Mormon Fast-and-Testimony Meeting (FaTM) is a struggle for me on several levels. The meeting is supposed to consist of members standing and bearing witness to the veracity of various pieces of church doctrine. Members are expected to profess near-perfect belief in Mormonism’s core tenets.
These declarations have always made me uneasy . . . in part because I’m a “natural-born” skeptic and have a healthy distrust of all organizations. At some point in their history, all mature organization become over-structured and hell-bent on self-preservation. Thus a declaration of absolute conviction in a “one-and-only” true church is not something that makes me confortable.
A more thoughtful concern with the bearing of testimonies was voiced by Catholic writer Andrew Sullivan (Time, October 9, 2006, p. 58-60). He argues that instead of professing our certainties, we need to acknowledge our doubts. He rightly worries about the certain knowledge and blind obedience of Islamic extremists, orthodox Jews, fundamentalist Christians, and very devote Catholics. I would add to the list some diehard Mormons (referred to as nazi Mormons by humorist Robert Kirby) and fundamentalist LDS.
Andrew states: “True belief is not about blind submission. It is about open-eyed acceptance, and acceptance requires the persistent distance from truth, and that distance is doubt. Doubt, in other words, can feed faith, rather than destroy it. And it forces us, even while believing, to recognize our fundamental duty with respect to God’s truth: humility. We do not know. Which is why we believe.” In a letter to the editor (Time, December 18, 2006), Carolyn D. Lewis states: “A little more humility about the human condition and our relation to a higher power would go a long way toward healing what divides us.”
Another concern of mine is the involvement of children, particularly very young ones, in FaTM. The most problematic for me are the well-meaning parents who hold up their tiny tot and whisper the words their kid is expected to repeat. (I understand that some Wards now frown on this practice.) Older children get up and mouth a standard 4-sentence mantra. While this may sound harsh: Isn’t the practice of encouraging children to bear testimonies a not-so-subtle form of brainwashing? Shouldn’t a testimony be something that a person develops through thoughtful study, prayer, introspection, and meditation . . . and not something you do to please your parents?
Andrew in his Time article quotes German playwright Gotthold Lessing: “If God were to hold all Truth concealed in his right hand, and in his left hand only the steady and diligent drive for Truth, albeit with the proviso that I would always and forever err in the process, and to offer me the choice, I would with all humility take the left hand (think “CTL” or “Choose the Left”), and say Father, I will take this — the pure Truth is for You alone.”
My father wrote the following about his mission to New England and the maritime Canadian provences: “Even as a youngster I must admit admiration of the Church Authorities and would have been pleased to emulate them. Although Chemistry held some special appeal, an alternative of Church work would have been entirely acceptable. Thus I earnestly sought some kind of personal revelation as as a missionary. If it happened I failed to perceive it. The concern for this lack in the expected form was one of the prime causes of my stay in the Massachusetts General Hospital to end my mission with a very serious ulcer.” Not everybody, no matter how earnst, can receive a perfect knowledge. There needs to be more room for those of us who doubt.
The Mormon church defines a testimony as a five-part declaration: (1) that Heavenly Father loves us; (2) that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He carried on an infinite Atonement; (3) that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God; (4) that we are led by a living prophet today; and (5) that the Church (Mormon or LDS) “is the Savior’s true Church on the earth.” If members stuck rigidly to that definition then FaTM would be quite boring. Many members, however, chose to deviate and discuss personal issues, expound on doctrine, and thank various church members for their help and support.
I wonder sometimes if the Church might be better served by using the FaTM as a time for members to expound on whatever subject they chose (in 3 minutes or less), particularly encouraging the thanksgiving process. A more diverse set of members might participate (particularly if individual members were encouraged to only participate a couple of times a year). Certainly a recognition of the human fraility of “doubt” or imperfect knowledge might be more than appropriate. Many members during FaTM seem uncomfortable with any silence between testimonies; there needs to be a recognition that silence is a useful time for meditation. All this may see a bit anarchical, but it could encourage new levels of creativity and spirituality.
