I’m in the middle of Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. It’s a sordid read, full of the worst violences that humans can inflict on each other, but it’s compelling because: a) the author, Mark Juergensmeyer, interviews terrorists, those who follow them, and the religious leaders who provide theological justifications for seemingly unjustifiable actions; and b) the book is essentially about trying to understand the rationale and the worldview of the terrorist mind.
Juergensmeyer’s main argument seems to be that religiously motivated terrorists see themselves engaged in cosmic spiritual warfare in which the standard rules don’t apply, and violence against their enemies has a symbolic significance that is much deeper than the the act of violence itself. In general, the perpetrators (and those who support their acts) are not necessarily sick or crazed–they merely have a different way of looking at the world.
I think I buy Juergensmeyer’s argument. Let’s say that you deeply and sincerely felt that aborting the fetus was the same thing as killing a newborn child. Wouldn’t you grieve for the millions of abortions performed regularly in this nation? Abortion clinics would be like mini-Auschwitzes. You might feel morally obligated to do all that you could to destroy the structures and kill the death delivering doctors. The Rev. Michael Bray felt this way and burned seven abortion clinics in the DC area. The Rev. Paul Hill helt this way and shot and killed Dr. John Britton and his safety escort. Neither felt any remorse–nor did they need to, from their perspective.
I’m trivializing the difference in mindset that separates the peaceful religious adherent from the zealous religious killer because I think that it is something that we should all be on guard against. Whenever I read about criminal behavior in the news, my reaction is less, “what kind of sick and twisted mind could have produced that?” and more, “what would it take for me or those around me to cross that line?” It is why I am always on guard about any religious or pseudo-religious justifications for violence. It’s why I reject Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis and Nephi’s slaying of the unconscious Laban in the Book of Mormon.
I’m going to close with one quote from Terror in the Mind of God that highlights how some are empowered by being in a state of war. It has a relevance far beyond religious terrorism which is applicable to all sorts of warfare, conventional, spiritual, physical and verbal:
One of the first rules of conflict resolution is willingness to accept the notion that there are flaws on one’s own side as well as on the opponent’s side. this is the sensible stand if one’s goal is to get along with others and avoid violence.
But what if that is not one’s goal?…A warring attitude implies that its holder no longer thinks compromise is possible, or–just as likely–did not want an accomodating solution to the conflict in the first place. In fact, if one’s goal is not harmony but the empowerment that comes from using violence, it is in one’s interest to be in a state of war.
27 responses so far ↓
1 PodMonkeys // Apr 3, 2006 at 3:32 am
Sounds like a good read.
The quote “In general, the perpetrators (and those who support their acts) are not necessarily sick or crazed‚Äìthey merely have a different way of looking at the world.” is a hint at some Sociology there. The larger groups in society define the “standards” of behavior. Being the larger groups, they form the generally accepted definitions of acceptable behavior, characteristics, etc. They define who the deviants are. The deviants on the other hand, may see the majority as the ones who are immoral, strange, or what not.
Anyway, I’m going to have to put that book on my “to read” list. Right up there with Propoganda and Durkheim! Hopefully I get around to them someday.
2 Holly // Apr 3, 2006 at 5:55 am
I frowned a bit at the line PodMonkeys quoted–‚ÄúIn general, the perpetrators (and those who support their acts) are not necessarily sick or crazed‚Äìthey merely have a different way of looking at the world”–as well. It’s all fine and good to remember that about the perpetrators, but the world would be a better place if they’d remember that very same thing about the rest of the world they’re attacking: the secular establishment doesn’t promote birth control and women’s rights because we’re sick or crazed; we just have a different world view.
The whole thing is just one more reason why anything that teaches people to say something like, “The church I belong to is the only true and living church on the face of the earth” is bad. Any time you have an institution that teaches its adherents that they are singularly special possessors of a singularly complete truth, then you’re going to have problems. Which is one more reason I consider being a devout Mormon and actually “having a testimony” a form of spiritual darkness, and prefer to keep my distance from such people.
