For anyone who still checks this and is a lover of John Steinbeck, I just found an awesome thing for you all to read.
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/01/john-steinbeck-on-falling-in-love-a-1958-letter/251375/?&utm_content=Google+Reader
Monday, January 23, 2012
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
Favorite Quotes
I know it's a little late, but I thought I'd share some of my favorite quotes from East of Eden.
p. 257
Adam stood panting. He felt his throat where the blacksmith hands had been. "What is it you want of me?"
"You have no love."
"I had--enough to kill me."
"No one ever had enough. The stone orchard celebrates too little, not too much."
p. 260
"I want to ask you something. I can't remember behind the last ugly thing. Was she very beautiful, Samuel?
"To you she was because you built her. I don't think you ever saw her--only your own creation."
Adam mused aloud, " I wonder who she was--what she was. I was content not to know."
"And now you want to?"
Adam dropped his eyes. "It's not curiosity. But I would like to know what kind of blood is in my boys. When they grow up--won't I be looking for something in them?"
"Yes, you will. And I will warn you now that not their blood but your suspicion might build evil in them. They will be what you expect of them."
p. 262
Adam said, 'I've wondered why a man of your knowledge would work a desert hill place."
"It's because I haven't courage," said Samuel. "I could never quite take the responsibility. When the Lord God did not call my name, I might have called His name--but I did not. There you have the difference between greatness and mediocrity. It's not an uncommon disease. But it's nice for a mediocre man to know that greatness must be the loneliest state in the world."
"I'd think there are degrees of greatness,"Adam said.
"I don't think so," said Samuel. "That would be like saying there is a little bigness. No. I believe when you come to that responsibility the hugeness and you are alone to make your choice. On one side you have warmth and companionship and sweet understanding, and on the other--cold, lonely greatness. There you make your choice. I'm glad I chose mediocrity, but how am I to say what reward might have come with the other?"
p. 263
"You're getting well," Samuel said. "Some people think it's an insult to the glory of their sickness to get well. But the time poultice is no respecter of glories. Everyone gets well if he waits around."
p. 257
Adam stood panting. He felt his throat where the blacksmith hands had been. "What is it you want of me?"
"You have no love."
"I had--enough to kill me."
"No one ever had enough. The stone orchard celebrates too little, not too much."
p. 260
"I want to ask you something. I can't remember behind the last ugly thing. Was she very beautiful, Samuel?
"To you she was because you built her. I don't think you ever saw her--only your own creation."
Adam mused aloud, " I wonder who she was--what she was. I was content not to know."
"And now you want to?"
Adam dropped his eyes. "It's not curiosity. But I would like to know what kind of blood is in my boys. When they grow up--won't I be looking for something in them?"
"Yes, you will. And I will warn you now that not their blood but your suspicion might build evil in them. They will be what you expect of them."
p. 262
Adam said, 'I've wondered why a man of your knowledge would work a desert hill place."
"It's because I haven't courage," said Samuel. "I could never quite take the responsibility. When the Lord God did not call my name, I might have called His name--but I did not. There you have the difference between greatness and mediocrity. It's not an uncommon disease. But it's nice for a mediocre man to know that greatness must be the loneliest state in the world."
"I'd think there are degrees of greatness,"Adam said.
"I don't think so," said Samuel. "That would be like saying there is a little bigness. No. I believe when you come to that responsibility the hugeness and you are alone to make your choice. On one side you have warmth and companionship and sweet understanding, and on the other--cold, lonely greatness. There you make your choice. I'm glad I chose mediocrity, but how am I to say what reward might have come with the other?"
p. 263
"You're getting well," Samuel said. "Some people think it's an insult to the glory of their sickness to get well. But the time poultice is no respecter of glories. Everyone gets well if he waits around."
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Book club meeting
Sunday Sept.11
8pm
Halfway house: 466 N 200 E
Order of Business:
- Establishment of Protocol
- Selection of Titles
- Discussion of East of Eden
- Weeping with emotion
- Selection of the next genre
-David Cramer
8pm
Halfway house: 466 N 200 E
Order of Business:
- Establishment of Protocol
- Selection of Titles
- Discussion of East of Eden
- Weeping with emotion
- Selection of the next genre
-David Cramer
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Another Response
"But I have a new love for that glittering instrument, the human soul. It is a lovely and unique thing in the universe. It is always attacked and never destroyed - because 'Thou mayest."
This is a quote from the same chapter, spoken by Lee. I think it is a crucial element in Steinbeck's point about "thou mayest."
