Mormon Matters

The death of loved ones and other difficult transitions really shake us up, and it is very natural for us to want and need to grieve our losses. Unfortunately, we sometimes don’t take the time to fully acknowledge our pain and the complicated emotions associated with that person (or situation) or choose to allow our feelings the chance to play out. Many times, we will distract ourselves from these vital processes, or, at times, we will feel cultural pressure to "move on" quickly, to seamlessly return to our normal lives and become our normal, cheery selves before we are really able to do so. As a result of having shortchanged the important processes associated with grieving, we eventually find ourselves in crisis--depressed, volatile, "acting out," questioning our faith or worldviews, or finding ourselves unable to function well in any of many other ways. In previous historical eras, as well as in many cultures worldwide, the importance of grief/grieving was often honored in much more formal and accepted ways. Through special attention to changes in status and via rituals that designated periods of separation and reintegration and that called for regular memorialization of the deceased, many cultures confront death and its consequences (both for the community and the individuals most closely associated with the deceased person) in a much more straightforward way than what we most often find today. If we don’t live in one of those cultures, what are we losing? What are the personal and social costs of distancing ourselves from death and painful loss, and of not recognizing the importance of grieving processes as vital in our moving forward in life as our best, healthiest, most whole selves? How do contemporary Mormon views and practices stack up in terms of honoring these great needs? In this episode, Jana Riess, Lisa Tensmeyer Hansen, Cindy Jones, and Connie Ericksen join Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon for a broad as well as personal discussion of grief and grieving in general and within Mormon culture, especially focusing on death but with wider applications, as well.

On Sunday, June 23, 2013, LDS leaders announced changes to the LDS missionary program, with most of the new focus directed to decreasing door-to-door contacting, and instead shifting attention to conversations on and teaching through Facebook and missionary blogs. The shift is to unfold gradually worldwide, having been piloted the past couple of years in several missions, and eventually Mormon missionary companionships will also employ iPads, with the use of other technologies possibly also on the horizon. How will these changes translate into actual practice? What are the most compelling reasons for opening the use of social media and other technologies to LDS mission work? With the gains, are there also losses? Will proselytizing in this new way lessen opportunities for some of the "quintessential mission experiences" (doors slammed in faces, being threatened, finding the golden contact on the very last street after being exhausted from days or weeks of frustration)? Will it fundamentally change the way missionaries shape the stories they tell? With the move to more social media use, the Church is obviously putting powerful tools in the hands of its young people, trusting them more than in the past. Missions now also employ a new leadership structure, mission councils, that include sister missionaries as formal mission leaders. Likewise, the Church is also emphasizing stake and ward councils that feature greater involvement of women leaders. Do all of these things signal a new era for Mormonism--a less hands-on, top-down form of leadership? In this episode, panelists Emilee Cluff, Derrick Clements, Stephen Carter, and Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon explore these and other questions. We learn a lot about Facebook and blogging (how it works, what are its main focuses, rules and restrictions, successes and cautions?) as missionary tools from Emilee, who served in the California Santa Rosa Mission, one of those in which the programs were piloted. All in all, this is a great conversation that features great common sense as well as fun speculations.

Tolerance is a tricky virtue. In a list of ways one might interact with others, it’s certainly better than active persecution but falls far short as a ideal way to engage people or ideas we don’t fully understand or (yet) trust. How do we draw the line between the need to protect ourselves from potentially harmful influence while still being open to the possible richness that might be added to our lives, and to theirs as they interact with us, should we come to truly engage them? In two recent addresses, Elder Dallin H. Oaks and President Boyd K. Packer, take on the question of tolerance. Each affirms that we are indeed called to be tolerant and loving toward others, but each warns in a different way about being "too" tolerant, with President Packer even calling an excess of tolerance a potential "trap." Both leaders's attempts demonstrate just how difficult it is to suggest proper boundaries for interacting with others while still striving to live gospel ideals. In this episode, panelists Charles Randall Paul, James McLachlan, and Michael Fife join Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon for a focused look at these two talks and their approaches to the virtue of tolerance while also moving into wider explorations that draw on many different disciplines. What do we find in LDS or wider Christian scripture, history, or teachings that can serve as good guides for how to engage others while still protecting ourselves? What are the most effective ways for teaching or modeling tolerance (or its opposite, such as when Christ overturned the tables of the money changers in the temple)? How should we approach the difficult competing ideals of loving all people, including those we consider sinners, even as we are taught from the scriptures that God "cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance" (Alma 45:16; D&C 1:31)? Are there better terms than "tolerance" that suggest the best ways to interact with others with who we are not in full agreement? If the panelists were to take the general conference pulpit, how might they approach teaching the proper balance between being watchpersons on the tower and at the same time embracing the sisterhood and brotherhood of all persons and welcoming their influence on us?