3 Rich // Apr 3, 2006 at 12:56 pm
Holly,
I’ve never bought into the notion that “The church I belong to is the only true and living church on the face of the earth”, though I recognize there are many (perhaps most) LDS that say that. People in church say a lot of stupid things — “I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt” for example — things that they can’t possibly mean, because such alleged knowing isn’t faith, isn’t what faith is all about — these are just ignorant clich?©s and trite phrases that get passed around. There are way too many truths taught by various philosphers, scientists, and religious institutions outside of mormonism for anyone to honestly say they have an exclusive copyright on all of them. So I don’t feel like I have to distance myself from such people as much as educate them to broaden their horizons and choose their words more carefully, because I do consider myself “devout LDS” (whatever that means). I feel I do have a testimony of certain gospel principles, but I’m puzzled why you might think that indicates spritual darkness. Isn’t the realization of specific truths more of an awakening? Or are you talking about a wholesale, unexamined buying into the whole package (speculative traditions, doctrinal warts and all)?
4 Holly // Apr 3, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Rich–given that you acknowledge that it’s ridiculous to claim to “KNOW something beyond a shadow of a doubt,” why are you puzzled when I feel that people who do it in all sincerity and with the utmost conviction that they’re saying something righteous and true, are afflicted by a form of spiritual darkness?
I recognize that there are thoughtful, careful members of the LDS church who bear thoughtful, careful testimonies of how they’ve come to understand and value scriptural teachings that seem to express most authentically some deep abiding truth. I just feel such people are rare.
As for why I want to keep my distance from the less careful and thoughtful ones, I don’t have the time to worry about helping them figure out things they don’t want to figure out. As the bible points out, “those who have ears to hear, will understand,” and someone dead-set on believing that s/he belongs to the only church authorized to act in God’s name doesn’t meet my definition of someone with ears to hear the truth. OK, I have to deal with my family, devout Mormons all, but I’m not going to talk to them about the most important spiritual truths I’ve figured out in my life, because they won’t understand. I figure the Mormon church and its membership has received enough of my time, talents, energy and resources in the form of the tithing I paid, the classes I taught, the callings I held as a practicing Mormon, and then of course there’s the work I did on my mission…. Anyway, I’ve given the church enough, and any thinking, writing or discussing I do now about the church is for MY benefit, so I can understand what the huge weird legacy of Mormonism means in my life, not so I can help Mormons be better Mormons. That shit don’t play.
There’s also the fact that I don’t think most Mormons are as kind as the average secular beer-drinking Jill or Joe. I’d rather hang out with people who judge their ethics first of all by how well they treat other people, instead of people who judge their ethics first of all by how well they adhere to a dietary code, fork over 10% of their income to an incredibly wealthy institution, and sit through meetings on Sunday. OK, OK, you’re saying that’s not all Mormons–but it’s a hell of a lot of them. I’m not saying I can’t have a polite conversation with such people, but do I want to hang out with them if I have any other option? No, I want to hang out with the thoughtful, kind, perceptive ones, and I find they’re easy to meet in the secular world.
5 John // Apr 3, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Having gone through my “without a shadow of a doubt” and “this is the only true church of God” phase (and now that I’m coming out of my “really pissed off at the church” phase), I find myself hesitant to judge believers too harshly.
I’m trying to puzzle out the “spiritual darkness” label for people who have strong, immutable convictions. I’m not sure I like it, especially if the conviction phase is potentially a stage that many people go through on the way to more tolerant and diversity-embracing perspectives.
Some of the religious/political leaders I respect had “beyond shadow of a doubt” sort of convictions, even if their belief was in the fundamental equality of all of humans in God’s eyes.
Also, I think I have a lot to learn from devout Mormons. One example: whatever their motivations, most Mormons I know are much more willing to drop everything to help me out than I am to help them.
I find myself as frustrated in my conversations with dogmatic theists, but I find myself equally annoyed with dogmatic anybodies (political, secular, religious, sports-fans–even people I agree with). At the same time, I am happy when I develop deep relationships (through compassionate, respectful dialogue) with people who have entrenched worldviews. I acknowledge that this is rare, but it does happen. My experience in my religious studies program is a good example of this.
That said, I think that my best conversations and friendships are with people who are exploring the borders of certainty and uncertainty, belief and doubt.
6 John // Apr 3, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Hey Monkey-boy,
Sorry I haven’t been on chat lately–I’m trying to keep my head above water, but it sounds like you’re pretty crazy with the move. I’m glad you’re getting ‘plastered’ though!
A tangential thought to your comment and Holly’s response to it: I think that the crucial division in our (global) society isn’t between the religious and the secular, but between the tolerant and the intolerant. Tolerant theists and atheists get along splendidly, even if they disagree. Intolerant theists and atheists, especially when they have control of the state’s (former) monopoly on violence, are the source of some the greatest catastrophes of human history.