BYU and the Church might have placed "do thou" systems of organization within their institutions, but to say that these systems somehow distort the eternal power of agency I think is to miss the mark, according to not only the Church but Steinbeck himself.
Agency is a wonderful gift which empowers every human soul. The human soul is "always attacked," meaning circumstances often turn sour, bad things happen, and our use of agency is certainly influenced by these attacks. We all have a million influences all essentially telling us to use our agency a certain way. These voices often conflict, obviously.
I think Steinbeck's point is that regardless of circumstance, regardless of rules, regardless of culture, regardless of anything, the human soul can never be destroyed because "thou mayest." Regardless of what outside influences there are, the human soul cannot just be snuffed out, cannot lose its choosing power, unless that soul decides to put out the flame his or her self. There always remains with the individual that choice to act and become essentially whatever person they want to be.
The ending of East of Eden shows this better than anything to me, which answers David's plea for a continuance of the "thou mayest" theme within the book. I don't want to ruin the ending for anyone, but the final actions of the two brothers are to show the meaning of "thou mayest." Cal's actions contributed to something horrible, but Lee and Adam in the end persuade him that those choices have not sealed his destiny. Aron sealed his own destiny, using his agency to react a certain way to the actions of those around him.
Anyway, it is hard to be clear without ruining the book, but I think Steinbeck powerfully teaches that our environments do not determine our future and our natures.
Maybe our church leaders recognize this. Maybe they understand agency well enough to know that whatever rules are put in place do not determine the final outcome of an individual. Admittedly, not all of the honor code sits well with me, but the god-forming power of agency, as Steinbeck would say, is not hindered within me because of it. Regardless of what influences are heaped upon me, I still use agency, choices, to change myself and progress.
Do the rules hinder true personal progression? The human soul is always attacked but never destroyed. Some people may feel attacked by certain stereotypical thought or a set of rules, but the power these influences have are determined by the individual, not by the source of the influences.
This is a quote from the same chapter, spoken by Lee. I think it is a crucial element in Steinbeck's point about "thou mayest."
BYU and the Church might have placed "do thou" systems of organization within their institutions, but to say that these systems somehow distort the eternal power of agency I think is to miss the mark, according to not only the Church but Steinbeck himself.
Agency is a wonderful gift which empowers every human soul. The human soul is "always attacked," meaning circumstances often turn sour, bad things happen, and our use of agency is certainly influenced by these attacks. We all have a million influences all essentially telling us to use our agency a certain way. These voices often conflict, obviously.
I think Steinbeck's point is that regardless of circumstance, regardless of rules, regardless of culture, regardless of anything, the human soul can never be destroyed because "thou mayest." Regardless of what outside influences there are, the human soul cannot just be snuffed out, cannot lose its choosing power, unless that soul decides to put out the flame his or her self. There always remains with the individual that choice to act and become essentially whatever person they want to be.
The ending of East of Eden shows this better than anything to me, which answers David's plea for a continuance of the "thou mayest" theme within the book. I don't want to ruin the ending for anyone, but the final actions of the two brothers are to show the meaning of "thou mayest." Cal's actions contributed to something horrible, but Lee and Adam in the end persuade him that those choices have not sealed his destiny. Aron sealed his own destiny, using his agency to react a certain way to the actions of those around him.
Anyway, it is hard to be clear without ruining the book, but I think Steinbeck powerfully teaches that our environments do not determine our future and our natures.
Maybe our church leaders recognize this. Maybe they understand agency well enough to know that whatever rules are put in place do not determine the final outcome of an individual. Admittedly, not all of the honor code sits well with me, but the god-forming power of agency, as Steinbeck would say, is not hindered within me because of it. Regardless of what influences are heaped upon me, I still use agency, choices, to change myself and progress.
Do the rules hinder true personal progression? The human soul is always attacked but never destroyed. Some people may feel attacked by certain stereotypical thought or a set of rules, but the power these influences have are determined by the individual, not by the source of the influences.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Response to Grant
Grant For The Win.
My only objection to your post is the MTC slam:
"In this blessed complex of buildings, the missionaries sit in their chairs all day long absorbing information to spit back out in the correct order."
You were doing so good at bucking the stereotypical Mormon thought until you got to the MTC bashing.
They've completely re-worked the MTC since we went through. When I worked there, I actually did very little teaching. It was all about training missionaries to focus on people and individual needs. That's the central message of PMG (from page 1! You are surrounded by people...)
