What amount of critique can a believer level at religion?
I've mentioned before that tribalism is something I don't appreciate, and a lot of that comes, ironically, from my religion. Mormonism makes some pretty expansive truth claims, but part of it is a catholic (lower case C) sensibility that everyone will be given an opportunity to accept or reject the message, whether in this life or the life to come. This helps to erase tribalism from an us versus them to one in which the terms of the disagreement are fully and actually known. I suppose I'm trying to take the admonition of not judging others too harshly as deeply as I can.
But what about the religion itself? I have no problem critiquing political, educational, or service-based institutions. And I love comparative religion, particularly between Protestantism and Mormonism (though that's only because Shakespeare and Milton come from a Protestant tradition, and that matters to me more than it should). I deeply empathize with my Jewish and Muslim brothers, and wonder what Mormonism will be like a thousand years from now. Will we be like Catholicism, with Inquisitions and Crusades? Will we be like the jihadists of the twenty-first century?
Anyway, all this is to say is that I don't approach critiquing religion as necessarily an analysis of truth claims, but one of rigorous application of principles. As such, I'm immensely unqualified to do more than gesture at incongruities in beliefs versus actions in, say, Islam or Presbyterianism. I'm intimately familiar with Mormonism, however, and that means that I have plenty of areas where I can ask questions that don't fit nicely into a Sunday School lesson.
This cycles back to my original question: How much can I ask?
The frustration that I feel on this front comes from the basis of the Church's creation narrative: Joseph Smith was confused, believed James' admonition, and asked God which church to join. Within the book he translated, The Book of Mormon, Alma encourages his listeners to "experiment upon [his] words" (Alma 32:27), effectively endorsing the idea that inquiry leads to greater truths. This, of course, gratifies my Socratic training, and has proven to be a powerful tool in my life. Deconstruction of assumptions, burrowed after via questions, is how I pursue a better understanding of the world.
But if the answer to any too-thorny question is, "You must have more faith and wait to find the answer," I'm rarely satisfied. I believe that God will answer all questions, and there are some that I can't wait to have answered (mostly, what color were the dinosaurs really? Also, can I go back in time and watch a dinosaur eat something? Also, can I ride that dinosaur?).
Others, however, get stuck in my craw because they're incongruous.* The Mormon law of health, frequently called the Word of Wisdom bars card-carrying members of the Church from "hot drinks" which include tea and coffee, alcohol, tobacco, and an admonition to eat meat sparingly. More and more research is demonstrating one of the great addicting chemicals we consume, however, is sugar, which isn't specified. Why not? Coffee can have many positive health effects, but if the concern is addiction to caffeine (the most commonly cited reason for why Mormons continue to abstain from coffee), why aren't there traditions and doctrines that decry it? And why is hot chocolate permissible if temperature matters?
I'm not the only one who's asked these questions--I'm certain a few minutes online could get me apologists to explain the idea. But inevitably it will lead back to faith, and if in-good-faith questions are reverted to don't-ask-don't-challenge-your-faith responses, I don't feel as though I've been edified.
None of this is to say that I'm "doubting the Church" or indicating other issues that would lead to a schism between me and my lifelong membership in the religion. But I have to admit, the fact I feel the need to include this disclaimer is a little disheartening, because I feel compelled to point out that asking questions isn't necessarily questioning my faith. Yet it often sounds that way--a sad reality that might mean there's more tribalism in Mormonism than I care to admit.
---
* I use this word instead of hypocrisy in part because it's easier to spell, but also because I think there's an attempt at deception or maliciousness in hypocrisy that I don't imply in incongruous.
I've mentioned before that tribalism is something I don't appreciate, and a lot of that comes, ironically, from my religion. Mormonism makes some pretty expansive truth claims, but part of it is a catholic (lower case C) sensibility that everyone will be given an opportunity to accept or reject the message, whether in this life or the life to come. This helps to erase tribalism from an us versus them to one in which the terms of the disagreement are fully and actually known. I suppose I'm trying to take the admonition of not judging others too harshly as deeply as I can.
But what about the religion itself? I have no problem critiquing political, educational, or service-based institutions. And I love comparative religion, particularly between Protestantism and Mormonism (though that's only because Shakespeare and Milton come from a Protestant tradition, and that matters to me more than it should). I deeply empathize with my Jewish and Muslim brothers, and wonder what Mormonism will be like a thousand years from now. Will we be like Catholicism, with Inquisitions and Crusades? Will we be like the jihadists of the twenty-first century?
