The L.A. Times on Richard Dutcher
Film, Philosophy, Religion August 19th, 2008This article at the L.A. times came to my attention.
(No, this film still is from Brigham City. It’s just a great still of The Sheriff.)
My thoughts:
First, I didn’t find FALLING to be “spiritually disquieting” (or causing unease or anxiety). It opened some very probing questions, which, personally, only led to very assuring answers for me. And the film as a whole moved me.
Second, I don’t buy the line that Mormons are embargoed from seeing R-rated films. Bleh. Can this myth please die?
And thirdly and waxing philosophical, as for this quote of Dutcher wondering “what if it’s not true?” -
That surprises me. I don’t expect religion to leave me doubt-free. It’s clear the Savior had his profound doubts just before enacting the atonement. In my book, doubt and questioning, looking for answers - that’s the soil for faith and belief. It was certainly where Joseph Smith began his journey. Proof isn’t the point. You can no more disprove any point of religion (for example the existence of God) than anyone can prove it.
The results of living your religion are the proof. Meetings, taking the sacrament, service, study, testing the word of God. You try the experiments; and do the results make you unhappy or happy?
If you’re not trying the word of God - if you aren’t going to church, if you isolate yourself from your religious community, for starters - you won’t get results. It’s easy to conjecture there’s no merit to a theory you aren’t testing.
And much of the test is what my service or involvement can contribute. As a Bishop put it to me, he never found any ward (Mormon congregation) he liked until he stopped focusing on what others were (or weren’t) doing for him, and started focusing on what he can give.
I see friends who begin expressing doubt, mere luke-warm feelings, or even disenfranchisement, with the church, the people in their ward and the things they believe and say, and this all happens at the same time they’ve stopped attending church. Guess what? What these misguided people around you need is for you to go to church and present your take on things in a positive, non-threatening way. (And I know these friends have good and enlightening things to say.)
If others may not be seeing the light, how about shedding some of your own? The Mormon church is designed to informally acquaint us with each other’s insights. If there sometimes isn’t much insight, there’s even less if people nonplussed with that fact keep on waiting for the situation to change - without realizing they can change it. Without realizing they can never know how they positively impact others. There are many people in the LDS religious community who have no idea how they’ve positively impacted me.
Did Jesus walk the streets during his ministry visiting the sick, the poor, the social outcasts, the odd ones, the unwanted, all the while asking himself “What am I getting from these weirdos, what’s in this for me?”
Religion may not be thrilling very often, ergo the command to “endure to the end”. I’ve found that any time I give up the endurance test, again, I feel empty.
Never mind I’d tell you like many a Mormon I know it’s all true. Which I do. My doubts are about what this religion can actually do for me (the acknowledged paradox being that I shouldn’t just be in it for me). I’ll always be figuring that out - and those doubts are exactly what lead me to keep trying things out.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
I know what you mean about how faith isn’t really intended to be doubt free. I feel in my heart that Mormonism is true but I can’t deny that I don’t have the 100% faith I want in every aspect of its teachings. I think its important to have doubts and questions, otherwise you won’t make progress.
As someone who didn’t really get serious about the faith until adulthood I can agree that attending meetings should be about you and not the others in the ward. If you think like that then its easy to get intimidated and not attend. I started thinking about attending church as an annoymous student in a huge university. It made a world of difference.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:47 am
Yeah, I can see that - and after all why should I be interested in religion unless there is something for me in it; unless there is happiness for me in it.
Actually that’s what I love about Mormonism - it promises more than any other religion (so far as I know). You want something? Okay, do this and this and this and someday YOU WILL BE A GOD.
Ha!
August 20th, 2008 at 2:09 am
Beautiful. Excellent post. Thank you very much for your thoughts.
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:27 am
> Proof isn’t the point. You can no more disprove any point of religion (for
> example the existence of God) than anyone can prove it.
Very true! This is why I personally make a point of believing in everything everyone tells me about anything unless I can produce proof to the contrary.
I have not yet been able to produce proof that microscopic helicopters dispatched by the New World Order are not spying on me (how would I be able to see them?), that at 12:00 every night my body is not possessed by dark alien entities shaped like eggplants (there’s no way to disprove it while I’m being possessed), or that I won’t get rich by depositing all my $ in the bank account of the nice Nigerian gentleman who keeps sending me email (it’s not like I’ve been to Nigeria!). Therefore I must accept all these things as true by default.
There is no such thing as burden of proof. Only burden of disproof, yes?
> The results of living your religion are the proof. Meetings, taking the
> sacrament, service, study, testing the word of God. You try the
> experiments; and do the results make you unhappy or happy?
Happy! Well, not all the time. Maybe not even most of the time, but I should throw out the data that doesn’t fit, shouldn’t I?
This is why all religions are true. They have all given solid advice on some aspect or other of life, and therefore have all proven themselves to be correct in every abstract point of doctrine. Even when those points of doctrine contradict each other. Er, maybe…
> Never mind I’d tell you like many a Mormon I know it’s all true. Which I do.
A non-mormon might call such a statement arrogant, but I guess that’s just because the non-mormon has not been privy to concrete evidence that angels actually do go around passing out golden books to farm boys like I suppose we all have. Oops, I forgot we had shifted burden of proof to the skeptics!
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:50 pm
I have replied to Hydralisk in my next (epic) post.