Tolerance is a tricky virtue. In a list of ways one might interact with others, it’s certainly better than active persecution but falls far short as a ideal way to engage people or ideas we don’t fully understand or (yet) trust. How do we draw the line between the need to protect ourselves from potentially harmful influence while still being open to the possible richness that might be added to our lives, and to theirs as they interact with us, should we come to truly engage them? In two recent addresses, Elder Dallin H. Oaks and President Boyd K. Packer, take on the question of tolerance. Each affirms that we are indeed called to be tolerant and loving toward others, but each warns in a different way about being "too" tolerant, with President Packer even calling an excess of tolerance a potential "trap." Both leaders's attempts demonstrate just how difficult it is to suggest proper boundaries for interacting with others while still striving to live gospel ideals. In this episode, panelists Charles Randall Paul, James McLachlan, and Michael Fife join Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon for a focused look at these two talks and their approaches to the virtue of tolerance while also moving into wider explorations that draw on many different disciplines. What do we find in LDS or wider Christian scripture, history, or teachings that can serve as good guides for how to engage others while still protecting ourselves? What are the most effective ways for teaching or modeling tolerance (or its opposite, such as when Christ overturned the tables of the money changers in the temple)? How should we approach the difficult competing ideals of loving all people, including those we consider sinners, even as we are taught from the scriptures that God "cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance" (Alma 45:16; D&C 1:31)? Are there better terms than "tolerance" that suggest the best ways to interact with others with who we are not in full agreement? If the panelists were to take the general conference pulpit, how might they approach teaching the proper balance between being watchpersons on the tower and at the same time embracing the sisterhood and brotherhood of all persons and welcoming their influence on us?

When Brigham Young first taught in initial outlines of what is now known as the "Adam-God Doctrine" (or the "Adam-God Theory"--the preferred term by those who want to downplay its status within LDS doctrinal development) some commented that with this theological position the cat was truly "out of the bag!" It came as a huge surprise to almost all who heard him preach it, but soon most leaders and members came to accept it and even like it very much. Indeed, although never voted on or made official through insertion in scripture (unless one wants to think of the lecture given before the veil in the temple as "scripture"?) it is hard to deny that for several decades of the Nineteenth Century the doctrine spelled out the dominant understanding among Latter-day Saints of God(s) and roles for humans who would some day become exalted beings. Later distancing from the teaching led leaders to downplay its status or even outright deny that it was ever taught (using the rhetoric that Brigham Young was mis-understood and/or his statements were deliberately taken out of context by Church enemies), but this simply isn’t the case. It was taught; it was influential; most prominent leaders believed it with many claiming that its truth had been confirmed to them by the Spirit. So what is this doctrine? What is its history--not only its rise but also its falling out of favor and even later being outright preached against? Are there any remnants of this doctrine alive in today’s Mormonism, even if they are no longer associated with the full teaching? The rise and fall of the Adam-God Doctrine also presents a classic case of doctrinal evolution (as well as fuzziness!) that contradicts the image many Latter-day Saints have of prophetic revelation coming through in perfectly clear ways. So how might Latter-day Saints frame this messier view of revelation that does not deny an important role for prophetic leadership? In this episode, panelists Danielle Mooney, Brian Stuy, and Geoff Nelson join Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon for a discussion of all these things.

