Mormonism has been a central influence in my life. My Mormon heritage goes way back almost to the church’s beginning on both sides of my genealogical line. On my father’s side, Turley’s settled Arizona as the Mormon church headed south from Utah. On my mom’s side, they were the earliest Mormon immigrants from Sweden.

But more importantly to me, Mormonism meant everything to my parents. Their whole world was wrapped up in it and as such their worldview became mine.

So, as I was forced to make my way in the world trying to reach my own personal goals while overcoming my own inhibitions and weaknesses, I’ve leaned on my faith and my faith community to provide the necessary guidance and support. This came at an early age and here there were plenty of influential people – youth advisors, seminary teachers. None of them were necessarily skilled in human development or psychology, but they cared, deeply and I felt their concern and that was significant for me.

Serving a two year mission was also transformative. It was structured and focused and allowed me to pour myself into a church and faith centered two year ministry. I learned how to not be afraid to talk to strangers on the street. I gained confidence there.

As I’ve aged, I’ve also taken on more complexity and greater responsibility, in my career and in my family. I found someone who said yes to my marriage proposal, we have four kids with their own individual needs. The challenging have gotten bigger. In my interactions with my kids, colleagues, work and other settings, I’ve felt the pain as my limitations have kept me from achieving and experiencing greater peace.

But looking back I would say Mormonism has largely worked for me. It has not been perfect. Most significantly, I’ve felt too much inappropriate shame within a religious setting. Admittedly, much of this was self-applied but at times it came from the gospel inartfuly rendered by unskilled and untrained religious leaders. We have a lay leadership and at times this can be a flaw every much as it has been a feature.

As a result and gratefully, my horizons have expanded. I’ve read other books, I’ve had other mentors. I’ve leaned on friends and resources outside of the church in various and important ways that have provided balance, allowing me to fill the gaps. With more maturity I’ve been able to absorb Mormonism with more gracefulness and compassion.

In Galatians 5:22, it says:

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

This scripture is often quoted within Mormonism. We lean on this concept heavily. This is our pursuit as we seek for goodness, kindness and good works. I have felt powerful feelings of peace as I’ve read the Book of Mormon and as I’ve attended church. The Spirit of love is there nearly every week, especially as I’ve been open to it.

But I think at times Mormonism can lean too heavily on empirical evidence. We want to prove our historical truth claims and have probably spent too much of our time and resources trying to do so. But for me, the more important question, the essential question actually is, does it work? Does it make my life better? Can I achieve my goals in the world with the help and support of my religion? Am I able to find transcendence and peace with and through my religion.

These questions are not straight forward and much of this requires my own effort. I need to spend more time in meditation and prayer. I need to seek for better balance. I love this essay.

Sometimes I meet Mormons who believe that a quality life is defined exclusively by Mormon milestones. “My kids all went on missions, married in the temple, and produced lots of grandchildren,” they might say. But those characteristics don’t necessarily indicate a quality life. Going on a mission, marrying in the temple, and having kids—all these milestones have the veneer of success but not necessarily the substance.

A better measure of a quality life is whether we’re pursuing a balanced approach to truth, beauty, and goodness. That measure works inside or outside of any belief system.

I agree with this. For me, the measure of whether something is good is whether it works and whether I can make it work. Is it making my life better, my relationships richer, my life more balanced. Let me fix that, nothing can really do that for me. But within the framework of Mormonism, am I able to do that for myself? If not, then it’s a sign, perhaps that something needs to change, adjustments need to be made. If so, I’m on a good path.

And for me in my life, Mormonism has been good and in that sense true. But my life is not yet over. I want to keep digging, keep reading. I want to deepen my faith, I want to live my life with more peace, more balance. And my challenges are going to change. I’m going to keep getting older and as I age, more of my life is going to get taken away from me. Can I accept this with grace and gratitude? Life is going to get excruciating at times. Challenges are still ahead of me. I hope I’m up for it.  I hope my faith is too.

My oldest daughter is getting close to high school which means that now is the time to think about how will she get it funded. We’ve actually been thinking about this for a while but the urgency has now elevated. Because what she does in high school will set her up for the next stage in life.

This is crucial because since I went to school all those years ago, college has gotten a lot more competitive and a lot more expensive to attend. Competitive because more people are going to college now – both in the US and from international locations. A college degree has become almost a requirement for a larger percentage of the professions out there, it’s become the new high school degree. As a result, a much higher percentage of college aged people are trying to attend. Additionally, as other countries have developed, a much larger number of international students are coming to our universities. Furthermore, while the demand has grown, the supply hasn’t necessarily kept up, especially among elite universities. The elite universities that existed when I was applying are largely the same elite universities that exist today, but are now significantly more difficult to get into.

And college has gotten more expensive. Blame it on the 2008 recession and state governments unwillingness to subsidize tuition at the same rates. This obsessive drive to  to keep cutting taxes has cut available state funds and schools have taken the brunt of this. The state simply does not subsidize tuition nearly as generous as they once did. For me individually, paying for college was trivial. My parents made barely anything, I was among the top of my graduating class. I was able to pay for everything – tuition, board, entertainment, everything, through scholarships and grants and graduated with no debt.

I’m not sure what kind of student my kids will be. My daughter has been home-schooled up until basically now. We just enrolled her. She has shown discipline and a willingness to work. She has academic strengths and weaknesses. I have no real interest in pushing any of my kids in the race to the top. I hope that we can encourage but that hopefully they will be self-driven. But unless something drastic happens between now and their college years, they will not have the benefit of poverty to get them access to the same kind of generous aid I enjoyed.

