Saint youth (Smith and Denton, Soul Searching, 303). One general observation the NSYR made was that “the majority of U.S. teens would badly fail a hypothetical short-answer or essay test of the basic beliefs of their religion” but Mormon teens “seem somewhat better able to explain the basic outlook and beliefs of their traditions” (Smith and Denton, Soul Searching, 137). These in-depth interviews provided a window into the thinking of the youth studied and thus enable one to see some of the intellectual issues involved.

The NSYR found a common view of religion that cut across denominational lines (and I have heard it expressed by many Latter-day Saints).

We suggest that the de facto dominant religion among contemporary U.S. teenagers is what we might call “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.” The creed of this religion, as codified from what emerged from our interviews, sounds something like this:

  1. A God exists who created and orders the world and watches over human life on earth.
  2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and my most world religions.
  3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
  4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.
  5. Good people go to heaven when they die.

Such a de facto creed is particularly evident among mainline Protestant and Catholic youth, but is also visible among black and conservative Protestants, Jewish teens, other religious types of teenagers, and even many non-religious teenagers in the United States.

(Smith and Denton, Soul Searching, 162-63.)

One of the interviews that the NSYR cited as an example of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism was a “17-year old white Mormon boy from Utah” (Smith and Denton, Soul Searching, 163). So we know that this is a problem affecting Latter-day Saint youth.

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is about a few things.

    1. First it “is about inculcating a moralistic approach to life. It teaches that central to living a good and happy life is being a good, moral person. That means being nice, kind, pleasant, respectful, responsible, at work on self-improvement, taking care of one’s health, and doing one’s best to be successful” (Smith and Denton, Soul Searching, 163).
    2. Second it is “about providing therapeutic benefits to its adherents. This is not a religion of repentance from sin, of keeping the Sabbath, of living as a servant of a sovereign divine, of steadfastly saying one’s prayers, . . . etcetera. Rather, what appears to be the actual dominant religion among U.S. teenagers is centrally about felling good, happy, secure, at peace. It is about attaining subjective well-being, being able to resolve problems, and getting along amiably with other people” (Smith and Denton, Soul Searching, 163-64).
    3. Finally, it “is about belief in a particular kind of God: one who exists, created the world, and defines our general moral order, but not one who is particularly personally involved in one’s affairs–especially affairs in which one would prefer not to have God involved. Most of the time, the God of this faith keeps a safe distance” (Smith and Denton, Soul Searching, 164). “God is something like a combination Divine Butler and Cosmic Therapist: he is always on call, takes care of problems that arise, professionally helps his people to feel better about themselves, and does not become too personally involved in the process” (Smith and Denton, Soul Searching, 165).

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism often hides among religious people:

We are not suggesting the Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is a religion that teenagers (and adults) either adopt and practice wholesale or not at all. Instead, the elements of its creed are normally assimilated by degrees, in parts, admixed with elements of more traditional religious faiths. Indeed, this religious creed appears to operate as a parasitic faith. It cannot sustain its own integral, independent life; rather it must attach itself like an incubus to established historical religious traditions, feeding on their doctrines and sensibilities, and expanding by mutating their theological substance to resemble its own distinctive image” (Smith and Denton, Soul Searching, 166).

Various measures of Moralistic Therepeutic Deism appeared in 42%, 37%, and 34% of the teenage population (Smith and Denton, Soul Searching, 168). By comparison, repentance was mentioned as a theme in only 4% of the teenage population, and obeying God in only 5% (Smith and Denton, Soul Searching, 167).

The NSYR found that teenagers learn Moralistic Therapeutic Deism not only from their peers but also their parents.

So what happens to teenagers who subscribe to Moralistic Therapeutic Deism? Later waves of the NSYR study looked into the issue:

What has become of the MTD five years later, now that those teens have become emerging adults?

The latest wave of research reveals that MTD is still alive and well among 18- to 23-year-old American youth. . . . The concentration of MTD talk among emerging adults has been somewhat diluted, but that is not to say that MTD has disintegrated as a de facto believed and practiced faith. It has not. . . .