7 Holly // Apr 4, 2006 at 5:10 am
Well, maybe there’s just something weird about me, then, because I never went through a ‚Äúwithout a shadow of a doubt‚Äù and ‚Äúthis is the only true church of God‚Äù phase, though I tried to spout the rhetoric–and felt miserable, even as a teenager, when I knew I couldn’t claim, with any authenticity, to know all these things everyone else seemed so sure of.
Spiritual darkness is pretty much a human condition–the opposite of enlightenment, which few people reach, and then it’s not by being lucky enough to be born or converted into a particular religion, but by working one’s ass off to figure certain things out. The great irony of religion is that while it was designed and is considered by its adherents to be the best way to achieve enlightenment, the more I look at its effects in my own life and the lives of those around me, the more I read religious history and open-minded works of theology, the more I believe that religion impedes spiritual development rather than aiding it.
I don’t like hanging out with people who accept shoddy substitutes for the things that really matter to me. I recognize their right to value what they want to value, and I try to be kind and respectful when I do have to interact with them, but they are not the people I want to spend the bulk of my time with. I prefer to hang out with people who share my interests and value my goals and aspirations. Why is that remarkable?
8 Holly // Apr 4, 2006 at 7:33 am
John–
of course it comes down to a matter of tolerance. But what are we going to tolerate, and what is there that we must not tolerate?
Different names for god?
Godlessness?
The right to believe the teachings of one particular church regarding gender?
Religions that teach that women are, by divine decree, relegated to a certain role in relationships and society at large?
Women who walk around without covering their heads?
Religiously-led governments who deny women education, suffrage, the right to drive or even to leave the house without a male guardian?
Drug use by well-to-do pleasure-seekers with too much money and time on their hands?
Drug cultivation by impoverished people who might very well starve if they don’t get a decent crop?
Legalized abortion?
Prosecution and incarceration of women who seek illegal abortions, as well as those who perform them?
Dictators who terrorize their own citizens?
Political leaders who lie about the rationale for going to war?
People who believe that they have the god-given responsibility to kill someone else because of what they believe/ what they have done?
People who believe it’s not all right to kill, UNLESS you’re killing those who believe that they have the god-given responsibility to kill someone else because of what they believe/ what they have done?
Sexual conduct by adults with small children?
Harsh penalties for adults who engage in sexual conduct with small children?
Slavery?
Going to war in order to end slavery?
What do you advocate we tolerate and not tolerate, John?
9 John // Apr 4, 2006 at 11:29 am
Holly, you were blessed with rare insight and a sharp mind from a young age. I think that your spiritual path is atypical for those brought up in a religion with the absolutist worldview found in Mormonism.
But I still resist your spiritual darkness label for devout believers, partly because this implies that people who aren’t constrained by such beliefs are somehow more enlightened. While I think that I’m in a better place for myself than I was as a staunch believer, I’m not sure that I’m necessarily more spiritually enlightened. Maybe I’m naive or even blind, but I think I have some small justification.
Enlightenment to me means connection–to all of creation, yes, but especially to other humans. I believe that Jesus and Buddha felt this connection, and that people like the Dalai Lama are pretty close.
I want to feel this deep connection with every human being I meet no matter what the barriers of age, gender, class, race, habit, culture, morality, religion, and politics. I want to to feel deep compassion towards the despicable as well as virtuous.
I’m not very good at it, but I look at some of my friends who have these narrow worldviews but who are simultaneously trying to love others as Christ did, and I realize that they feel some of that connection (I did, as a devoted missionary). Religion and people’s hearts are many-layered and complex. Deep religious conviction shouldn’t cancel out the compassion. They can live together like headstrong lovers, simultaneously intertwined and in tension.
10 Holly // Apr 4, 2006 at 11:58 am
But I still resist your spiritual darkness label for devout believers, partly because this implies that people who aren’t constrained by such beliefs are somehow more enlightened.
If you alter that sentence to read like this, But I still resist your spiritual darkness label for devout believers, partly because this implies that people who have seen the limitations of and discarded such beliefs are somehow more enlightened, then you have indeed grasped the gist of what I was saying.
I do think it is more enlightened to accept recognize that there is not a single church expressly sanctioned and authorized by god, than to believe that there is.