But I expect my kids to be college bound, I just don’t have a good sense yet at what level is going to be appropriate for them.

With all of that as background, here is my basic strategy:

1) Our retirement is more important. We have to be able to pay for our old age. I’m willing and want to work as long as I possibly can, but at some point I just won’t be able to. At that point, whatever we’ve been able to save has got to last until me and my wife die.

2) We will save as much as we can in ways that are flexible. We have Roth’s, we have stocks, we have a 401k. All of this money can be used for our retirement, but a portion can be used for our children’s college education.

3) We have kicked off a 529 plan which will be money reserved only for children’s education. Considering retirement comes first, we’ll see how big this fund can grow.

4) Financial Aid

We expect our kids to take ownership of their education. I really want them to attend a university that wants them and proves it through scholarship offerings.If my kids want to pursue a university, especially an expensive one, I don’t expect that I (or they) will have to foot the entire, expensive bill. Otherwise, they simply don’t want my kids badly enough.

And I want this desire to be authentic. My goal as a parent for my kids in their high school years is to help instill in them a passion that can be nurtured and developed in college. If they have that and if they find an incredible situation at a university, they should have no problem expressing that passion to an enrollment board. That should be enough, I would hope, to get them in with financial aid.

So, this means starting as a freshman in high school, their grades will matter, their extra-curricular activities will matter. They will need to build up a “resume” to show that they have what it takes to make a significant contribution to the college they attend. They will then have to show this in a competitive environment and hopefully find a school willing to help get them there.

5) The Option to Start Slow and Experiment

Now, I’m not counting on this happening. I hope I can do whatever it takes to increase the odds, but it may not happen. My kids likely will end up like most kids and not yet have a clear idea of what they’d like to study coming out of high school. If that’s the case, an expensive school is likely not a fit. They can always explore and experiment by taking a year off or by taking classes at a junior college or they will always be able to live at home and attend the local state university only a few blocks from our house.

6) The Option to Take Student Loans

I believe student loans are a viable option to bridge the gap. The amount of debt my children take on should be directly proportional to the amount of income the degree will eventually generate once they graduate. And they should only take out loans to any significant degree once they have a clear path in front of them and should do whatever they can to minimize the burden.

In summary, my strategy is multi-faceted. I will encourage them, educate them, give them every opportunity to explore and learn and develop themselves into college bound students and help them market themselves in a way to maximize their opportunity to get whatever financial aid is available to them. Beyond that, I hope to save as much as I can. We live near a university, and hopefully will be when they begin attending a university, and we’d love to have them with us as they attend college. Finally, they will have to take ownership of their educational future.

Unfortunately, our government has not prioritized education to a high enough level to make it broadly affordable. Additionally, the wealth in our country sits in the bank accounts of a very small percentage of the country’s population. The rich have no trouble, no matter the price, to pay for college tuition. But I still believe anyone who wants to go to college can, it just takes a bit of additional planning and flexibility.

Please note, I’m not an expert on this subject, these are just my collection of thoughts based on conversations and reading over the years.

In 2 Nephi 29, The Book of Mormon is almost, “speaking from the dust”, justifying its own existence to those who reject any additional Christian Biblical scripture, right here:

3 And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.

4 But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?

5 O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people.

6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

I think these verses make two distinct arguments, the first is an accusation. Those who claim the Bible often don’t appreciate it, its heritage or the people who produced it. The second is to point out how limiting a closed canon can be, that God works with and through all of his children, all over the world and as such we should expect books of scripture to spring forth from all across the globe. In fact this multi-ethnic witness of Christ and goodness essentially shows God’s unconditional love for all of us no matter where we live. Inspired Muslims, Hindus, Christians of all denominations, and even scientists, secularists and atheists, teach us that God is willing to speak to us in the language we understand the best – God speaks science, secularism, Hindi, Muslim and Christian.

This idea of an open cannon, of continued revelation, of a God who speaks to and through all of us is a gift that Mormonism has given to the world. If the Book of Mormon had come out of the Muslim tradition, I could imagine the Book of Mormon changed to say: “A Kuran, a Kuran, we have got the Kuran.”

What I’m afraid of, though, is that Mormons often reject this very idea and are in danger of making the same mistake, assuming an only slightly more open God and cannon to include scriptures given to us from Joseph Smith and from Salt Lake. For some of us, perhaps we are in danger of falling into the same trap and might be tempted to say… “A Book of Mormon, A Book of Mormon, we have got a Book of Mormon.” I hope not. Deeply embedded within Mormonism is a wonderful paradox. We claim to have the fullness of the everlasting gospel, but we also have a theological humility and openness littered throughout our theology. In the Articles of Faith 9 & 13:

 13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

In D&C 88:118:

 118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teachone another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the bestbooks words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.

I believe revelation comes from everywhere, from all sources and we should be open, both heart, hand and mind to receive it. And receive it we must. The Book of Mormon gives us this warning – quoting Isaiah in 2 Nephi 15:20

20 Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Here I believe we have been called to be sophisticated consumers of goodness. Not only shouldn’t we accuse another who is aspiring to goodness evil, but I think we should embrace, work with, learn from, and appreciate goodness and light wherever we find it. And light is shining from more sources than we realize.

In the beginning, Adam and Eve lived in the garden with no cares or worries. Anything they could ever need or want was given to them, but with no opportunity to learn, to grow and to gain experience through a struggle. The Biblical account goes this way.