There is scripture for the skeptic, and for some unknown reason it is included in the Old Testament. The Book of Ecclesiastes is a wonderfully written piece of prose and poetry. And is perfect canon for those who doubt: “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.” While the writer believes in God, her struggles to understand the meaning of life.
If you ask Mormons what they believe on a fairly wide range of religious topics, no two members would have an identical set of beliefs (even on core tenets). We need to embrace this diversity, not try to stomp it out. And an important part of that diversity is acknowleging the role of doubt.
Recent revelations concerning the late Mother Teresa have provided an interesting perspective on doubt. In dozens of letters (published in August 2007), Mother Teresa lamented the “emptiness” she felt and confessed her struggles with faith, and her doubts about the existence of heaven. While such doubt may be difficult for some to comprehend, given that she is on the fast-track to Catholic sainthood, for me it is very refreshing. I think the world would be better off, as would the Mormon Church, if there was a better understanding of the human need to doubt. Mother Teresa just may end up the patron saint of all skeptics.
It has been suggested that DNA can play a major role in faith and religiousity, as can environment. Some of us may be wired to believe, while some may be wired and influenced to doubt (think about Mother Teresa environment in Calcutta). My father was able to balance his doubt and his church membership. But his three sons have not. When my father died recently, on his death bed, I wonder what he was thinking or imagining?
In an article published in July in Newsweek, Malcom Jones compared Lincoln and Darwin. They were both born on the same day: Feb. 12, 1809. “Both lost their mothers in early childhood. Both suffered from depression, and both wrestled with spiritual doubt.” And each was a late boomer. For both I “spritual doubt” was an important part of the personna, and one of the reasons that made them great.
Gina Welch in her book “In the Land of Believers” wrote about the Evangelicals (which she infiltrated) as reported by Margaret DeRitter of the Religion News Service (3 Mar 2010 in SLTrib):
“One of the things she found troubling was what she calls “intellectual passivity.” The people she met were generally “uncritical of the institutions they subscribe to,” she said. “They toe the party line. They accept the mythology about gay people, about the environment, about the outside world without testing its truthfulness.”
But Gina was generally complimentary about the evangelicals she dealt with.
I attended my niece’s Seminary graduation on Sunday night. It was enjoyable (because I was there to support her), but too long and boring. I was mostly disappointed in (though not surprised) that it was speaker after speaker of males in the hierarchy. A token female student spoke. One of the gentlemen, felt the need (again) to tell the audience that if “anyone in the audience believed in any other book other than ‘the Book of Mormon’, then they were living their lives under false pretense”. He held up the book for visual effects. The chapel was silent as he made the comment. I couldn’t help but think, what if there is someone in this chapel (which was full) who is not LDS? Who embraces another Christian religion or other faith? How does this type of rhetoric make them feel? We (mormon speakers) have got to do a better job at being a bit less bold in our talks when it clearly could hurt/offend someone else. Credability issues abound when you’ve got someone lambasting the world from the pulpit while holding up “the only true” book in the world. A kinder, gentler approach is a much more effective missionary tool.
I agree 100 percent. This is a topic I have covered elsewhere, for example in my post “Teach Your Children Well.” The days when Mormons can claim that they have a monopoly on truth, particularly as it relates to the Book of Mormon, are over. Luckily there have been several articles in Church publications that have emphasized the need for a better understanding of other’s beliefs and for more tolerance. I aplaud these efforts. Obviously the speaker in question hasn’t got the message yet. As for the other issue, too many males on the program, hopefully that too is also changing. But probably more slowly in Utah County.
In Time magazine (22 Mar 2010) a question was posed to Desmond Tutu.
Have you ever had doubts about your faith? “Doubts? No. Anger with God? Yes. Plenty of that. I’ve remonstrated with God quite frequently and said, “What the heck are you up to? Why are you letting these oppressors get away with this injustice?” But doubting that God is good? That God is love? No.”
Pingback: Mormon Kitsch Hits New Low | Tired Road Warrior