Emerging adults have a lot more personal, real-life experience than teenagers do. And as the teenage faith of MTD has had to confront and address life’s realities during the transition to emerging adulthood–the five years studied here–MTD itself has been put to the test. For some, MTD seems to have sufficed for managing life. For others, it seems MTD has simply proved too thin or weak to deal with life’s challenges. Confronted with real existential or material difficulties, some emerging adults appear to have backed away from the simple verities of MTD or perhaps have moved forward into somewhat more complex, grounded, or traditional versions of religious faith. In short, there seem to be certain tests in life through which some youth find that MTD proves an unrealistic account or an unhelpful way to respond.

(Smith and Snell, Souls in Transition, 154-155.)

One of the first points to notice is the time lag between what is taught (and practiced) and the challenge to the faith. What the youth learned as children and teenagers was put to the test when they were emerging adults. What was reaped as a young adult was sown much earlier. I will illustrate this with an unscientific anecdote. A number of years ago I lived in a ward with a huge primary but not a single active teenager. The bishop studied the problem and found that all of the teenagers had gone inactive between the ages of 8 and 12. While there were a number of different causes for the inactivity, there was also a gap of a number of years between the cause and the effect. Longitudinal studies like the NSYR can help us see that relationship.

Youth who as children and teenagers learn Moralistic Therapeutic Deism as the content of their religious faith will not find it sufficient to sustain them through the challenges of life. Some of them, as noted by the NSYR leave their faith. So when it comes to the intellectual content of what we are teaching youth, we should be teaching the gospel rather than Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. Of the five points of the de facto creed, the first two points and the last point would have to be nuanced and the other two rejected. The restored gospel of Jesus Christ is simply not compatible with Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.

If we want to help the youth keep their faith, equipping them with the tools to combat Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is one place to start.

Why Do They Leave?

by

[This post has been cross posted from Forn Spǫll Fira with permission of the author.]

I have previously used statistics from the National Survey of Youth and Religion (NSYR) to highlight that: (1) we do a better job at keeping our youth than other religions, though we still lose just over a third; (2) we lose about three-quarters of the youth we lose to secularism though there are also some losses to various sects. A third key ingredient in understanding the situation is to know why youth are leaving. In this case raw statistics do not help answer the question. Simple surveys rarely help elucidate those sorts of issues.

Fortunately, not only did the NSYR track thousands of youth for a decade but they also engaged in in-depth interviews with a significant number of the youth at various stages. These interviews let the youth explain themselves and their reasoning behind the decisions they make and why they answered some of the questions the way they did. This provides richer data than otherwise might have been the case.

Unfortunately, the data published by the NSYR does not directly address the issue of why some Latter-day Saint youth become atheist, agnostic, or apathetic. It does, however, delve into the reasons why youth in general choose that path. For the sake of discussion, we here assume that reasons why Latter-day Saint youth choose that path are similar to reasons that youth in general choose that path. The NSYR cataloged a number of different reasons why youth lose their religion. These are worth listing:

    1. Disruptions to routine

“Many life transitions and disturbances of diverse sorts–divorce, death of a family member, leaving home, job loss” make people “less likely to attend religious services” (Smith and Snell, Souls in Transition, 75.)

    1. Distractions

Emerging adults engage in a number of other issues and activities that often distract them from possible religious and spiritual interests and involvements. To begin with, the central task of emerging adult life itself–learning to stand on one’s own two feet–is in some sense one big, macro distraction from religious devotion. . . . Outside of work and possibly school, emerging adults spend a good amount of time attending to various errands associated with living on their own. . . . Fun-related distractions in many emerging adults’ lives include . . . any other number of recreational and social activities that take time, energy, and sometimes money and planning. On top of all that is time spent on gadgets. . . . Social life can be distracting and draining in other ways as well. . . . More generally, there is simply too much else going on at the time to go to church, synagogue, temple, or mosque. (Smith and Snell, Souls in Transition, 76-77.)

    1. Differentiation

Part of emerging adults’ central life task of standing on their own is establishing identity differentiation. . . . Religion, particularly public religious practice, is one arena that effectively offers emerging adults an opportunity to achieve clear identity differentiation. . . . Religion also seems to many to be of less consequence than matters of education, finances, love interests, childbearing, and other more pressing areas, as a possible place to slack off, drop out, or otherwise become quite different from one’s parents (Smith and Snell, Souls in Transition, 78.)

    1. Postponed Family Formation and Childbearing

The postponement of “settling down” that is associated with emerging adulthood unintentionally produces, as a causal mechanism, the tendency for Americans to reduce religious involvements during this phase of life. (Smith and Snell, Souls in Transition, 79.)