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

The Christian world tends to come down hard on Eve, blaming her for the sorrow and misery of this world that her choice gave to us. The LDS church has a more expansive, compassionate view. Joseph Smith in a re-translation and expansion of the story captured in our book of Moses describes Eve’s interpretation of the experience as she looks back on her choice and the resulting consequences:

11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

This is an interesting story and a profound one. God gave Adam and Eve an explicit instruction not to eat of the fruit. Satan tempts Eve, but in his temptation he speaks truth, that if she eats the fruit she can grow wise. Rather than an outright rejection of the information, she ignores the source and considers only the content of the message. Eve digs into it and realizes this truth on her own, deeply and profoundly. Her path, the choice she has to make in that moment is to defy God in order to pursue wisdom and experience. And ultimately both Adam and Eve are blessed with the opportunity to bring forth seed, with the opportunity to learn through their troubles, the “joy of our redemption”.

I’m wondering if there is a broader lesson here. Most of the time we should live by and obey God’s commandments for us. We should be loyal to our family, our community, our leaders and especially our faith, sustaining and supporting their best efforts. But along the way, we need to do our own individual work, reading and studying scripture, coming to our own conclusions, praying and developing a relationship with God that is deep and independent of others. Learning to serve and care for others without compulsion, without relying upon a call from others. Life can be easy and comfortable when we follow the path laid out for us by our circumstance or our heritage especially as we lean on others for our strength. I was born a Mormon, raised in Arizona, studied engineering, worked for large companies my entire life, married with beautiful children. All this is good and beautiful. I’m loyal to my faith, I try to sustain my church leaders, I pay my tithing, do my hometeaching, try to read my scriptures and pray often.

But there are times, I’m learning, times for real growth. These times come when the right decision is to veer off paths others have laid out for me.  The lesson of Eve is to choose courage. But there is danger here as well. Eve knew what she was doing, she felt it in her soul. Her action was motivated by care, thoughtfulness and love.

Bob Dylan said it best “To Live outside the law you must be honest”.

Mostly what I’m saying here is that I should also withhold judgment. When someone makes a decision that doesn’t make sense, when I see someone else choosing the “apostate path”. When I think I disagree. I have no idea what the full story is. I can’t get inside their head. It’s possible they are following the example of Eve. To live outside their law, but with a head and heart full of integrity.

I hope when the time is right I can have the courage to do the same. I hope I can allow my children the same privilege.

What feels like now an eternity ago, when our oldest was just about to turn old enough for school, we kept her out and decided to do it ourselves. If you want to know why we chose this path the reasons are right here. But that was before. Before we actually had the experience of suffering through it. How we think our lives will go and how they actually do go are entirely two different things. I wanted (and still want to) shepherd our kids toward a sort of rebellion, and by rebellion I mean a desire, no matter what others may say, to stay true to themselves. But this takes so much maturity,so much confidence, an inner sense of purpose. And a long the way, we’re discovering, our kids often rebel hardest against our own best efforts to parent and school them.

Last year, we sent our son to public school, the one literally across the street from where we lived. Just the neighborhood school, attended mostly by poor and ethnically minority kids from surrounding neighborhoods, he’s one of the few white kids attending. And he loves it. He loves the school, he loves the teachers. He’s doing well. It’s hard to argue with these results. At home, he resisted and fought. At school, he’s thriving. This will be his last year at this school and we need to figure out what we’re going to do with him next. Similarly, our oldest is on the cusp of high school. She’s been homeschooled her entire life but we’re not sure we really want to homeschool high school after all.

To this end, last week, we went to the Tempe Prep open house. It’s a great school. It emphasizes the classical education style, something we’ve modeled our homeschooling curriculum on. They teach Latin, every child studies and performs in a theater production. Class sizes are small, typically less than 20 students. Most every child ends up at a four year university. The top students go on to elite universities, the best in the world. They all have the same basic curriculum, six subjects through the day, and each class has daily homework. It’s pretty intense.

It’s open enrollment, simply put your child on the waiting list and eventually a slot opens up. I don’t think they worry too much about children dropping out, in fact, I suspect that’s the result they want. I think the rigor and the waiting lists, the intensity and the level of homework, all act as a natural selection filters, keeping the more marginal children out of the school system. I’d love to know the exact economic makeup of the student body. I’m guessing it’s a majority middle class demographic.

I thought we were rebelling as homeschoolers, but homeschooling has gone mainstream. It feels much more subversive these days to just send our kids to the neighborhood public school.

You see, I love the curriculum of Tempe Prep. I want my kids to be studying history from the original sources and to take drama and music classes from teachers who love their subject, to rub shoulders with other kids who are engaged and are trying. I also believe our kids need to get access to other points of view, to be inspired by teachers who do it professionally, full time.

I’m not sure yet where my kids will end up. My oldest has just turned 13. She’s painfully shy. She’s been homeschooled all of her life. I’m not sure, really, just how academically strong they really are. Every parent naturally believes and hopes for the best out of their children. I’m no different. But schooling at home doesn’t give one a good sense of perspective. I’m not sure this will come completely into focus until high school anyway.

But I think there’s something wrong in our culture. There’s this cult of over-achievement and perfectionism and for some their career is everything and all-consuming. I think the work-place is getting more competitive, at least in some sectors of it, as economic inequality gets more pronounced as our global wealth clusters in the hands of the too few.