When Brigham Young first taught in initial outlines of what is now known as the "Adam-God Doctrine" (or the "Adam-God Theory"--the preferred term by those who want to downplay its status within LDS doctrinal development) some commented that with this theological position the cat was truly "out of the bag!" It came as a huge surprise to almost all who heard him preach it, but soon most leaders and members came to accept it and even like it very much. Indeed, although never voted on or made official through insertion in scripture (unless one wants to think of the lecture given before the veil in the temple as "scripture"?) it is hard to deny that for several decades of the Nineteenth Century the doctrine spelled out the dominant understanding among Latter-day Saints of God(s) and roles for humans who would some day become exalted beings. Later distancing from the teaching led leaders to downplay its status or even outright deny that it was ever taught (using the rhetoric that Brigham Young was mis-understood and/or his statements were deliberately taken out of context by Church enemies), but this simply isn’t the case. It was taught; it was influential; most prominent leaders believed it with many claiming that its truth had been confirmed to them by the Spirit. So what is this doctrine? What is its history--not only its rise but also its falling out of favor and even later being outright preached against? Are there any remnants of this doctrine alive in today’s Mormonism, even if they are no longer associated with the full teaching? The rise and fall of the Adam-God Doctrine also presents a classic case of doctrinal evolution (as well as fuzziness!) that contradicts the image many Latter-day Saints have of prophetic revelation coming through in perfectly clear ways. So how might Latter-day Saints frame this messier view of revelation that does not deny an important role for prophetic leadership? In this episode, panelists Danielle Mooney, Brian Stuy, and Geoff Nelson join Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon for a discussion of all these things.

When we meet someone who is suffering, whether physically or emotionally, we naturally want to be of service to them. Sometimes our fears overcome us, and we avoid opportunities we’re presented with to "bear one another’s burdens" or "mourn with those who mourn" (Mosiah 18:8-9) Other times we step in but viscerally feel our inadequacies. Sometimes we realize our good intentions have gone wrong, and we have said something or done something that has caused even greater pain. Sometimes this happens without our even realizing it. Even with its many challenges, we are all called to learn compassion, to be with each other even in extremity. How can we do this better? In this episode, we talk about all of these things and much more with three persons who are extremely experienced with providing care for those (and the families and friends of those) in great pain, mental or physical duress, as well as those dying: LDS military/hospice chaplains Phil McLemore, Nathan Kline, and Jason Unsworth.

When we meet someone who is suffering, whether physically or emotionally, we naturally want to be of service to them. Sometimes our fears overcome us, and we avoid opportunities we’re presented with to "bear one another’s burdens" or "mourn with those who mourn" (Mosiah 18:8-9) Other times we step in but viscerally feel our inadequacies. Sometimes we realize our good intentions have gone wrong, and we have said something or done something that has caused even greater pain. Sometimes this happens without our even realizing it. Even with its many challenges, we are all called to learn compassion, to be with each other even in extremity. How can we do this better? In this episode, we talk about all of these things and much more with three persons who are extremely experienced with providing care for those (and the families and friends of those) in great pain, mental or physical duress, as well as those dying: LDS military/hospice chaplains Phil McLemore, Nathan Kline, and Jason Unsworth.

Many Latter-day Saints who are negotiating a faith transition, including developing a new relationship with God and the church in which they were nurtured, naturally hope to create a smoother road for their children than they have had themselves. For those who find themselves in this new faith terrain and who still have a strong desire to stay active and raise their children within the Mormon fold, key tasks emerge. How do we parent in such a way that our children will come to feel a rich connection with their faith tradition? How do we help them develop a true sense of belonging while still encouraging them to take responsibility for their own faith, to have a genuine sense of self? How do we convey and help them see and experience Mormonism’s many wonderful offerings while at the same time work to mitigate the effects of some of the misguided and dangerous messaging that strike us as unhealthy. In short, how do we pro-actively parent within a tradition and community in which there is both so much good and so many well-intentioned but potentially harmful messages and practices? In this episode, panelists Brent Beal, Paul Barker, and Aimee Heffernan, join Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon in a discussion of the Mormonism they all love, what it is that they worry most about their children encountering through their engagement with church and culture, and what messages above all they hope to convey to their children and what are the "best practices" they have tried or plan to try as they raise them within the Church.