    1. Keeping Options Open

Emerging adults are generally loath to close doors or burn bridges. Instead, they want to keep as many options open as possible. . . . If religion means being sober, settled, and steadfast, and if emerging adulthood means postponing those things, then it means not being particularly concerned about religion. (Smith and Snell, Souls in Transition, 80.)

      Some youth (about 30%) want to have more of a cafeteria approach to religion, picking and choosing the beliefs that they want. They are picky

about what they are willing to adopt of their religious tradition’s beliefs and practices, some of which they think are “outdated.” They often hold certain “different opinions” and desires from what their religion allows, so they pick and choose what they want to accept. [They] disagree, neglect, or ignore the official teachings of their faiths most often on the following religious issues: sex before marriage, the need for regular religious service attendance, belief in the existence of hell, drinking alcohol, taking drugs, and use of birth control. (Smith and Snell, Souls in Transition, 167.)

    1. Honoring Diversity

For most of their lives, from preschool on, most emerging adults have been taught by multiple institutions to celebrate diversity, to be inclusive of difference, to overcome racial divides, to embrace multiculturalism, to avoid being narrowly judgmental towards others who are out of the ordinary. . . . Despite the value of such inclusiveness and acceptance generally . . . this general orientation when brought to questions of religious life tends to undermine the effectiveness of particularities of faith traditions and practices. . . . As a result, most emerging adults are happy with religion so long as it is general and accepting of diversity but are uncomfortable if it is anything else. (Smith and Snell, Souls in Transition, 80-81.)

    1. Self-confident Self-Sufficiency

They were authorized as individuals to know and choose what is right, at least for themselves. It was difficult for them to imagine an objective reference point beyond their own individual selves by which to evaluate themselves, their lives, and those of others. They could decide what to believe about ultimate reality based on what feels right to them, whatever fits their personal experience. . . . Why would an emerging adult want or need religious faith? (Smith and Snell, Souls in Transition, 82.)

    1. Self-evident Morality

“They believe . . . religion plays an optional role in morally good living. The single thing in which it specializes–helping people to be good–is actually not needed in order for people to achieve that outcome. Religion thus serves a nonobligatory, noncrucial function in life. It does not have a corner on anything unique. Nobody has to believe in or practice it to live morally. As a result, its status becomes that of a lifestyle accessory. (Smith and Snell, Souls in Transition 83.)

    1. Partying

One of the other reasons why many, though not all, emerging adults may want to distance themselves from religion is that religion in their minds conflicts with certain other lifestyle options that are higher priorities. Most of them want to party, to hook up, to have sex in relationships, and to cohabit; or if they do not do these things now, many at least want to keep them as options for the future. . . . Many want to have sex with a boyfriend or girlfriend, or to at least be free to do so if the occasion arises, and many want to be able to hook up with someone they meet to whom they may feel attracted. Many also want to cohabit with current or future serious partners or fiancés before getting married. And all of this, emerging adults are aware, contradicts the teachings of most religions. So they simply avoid religion and thereby resolve the conflict. . . . Framed as a social-psychological causal mechanism: most emerging adults reduce a certain cognitive dissonance they feel—arising from the conflict of religious teachings against partying and sex before marriage versus their wanting to engage in those behaviors—by mentally discounting the religious teachings and socially distancing themselves from the source of those teachings. In this simple way, the role of sex, drinking, and sometimes drugs is often important in forming emerging adults’ frequent lack of interest in religious faith and practice. (Smith and Snell, Souls in Transition, 83-84.)

What is interesting about this list is that for the most part, intellectual reasons play a secondary role in conversion to secularism. This is not to say that intellectual reasons play no role, or that certain actions have no intellectual ramifications. The list is mainly behavioral or event driven rather than philosophically driven. Doubts in religiously held beliefs do not show up on the list.

Unfortunately, the NSYR gave no approximate weight to the frequency of the various reasons. One can hunt around the data and get some indications (and I provided one of these in point number 5 above). Among emerging adults (18- to 23-year-olds) in America, 84% have engaged in sexual relations and 66% have done so with more than one partner (Regnerus and Uecker,Premarital Sex in America, 25). Thus about five-sixths of emerging adults may potentially fall under those whose sex lives conflicts with their religion and, if they give it much thought, will fall under the temptation to make their beliefs conform to their practice. For teenagers we have better separated data published. Among Americans 37.2% or teenagers have been sexually active and another 24.5% wish they were. Among Latter-day Saints 12.6% of teenagers have been sexually active and another 14.9% wish they were. (Regnerus, Forbidden Fruit, 132-33.)