I want to raise curious, ambitious, caring life-long learners, but I’m not sure sending them to an over-achieving school is the way to get there. It feels insular, not really connected to the world at large. But homeschooling sure isn’t connecting our kids to the world either. Again, I’m not sure if this is a risk for our kids. I’m not sure if they will be the type of people to stress over every grade. They seem pretty content with themselves at the moment. But homeschooling we don’t grade and my son is cruising in his public school without too much of an effort – I actually like this about his school. Feeling stressed about academics is not something a ten year old should be feeling.

Perhaps the truly rebellious path these days, as a white, middle class, upwardly striving, educated two-parent family, is to purposely send our kids to the nearest available public school, a school where perhaps they are in the ethnic minority, with plenty of other kids who are poor from families who struggle.

I’m wondering, as well, if this is perhaps the best way to send our kids out into the world, by, you know, sending them off into the world, the real world, with real kids, with real problems, where they may encounter drugs and sex and poverty and broken families.

But what angers me more than anything is how unfair things can be. At Tempe Prep, the school offers Latin and drama, small class sizes, engaged and passionate educators. And it also only serves 250 kids. I’m not sure why every kid can’t get this exactly this is they want it at the school they already attend.

One final point. My kids aren’t the most athletic, but still they do sports because I think every kid should do sports. In the fall, they are all playing soccer in the rec league. Our son is probably the least talented kid on his team this year. But he plays. The coach gives him time. The other kids are nice to him. They work together and they play each and every week. I think being forced to work with other kids who are less (or more) talented than you is an opportunity. It’s an opportunity to mentor and be mentored. To learn both patience and humility. To realize life is and should be more about relationships than it is about achievement.

It’s not about clustering oneself off with just those who have the exact same interest and background. Sometimes life requires you to get a long with others with differing skills, interests and background. Sometimes we need to slow down and bring another along. To spend a little extra time teaching or mentoring. So many of our big problems are caused by the elites playing games with the economy to benefit them at the expense of others.

But I’m not sure what we’re going to do about school. I’m not sure how rebellious I really, truly am.

Being Mormon and on social media at all, it was difficult not to notice that my church has shifted its policy toward gay Mormon participation to a more hard-lined, less inclusive, some will say less loving, position. I haven’t dove deep into it. Maybe I never will. This issue doesn’t affect me full on. I’m not gay, no one in my immediate family is gay. But I’ve read their stories.  I know people who are gay. I know people who know people who are gay. Thinking about it at all, it’s hard not to sympathize with those people in pain because of this policy.

But I also have some sympathy for what the church is trying to do. They are trying to walk a mighty fine line. They admit that same sex attraction is not a choice:

The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

The church no longer recommends (at least not necessarily) a gay person marry someone of the opposite gender. I hope they have stopped recommending reparative therapy. Instead, they advocate celibacy. By all accounts, mixed orientation marriages largely end up in divorce, and reparative therapy is ineffective and damaging. I’m not an expert on this subject, I’m just repeating what I’ve read.

But of course another option is to fall in love and marry. The church policy clarifies the church’s response to that choice. A gay couple who marries will be subject to a disciplinary council for apostasy and children raised by these couples will not be eligible for baby blessings, baptism, priesthood or missionary service until they turn 18, no longer live with their parents and disavow the marriage relationship of their parents. I didn’t know this before, but the church has had a similar policy in place for years, without scrutiny, for polygamous families and their children. There are reasonable arguments out there that try to explain and defend this.

I have a ton of respect for Bill Reel and he comes down hard against the policy in his podcast here.

Here’s my fairly convoluted take. First of all, I think the dynamics of a same sex marriage is different than polygamy. I think reasonable people can find similarities. And if I squint, I can see why the church puts them in the same basic category and creates policy that treats them similarly.

Because of the shift society has made on this issue and the fact that the law has changed, choosing gay marriage is considered apostasy, not just sin. I think this distinction is important and it’s why I think this logic falls a bit short:

In the LDS Church, children born out of wedlock can be blessed, baptized, and approved to serve a mission.

Children born to rapists can be blessed, baptized, and approved to serve a mission.

Even children born to murderers can be blessed, baptized, and approved to serve a mission.

But children born to faithful, loving, monogamous couples in a same-sex marriage or other committed relationship will henceforth be excluded from all three of those things.

People who embrace and live in gay marriage are considered apostates, those who commit murder or rape are terrible people. Those born to parents who are actively living an apostate life need to put more of an effort to show they have embraced Mormonism and its core tenants despite what they may have been learned by those who raised them. Those born to terrible people are simply embraced and loved. To me, this makes some logical sense. The point here is that apostates can be good, they simply disagree with basic tenants of Mormonism.  You can be an apostate and be good. You just can’t be apostate and be Mormon.

And this is the point I’m trying to get to. We shouldn’t treat apostasy as a pejorative. It doesn’t have to be seen negatively, though in practice it is. Perhaps we need another word. Here’s wikipedia:

Apostasy (/əˈpɒstəsi/; Greek: ἀποστασία (apostasia), “a defection or revolt”) is the formal disaffiliation from, or abandonment or renunciation of a religion by a person. It can also be defined within the broader context of embracing an opinion contrary to one’s previous beliefs.^[1] One who commits apostasy (or who apostatizes) is known as an apostate. The term apostasy is used by sociologists to mean renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to, a person’s former religion, in a technical sense and without pejorative connotation.