So I'd say that we're making progress there at least.
I think a related issue is when LDS people have trouble separating their personal permutation of LDS culture from revealed Truth. (with a big T)
OK - that objection aside, obviously timshel is the central theme in the book. What's interesting to me is whether the characters in the book manage to succeed in their choices.
From my reading, there are only a few moments of triumph in the whole book. And the greatest one is when Adam goes to visit Kate and walks out totally free. But his triumph isn't actually because of any conscious choice. It's more like "Oh, she's not as bangin' as I remembered, OK I can get over her now." How does that relate to timshel? I have a hard time seeing how the characters actually live out the theme. Any thoughts?
My only objection to your post is the MTC slam:
"In this blessed complex of buildings, the missionaries sit in their chairs all day long absorbing information to spit back out in the correct order."
You were doing so good at bucking the stereotypical Mormon thought until you got to the MTC bashing.
They've completely re-worked the MTC since we went through. When I worked there, I actually did very little teaching. It was all about training missionaries to focus on people and individual needs. That's the central message of PMG (from page 1! You are surrounded by people...)
So I'd say that we're making progress there at least.
I think a related issue is when LDS people have trouble separating their personal permutation of LDS culture from revealed Truth. (with a big T)
OK - that objection aside, obviously timshel is the central theme in the book. What's interesting to me is whether the characters in the book manage to succeed in their choices.
From my reading, there are only a few moments of triumph in the whole book. And the greatest one is when Adam goes to visit Kate and walks out totally free. But his triumph isn't actually because of any conscious choice. It's more like "Oh, she's not as bangin' as I remembered, OK I can get over her now." How does that relate to timshel? I have a hard time seeing how the characters actually live out the theme. Any thoughts?
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Timshel: A Mormon Perspective
Choices are vital. Without them, the human soul is crippled. Imagine living your life knowing that the stimuli you receive from outside and the chemical changes in your body dictate everything you are and everything you will do. Only slightly less disturbing, imagine being forced to do everything in your life from buttering your bread in the morning to setting your alarm at night. As children of God, we were designed to act and not be acted upon.
In John Steinbeck’s masterpiece, East of Eden, the characters explore the meaning of the story of Cain and Abel, specifically a passage where God speaks to Cain. In this passage, God indicates man’s relationship with sin. The following is a passage describing the different interpretations of the original text of the Bible:
“The American Standard translation orders men to triumph over sin… The King James translation makes a promise in ‘Thou shalt,’ meaning that men will surely triumph over sin. But the Hebrew word, timshel—‘Thou mayest’—that gives a choice. It might be the most important word in the world. That says the way is open. That throws it right back on a man. For it ‘Thou mayest’—it is also true that ‘Thou mayest not.’”
Thou mayest. The implications of these two words are far reaching. Agency, God’s greatest gift to man is implied in this expression. Ruling over sin is neither a promise nor an order from God. The choice is ours alone and with it comes incredible power. It is the power to choose to seek for and follow God.
I fear that over time the culture of the Mormon Church has meddled with this idea of choice. You’re probably thinking, “what a ridiculous claim.” Well, perhaps it is, but as the church has grown larger and larger, the culture that has developed exhibits destructive characteristics that fit either into the idea of “thou shalt triumph over sin” or “do thou conquer sin.” Conquering sin is a good thing, but how we go about doing that is just as important. While the ideas of submission and destiny should not be totally rejected, an obsession with obedience or with divine potential can be dangerous if not tempered by a healthy perspective on one’s ability to choose.
The honor code at BYU is an excellent example of a “do thou” approach to the governance of individuals. There is nothing inherently evil about the ideas contained in the honor code. Premarital sex, drugs, and alcohol are not good things. What is disconcerting about the BYU honor code is its dogmatic approach. In its attempt to create a high-quality atmosphere, it unwittingly smothers the idea of choice in its complete and utter obsession with school image. Does the administration at BYU really think that ordering that all facial hair be kept at bay (excepting of course the ever repulsive mustache) will positively affect the atmosphere at this university? The dogmatic application of “standards” is dangerous. By destroying choice in matters as silly as whether I shaved this morning, we risk creating whited sepulchers (to use a scriptural term). Look at the bright, shining BYU students! They are the wonderful product of a pharisaic system. To quote Hugh Nibley, “The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism... the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances.” Unfortunately, this insistence on “do thou conquer sin” keeps up appearances while rejecting a complete view of spirituality.