So the desire to sin in ways that fundamentally conflicts with their religion affects about 30% of LDS teenagers. We lose 13% of our teenagers to secularism. So the desire to sin does not automatically lead to an abandonment of religion, but the NSYR found a statistical correlation on keeping religion and obeying the law of chastity (Smith and Snell, Souls in Transition, 218, 271-75). On the other hand, having doubts about religious beliefs was only weakly correlated with retaining or losing faith to the point that the NSYR deemed it not significant (Smith and Snell,Souls in Transition, 216). Doubts play a role in loss of belief and commitment but only in combination with other factors.  (Smith and Snell, Souls in Transition, 229-31). For instance doubts play a role in the loss of faith of emerging adults only when faith did not play a big role in the teen’s parents’ lives, and the parents were lax in their church attendance, and faith already played less of a role in the teen’s life, and is usually accompanied by the youth’s less frequent religious devotion, i.e. prayer, church attendance and scripture reading (Smith and Snell, Souls in Transition, 229-30). In other words, doubt usually needs to be combined with other factors to come into play.

The list of issues should not be thought of as necessarily mutually exclusive reasons for abandoning faith. If 84% of youth have potential issues with sex lives incompatible with their faith and 30% want to pick and choose their beliefs, there has to be some overlap. We are looking at a list of prominent factors not a list of separate causes.

Only three of the nine reasons deal with intellectual issues (6, 7, and 8). One of these (number 6) is an uncritical commitment to diversity. Diversity can be a good thing. Society needs a variety of occupations to function well: it needs farmers and pharmacists, engineers and educators. But that occupational diversity does not mean that criminals are either necessary or desirable. Diversity, in and of itself, is not an unalloyed good. A simplistic example is that diversity of answers to 2 + 2 is not a good thing. Answers of 3, 5, -87, and 2,000,003 are not equally valid answers to the question 2+2 (they are all invalid answers). Diversity can be a good thing or a bad thing and thus one needs to exercise discernment about whether diversity is desirable in any given instance. Diversity can be a cover term for disguising that “they seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:16).

Discernment requires some external criteria for deciding right and wrong. Latter-day Saints can become susceptible to point 7 if they confuse two points of view. The Latter-day Saint point of view is that each individual can know for him- or herself what is right; he or she is then a moral agent who can choose whether or not to do what is right; he or she is then accountable for his or her actions and must accept the consequences for choices made. This should not be confused (although it sometimes is) with the position that each individual can choose for him- or herself what is right and that God will automatically ratify that choice without accountability or consequences because God loves us or Jesus’s atonement somehow nullifies all the adverse consequences of our actions.

The best data available to me indicates that we are not primarily losing youth to doubts that spring up in their minds as a result of something that they read on the internet (which is not to say that such a thing does not ever occur). The losses seem to be the result of a combination of factors (in which doubt sometimes might play a role). Loss of faith seems to be a complex play of factors rather than some simplistic story. Other factors weigh more heavily including sin or the desire to sin. Far more detrimental to loss of faith than doubts are notions of relativism, or the uncritical commitment to politically correct notions of diversity, and misunderstandings of moral agency and accountability.

Instead of indiscriminately accepting diversity or declaring that all points of view are equally valid, we ought to be discussing when diversity is good and when is it bad, what sorts of diversity are beneficial and which types are not, and what are the long-term consequences of various points of view. We ought to be clarifying the consequences of moral agency and stressing accountability. We ought to be paying attention to the consequences of choices and teaching those consequences.

Now, I am willing to consider that there might exist better data for Latter-day Saints than the NSYR data. The NSYR has the advantage of being publicly available and addresses the issue being discussed. I am also open to the possibility that the NSYR data is focusing on the general picture of youth in the United States and that a different story might be playing out among Latter-day Saints (which is demonstrably the case on a number of issues that the NSYR looked at but not all of them). A better analysis of the data focusing on the particular problem could help but if such an analysis has been done it is not publicly available. Those interested in the problem really owe it to themselves to work through the seven books comprising nearly two-thousand pages of analysis that the NSYR has generated. The narrative that Latter-day Saint youth are leaving the Church in droves because of something they learned from the internet that raises doubts in their minds is not supported by the available data.