The Mormon church has made it clear that it’s made families, traditional husband, wife, children families, foundational. The church recognizes that the traditional family is not realized by everyone: the never-married, the divorced, the widowed. But members are encouraged to strive for marriage and children and support others who have. That’s what membership in the church requires, as it stands today. I will say, though, this focus on the family narrows the theology, mostly because it doesn’t recognize and make appropriate and compassionate room for the gay population. Unlike polygamy, this is difficult, because gay people are inter-dispersed among us. They may be, without our choice, our brothers, our sisters, our cousins, our friends and yes, our parents.

And for Mormons, families are both foundational and essential for salvation. We are saved with God not just by ourselves but in our relationships, especially in our most intimate relationships. For better or for worse, this is what the Mormon church is today. This is what is driving, fundamentally, its behavior.

So, what is a gay person to do? They can try to make a mixed-orientation marriage work, they can try to make a run at celibacy. Slipping in these efforts is tolerated. The church supports and has compassion for those who are trying to live up to the standards, recognizing we all fail. But those who choose gay marriage have simply chosen a different path. The church calls this apostasy. Can we still be friends?

I’m loathe to use this term. It’s pejorative. It’s divisive. Someone who falls in love with a same sex partner and marries may still believe and support the church in every other way. They may still value the community. Their family members are also likely members of the church and they hope to preserve and deepen these relationships within a faith journey. Labeling someone an apostate is not a way to build relationships. I think this is why gay Mormons are at elevated risk for suicide.

I don’t know what to say about all of this. All I can do is love, the believer, the non-believer, the faithful, the doubter, and especially given this definition of apostasy, the apostate. That’s all I can really do.

I’m not very good at this, at least not usually. I can think of times in my life when something really profound is happening, accidentally, and usually I don’t recognize it, at least not at the moment, and maybe not ever.  I know this because there have been many experiences I’ve recognized after it happened, perhaps someone else pointed it out to me. Or in the sacred memories of memory, I’m able to find God working in my life.

I can think of three experiences:

During my twenties I volunteered in the Big Brother/Big Sister program. I was with the same boy for about five years. I believe he was ten when we started and we drifted apart as he was getting to be around 15. I was getting married, having a baby and getting busy, he was growing up and finding his own path apart from me. During that first year, though, we were hanging out in my apartment and he talked about having two brothers and a sister and one of those brothers was me. It was a moment, a significant one, but one I didn’t really appreciate at the time. I wanted him to like me, I wanted to succeed in the program, I was far too anxious in the relationship to appreciate these small moments. I was swinging for the fences planning gigantic events with him, but he just wanted someone to look up to, someone to connect to. He wanted a brother.

On my mission, in my first area, fresh out of the Missionary Training Center, feeling that if I worked hard and had faith, I could perform miracles, and by miracles, big, momentous life changing experiences that led sinners into baptism and life-long Mormon covenant making all by the power of my words and testimony. I was in my first area for three and a half months and in my mind had zero baptisms. We actually had one. It was a lady who had been coming and thought she had been baptized, but it was discovered that there was no record of it, so we did it. It was a real, sacred experience. The lady was committed to the church. She wanted baptism, we participated in this event in her life. My mission companion soaked up the experience. I didn’t feel like it counted as my baptism. In retrospect, none of them were mine. I was out there having experiences in other people’s lives. This was one of them. It was a moment.

Finally, I’ve always wanted to do big things in my life. My dream ambitious far exceed my actual real-life ambition. But part of that ambition included global experiences. In my late twenties, still unmarried, I felt like I needed to do something big. Around that time, I read an article in the Arizona Republic about going on “volunteer vacations”. It triggered something in me. I wanted to do this. I waffled on it for a while, I bought a book, I waffled some more, I started to date someone seriously who would later become my wife. I pulled the trigger. I was off to India for three and a half weeks to teach computers to poor people in New Dehli. The experience was difficult. I was with an organization which made it easier. But really, I co-taught with another Indian who knew computers. None of the students spoke English. I was teaching them how to use Word, Excel, Access which was difficult to do with a language barrier. The full time teacher did the heavy lifting, I helped where I could, but mostly I felt useless. I thought perhaps I could have a better experience if I went with another of the volunteers who were assisting patients in a Tuberculosis ward. I at least wanted to help for a day. So, toward the end of my stay, I ended my assigned work a day early and went with the other volunteers. The last day with my students, they threw a party for me, offered me gifts, they were gracious and generous, they took me on a tour of their Hindu temples and shared their culture with me. I felt their sincere gratitude. It was a moment. Sound familiar?

I’m reading Rough Stone Rolling right now, a biography of Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, the church of my heritage, the church I belong to. On page 478, in chapter 26,  I encountered this:

Even after all the tension, fear and melancholy of the summer, his unbounded enthusiasm for his revelation could not be suppressed.

“Now what do we hear in the gospel which we have received? A voice of gladness- a voice of mercy from heaven- a voice of truth out of the earth-lad tidings for the dead; a voice of gladness for the living and the dead; glad tidings of great joy!… What do we hear? Glad tiding from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfillment of the prophets – the book to be reveal’d! A voice of the Lord in the wilderness of Fayette, Seneca County, declaring the three witnesses to bear record of the Book. The voice of Michael on the banks of Susquehanna, detecting the devil when he appeared as an angel of light. The voice of Peter, James & John, in the wilderness, between Harmony, Susquehanna County, and Colesville, Broom County, on the Susquehanna County, and Colesville, Broom County, on the Susquehanna river, declaring themselves as possessing the keys of the kingdom, and of the dispensation of the fulness of times. And again, the voice of God in the chamber o fold father Whitmer in Fayette, Seneca County, and at sundry times, and in diverse places, through all the travels and tribulations, of this Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And the voice of Michael the archangel – the voice of Gabriel, and of Raphael, and of divers angels, from Michael or Adam, down to the present time; all declaring, each one their dispensation, their rights, their keys, their honors, their majesty & glory, and the power of their Priesthood; giving line upon line; precept upon precept; here a little and there a little: giving us consolation by holding forth that which is to come confirming our hope.”