Anyway, all this is to say is that I don't approach critiquing religion as necessarily an analysis of truth claims, but one of rigorous application of principles. As such, I'm immensely unqualified to do more than gesture at incongruities in beliefs versus actions in, say, Islam or Presbyterianism. I'm intimately familiar with Mormonism, however, and that means that I have plenty of areas where I can ask questions that don't fit nicely into a Sunday School lesson.
This cycles back to my original question: How much can I ask?
The frustration that I feel on this front comes from the basis of the Church's creation narrative: Joseph Smith was confused, believed James' admonition, and asked God which church to join. Within the book he translated, The Book of Mormon, Alma encourages his listeners to "experiment upon [his] words" (Alma 32:27), effectively endorsing the idea that inquiry leads to greater truths. This, of course, gratifies my Socratic training, and has proven to be a powerful tool in my life. Deconstruction of assumptions, burrowed after via questions, is how I pursue a better understanding of the world.
But if the answer to any too-thorny question is, "You must have more faith and wait to find the answer," I'm rarely satisfied. I believe that God will answer all questions, and there are some that I can't wait to have answered (mostly, what color were the dinosaurs really? Also, can I go back in time and watch a dinosaur eat something? Also, can I ride that dinosaur?).
Others, however, get stuck in my craw because they're incongruous.* The Mormon law of health, frequently called the Word of Wisdom bars card-carrying members of the Church from "hot drinks" which include tea and coffee, alcohol, tobacco, and an admonition to eat meat sparingly. More and more research is demonstrating one of the great addicting chemicals we consume, however, is sugar, which isn't specified. Why not? Coffee can have many positive health effects, but if the concern is addiction to caffeine (the most commonly cited reason for why Mormons continue to abstain from coffee), why aren't there traditions and doctrines that decry it? And why is hot chocolate permissible if temperature matters?
I'm not the only one who's asked these questions--I'm certain a few minutes online could get me apologists to explain the idea. But inevitably it will lead back to faith, and if in-good-faith questions are reverted to don't-ask-don't-challenge-your-faith responses, I don't feel as though I've been edified.
None of this is to say that I'm "doubting the Church" or indicating other issues that would lead to a schism between me and my lifelong membership in the religion. But I have to admit, the fact I feel the need to include this disclaimer is a little disheartening, because I feel compelled to point out that asking questions isn't necessarily questioning my faith. Yet it often sounds that way--a sad reality that might mean there's more tribalism in Mormonism than I care to admit.
---
* I use this word instead of hypocrisy in part because it's easier to spell, but also because I think there's an attempt at deception or maliciousness in hypocrisy that I don't imply in incongruous.
Comments
The fact of the matter is that even with modern revelation, we don't have all the answers to every dinosaur or coffee question. And because unsatisfied questions arise in everyone, perhaps these questions get the reactions they do because we're afraid that things will move from "I don't understand" to "I don't believe", which is too often a direct segue. And the motto "faith it till you make it" does seem to come off more as "just live the gospel, ignore your question, close your mouth, and don't speak of this to anyone", which doesn't help the matter, and is far from edifying.
So how can you be edified without receiving the answer you want? Maybe just realize that God does everything with a purpose. Realize that this is how He works with His children. He just plain doesn't always give the detailed, juicy answers. For example, Adam was offering sacrifices to the Lord for some time before God sent an angel to explain why. Yes, God withholds information sometimes. And why would he do that? Well let's be honest. If God had listed every science behind the creation, how many of us would even get past Genesis?
However, God hasn't kept it all to himself. There have been instances when he has shown every juicy detail, like in Moses 1:27-29. Moses "beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold" and so on.
So if necessary, God will answer your question, and in detail. And that's not to say you'll only get the answer if your question is good enough, or just enough. No. Like you mentioned in James 1:5, if you truly and honestly desire to receive the answer--there are no requirements other than that you don't know the answer, so yes, this even includes questions about dinosaurs--and you ask God, believing that He will give you that answer, He will. And maybe you'll get the whole vision, like Moses. Or maybe He'll say, "I'll tell you when you're older." But either way, you will be edified by the spirit of truth. And if that doesn't answer your question, then I don't know what will.
Anyway. Thanks for the chance to bring out my Socratic brain again. I really miss that!