Defending a "Cult"

Ms. Liz Emery seems to be playing games with my loyalty. Her first opinion article in the Utah Statesman was about gay rights and I wrote a blog post attacking her arguments. Again, I am not against her right to share an opinion, nor was I against the rights she desired, but rather how she went about it. Her next article was one that attacked fraternities as exclusive organizations that cater to the rich and popular party animals. I wholeheartedly agreed with that article and decided that I was glad that she was writing her strong opinions on a weekly basis. This week, however, she decided to again go on the attack, but this time against the LDS church, stating "evidence" that supports her conclusion that the church is a cult according to her definition of the word. Her article deserves a read before you finish reading this blog post. http://www.usustatesman.com/column-can-the-lds-religion-be-considered-a-cult-1.2633978

My personal definition of a cult differs slightly from the mainstream definition. It seems that many consider a cult to be any religions or spiritual movement that "makes" their members do something viewed as strange or dangerous by the outside world. The definition that I found reads: A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.Our leaders are charismatic, but they don't seem too authoritarian. While they suggest things that we should do, or implore us to do what is right as I see it, they do so lovingly, thinking only of our personal well-being. While some may disagree with their intentions based on circumstance, that is the principle behind it all.

Either way, her article is full of what seems to be personal experiences that she uses to generalize the church as a whole. She argues that members of the church are discouraged from questioning or challenging things that are confusing to them. I firmly believe the opposite to be true. It is difficult for one to accept that there is a living prophet today, especially if they have been raised to believe that the prophets ended with the bible, or even that there has never been prophets as there is no God. The invitation of the church is "pray to know." She claims that the mantra promoted by the church is "just have faith." Faith without works is dead. The General Epistle of James in the Bible addresses that issue directly. Members of the church and those investigating the church are strongly encouraged to study the doctrine, read the scriptures, and pray to know the truth of what they have been taught before making any decisions. While some missionaries or family members may encourage people to simply “have faith”, they are really selling the whole experience short. Coming to a conclusion by logic alone is not enough to keep somebody following a religion. It needs to be something spiritual; something within us that we can’t simply explain with words and conventional arguments.

The stance of the church is for people to acquire a testimony before being baptized or taking any step in the church whether it be accepting a call to serve or simply participating in the sacrament ordinance each week. Church leaders are required to ask a number of questions during interviews with each member or prospective member before they advance in the church. These questions include but are surely not limited to questions about a persons belief. Having a conviction that the church is true is inherently required before members can truly invest themselves into something like baptism or other church ordinances. We believe that these ordinances come from God himself and are not simply our invented means of excluding people from our club.

Another argument that she makes is that members of the church are discouraged from fraternizing with people that do not “share their values.” Youth in the church are encouraged to surround themselves with people that share the same high standards that they are taught to adhere. This does not mean that they are taught to avoid non-members, but to be wary of those that may encourage them to act contrary to their standards. Peer pressure is a real thing and can lead young people to do things that they wouldn’t ever consider doing before the peer pressure is applied over time. This practice is not meant to restrict our youth, but rather an effort to help them find out what is right in a safe environment.

The notion that seemed to strike Ms. Emery closest to heart was her misunderstood idea that members of a family that are not active in the church are somehow prohibited from being with their family after this life. However, to understand what she doesn’t like about it, we have to back up a little bit. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints we believe that families are forever. We believe that this life is not the end of our existence, and that after this life, if we have followed God’s commandments as relayed to us by His prophets AND live a life conducive to the example of His Son, we can live in a paradisaical state with our family forever. However, knowing full well that none of us are even close to perfect, we cannot merit this eternal life by ourselves. It is only by the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ that we are saved, AFTER all that we can do. This medium does not allow me to go into the level of detail necessary to properly explain this principle. Suffice it to say that I have scratched the surface of the tip of the iceberg.

Ms. Emery claims that if a member of the church marries somebody outside the church, they lose their right to be with their partner forever, and that the same applies to family members that leave the church. The fact that she would say this gives rise to the idea that she believes eternal life is a real possibility and that the church is somehow exerting restrictions on it. This mortal life is a finite existence. Everything can be measured in units of time from seconds to decades. The concept of eternity is not understood naturally by us mortal creatures. Indeed I have been “taught” to marry somebody within the church. I believe that a couple who starts their marriage with the intent that it will last forever has a better chance of getting there. Statistics don’t tend to back me up very well, but that is what I believe. It’s what I have seen with my parents and siblings and several generations before them.

Anyways, to point. I think it is inherently foolish of us to place restrictions on eternity. The church teaches that everybody will have the opportunity to accept the gospel in this life or the next. If a spouse doesn't accept the teachings of the church in this life, we believe they will have the opportunity to do so in the afterlife. Everybody will live forever. What we define as eternal life is something more significant. It is eternal progression and expansion. At this point I must reiterate that I can but scratch the surface on these topics. So, simply put, every human being will live forever after this life. In the church, we believe that we can become like God by continuing to progress in our understanding and character. Inherent to this idea is that it will take A LOT of work. To become perfect, even as our Father in heaven is perfect, is impossible in this life. Our current mortal existence is but a stepping stone along the way. Because it will require a lot of work, not everybody will want to do it. That is where agency comes into play. It’s not that God will punish us for not choosing what he wants us to choose, but rather that we restrict ourselves by not striving for perfection, and thus can never reach it. Ms. Emery claims that this is not true agency if we can’t choose to have eternal life no matter what. We can choose to be whatever we want to be. We are going to live forever anyways. If we want to remain like we are now with our limited understanding of the universe and the purpose of it all, God gives us that right. It’s even one of Newton’s laws. An object at rest tends to stay at rest.

So, this blog post has gone over a lot of topics. It feels like I just wrote a theological essay that, as my personal stream of consciousness, may just fly over the heads of everyone. The idea I was trying to get across is that the church is much more than just an organization of people. I believe that this church is one of the ways that God has decided to teach us that which he wants us to learn in this life. There is truth everywhere, and we can gain an understanding of God from the world around us, from flowers to trees to the endless grains on sand on the beach. I also believe that it is the only church that has the authority from God to perform ordinances that are required in this life to prepare us for the possibility of eternal life. These ordinances do not guarantee us anything, and the fact that us members of the church have already accepted the teachings and participated in the ordinances does not make us any better than somebody who accepts these same things much later in life or even after this life. God is no respecter of persons. He loves Ms. Emery just as much as he loves me, the prophet, or anybody who has ever lived a day on this earth. His desire is that all of us gain eternal life, and He has given us all the resources to achieve what is necessary in this life through His prophets from Adam down to President Monson today. The church itself is just the entity that administers what He wants for us. By worldly definitions it may be considered a cult, but truth is not devalued by worldly classification in the minds of those who believe it.

My simple hope is that Ms. Emery will somehow be able to see the church in a positive light again, seeing it as an entity to help people and expand their understanding rather than restrict it. If anybody has any arguments against what I have written, please let me know. I would love to discuss what I have written. Isn’t that the idea of having a blog?