No passage better captures Joseph Smith’s restoration than this one, mingling the names of ‘divers angels’ – Michael, Gabriel, Raphael – with specific mundane places that one could locate on a map – Fayette, Seneca County, Colesville, Broome County, and the banks of the Susquehanna River. That mixing of the mystical with the plain was pure Joseph Smith. This very concreteness gave him his highest pleasure. After the doleful days in exile, the memory of angels delivering their keys to places where he had stood cheered his heart.

This may or may not follow from the experiences in my life. I have no idea what exactly transpired in Joseph Smith’s life. We have the historical record. We have Joseph Smith’s own writings. These are big events, much bigger than my more subtle, more humble interactions with others. Joseph Smith’s heavenly encounters are filled with visions, dreams, visitations, angels, and encounters with God directly. But Mormonism at its core is the mixing of the “mystical with the plain”, but it’s also making these experiences available to everyone. And the scriptures are clear that the mystical is often subtle, still, and small and if we’re not careful, we’ll miss it. It could be the many of Joseph Smith’s experiences were equally as subtle as mine, but he was just more in tune and able to recognize them either in the moment or later in recollections.  Either way, his legacy endures and is remarkable.

I’m also reading, slowly, The Book of Mormon Made Harder.   Today, reading 1 Nephi 19:6:

 6 Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself.

Falconer asks:

“Nephi tells us that he has written only sacred things on the plates. How can that be? How can the material of 16:11-13, where we learn that they took seeds with them and that they went south-southeast and called one of their stopping points “Shazer”, be sacred? What makes a narrative sacred?

Here’s the secret I think. Our lives are sacred. They matter. They are filled with relationships and experiences and beauty and ugliness and difficulty and pain. These experiences, all of them matter, they are important, they are special, they are sacred.

And that I have encountered both of these quotes in the two books I’m currently reading within a day or two of each other is not just a happy accident. It’s a moment. It’s sacred. And now I’m sharing this moment with you.

In 1 Nephi 15, Nephi returns from his visions to his family only to find his brothers disputing over the meaning of what their father had taught them. When Nephi heard his father’s words, he was confused. With that confusion, he decided to go find out for himself, through deep reflection, prayer and study. He was rewarded with an expansive vision not only coming to an understanding of his father’s visions, but pushing out beyond that and learning so much more. His brothers, rather, simply struggled and argued and floundered. Nephi returned to this and attempted to help them. 1 Nephi 16:1-3 describes their reaction:

1 And now it came to pass that after I, Nephi, had made an end of speaking to my brethren, behold they said unto me: Thou hast declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear.

2 And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.

3 And now my brethren, if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might walk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us.

James Faulconer asks a very interesting question about this passage in “The Book of Mormon Made Harder”:

What does the fact that the wicked are cut to their center by the truth tell us about wickedness and truth?

First of all, consider Adam Miller in “Letters to a Young Mormon” in the chapter on sin:

As the heavens are higher than the earth, God’s work in your life is bigger than the story you’d like that life to tell. His life is bigger than your plans, goals or fears. To save your life, you’ll have to lay down your stories and, minute by minute, day by day, give your life back to him. Preferring your stories to his life is sin.

Being righteous then is about being open. It’s about opening one’s mind and one’s heart to whatever is out there of goodness and truth. It’s perhaps allowing truth to lead you where-ever it may be, no matter how hard.

Maybe wickedness is about telling ourselves a story about ourselves, our kids, our life, whatever it is, and clinging to that story. It’s about holding onto an ideology or an opinion rather than being open to other possibilities. When eventually hearing the truth cut through whatever we’re clinging onto instead, it could feel like we’re being cut through to the very center.

I had this experience on my mission to a very small degree. I wanted to be respected. I wanted people to recognize me as a hard, valiant worker doing whatever it takes. I was the “district leader” in this remote town, I had a difficult companion who didn’t want to be there followed by a brand new missionary with a strong personality. I was trying my best. Being a missionary in the deep south is difficult. I think missions are more for the missionaries than for the people we were trying to help. I was in over my head for the most part. Not really up to speed on the cultural history and the poverty and the racism I had been thrust into. I went there with very little training or knowledge or experience. The people we were trying to help were dealing with enormous struggles.

For example, there was one couple, we worked with, prayed with, prayed for, taught. They listened to us, they liked our message. They read the Book of Mormon and liked it. They were desperately poor, unmarried a baby. The man had trouble holding down a job, there may have been drug issues, I don’t remember. We got them married but we couldn’t get them to convert. I really wanted them to get baptized and work toward temple covenants. It was unrealistic. That was one example among many.

Anyway, I was eventually transferred out. The person who replaced me complained to the zone leader about what I left behind, poor record keeping (I’m not very organized). He felt like we had spent too much time with with a neighbor couple in our complex who be-friended us. None of it was bad. The missionary was perhaps being unfair, and I was too sensitive, but it bothered me more than it should have when his complaints got back to me. I wanted to be liked and respected and looked up to. In this case I wasn’t. Well, maybe I was, he just saw a some flaws.

