Story you won't see in the Ensign
2002-12-30 03:31 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
archershipsIn the Mormon church, it's common for a family to be asked to sing during sacrament meeting. Some families are amazingly talented, with voices of such beauty they bring tears to your eyes.
"Sister Rasch, your daughters have never sung before, have they? We should schedule them."
Now, mind you, my family's singing voices can evoke tears too. They can also etch glass.
We're the anti-Osmonds.
"Thank you very much for the invitation, Sister Pushy [Relief Society President, head of the Mormon women's organization]. But we don't sing very well."
"Oh, I'm sure that they can sing well enough. Let me put you down for next week."
The Mormon church emphasizes the idea of of "callings". When God "calls" you to do something (via the authority of church leadership) it's considered bad form to refuse, even if you think that you're not prepared for the calling. Plus, Mom knew that she would have to face Sister Pushy's nagging, so she reluctantly agreed.
My sisters, as I recall, were 13, 11, and 8 years old respectively. Their reaction to being volunteered to sing in front of the entire ward (a congregation of about 50 - 100 people)?
They were not happy.
But, being the diligent students they were they buckled down to practice...
....two days before they were supposed to sing.
It was a fiasco.
"I am a child of God. And he has sent me here..."
Each of them sang out of step with the others. Their voices cracked and warbled like trio of drunken harpies. They forgot their lines. At one point, I think they were humming.
The Relief Society President sat in her seat on the stand, a rictus smile frozen on her face. Normally at the end of the singing segment, the Relief Society President effuses over the performance "Thank you for that lovely song." My sisters got "Thank you....for that presentation."
Although the experience traumatized both my sisters and the audience, it did have one benefit: no Rasch was asked to sing in Sacrament meeting again.
"Sister Rasch, your daughters have never sung before, have they? We should schedule them."
Now, mind you, my family's singing voices can evoke tears too. They can also etch glass.
We're the anti-Osmonds.
"Thank you very much for the invitation, Sister Pushy [Relief Society President, head of the Mormon women's organization]. But we don't sing very well."
"Oh, I'm sure that they can sing well enough. Let me put you down for next week."
The Mormon church emphasizes the idea of of "callings". When God "calls" you to do something (via the authority of church leadership) it's considered bad form to refuse, even if you think that you're not prepared for the calling. Plus, Mom knew that she would have to face Sister Pushy's nagging, so she reluctantly agreed.
My sisters, as I recall, were 13, 11, and 8 years old respectively. Their reaction to being volunteered to sing in front of the entire ward (a congregation of about 50 - 100 people)?
They were not happy.
But, being the diligent students they were they buckled down to practice...
....two days before they were supposed to sing.
It was a fiasco.
"I am a child of God. And he has sent me here..."
Each of them sang out of step with the others. Their voices cracked and warbled like trio of drunken harpies. They forgot their lines. At one point, I think they were humming.
The Relief Society President sat in her seat on the stand, a rictus smile frozen on her face. Normally at the end of the singing segment, the Relief Society President effuses over the performance "Thank you for that lovely song." My sisters got "Thank you....for that presentation."
Although the experience traumatized both my sisters and the audience, it did have one benefit: no Rasch was asked to sing in Sacrament meeting again.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-30 08:17 am (UTC)They don't make everybody sing. But they do make everyone get up and give testimonies about getting saved.
The cultures sound similar.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-30 12:44 pm (UTC)I don't know much about Mormonism. I think I've only met a few Mormon people. The school I went to taught us that Mormonism was a cult. :( It wasn't until I left there that I learned otherwise.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-30 02:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-12-30 02:56 pm (UTC)The way it was explained to us, though, is that Mormonism was right up there with Satanism and Seventh Day Adventism. Oh...and Jehova's Witnesses, too. We were warned to avoid them at all costs...they brainwash you and you will burn in hell if you join them.
Perhaps it would have been more accurate for me to say that I learned religious tolerance. :)
no subject
no subject
Date: 2002-12-30 02:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-01-02 03:27 pm (UTC)I ask because I'm a small-l libertarian and an active LDS, and I enjoy trying to explain to people at church how I reconcile what many see as two opposing viewpoints.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-03 04:35 pm (UTC)Didn't have much to do with singing. In fact, I still feel a bit nostalgic for Mormon culture.