For that matter, I side with Karen Armstrong from A History of God on the entire matter of a personal god:
“A personal God can become a grave liability. He can be a mere idol carved in our own image, a projection of our limited needs, fears and desires. We can assume that he loves what we love and hates what we hate, endorsing our prejudices instead of compelling us to transcend them. When he seems to fail to prevent a catastrophe or seems even to desire a tragedy, he can seem callous and cruel. A facile belief that a disaster is the will of God can make us accept things that are fundamentally unacceptable. The very fact that, as a person, God has a gender is also limiting: it means that the sexuality of half the human race is sacralized at the expense of the female and can lead to a neurotic and inadequate imbalance in human sexual mores. A personal God can be dangerous, therefore. Instead of pulling us beyond our limitations, ‘he’ can encourage us to remain complacently within them; ‘he’ can make us as cruel, callous, self-satisfied and partial as ‘he’ seems to be. Instead of inspiring the compassion that should characterize all advanced religion, ‘he’ can encourage us to judge, condemn and marginalize. It seems, therefore, that the idea of a personal God can only be a stage in our religious development.”
Likewise, I believe that it is more enlightened to see that there is something grotesque and heinous about human sacrifice, than to believe that it’s something our deities require of us.
I don’t think that level of insight necessarily makes a single thing easier–it may in fact make things harder. As the zen saying goes, “Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After englightenment, chop wood, carry water.” The work of living in this world doesn’t change, just our sense of what it means. And that goes dealing with other people.
It’s terrific that you love whom you love. More power to you–I hope your relationships with these people continue to be rewarding. But I think you could extend to me the same TOLERANCE for my sense of how best to use my time and my energy, and I would like you to admit that it’s perfectly defensible for me to seek out close friends whom I feel are more spiritually developed than the people I grew up knowing, or else explain to me why my choice of intimate friends should be personally objectionable to you. You are welcome to think that I am somehow deficient because of my preference for spending my time with people who understand and accept me more easily than others, but you should nonetheless grant me the right to decide that that’s what I’m going to do.
11 John // Apr 4, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Holly, you said that:
We may have a misunderstanding here. We’re both taking each other’s choice as an implied attack on our own personal choice. I think I’m reacting defensively because of the friends that I have in “spiritual darkness” and spiritually impeded. You’d probably respond similarly if you felt I described your friends’ deficiencies. But here I am reacting defensively, focused on my own feelings again.
I don’t think you’re deficient in your choice of friends (though I felt that you thought me somehow deficient, and was responding defensively against that). Your choice of friends is not objectionable to me. I don’t think I said as much.
I think I was careful to try to personalize the bulk of my statements, such as “enlightenment to me means…” and I tried to explain things in terms of my experience and my feelings, without making prescriptions for you or without generalizing. I don’t think I explicitly stated that you shouldn’t hang out with like-minded people who share your values, but I probably said as much by implication, and I’m sorry about that–I certainly didn’t mean it. For all my talk of connection, I’m narrowly focused on my own experience, and not acknowledging yours, for which thing I apologize.
12 Holly // Apr 4, 2006 at 1:12 pm
You’d probably respond similarly if you felt I described your friends’ deficiencies.
Well, I did react that way for a long time–because “accursed by spiritual darkness” is precisely how both I and my friends are viewed by a great many Mormons. And mostly I have been mulling over how ironic I find the surprise you and Rich exhibited when I said I felt being a devout Mormon was a form of spiritual darkness–sheesh, Mormon doctrine teaches explicitly that anyone who rejects Mormonism does so out of ignorance or evil or some other base motivation; why should it be so shocking and jarring to find the shoe on the other foot?
As I tried to make clear in my comment, I don’t really need your approval or validation–I’m going to do and think as I feel appropriate, but I did want to own up to the ways in which you seemed to be judging me, and that was one reason I went straight for the clarification and copped to the judgmental nature of my own statement.
I have a lot of experience of doing what I feel is appropriate, even when people I love and admire tell me I’m foolish, selfish and wicked. (God, I wish I had ten bucks for every time someone admonished me by quoting 2 Ne 9:28: “O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they fhearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.” –I’d have a couple thousand dollars at least!)
I admit to feeling certain other people are foolish, selfish and wicked as well, but there are a few things I’ve never done that Mormons so often did to me: I’ve never claimed to be invoking God’s righteous judgment as part of my own judgment; I’ve never threatened them with eternal damnation; I’ve never told them they are unworthy even to hope for a life of spiritual growth and progress.