I wasn’t wicked, but I think the goal here is to be open with ourselves and open to the world. Being righteous, being good is about being awake and aware, it’s about being mindful and present, it’s about being close to truth. The wicked taketh the truth to be hard because it cutteth them to the very center.

The righteous, by contrast, “hearken to the truth and give heed to it”. This doesn’t mean they are perfect or even better in their actions than someone who is wicked necessarily. They are simply more open, more willing to be taught. More willing to abandon their false stories about themselves, more open to truth. And in that they allow themselves to grow and expand and change.

I don’t really have anything definitive to say about Thomas Marsh. I have a tenuous knowledge of Mormon church history. Too many years have passed between college church classes and today’s date. I’m not so attentive in Sunday school I’m afraid. I am reading Rough Stone Rolling, but I’m not positive Marsh will get much attention. He’s not a major historical figure, so I’m not sure how much there is to learn about Thomas Marsh.  Recently, though, I came across this article that I think makes some important points which I will get to. Here’s the church’s story on Marsh.

The first article is written by John Hamer, a historian and member of the “Community of Christ church, the second article is written by Kay Darowski, also a historian a member of the Mormon church and of course its an article posted on the official church website.

The major difference between the two accounts is in each’s assessment of why Thomas Marsh left the church. Darowski references the controversy of the cream strippings:

Also contributing to his deepening dissatisfaction was the infamous “cream strippings” incident, which occurred in August or September 1838, involving Marsh’s wife, Elizabeth, and Lucinda Harris, wife of George W. Harris. According to George A. Smith, the women had agreed to exchange milk from their cows for making cheese. But counter to their agreement, Elizabeth allegedly kept the cream strippings—the richer part of the milk that rises to the top—before sending the rest of the milk to Lucinda. According to Smith, the matter went before the teachers quorum, then the bishop, and then the high council, all of whom found Elizabeth to be at fault. Marsh, not satisfied, appealed to the First Presidency, who agreed with the earlier decisions. Further offended by this chain of events, the already frustrated Marsh was said to have declared “that he would sustain the character of his wife, even if he had to go to hell for it.”

If you click on the reference you’ll find where this comes from:

The only full account of this oft-repeated story was given by George A. Smith in a discourse in Salt Lake City on April 6, 1856. Smith prefaced it by saying “sometimes it happens that out of a small matter grows something exceedingly important.” See Journal of Discourses, 3:283-284 for cream-stripping story.

Again, I’m not a historian, but a story repeated almost 20 years after the incident from one person’s memory with no verifying document is not considered reliable, in an academic sense at least. I think this is why John Hamer calls this a “fable” in his writing of the story.

Both accounts agree, though, of a more likely cause of his apostasy, although notice how the language is different in each telling:

Hammer:

Although the Mormons at the time were steeped in Gideon’s mythic defeat of the Midianites (Judges 7-8), where God required only 300 men to defeat 120,000, the danger in escalating the violence — in fighting mobs with mobs and in answering pillaging with pillaging — was extreme. The Mormons were as hopelessly outnumbered as Gideon. As much as the Saints eventually suffered after their defeat, even worse results were quite possible. The massacre at Haun’s Mill might just as easily have been replicated en masse at Far West, and the trial of Joseph Smith and other leaders may well have been a court martial and summary execution, (however illegal).

Darowski:

Within a few months, Marsh, as had many others, fell prey to a spirit of apostasy. He was among several Latter-day Saints who became disturbed by the increasingly violent relationship between Church members and their Missouri neighbors.

I think it’s obvious that Hamer is more sympathetic than Darowski. This is also interesting because this story gets repeated again and again. In a recent General Conference, Elder Bednar uses it to make the point that we shouldn’t let person offense get in the way of active church participation.

I’m not sure if the cream stripping story happened or not. It’s very possible it happened and it may have been a contributing factor in Thomas Marsh’s apostasy. But I think it’s safe to say that it wasn’t the central, driving reason. The church was going through a difficult time in what is now referred to as the Missouri Mormon war. The Mormons wanted to settle in Missouri, the people residing in Missouri didn’t want them there. Mormons were victimized by mob attack, but they also resorted to mob attack in retaliation. This retaliation was the concern for Marsh, Wikipedia:

Thomas B. Marsh, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the church, and fellow Apostle Orson Hyde were alarmed by the events of the Daviess County expedition. On October 19, 1838, the day after Gallatin was burned, Thomas B. Marsh and fellow apostle Orson Hyde left the association of the Church.^[63] On October 24, they swore out affidavits concerning the burning and looting in Daviess County. They also reported the existence of the Danite group among the Mormons and repeated a popular rumor that a group of Danites was planning to attack and burn Richmond and Liberty.^[

This was a big thing, a huge thing. In many ways it’s understandable that Marsh left the church. But Marsh’s actions did hurt the church, caused it additional problems, and contributed to additional suffering to the church and its leaders. It’s also understandable that Joseph Smith felt betrayed by a friend. It was not easy being a Mormon during those times. Those who stayed true and faithful deserve our respect. Those who chose to leave deserve our sympathy.

I guess my point is historical truth is more nuanced and complicated than often times we realize. Usually, neither side is blameless. I understand why Elder Bednar makes the point he does. The cream stripping is a more concise, easier to tell story and more easily fits the larger point he’s trying to make. The real story is more difficult, nuanced and would overwhelm a pretty short talk.