Other instances of “do thou” theory in action can be seen in the obsession with statistics, a priori covenant making, or seemingly mandated missionary service. When things like home teaching become a statistic that the ward needs to do well on to win a prize at the stake level, priorities are out of place. Regarding full time missionary service, we count the number of people we taught during the week, but this number is not a good indication of any positive difference that such missionaries are making. Covenant making is sacred. It should not be tampered with by outside societal pressure. Forcing someone’s personal relationship with God only brings problems.
Not only does church culture demand spiritual progress of its members, it expects development as if it were prophecy. This brings us to the “thou shalt triumph over sin” type thinking. Essentially, the prophecies associated with the church and it members can have a tendency to thrust overwhelming responsibility on its members. In a talk given in the 2010 Utah Valley regional conference, Julie B. Beck, the Relief Society General President made a statement that addressed this concern. She said something to the effect of “you’re doing better than you think you are” but at the same time stated, “you can do better than you are doing.” This was a direct appeal to the frustrations many feel with the overwhelmingly high expectations. The constant reminders of our divine potential can be motivating, but if used in the wrong way, they can be depressing.
The missionary culture of the church has also reached a point that I find dangerously unstable. Its problem is not as much with the commanding influence than with an expectancy that borders on prophecy. “Every worthy young man should serve a mission” has become a statement that haunts the minds of teenage boys as they approach the end all and be all of their life at 19 years of age, an LDS mission. Statements such as these have a tendency to create an atmosphere of overwhelming responsibility that while propelling some towards greatness absorb many others in feelings of inadequacy. With all of the prophecies pertaining to missionary service in the front of their minds, these young men preparing to serve end up with an intense fear of disappointing those around them and consequently all of their legitimate concerns are swept under the rug. After accumulating and festering, they eventually grow larger than they are in reality. And what happens if you don’t want to go? More disappointment. You may think me dramatic in saying this, but suicides and prescription drug abuse are not unheard of in LDS culture and are likely a direct result of a “thou shalt” attitude. When Prozac becomes a necessary ingredient for a stable missionary force, something is wrong.
“Thou shalt” type thinking has also produced attempts at fulfilling prophecy in a Machiavellian way. It goes something like this: the church is the only true and living church on the face of the earth so we are justified in creating a machine that will propagate it. The church then becomes a business rather than a learning lab of faithful individuals seeking to improve themselves and come closer to God.
The doctrine that the ends justify the means is highly evident in church missionary action. The systematized missionary service of today requires that those enlisted be so entrenched in their belief system that they are able to exhibit an almost blind obedience. For me, spirituality and belief in God are things that are beautiful and highly personal. Forming these ideas into a sort of sales pitch to win people over and get more baptisms was not on my list of things to do in order to help people. Out of fear in producing an unwanted change in the lives of my listeners, I would encourage a more personal journey. I cringed as my sales partners would tell people that how they felt was the spirit telling them that the gospel was true. This reeked of deception. However, I told myself, if the church is all that we say it is, isn’t such an approach justified? If this is all true, and it must be or I wouldn’t be here, then is it somehow ok to throw people in the water? In all the excitement involved in conversion, we must remember to hold people’s agency in the highest respect. We must give people a real chance to have a personal spiritual awakening.
In early church history, missionary service was paramount. This service enabled the church to grow and enabled its members to develop their faith and testimonies in the doctrines of the church. For some it was an experience that strengthened them and led them to be extraordinarily faithful throughout their lives. For others it was a catalyst for their disaffection with the church. Ezra Booth’s missionary service brought him to reject the very principles he was teaching. Parley Pratt on the other hand served diligently and remained faithful. While there are similar outcomes of missionary service today, the workings of a mission have changed dramatically. In early church history, missionaries went out proclaiming their testimonies of the work, not some canned argument dreamt up in MTC. I disagree with the approach of the MTC and have no reservations in saying that. It is a necessary evil one must pass through to begin one’s mission. In this blessed complex of buildings, the missionaries sit in their chairs all day long absorbing information to spit back out in the correct order. The fairly recent move away from recited discussions was a step forward, but until personal testimony and experience directs missionary work as it did in the days of the early church, missionary work will feel more like a sales pitch than the Lord’s errand.