Many Latter-day Saints who are negotiating a faith transition, including developing a new relationship with God and the church in which they were nurtured, naturally hope to create a smoother road for their children than they have had themselves. For those who find themselves in this new faith terrain and who still have a strong desire to stay active and raise their children within the Mormon fold, key tasks emerge. How do we parent in such a way that our children will come to feel a rich connection with their faith tradition? How do we help them develop a true sense of belonging while still encouraging them to take responsibility for their own faith, to have a genuine sense of self? How do we convey and help them see and experience Mormonism’s many wonderful offerings while at the same time work to mitigate the effects of some of the misguided and dangerous messaging that strike us as unhealthy. In short, how do we pro-actively parent within a tradition and community in which there is both so much good and so many well-intentioned but potentially harmful messages and practices? In this episode, panelists Brent Beal, Paul Barker, and Aimee Heffernan, join Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon in a discussion of the Mormonism they all love, what it is that they worry most about their children encountering through their engagement with church and culture, and what messages above all they hope to convey to their children and what are the "best practices" they have tried or plan to try as they raise them within the Church.

So often in Mormonism, the term "virtue" is treated almost exclusively as relating to sexual purity, chastity, and virginity, completely missing its much broader and wonderfully expansive meanings. Similarly, most talk about "morality," "passion," "modesty," and "sensuality" are spoken about almost solely in terms of sexuality. We receive, without careful parsing, statements about how molestation and rape victims are deprived of "that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue." Messaging and publications for youth still put forth the idea that sexual sins are "next to murder" in seriousness, never mind that this idea is based upon highly questionable scriptural exegesis and a failure to recognize horrendous evils that can't even come close to approaching soul dangers associated with sexual experimentation and slip up. And rarely do we encounter public teaching that considers all those within the listening audience for whom extreme rhetoric about sexual sin will be harmful and discouraging, and who will more likely be driven away from feeling deserving of God’s love and gospel fellowship because of such messaging. Why is it so difficult for us to talk forthrightly and in healthy ways about sexuality, especially in teaching our youth? Why do we imagine willful ignorance about our bodies and sexual response and pleasures as admirable? How can we bring into LDS families and communal teaching the best thinking and practices about teaching healthy sexuality to our youth and young adults, and also aid those who are married and sexually active yet may still hold negative views about themselves as sexual beings? (And none of this research and best thinking requires the encouragement of sex outside of marriage.) Mormonism has great theological teachings about the body and about sex. Why are we failing to communicate the big picture when it comes to the messaging we give? How might we do better? With Natasha Helfer Parker, Margaret Blair Young, Micah Nickolaisen, Lisa Butterworth, and Dan Wotherspoon

So often in Mormonism, the term "virtue" is treated almost exclusively as relating to sexual purity, chastity, and virginity, completely missing its much broader and wonderfully expansive meanings. Similarly, most talk about "morality," "passion," "modesty," and "sensuality" are spoken about almost solely in terms of sexuality. We receive, without careful parsing, statements about how molestation and rape victims are deprived of "that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue." Messaging and publications for youth still put forth the idea that sexual sins are "next to murder" in seriousness, never mind that this idea is based upon highly questionable scriptural exegesis and a failure to recognize horrendous evils that can't even come close to approaching soul dangers associated with sexual experimentation and slip up. And rarely do we encounter public teaching that considers all those within the listening audience for whom extreme rhetoric about sexual sin will be harmful and discouraging, and who will more likely be driven away from feeling deserving of God’s love and gospel fellowship because of such messaging. Why is it so difficult for us to talk forthrightly and in healthy ways about sexuality, especially in teaching our youth? Why do we imagine willful ignorance about our bodies and sexual response and pleasures as admirable? How can we bring into LDS families and communal teaching the best thinking and practices about teaching healthy sexuality to our youth and young adults, and also aid those who are married and sexually active yet may still hold negative views about themselves as sexual beings? (And none of this research and best thinking requires the encouragement of sex outside of marriage.) Mormonism has great theological teachings about the body and about sex. Why are we failing to communicate the big picture when it comes to the messaging we give? How might we do better? With Natasha Helfer Parker, Margaret Blair Young, Micah Nickolaisen, Lisa Butterworth, and Dan Wotherspoon

