Mormon Unorthodoxy

The Ogden, Utah Temple

         When I first had the idea of creating a blog my goal was to empty the clutter out of my head and put it down in written form. To that end, I would say that it has been a success. No, I haven’t made any money, garnered legions of followers, or even had many replies to my posts, but I have found a sense of catharsis in venting my thoughts and ideas to the world that I wouldn’t have attained otherwise. Most, if not all, of my posts would be deemed controversial to the majority of my friends and family, which tends to happen to someone who is a bit of an odd sheep among a conventional flock. Nonetheless, I find my little corner of cyberspace to be a breath of fresh air, and it is something I thoroughly enjoy, which is reason enough to continue this endeavor in chronicling the strange world of my mind. This next venture delves into an extremely sensitive, yet far over due, topic that I have been pondering over for many years. I wasn’t sure whether I ought to make this a regular facebook post and share it exclusively with friends and family, or put it in blog form where anyone could stumble across it. In the end, I decided what I have to share should be open to anyone, to paint a more transparent picture of who I am and what I believe on the deepest levels of my being. The subject of this chapter will explore my views, history and relationship with faith. 

        Most of those who know me know that I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, known more widely as Mormons. Being born and raised in the church, I have a love and appreciation for the culture and people I grew up with. The roots of my relationship with the church goes deep into my genealogy. Many of my ancestors were among the early pioneers who first settled in Utah, while others came later from the eastern states and Europe, and one thing they all had in common was an unwavering faith in the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ found exclusively within the CJCLDS. 

An artistic depiction of the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr.

        For those unfamiliar with Mormonism, here is a short run down of the Church, and the beliefs of its members: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was founded in 1830 by a man named Joseph Smith Jr. who claimed to be a modern prophet of God, established what he considered to be the Restored Gospel and brought forth a new book of scripture called the Book of Mormon, which he claimed to be a translation of an ancient record of early American inhabitants that serves as another testament of Jesus Christ alongside the Bible. Members of the Church identify as Christians, though some mainstream Christians deny this because of differences in beliefs regarding the trinity, the absence of the cross as a symbol of the faith, and non-adherence to post-apostolic creeds, such as the Nicene, or Athanasius Creeds. The Church started in Upstate New York, but began an exodus Westward settling in Kirtland, Ohio, then on to Independence, Missouri, taking a step back to Nauvoo, Illinois, and finally making the long trek across the plains and Rocky Mountains in 1847 to what was then Mexico, but later, the Utah Territory, and eventually State of Utah.
For a time, before and after Joseph Smith’s death, polygamy was introduced as an accepted practice, but was removed in 1890 by then president, Wilford Woodruff. Any Mormons still practicing polygamy today are from splinter groups that are not affiliated with the CJCLDS. Mormons believe in divine authority called the priesthood, which comes in two forms and is given to worthy male members when they reach the ages of twelve and eighteen respectively. This priesthood can be utilized in giving blessings, and performing ordinances such as baptism and the sacrament. It is also key to administering eternal ordinances in Mormon temples, where people can receive spiritual endowment, get married, sealed as families, and even perform proxy baptisms for those who died without the Gospel in their lives. Missionary work has always been a staple in the Church since its beginning, with most missionaries today serving between the ages of 18-25 for a time period of a year and a half to two years. Missionary work is entirely voluntary, though there is a definite cultural pressure to serve. There are other more nuanced doctrines and peculiarities among the Church compared to the rest of mainstream Christianity, but the above summary tackles much of the broader points.

        It wouldn't be an understatement to say that the Church has played a pivotal role in my life since nearly the day I was born. Over the years, I gained a deeper love for the people and institution of my upbringing. At the same time, I would also like to open up concerning certain critical differences and viewpoints that I have adopted that may prove difficult for those who know me best. As I was raised in the Gospel, I was taught that knowledge by inspiration and spiritual affirmation via the Holy Ghost is the crux to attaining a personal testimony. Feelings of selfless love, true joy and reverence were supposedly evidence of the Spirit working within me and would convey truth if I would attune myself through obedience and faith in God. There were times in my life when I felt I received such promptings which instilled greater loyalty and confidence in the church. But in my early twenties, I began to realize that certain truths I was told my whole life were not as they seemed to be. Stories that were told to me by relatives concerning the origins of my family,
and which I self-identified and felt a spiritual connection with, turned out to be false. I wrote a post concerning this part of my life titled, The Lies I Tell Myself. This was at a time when I began to learn how to think critically, and what having an open mind truly means. It was at this formidable stage that I decided that empirical evidence was more reliable than faith based on feelings. Fiction has always been a huge part of my life, the genres of fantasy, sci-fi, and classical literature line my bookshelves. And in part, because of my love of fiction, I learned to recognize the difference between what was real and what wasn’t. Those false origins about my family gave me the same sense of spiritual affirmation as reading the scriptures or listening to talks and lessons at church had on me, which led me to question everything. The flaws in my previously held rigid idealism became more and more apparent, and I no longer sought absolutes, no longer needed comfortable tales that lulled me into a vague sense of serenity, It was then that I chose to accept hard truths over soft lies. 