But there are interesting lessons to be learned from the real story:

Being a member of a church community can be difficult. It takes loyalty and devotion, and sometimes this can be painful, devastatingly so. Thomas Marsh had valid concerns and these concerns led him to leave the church, but perhaps there were other ways he could have dealt with these concerns? But I also think the real story should serve as a cautionary tale for those of us who stay faithful to the church. We should be careful before inflicting a harsh judgment on those who decide to leave it. As Elder Uchtdorf counsels here:

Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations.

Some of our dear members struggle for years with the question whether they should separate themselves from the Church.

We all have individual journeys and none of us really knows what it’s like to be another person. Thomas Marsh is a sympathetic person. He had real challenges. He suffered.  I think he’s someone who tried to do the right thing in the face of severe difficulties. He is one to emulate and learn from. His life was incredibly difficult and on the whole, I believe he endured it well. I think through it all, God loved Him and accepted Him as His own. I think Marsh’s life is a life to be revered.

One interesting postscript. Thomas Marsh was the president of the quorum of apostles when he left the church. Brigham Young took his position. If he hadn’t left, Marsh likely would have been the second prophet of the church and the responsibilities of the westward migration and building up the church in Utah would have been on his shoulders. This is an interesting alternative history. I’m not sure he could have done it as well.

Wikipedia has a lot of definitions of testimony, but I’m focusing here on the religious one, to declare testimony is to express one feelings of their faith, to describe often through personal experiences, why one believes what they believe:

In some religions (most notably Mormonism and Islam) many adherents testify as a profession of their faith, often to a congregation of believers. In Mormonism, testifying is also referred to as “bearing [sic] one’s testimony,” and often involves the sharing of personal experience—ranging from a simple anecdote to an account of personal revelation—followed by a statement of belief that has been confirmed by this experience. Within Mormonculture, the word “testimony”^[3] has become synonymous with “belief.”

A testimony is personal and individual and groundless in every other way except in one’s personal experience. Testimony is not based on scientific or historical evidence, rather, testimony is simply what happens when one experiences something transformational in one’s life. More specifically, testimony is something one gains when one is touched by grace. And grace is rooted in the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Adam Miller says it better in his book Rube Goldberg Machine:

A testimony is a bolt of lightning that splits the night in two. Testimonies contravene the stubborn inertia proper to this world. Here, the lost and impossible possibilities revealed by a testimony take hold of and recondition the world.

Testimonies are not essential because they reveal how things are in the world (this is the task of science). Testimonies are essential because they reveal, in light of the Atonement, how things can be.

Miller, Adam S. (2012-04-04). Rube Goldberg Machines: Essays in Mormon Theology (Kindle Locations 1444-1446). Greg Kofford Books. Kindle Edition.

Grace makes possible what was previously impossible, it transcends the limitations of this world and gives us the power to strive for something more. It allows us to transcend the limitations of our bodies, our weaknesses, our addictions, even our mortality, Christ’s atonement reaches through all of that and pulls out from within something divine and eternal. Our testimony, if it is anything at all, is simply this, our experience with grace.

Our testimony has nothing to say about the age of the earth, the nature of revelation, or the historicity of scripture.

This can be deceptive for many. Our sacred scriptures are rooted in stories and in history. The Bible begins with the story of the beginning of the world, stories of Adam and Eve, a global flood, incredible stories of Moses in Egypt. These stories are rooted in history, describing characters in nations that actually existed. The Book of Mormon is similar, audaciously so. Coming from the most humble of beginnings bursting forth soon after the birth of a nation, giving ancient America a biblical story. In 500 pages, the Book of Mormon runs through one thousand years of ancient American history.

Neither of these books are historical or scientific. Our experiences with them have nothing to do with what they are saying about history or science. These books were written and translated by holy men and women, not historians or scientists. When we bear testimony of them, we are saying nothing about our views of history or science.

The same follows for Joseph Smith, President Monson, tithing, the word of wisdom, the Church as an institution, etc. To have a testimony of these things is to have experienced the Atonement in connection with them—nothing more, nothing less. Who would be more horrified by the idea of people having a testimony of Joseph Smith than Joseph Smith? Who would be more horrified by the idea of people having of a testimony of the Book of Mormon than Mormon?

Miller, Adam S. (2012-04-04). Rube Goldberg Machines: Essays in Mormon Theology (Kindle Locations 1374-1377). Greg Kofford Books. Kindle Edition.

I think this distinction is important. When I see or hear about attempts to prove the historicity of scripture, I’m left cold. I don’t see the point, it feels like a waste of time and resources. It does a disservice to religion, science and history. We all have biases, granted, but science done right and history done correctly, requires the adherer to encounter the evidence as they find it and let that evidence lead them to conclusions that may even contradict what they may find in sacred works. It’s possible that neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon are true historically, and certainly not true scientifically. But both claims are beside the point.

And the opposite is true for similar reasons. If we attempt to ground our testimonies in the realm of science, we are standing on shaky ground.

If we say the Book of Mormon is true because we believe it explains Native American history, what is left of our faith when we encounter evidence that contradicts this? Those who do tend to react in one of two ways, the reject the science or they reject the religion. But neither of these choices makes sense. Our hearts and our minds should be open to learn as much knowledge as we can possible get in this short period of our lives. We absorb it and are informed by it, our faith should be durable enough to grow right along with it.

What I’m trying to say is that our testimony in the church, in Joseph Smith, in the Book of Mormon have nothing to do with our present views on historicity, evolution, archeological evidence. The church has very little to say on these topics nor is qualified to do so. The church is for us, our scriptures are for us, our prophets are for us. They are spiritual tools to transform us, individually and collectively, and to bring us to Christ.

The Book of Mormon says it best here.

23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.