And I consider people who feel they have the right to do such things–yes, that’s right–spiritually retarded, although by no divine decree, simply by their own choices.
Really, I mean REALLY, John and Rich, is is REALLY surprising that I would prefer to avoid such people?
13 Rich // Apr 4, 2006 at 5:27 pm
No, not at all, I can see your point very well.
I was only surprised/puzzled that an obviously intelligent woman like yourself would paint an entire group of people with such a broad and generalized brush :o) I didn’t hear you initally make any concessions — you essentially said “devout mormons were in spiritual darkness”. That’s a pretty big generalization with some pretty damning judgement on your part. Since I include myself in the “devout” group, it felt a little like a slap in the face is all.
You are certainly free to take the word “devout” and apply whatever arbitrary, narrow definition to it that suits you, that limits it to a certain (however common LDS) mindset. Yet I’ll strongly contend that people can be devout and still be objective, thoughtful, tolerant, kind and open (not limiting the discussion to Mormons, yet not excluding Mormons).
You have far more formal education than I do Holly. Your life experiences are something I cannot speak to. Your personal journey, your joys and pains, trimphs and failures, your perspectives and opinions and insights and relationships are not (necessarily) mine. Consequently I respect you (and them) enough to not make some sweeping (negative) generalizations about those who have left Mormonism, though I certainly could (my best friend is one), however tempting that might be in the current context of this discussion. :o)
I suspect you and I have a lot more in common than not. But I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about the general LDS population. I find most LDS good at heart. Yes, many are frustratingly stubborn and closed-minded. But I also know too many that are not that way at all. We all have feet of clay (leaders at every level included), and all of us are in need of a gentle nudge (or ferocious shove as the case may be) in the right direction once in a while. I’d like to believe (however naive the belief may be) that I can make a difference, and yet not too proud to imagine I have all the answers to life’s sometimes perplexing questions, so I remain, hopeful and hopefully helpful — and believe I have a bigger impact for good on the inside rather than on the outside.
To me one of the greatest strengths of Mormonism is the sharing of perspective. I often find myself hearing another member share perspective that broadens my own. I love that aspect of talks and lessons — there is an opportunity for participation at every level by every one.
I can sit on the outside and bitterly condemn them “all” for being retarded republicans (for example) that helped elect by far the worst president in the history of this country — not once, but twice! Or I can can counter their ignorance with some gentle, loving reproof and education, and actually make a convert once in a while. I’ve especially enjoyed teaching the youth — filling their little heads with all kinds of iconoclastic and heretical fun! Not enough to raise too many eyebrows, but enough to get them thinking anyway… :o)
14 Holly // Apr 4, 2006 at 7:14 pm
I can easily believe that it did feel like a slap in the face. But let me ask you this: do you display the Proclamation on the Family in your home?
I ask because I find that document absolutely execrable, vile beyond vile, with its dire prophecy that things like working mothers, feminism, extra-marital sex and tolerance of homosexuality will bring about Armageddon. As I was raised by a working mother, am a feminist, have never been married to any of the men I’ve had sex with, and as both my best friend and the love of my life are gay men, I can sometimes feel that the PotF is something of a slap in the face. In fact, when I see it at my parents’ home, I sometimes have to draw several deep breaths and tell myself, “Your parents aren’t actively EVIL, Holly, just spiritually benighted.” And as that reaction is still more generous and forgiving than the attitude of the PotF, I still feel I’m ahead in the game.
And as the majority of the membership of the church endorse the PotF and display it in their homes, I feel entitled to think poorly of them for it. I withhold judgment on that count for those who are willing to say why the document is bullshit and won’t display it. The day the majority of the Mormons denounce the PotF, not because anyone in the hierarchy told them to but just because they figured out on their own what crap it is, is the day I revise my general opinion of the general membership.
And hey, it’s great that you want to stay and teach the youth of the church–I mean that sincerely and I hope it continues to be rewarding for you and for them. I feel doing that would be a waste of my time and talents, but we both get to do what makes us happy and find ways to make contributions we feel are valued appropriately. I never felt my contributions were valued inside the church–not surprising, I guess, what with the way I was so often warned that I thought too much and asked too many questions–and I admit I have no patience with people who tell me I should come back to the church “because it needs me”–like increasing the influence of some giant freakin’ institution is of more value than my own life and happiness! But I assume you’re not suggesting anything of the sort.