This graph depicts the four opinions of divinity.
My views align closest to the lower right.

        I suppose this would be a sort of coming out story for me. Not in regards to sexual preference or gender identity, but in terms of philosophy and personal belief. Finding oneself is a lifelong search. I do not believe I have come to the end of that road, but I do believe I have crossed a few major milestones along the way. One of those milestones would be accepting myself as Agnostic, with a leaning towards atheism or, more specifically, naturalism. What that means is that I do not know for certainty that any sort of God or Gods exist, and that I find the Abrahamic God (i.e. the God of Christianity, Islam and Judaism), to be most likely a myth. I have found that the natural forces of the universe are a far more compelling explanation to the physical reality around us than that of a vague spiritual influence. I say this from a place of honesty and transparency and not one of hate or ill will towards the church, or those of a religious persuasion. Also, I do not outright deny the possibility of a higher intelligence, or its influence in the world. Just because I have not found evidence compelling enough for divine authorship of the universe, doesn’t mean that I have written off the possibility completely. While science offers greater insights to the world around us, there is still much that eludes our ability to observe and test. We as a species have barely scratched the surface of the mysteries of the cosmos, and the possibility of intelligent design should not be wholly disregarded. However, I choose not to consign those mysteries to a higher power and wistfully adhere to a “God of the gaps” mentality, attributing everything unknown to the realm of divinity. If God truly exists, I will accept that truth when it has been established by empirical evidence and not by the inconsistency of spiritual feelings.

(Note: For the next few paragraphs I express some of my top issues with church doctrine that some may find offensive, or could potentially be testimony damaging. If you would like to skip this, please scroll down to the paragraph that begins: “Despite the plethora of disagreements…”)

Rebuke of Adam and Eve
by Charles Joseph Natoire

        Among the issues that I find no apparent conjunction with faith includes the literalism the Church takes on the Genesis story. From primary to the temple, we are taught God created Adam from "the dust of the earth” and Eve was formed from the rib of Adam. This flies in the face of every scrap of evidence found in the vast field of evolutionary biology. Meanwhile, if one were to take the genealogical accounts found in Genesis 5, Genesis 11 and the first chapter of Matthew to be true, then the human race is only around 6,000 years old, and again goes against what science has revealed via the fossil record with the oldest found homo sapien remains to be closer to 300,000 years old. 

 Another issue I have is with the Satan narrative. According to church doctrine, Satan began as a fellow spiritual child of God along with everyone else, and during a grand council of heaven where Jesus Christ stepped up and offered to be the Messiah, Satan also tried putting his name in the hat to be the Saviour, but only if the glory be given to him, while Christ declared all glory be given to the Father. Of course, God chooses Jesus’ plan and Satan rebels against God resulting in him, as well as a third of the host of heaven who followed him, to be damned to an incorporeal existence on earth. He thus becomes an enemy to God and seeks the ruin of all who chose Jesus, which is everyone who has ever been born. Fast forward to Adam and Eve, where Satan, either convinces a serpent, takes the form of a serpent, or is symbolically a serpent (doctrine is not clear on this) and tempts Eve to partake of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil which God commanded they should not touch. She then gives the fruit to Adam and they both get kicked out of Eden and the earth falls from a perfected sphere to a corrupted one. However, this was all part of God’s plan whereas now they can have children and “multiply and replenish the earth.” My problem with this whole scenario is that Satan would have known that the fall had to happen in order for God’s plan to move forward, so why didn’t he just keep Adam and Eve there, and do everything he could to prevent them from eating the fruit, effectively halting progression? If his goal was to frustrate God’s plan, then that was the opportune moment. All of the spirit children of God would be forever stuck in pre-existence limbo while only two would be able to enjoy the physical world in Hotel California fashion. This leads me to conclude that Satan must either be a complete idiot for not only this, but for his continuous interventions that have only furthered the designs of his nemesis, or that he actually wants God’s plan to be fulfilled, which challenges the notion that he is an enemy to God, and would actually be more comparable to Judaism’s perspective on Satan being a servant of God tasked with bestowing trials to mortals to prove whether they are worthy for his kingdom. Either way, the doctrine is gray on this subject. 

        Lastly, and probably the most important issue I have with church doctrine, cuts to the very center, not only for the Church, but for Christendom itself. As I began evaluating my beliefs with a more scrutable eye, I desired to know what was truly at the center of this church. Was it the Book of Mormon? It is considered the keystone of the faith, but not its foundation. Was it Joseph Smith? He may have been the prophet of the restoration, but a restoration of what? Jesus Christ seemed to be the logical answer, since it was he who the BoM testifies, and his Gospel that was restored. But what was Christ’s purpose? Why do we worship him? The answer to both questions would be in the service he rendered: the atonement. Jesus’ sacrifice was what paved the way for all mortal men to be able to be saved and return to live with him again. But then, why did he have to save us in the first place? Well, sin of course! He saves us from the wickedness that we do in life which, for some reason, required him to be tortured and killed because no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God. . . but why? How? The explanation for that delves into an area that is not firmly stated or taught in the doctrine, but from what I have collectively gathered from scripture and modern authorities of the Church, it has to deal with the Divine Law of Justice, or in other words, the law in which God himself must abide or cease to be God. Therein lies the true singularity in which all of Christianity revolves. Somehow this law dictates what constitutes sin in which all doctrines are predicated. For without this law, it would not matter whether someone was just or unjust, clean or unclean, there would be nothing to be saved from. 