The 2013 LDS Priesthood and Relief Society manual, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow, features a lesson, "The Grand Destiny of the Faithful" (Chapter 5), in which one of President Snow’s most famous teachings makes a fresh appearance. Often referred to as "the Couplet," it states: "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be." Encountering this teaching in an official Church publication has been surprising to many Church watchers, who have noticed in the past couple of decades a dramatic drop off in LDS comfort levels with the teaching that we human beings are on a progression path that God once traveled, and that with continued growth and development of divine qualities we can one day become Gods ourselves. So what’s going on? Why was this teaching de-emphasized? Does its appearance in the manual signal a shift from recent public outreach to show similarities between Mormon thought and that of mainline Christianity to a willingness to embrace the differences? And, for that matter, are teachings about theosis or divinization actually all that unusual when one considers the entire arc of Christian teaching? In this episode, panelists Danielle Mooney, Charley Harrell, and Tom Roberts, join Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon for a thorough look at this teaching within Mormonism, as well as the wider Christian world, especially in Eastern and Greek Orthodox Christianity and writings of early thinkers who provided the impetus for the directions they took separate from what became Roman Catholicism. Fascinating, rich stuff! The panel explores the history of "couplet" theology, including one of the early forms it took in Brigham Young’s teaching about Adam as God, and discusses possible reasons for its fall from the public sphere and recent reappearance. It also takes a strong look at black Latter-day Saints and women, for whom the ideas expressed in couplet (or, at least the contexts in which it rose have been commented on by Church leaders) have been particularly problematic. Can the doctrine of theosis be separated from the difficult assumptions that have been linked to it?

The 2013 LDS Priesthood and Relief Society manual, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow, features a lesson, "The Grand Destiny of the Faithful" (Chapter 5), in which one of President Snow’s most famous teachings makes a fresh appearance. Often referred to as "the Couplet," it states: "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be." Encountering this teaching in an official Church publication has been surprising to many Church watchers, who have noticed in the past couple of decades a dramatic drop off in LDS comfort levels with the teaching that we human beings are on a progression path that God once traveled, and that with continued growth and development of divine qualities we can one day become Gods ourselves. So what’s going on? Why was this teaching de-emphasized? Does its appearance in the manual signal a shift from recent public outreach to show similarities between Mormon thought and that of mainline Christianity to a willingness to embrace the differences? And, for that matter, are teachings about theosis or divinization actually all that unusual when one considers the entire arc of Christian teaching? In this episode, panelists Danielle Mooney, Charley Harrell, and Tom Roberts, join Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon for a thorough look at this teaching within Mormonism, as well as the wider Christian world, especially in Eastern and Greek Orthodox Christianity and writings of early thinkers who provided the impetus for the directions they took separate from what became Roman Catholicism. Fascinating, rich stuff! The panel explores the history of "couplet" theology, including one of the early forms it took in Brigham Young’s teaching about Adam as God, and discusses possible reasons for its fall from the public sphere and recent reappearance. It also takes a strong look at black Latter-day Saints and women, for whom the ideas expressed in couplet (or, at least the contexts in which it rose have been commented on by Church leaders) have been particularly problematic. Can the doctrine of theosis be separated from the difficult assumptions that have been linked to it?

The 2013 LDS Priesthood and Relief Society manual, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow, features a lesson, "The Grand Destiny of the Faithful" (Chapter 5), in which one of President Snow’s most famous teachings makes a fresh appearance. Often referred to as "the Couplet," it states: "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be." Encountering this teaching in an official Church publication has been surprising to many Church watchers, who have noticed in the past couple of decades a dramatic drop off in LDS comfort levels with the teaching that we human beings are on a progression path that God once traveled, and that with continued growth and development of divine qualities we can one day become Gods ourselves. So what’s going on? Why was this teaching de-emphasized? Does its appearance in the manual signal a shift from recent public outreach to show similarities between Mormon thought and that of mainline Christianity to a willingness to embrace the differences? And, for that matter, are teachings about theosis or divinization actually all that unusual when one considers the entire arc of Christian teaching? In this episode, panelists Danielle Mooney, Charley Harrell, and Tom Roberts, join Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon for a thorough look at this teaching within Mormonism, as well as the wider Christian world, especially in Eastern and Greek Orthodox Christianity and writings of early thinkers who provided the impetus for the directions they took separate from what became Roman Catholicism. Fascinating, rich stuff! The panel explores the history of "couplet" theology, including one of the early forms it took in Brigham Young’s teaching about Adam as God, and discusses possible reasons for its fall from the public sphere and recent reappearance. It also takes a strong look at black Latter-day Saints and women, for whom the ideas expressed in couplet (or, at least the contexts in which it rose have been commented on by Church leaders) have been particularly problematic. Can the doctrine of theosis be separated from the difficult assumptions that have been linked to it?