Related to this matter is what I call the gospel of sound bites. In literature, novel after novel details and tracks the human experience of self-discovery and finding one’s niche in the world. One’s search for the divine is a beautiful and intensely personal process. Then comes along the Mormon missionaries ready to answer any question one has about the purpose of life. It is wonderful to know where we come from and where we are going, but overconfident attitudes about our amazing knowledge of the past and future are ugly and I would venture to say a bit myopic. Tact should not be forgotten in our zeal. The questions of the soul cannot be answered in sound bites. Mormon.org would have you convinced otherwise. Visiting the site, suddenly all deep questions have been considered and answered in a trite manner. This type of attitude is like claiming to have the analytical solution to a nonlinear, differential, multidimensional, vector equation. Kitsch.
The Mormon religion has a lot to offer the world, but the culture of “do thou” and “thou shalt” have the potential to overshadow the beautiful doctrines of the gospel. Timshel. Thou mayest rule over sin, but only if you desire it. When it comes to sin, God does not force us to conquer sin and he does not guarantee our triumph over it. He simply allows us the chance to overcome. The tools necessary are granted, but no force or psychological manipulation is involved. He simply says “thou mayest.” What a beautiful idea. Next time you get up, think to yourself, I could do whatever I want today because God gave me that choice. And I choose to follow the example of his Son Jesus Christ…because I want to.
In John Steinbeck’s masterpiece, East of Eden, the characters explore the meaning of the story of Cain and Abel, specifically a passage where God speaks to Cain. In this passage, God indicates man’s relationship with sin. The following is a passage describing the different interpretations of the original text of the Bible:
“The American Standard translation orders men to triumph over sin… The King James translation makes a promise in ‘Thou shalt,’ meaning that men will surely triumph over sin. But the Hebrew word, timshel—‘Thou mayest’—that gives a choice. It might be the most important word in the world. That says the way is open. That throws it right back on a man. For it ‘Thou mayest’—it is also true that ‘Thou mayest not.’”
Thou mayest. The implications of these two words are far reaching. Agency, God’s greatest gift to man is implied in this expression. Ruling over sin is neither a promise nor an order from God. The choice is ours alone and with it comes incredible power. It is the power to choose to seek for and follow God.
I fear that over time the culture of the Mormon Church has meddled with this idea of choice. You’re probably thinking, “what a ridiculous claim.” Well, perhaps it is, but as the church has grown larger and larger, the culture that has developed exhibits destructive characteristics that fit either into the idea of “thou shalt triumph over sin” or “do thou conquer sin.” Conquering sin is a good thing, but how we go about doing that is just as important. While the ideas of submission and destiny should not be totally rejected, an obsession with obedience or with divine potential can be dangerous if not tempered by a healthy perspective on one’s ability to choose.
The honor code at BYU is an excellent example of a “do thou” approach to the governance of individuals. There is nothing inherently evil about the ideas contained in the honor code. Premarital sex, drugs, and alcohol are not good things. What is disconcerting about the BYU honor code is its dogmatic approach. In its attempt to create a high-quality atmosphere, it unwittingly smothers the idea of choice in its complete and utter obsession with school image. Does the administration at BYU really think that ordering that all facial hair be kept at bay (excepting of course the ever repulsive mustache) will positively affect the atmosphere at this university? The dogmatic application of “standards” is dangerous. By destroying choice in matters as silly as whether I shaved this morning, we risk creating whited sepulchers (to use a scriptural term). Look at the bright, shining BYU students! They are the wonderful product of a pharisaic system. To quote Hugh Nibley, “The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism... the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances.” Unfortunately, this insistence on “do thou conquer sin” keeps up appearances while rejecting a complete view of spirituality.
Other instances of “do thou” theory in action can be seen in the obsession with statistics, a priori covenant making, or seemingly mandated missionary service. When things like home teaching become a statistic that the ward needs to do well on to win a prize at the stake level, priorities are out of place. Regarding full time missionary service, we count the number of people we taught during the week, but this number is not a good indication of any positive difference that such missionaries are making. Covenant making is sacred. It should not be tampered with by outside societal pressure. Forcing someone’s personal relationship with God only brings problems.
Not only does church culture demand spiritual progress of its members, it expects development as if it were prophecy. This brings us to the “thou shalt triumph over sin” type thinking. Essentially, the prophecies associated with the church and it members can have a tendency to thrust overwhelming responsibility on its members. In a talk given in the 2010 Utah Valley regional conference, Julie B. Beck, the Relief Society General President made a statement that addressed this concern. She said something to the effect of “you’re doing better than you think you are” but at the same time stated, “you can do better than you are doing.” This was a direct appeal to the frustrations many feel with the overwhelmingly high expectations. The constant reminders of our divine potential can be motivating, but if used in the wrong way, they can be depressing.