        I question the nature and existence of this law: is it a physical law such as the four fundamental forces of the universe, or is it a subjective law similar to the human laws of governance that have no bearing on the physical universe that encompasses them? Scripture and modern day revelation seem to indicate that it is a physical law, whereas if that were true, we would be able to test it and prove its existence through quantifiable measurement. One hypothesis is that guilt is an indicator of sin which, if true, could provide a measurement for the Divine Law. However, there are many cases where guilt is felt when nothing was done wrong by the individual. For instance, when a child feels guilty for their parents’ divorce, or when a person is involved in a tragic event and comes out with survivor's guilt. These and other cases reveal that guilt is not a functional way to define sin, and does not make for a reliable method of measurement. Instead, we must rely on the doctrine that we will attain consequences of sin after death, which cannot currently be verified.

        Now if the Law has no bearing on the physical world and instead were simply subject to God’s will, then morality is also subjective rather than objective. Meaning that God’s justice, Christ’s sacrifice, and the consequences of sin are based on the authoritative whim and arbitrary ideals of an omnipotent being, or beings, justified only because he, or they, are omnipotent beings. In my perspective, I believe this scenario would be completely immoral in and of itself if it were true. And so the reality of a Divine Law of Justice to me is inconclusive and thus the Atonement is also in a state of flux to my understanding and exists only as an unsolved precursor to achieving a testimony. 

        Despite the plethora of disagreements and openly identifying as a non-believer, I have not withdrawn my church membership, I still attend Sunday meetings, hold a calling in my ward, and strive to follow the principles of the church; though according to my own moral code. This may come as a surprise to most people. Both theists and atheists seem to agree that there is a definitive line in the sand between the two. But I argue that one can disagree without being disagreeable and maintain those religious and cultural ties without being a hypocrite. I have been open and honest with my priesthood leaders regarding my viewpoints, and none of them have yet deemed me worthy for excommunication, nor have I been treated as a pariah in any sense of the word. However, I am withheld from certain leadership and teaching roles, nor can I attend the temple, which are places where ordinances are performed that are believed to have eternal value. 

        Though I have undergone many changes of mind and heart, being a member of the CJCLDS is more to me than just philosophy or belief, it is part of my culture and heritage. If a label is required, then I can firmly state that I am philosophically Agnostic and culturally Mormon. I know that the Church, led by President Nelson, is trying to distance itself from the Mormon nickname, which is understandable, but one cannot change the historical association of that title. If we cannot address the current membership with that word, then perhaps the term Mormon can be applied on a specifically cultural basis for those descended from Mormon pioneers? I personally like it, and will gladly use it to describe myself.

 Today, I still remain an active member of the church, and have oftentimes found myself defending the church online, or in conversations with people at work or out in public. I have spent years learning the doctrines of the Church, and I know better than most what those beliefs entail. In the same breath, I also will not excuse the wrongs that are apparent within the Church either. The racist doctrine of the curse of dark skin, and mark of Cain are false in principle and in basic science. The push for anti-gay legislation and disfellowship of members in homosexual relationships have led to hatemongering and ostracization. The Church’s brand of polygamy was morally wrong and contradicted doctrine established in the Book of Mormon, which has only provided excuses for splinter groups to sexually abuse young girls. These and other issues I will call out when brought up, and I have put myself in more than one awkward spot in church settings when the issues are brought up. 

        There are those who may see me as a hypocrite for remaining a member of a church that I no longer believe in, but I still love so much about the people, the history, and my place within that legacy that I simply do not want to abandon it. That is my decision, and I am at peace with the balance I have found. I fully understand why some decide to put the church aside. Trauma and abuse inflicted by devout friends, family and church leadership is very real and absolutely atrocious. LGBTQ+ individuals are often disowned by parents and extended family. Even the incongruencies in the doctrine can be enough for some people. These and other reasons are all valid for stepping away from something that is legitimately toxic to them. I both empathize and support those who make that choice. However, what I dislike is the tendency among some to lash out against faithful members for their beliefs. In my mind, if what someone believes is helping them to be happier, healthier, and better human beings, then I really don’t care whether their beliefs are true or not. We are all trying to navigate this life the best way we know how, and I will not be one to stand in another’s sense of fulfillment, as long as it doesn’t meddle with anyone else’s progress.

        In conclusion, I would just like to say that I love the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Perhaps my love is of a different sort than the majority of members, but it is no less real. My views in no way lessen how I see the membership, or of any other belief system. If my ancestors have taught me anything, it is to remain true to my convictions. Each one of them forsook a religious identity to adopt a new one and cross land and sea, trial and persecution for the freedom to express those beliefs. I have gained my own convictions, and I will apply this lesson and remain a stalwart defender to what I believe is right, until such a time when new light, and evidence changes those convictions.