Among other things, I was increasingly unhappy with the conflict I perceived between the church doctrine on evolution and science, the lack of independent corroborating evidence for alleged BOM historical events, the independent translation of the Pearl of Great Price scrolls (they aren't the Book of Abraham), and the lack of any tangible evidence that anyone who dies actually lives on in any form.
I became a libertarian about the same time. Reading Rand was a big influence because I realized one could be moral without necessarily being rational.
On most issues, I agree that you can be a devoout Mormon and a libertarian. The only part of the libertarian ideology that I can think of that would conflict is the general libertarian position on abortion.
Re:
Date: 2003-01-06 07:16 am (UTC)I think the thing that helps me most in "reconciling" LDS belief and libertarian political philosophy was Joseph Smith's statement, "I teach people correct principles and let them govern themselves." As you know, lots of LDS people, especially in places where they have a legislative majority, think that a testimony and knowledge of the truth means that laws should be passed to prevent people from sinning. In that view, LDS certainty and dependence on revelation can actually become a hindrance to the exercise of individual free agency and an excuse for coercion: "well, since we're right, it's OK to coerce." I don't buy that.
I don't necessarily agree with Rand on the moral basis of atheism, but I'm not an "academic" libertarian. I think that without the idea of a higher power and an eternal reward, one possible outcome is, in fact, that people will treat others well because they wish to be treated well, and because they think that (since this life is all there is) injuring someone is morally reprehensible. However, I think a more likely outcome is that people would figure they can do anything they darn well please as long as they don't get caught. I'm not sure that's much of a basis for morality, and people being people, pursuing rational self-interest can lead to stomping pretty hard on others.
I'd reconcile the abortion thing (recognizing that I differ with a lot of libertarians on this) by saying that the LDS leadership has never supported a total ban on abortion, but has simply said that in cases of rape, incest, and nonviability or endangerment of the mother's life, it may be considered prayerfully and in concert with priesthood leaders. In other words, if there are severe medical or psychological problems, it's an option. I think that abortion as retroactive contraception is morally reprehensible because it's an abdication of responsibility and a drastic act meant to avoid the consequences of one's behavior. Part of what any moral agent does is understand an accept the consequences, intended or not, of his/her acts. Abortion is a childish attempt to escape one's responsibility, and, given that there is undisputably another person involved, particularly selfish.
FWIW, of course. :)
no subject
Date: 2003-01-17 10:06 pm (UTC)However, I think a more likely outcome is that people would figure they can do anything they darn well please as long as they don't get caught. I'm not sure that's much of a basis for morality, and people being people, pursuing rational self-interest can lead to stomping pretty hard on others.
Yes, now that I've become an atheist, I've taken great pleasure in stomping on others.
I think that abortion as retroactive contraception is morally reprehensible because it's an abdication of responsibility and a drastic act meant to avoid the consequences of one's behavior.
Would it be a drastic act if you thought that an embryo was the moral equivalent of the sperm or egg from which it was derived? After all, I don't remember Mormon women mourning after their periods, or Mormon men, their nocturnal emissions. Since non-religious libertarians don't believe in a soul, they don't think that those same egg and sperm suddenly become a human deserving of full rights the instant they are joined together.
You may also be interested in this theological question I posed earlier in my journal:
http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=crasch&itemid=24048
Re:
Date: 2003-01-21 07:02 am (UTC)I can see your point. And I didn't mean to imply that you stomped on others, just that I've found it difficult to understand a basis for interpersonal morality not rooted in some Supreme Being. For that matter, I don't understand Calvinists, either - if I were predestined to heaven or hell, I wouldn't have any qualms about doing anything I wanted, since it wouldn't change my eternal outcome.
FWIW, I think God prefers an honest atheist to a hypocritical Christian. For that matter, so do I.
The whole of embryo is greater than the sum of sperm and egg, but even if not, it's the evasion of responsibility that's the crux of the abortion debate. Even non-religious libertarians have some interest in people, right? Whether or not they have souls? The fertilized egg becomes a person if left to its own devices, and any woman takes on an additional responsibility when, through her own actions, she allows that fertilization to occur.
In your analogy, killing a living baby (or adult, for that matter) wouldn't be a big deal, either, since they don't have souls. I don't think that's what you meant, is it?