15 Holly // Apr 4, 2006 at 7:32 pm
John wrote:
And yet, let’s not forget that as a missionary, your sense of deep connection to others was, if not rooted in, at least tied to a sense that their lives were incomplete unless they accepted the special god-sanctioned truth you had come to offer them, and that an explicit expression of that connection was your valiant effort to persuade everyone else to believe as you did.
Sorry, John, but there’s something about that fact that I can’t help finding kind of gross, and not really all that christlike. And I would hope that these days, you’re shooting for a better kind of connection, and can see why people on the receiving end of that kind of connection might feel it’s not so spiffy after all.
16 John // Apr 4, 2006 at 10:28 pm
Rich, I haven’t said anything about your comments, but I wanted to thank you for your eloquent and ameliorating responses.
My son will become a deacon this month. He’s one of the people I admire most in my life–this may sound like hyperbole, but I can’t think of anyone more patient and long-suffering. He has a compassion that I aspire towards. And he has a quiet but steady faith in the Church and the gospel, and this in spite of my honesty about my feelings and criticism of the Church. It’s difficult, but I will likely support him, physically and emotionally in his personal commitment to the Church and to the Priesthood.
So, in this context, I admire your commitment to your community and respect your faith. I have many issues with the Church institution and the attitudes of many of its members, but at the same time I share your feelings about the general goodness of most Mormons–my son among them.
17 Rich // Apr 5, 2006 at 11:43 am
Holly (in case you’re still reading this thread),
No, I’ve never had the POTF displayed, nor do I plan to. I’ve always felt it had some fundamental flaws, for some of the same reasons you mentioned, as do many LDS I know, FWIW. Taken as a whole, the bulk of it is hardly the vile filth you describe however. Much of it is self-evident truth.
My wife and I both have gay cousins. My neighbor’s teenage son who is gay lived with our family for a few months last year when he got kicked out of his house by his bewildered and heart-sick parents after coming out to them. For a long time his dad wouldn’t speak to him (or us). Now he’s back living at home, and things have improved. He now works with his dad, and I’m optimistic his dad and mom will figure it all out and come to accept who he is, and love him unconditionally. I can understand their feelings of bitter disappointment regarding their only son; hopes of a loving daughter-in-law and grandkids dashed forever. In spite of their differences, love is the only thing that will bring mutual reconciliation.
I don’t view those who find value in the POTF as evil or repellant. Just somewhat ignorant.
The cure for ignorance is education. As a professional educator, you (should) know this. Or do you see all your students as evil until they get a passing grade from you?
Is one of your degrees in hyperbole? This is what it actually says:
The vast majority of women on the planet would love to be home with their kids, rather than delegate that responsibility to a daycare or low-wage caregiver. This merely describes an ideal situation, not Sharia law as you seem to imply.
And since when is sleeping around enlightened behavior Holly? You yourself have come to the conclusion that casual sex outside of a committed relationship is unlikely to bring you any kind of lasting emotional or physical satisfaction. I sincerely hope that isn’t what you meant by “working one‚Äôs ass off to figure certain things out.” You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble by asking your average Beehive or Mia Maid about the law of chastity; they would tell you (standing on the shoulders of their enlightened ancestors) that it wasn’t intended to keep you from having fun, but rather to bring happiness and trust, and save you from heartache and unhappiness, in your personal relationships.
Since when is the consumption of alcohol enlightened behavior? When I stop to consider the vast, evil consequences it has on our society, it boggles the imagination. How many lives has it brought to ruin? How many battered wives and children? How many date rapes has it facilitated? How many fatal accidents? Lost jobs, foreclosures and financial disasters? Adverse health impacts? Unwritten poems?
The costs, in all their facets, are staggering.
You talk about the wealth of the church as if it somehow personally benefits some gluttonous heirarchy or elite membership. You know better than that. How many millions of dollars or volunteered hours have your “more enlightened” circle of friends donated to charity, disaster relief, or plain old neighborly assistance? How many weekends have y’all donated recently to pulling weeds or removing debris from a neighbor widow’s back yard? How many hours do your more enlightened friends spend every month canning tuna or peaches, pruning orchards, picking apples or cherries, or dodging bees extracting honey, without pay, to provide food and items for the needy? How many sagging or leaking rooftops of limited-income widows or widowers have they donated a Saturday or two to repairing or resurfacing? You get the picture (and I’m tossing out personal examples in case you were wondering). Strength and efficacy in numbers is something that takes more than an elightened few — it takes a community. Of course it’s not limited to a LDS community — the Amish have been raising barns in this manner for centuries.