The missionary culture of the church has also reached a point that I find dangerously unstable. Its problem is not as much with the commanding influence than with an expectancy that borders on prophecy. “Every worthy young man should serve a mission” has become a statement that haunts the minds of teenage boys as they approach the end all and be all of their life at 19 years of age, an LDS mission. Statements such as these have a tendency to create an atmosphere of overwhelming responsibility that while propelling some towards greatness absorb many others in feelings of inadequacy. With all of the prophecies pertaining to missionary service in the front of their minds, these young men preparing to serve end up with an intense fear of disappointing those around them and consequently all of their legitimate concerns are swept under the rug. After accumulating and festering, they eventually grow larger than they are in reality. And what happens if you don’t want to go? More disappointment. You may think me dramatic in saying this, but suicides and prescription drug abuse are not unheard of in LDS culture and are likely a direct result of a “thou shalt” attitude. When Prozac becomes a necessary ingredient for a stable missionary force, something is wrong.
“Thou shalt” type thinking has also produced attempts at fulfilling prophecy in a Machiavellian way. It goes something like this: the church is the only true and living church on the face of the earth so we are justified in creating a machine that will propagate it. The church then becomes a business rather than a learning lab of faithful individuals seeking to improve themselves and come closer to God.
The doctrine that the ends justify the means is highly evident in church missionary action. The systematized missionary service of today requires that those enlisted be so entrenched in their belief system that they are able to exhibit an almost blind obedience. For me, spirituality and belief in God are things that are beautiful and highly personal. Forming these ideas into a sort of sales pitch to win people over and get more baptisms was not on my list of things to do in order to help people. Out of fear in producing an unwanted change in the lives of my listeners, I would encourage a more personal journey. I cringed as my sales partners would tell people that how they felt was the spirit telling them that the gospel was true. This reeked of deception. However, I told myself, if the church is all that we say it is, isn’t such an approach justified? If this is all true, and it must be or I wouldn’t be here, then is it somehow ok to throw people in the water? In all the excitement involved in conversion, we must remember to hold people’s agency in the highest respect. We must give people a real chance to have a personal spiritual awakening.
In early church history, missionary service was paramount. This service enabled the church to grow and enabled its members to develop their faith and testimonies in the doctrines of the church. For some it was an experience that strengthened them and led them to be extraordinarily faithful throughout their lives. For others it was a catalyst for their disaffection with the church. Ezra Booth’s missionary service brought him to reject the very principles he was teaching. Parley Pratt on the other hand served diligently and remained faithful. While there are similar outcomes of missionary service today, the workings of a mission have changed dramatically. In early church history, missionaries went out proclaiming their testimonies of the work, not some canned argument dreamt up in MTC. I disagree with the approach of the MTC and have no reservations in saying that. It is a necessary evil one must pass through to begin one’s mission. In this blessed complex of buildings, the missionaries sit in their chairs all day long absorbing information to spit back out in the correct order. The fairly recent move away from recited discussions was a step forward, but until personal testimony and experience directs missionary work as it did in the days of the early church, missionary work will feel more like a sales pitch than the Lord’s errand.
Related to this matter is what I call the gospel of sound bites. In literature, novel after novel details and tracks the human experience of self-discovery and finding one’s niche in the world. One’s search for the divine is a beautiful and intensely personal process. Then comes along the Mormon missionaries ready to answer any question one has about the purpose of life. It is wonderful to know where we come from and where we are going, but overconfident attitudes about our amazing knowledge of the past and future are ugly and I would venture to say a bit myopic. Tact should not be forgotten in our zeal. The questions of the soul cannot be answered in sound bites. Mormon.org would have you convinced otherwise. Visiting the site, suddenly all deep questions have been considered and answered in a trite manner. This type of attitude is like claiming to have the analytical solution to a nonlinear, differential, multidimensional, vector equation. Kitsch.
The Mormon religion has a lot to offer the world, but the culture of “do thou” and “thou shalt” have the potential to overshadow the beautiful doctrines of the gospel. Timshel. Thou mayest rule over sin, but only if you desire it. When it comes to sin, God does not force us to conquer sin and he does not guarantee our triumph over it. He simply allows us the chance to overcome. The tools necessary are granted, but no force or psychological manipulation is involved. He simply says “thou mayest.” What a beautiful idea. Next time you get up, think to yourself, I could do whatever I want today because God gave me that choice. And I choose to follow the example of his Son Jesus Christ…because I want to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)