Re:
Date: 2003-01-22 08:23 pm (UTC)Yes, I'm aware that getting shocked by an angel didn't change Laman and Lemuel's beliefs long term. And as I said, providing evidence such as the above would be enough "...to get my attention..." Even if you somehow accomplished one of the tasks above, I would necessarily believe that you were acting on the behalf of and through the power of the Create of the Universe. But my provisional hypothesis would definitely change from "This is yet another true believer whom I can safely ignore." to "Even if this person doesn't speak for God, Creator of the Universe, he's incredibly powerful, and I would be wise to pay attention to them."
"Absence of proof of a positive is not proof of a negative."
True, the absence of proof that there's an Easter Bunny doesn't mean that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.
" In your analogy, killing a living baby (or adult, for that matter) wouldn't be a big deal, either, since they don't have souls. I don't think that's what you meant, is it?"
I judge actions by whether they are in my long term self interest. If I thought that killing someone (adult or infant) were in my long term self-interest then no, I would not have an ethical problem with it. However, killing someone, even in legitimate self-defence, can cause such problems that I would try to avoid it if I could.
I would also prefer to live in a culture that generally discourages killing sentient beings. Therefore, I support a gradually increasing effort to protect the lives of immature human beings as they develop and mature into a fully sentient beings.
Immediately after conception, I don't think an embryo is worthy of much more protection than the sperm or egg from which it is derived. Somewhere between conception and birth, the embryo would be developed enough that I would support efforts to prevent the mother from killing the embryo electively--probably after beginning of the third trimester. (Though I would still support abortion, if the mother's life was in danger.)
... I wouldn't have any qualms about doing anything I wanted, since it wouldn't change my eternal outcome.
Imagine for the moment, that you no longer believed in God. Would your immediate impulse be to kill someone? To rape and pillage? To rob little old ladies? Is nothing stopping you from those behaviors other than your faith?
Although I don't know you other than through LJ, if you decided to abandon your religious beliefs, I would bet that your interpersonal behaviors would not be that different than they are now.
Re:
Date: 2003-01-23 06:38 am (UTC)Imagine for the moment, that you no longer believed in God. Would your immediate impulse be to kill someone? To rape and pillage? To rob little old ladies? Is nothing stopping you from those behaviors other than your faith?
Fear of retribution. I hope that humans are capable of better than that as a motivator. But you're probably right - I might not change if I suddenly left the Church. Well, not rape, anyway. Maybe as much fornication as I could manage! :)
However, if I imagine a world where I was never LDS, because there was no such thing; where atheism was the norm and the idea of a Supreme Being was unheard-of, that would be a different thing, and a scary place. Only brute force and ruthlessness would rule, because there would be no limit on human actions except naked self-interest. I don't see how such a society could survive for long, or for that matter evolve past wolf-pack politics.
The ubiquitousness of a God concept in human history is either an evolutionary adaptation to the above-mentioned problem, or positive evidence that there is in fact some kind of God. You pick! :)
If I understand you correctly in re abortion, infanticide and self-defense, your motivation to "do the right thing" is mostly the result of a desire to avoid unpleasant or difficult consequences. Although I would say parenthetically that it must be hard to find a reason to value human life, I would say that you and I have some of the same motives. You don't murder because it causes temporal problems in mortality; I don't because it causes problems in eternity. Those eternal issues are just as real and valid (although not as immediate) to me as the here-and-now is to you. There are certain things, no doubt, that you do or don't do because there are consequences that may not be immediate - not smoking, to avoid getting lung cancer in fifty years, might be an example. Unless you're a smoker, in which case you can think of something else! :)
Of course, I'm not a very "evolved" Christian; we're taught that of the three reasons we act - fear, duty, and love - fear is the least morally evolved. I do a lot to avoid eternal consequences, I do some things out of duty to live up to the covenants I've made, and I occasionally transcend myself to do something out of love for the Lord and my fellowman. Or at least my wife and kids.
Does this mean that if you could get what you want (and this would almost certainly be temporal things, right?) by robbing, killing, and raping, and you're bright enough to do it without getting caught, that would be OK? Is it only the potential complications of jail time, etc., that hold you back?
If you're anything like most bright people, you've planned the perfect murder once or twice, simply as an intellectual exercise. If you're like me, you've planned at least one stranger assassination, and at least one person that you really, really disliked, and you're 98+% sure you could do it without getting caught. (Not planned to the point of actual execution, just thought it through in your mind.) What holds you back?