While you rightfully have identified some flaws with Church policy, your vilification of the whole of it is so difficult to relate to that it begs the “straining at gnats and swallowing camels” analogy, and has frankly left me wondering just what it is you consider “enlightenment”?
I sense a lot of bitterness and pain in you, and for whatever/whoever brought that on you, I am truly sorry. I’m happy that you have found some measure of peace (outside the Church), and would never presume to deny you that peace.
Peace to you, Holly.
18 Holly // Apr 5, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Rich:
I’m relieved to know that you don’t display the PotF.
Not at all. I don’t see first-graders as evil, either. But I know that teaching first grade is not what I’m best suited for. There’s a reason I teach college, not kindergarten.
I also want to say how much I admire people who want to insult someone, but aren’t brave enough to say it right out, so they try to jolly it up with a smiley face‚Äìnice move there, Rich!
Um, actually, my degree is in literature, which is why I am attentive to the import behind statements like these:
Yeah, I slept with people I wasn’t married to, and some of that was a real drag. Some of it wasn’t. I was a pretty damn good Beehive myself, but the lessons on the law of chastity never helped me for the real heartbreak in my life, which was being dumped by a fianc?© I never slept with. But hey, Rich, thanks for the facile, trite approach to a profound heartbreak in my life!
As for booze, yeah, it’s easy to abuse. It’s also easy NOT to abuse. You should try a nice beer buzz some time‚Äìit’s pretty great.
And gee, Rich, I want to point out something else you’ve done in this conversation that I haven’t: I haven’t heretofore resorted to pointedly denigrating your personal decisions about how to live your life. I admit I read your comments to John about why you stick with the church and thought, “Here’s another one of those cowards who knows the church is a crock of shit, but doesn’t have the guts to do anything about it.” But I refrained from bringing that up, or trying to use it against you.
As for what my friends do to help others, well, some of them volunteer in organized forums and do exactly the kinds of things you suggest. As you point out, it’s not only the Mormons who have organized service.
It might be difficult for YOU to relate to, Rich, but there are plenty of people who find my characterization of it thoroughly apt.
As for what I consider “enlightenment,” if you really want to know, you might try reading any text on mysticism.
I sense a lot of cowardice, insecurity, weakness and passive-aggression in you, Rich, and for whatever you’re unable to accomplish because of that, well, I guess I’m sorry. But hey, that’s your gig.
Peace to you, too.
19 Josh // Apr 5, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Of course I took for granted that I am an idiot with the intellectual depth of a puddle on a sidewalk. And yes, I am really not very nice. The only love I have to offer anyone is actually counterfiet and self-centered, but I knew that. And of course, I am just going through a phase that the enlightened have already passed through. I guess I just didn’t realize the degree to which I am a benighted spiritual retard.
Now that I have come to this stunning realization, I can only ask for your pity.
Avert your gaze, I beg of you.
20 Rich // Apr 6, 2006 at 9:53 am
Holly,
Reading your comments and thinking about what I wrote, I realize that I was stupid and wrong to get personal in my examples. I’m very sorry about that, and I’m especially sorry to have escalated this as far as it went.
You should consider moonlighting as a psychic — everything you said about me at the end is true (I’m serious).
While I don’t deserve it, I hope you’ll forgive me.
21 John // Apr 6, 2006 at 9:58 am
I wanted to place the Juergensmeyer quote like a bookend on this thread. I think it’s worth meditating on, especially in this context. I am not above the fray–I know that I’ve found it hard to accept flaws in my viewpoint, and have contributed to the violence. I am not thinking of any specifics in this thread as I write this–just the general themes of (verbal) violence and conflict resolution and of pride that run through it. I think that in some ways this thread has been a microcosm of larger issues in our world.
If you would like to respond to this post with introspective, meditative comments in this vein, please do so. I will delete any other comments. This is against my general policy here on MoF, but consider this one post and comment thread moderated from here on out.
22 Holly // Apr 6, 2006 at 12:14 pm
One last comment from me, John, which I have tried to make calm and thoughtful but which may nonetheless violate your goals for this thread:
Throughout Jesus’s ministry, he distanced himself from the establishment. He preferred hanging out with sinner and publicans to spending his time with loyal defenders of the faith, both because he found sinners and publicans more receptive to genuine truth, and because they seemed to have purer hearts, their good deeds seeming to spring from more honorable motivations. When he did end up in discussions with the orthodox, and even with those less orthodox who were nonetheless loyal to the establishment, he argued that it was harmful and beside the point to focus rigidly on things like a person’s sexual history or adherence to dietary codes; instead, he thought people should consider the ways in which buying too quickly into a doctrine could be a form of spiritual darkness.
I don’t want to say that I’ve been Jesus in this scenario, but I do want to suggest I haven’t been a scribe or pharisee.
23 John // Apr 7, 2006 at 12:48 am
Dammit! I spent the last half hour writing a comment, and my stupid code didn’t work and I lost the text.
In essence what I said was that I really appreciate the tone of your most recent comment. It does inspire meditation. But I almost didn’t let it pass moderation because it wasn’t introspective. It’s still reactive and essentially a toned down criticism, though diffused.
I hope that remaining comments respond to Juergensmeyer’s statement that “One of the first rules of conflict resolution is willingness to accept the notion that there are flaws on one‚Äôs own side as well as on the opponent‚Äôs side.”
I spent the rest of my comment focusing painfully on my flaws in the context of this thread, which I can probably sum up by saying that I need to learn to listen more, empathize more, and focus on making my own point less. Good night.
24 John // Apr 8, 2006 at 8:40 am
Hey Rich,
I just wanted to publically acknowledge your apology, since nobody else has. That took courage and humility, and it fits squarely in the spirit of peace and of conflict resolution. Thank you.
25 Holly // Apr 9, 2006 at 10:10 am
John, I hope you can acknowledge that that I explicitly acknowledged the flaws in my position: after all, I wrote, way back in comment 10, “You are welcome to think that I am somehow deficient because of my preference for spending my time with people who understand and accept me more easily than others, but you should nonetheless grant me the right to decide that that‚Äôs what I‚Äôm going to do.”
I NEVER ONCE asked you to behave as I do, and I repeatedly stated that I could see why you chose to take the approach you do. What I repeatedly asked was that you try to understand why I would feel as I do. And it was remarkably hard for you and Rich to do.
You are right that it was a criticism, John. You are completely right. However, I would suggest that simply because it doesn’t rely heavily on the pronoun “I” doesn’t mean it isn’t introspective, any more than a post heavily laden with the pronoun “I” is necessarily introspective. I didn’t come up with that analogy by thinking about what blame and victimhood; I came up with it by asking, “Well, John is advocating that we be Christlike; what WOULD Jesus do?” And since I am not a Christian, posing that question always requires some introspection and humility for me. I offered you the fruit of my introspection rather than the introspection itself.
Rich, thank you for your apology. I have written about this situation on my blog but I have not named you or provided any links back to this blog, though John did leave one–I didn’t see any reason to expose either of you if you didn’t want to be exposed. You are welcome to comment on my blog on any topic that interests you, and I wish you well in all your endeavors.
Ultimately, this thread reinforces my belief that there is not much point in discussing religion with people who belong and feel loyal to an exclusivist, proselytizing church (no matter how much they do or don’t believe in its doctrines), because they have an investment in NOT hearing you and making sure you hear them; thus, it’s better to keep your distance from them unless you’re certain you can stick to safe topics that aren’t going to cause a defensive and hostile reaction. It wasn’t rewarding or fun to prove that point, however, and I hope in the future that I will simply remember it and not give myself a chance to relearn it.
26 joe // Apr 9, 2006 at 10:31 pm
As an observer of this debate I have to say almost all of the hostility and defensiveness came from Holly. I don’t understand the attitude of those that find organized religion too close-minded and then aren’t open-minded enough to accept the validity of devout worship within that structure. How can one accuse someone of being spiritually retarded for believeing they have the truth and then go on to explain the better path? If you’ve found spirituality outside of organized religion good for you. If you’ve found it inside organized religion good for you as well.
Jerks are jerks wherever they find themselves. A Mormon jerk would be a Catholic jerk would be a pagan jerk. People are pretty much just people and quite a few of them are trying not to be jerks at any given time. Let’s encourage that.
27 John // Apr 10, 2006 at 8:36 am
I’m not sure if any more discussion on this post is going to be productive. I’m going to go ahead and close comments on it. Thanks to everyone who participated.
In a way, I’m grateful that so much conflict was generated in a post that was largely about conflict. As a result, this conversation thread can be taken at face value or read as a case-study in conflict and (the futile attempt at?) its resolution.