The "fall" of the Roman Empire not only marked the end of a powerful geo-political entity of stability for most of Europe, but it also ushered in the demise of an economy that had dominated the continent for centuries. With the dawn of the "Dark Ages," Europeans of all stripes were forced to start from scratch and to establish new rules to govern the newly emerging political, social and economic practices that were emerging in the post-Roman world.
Among the many issues dealt with at this time was the practice of usury (interest practices on monetary loans). During the height of the Roman Empire, usury had been, by and large, an approved practice, though it was almost exclusively a privatized enterprise. Wealthy citizens could, if they so chose, grant loans with fixed interest rates (though the empire did, at times, place certain restrictions on those rates), thereby allowing a quasi-privatized banking system to arise. With the rise of the Catholic church in the early 4th century, however, the practice of usury was met with stern disapproval by early Christian leaders. For these early Christians, the teachings of Jesus, and of the Bible itself, made the practice of usury not only undesirable but downright sinful. From the Book of Deuteronomy:
19.) Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:
20.) Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thous settest thine hand to in the land...
This clear commandment against the practice of usury (with the exception given in bold for a "stranger," a loophole that Medieval Jews found quite useful) served as more than sufficient ammunition to criminalize the practice for the majority of the Middle Ages. The elimination of Usury was unanimously accepted during the 325 Council of Nicea. In the eighth century under Charlemagne, usury was, under the law, considered to be a general criminal offence. In 1179, at the Third Council of the Latean, anyone found benefiting from the practice of usury was prohibited from taking the sacraments and could eventually be excommunicated entirely. Later, Pope Sixtus V would call the practice of usury, "most detestable to God and man, damned by the sacred canons and contrary to Christian charity."
So, if the practice of usury was so deplorable to Medieval Christians, how did it eventually become standard operating procedure? And how are Christians today (along with capitalism in general) able to so gleefully support its continued existence?
The answer rests primarily with the rise of trade and (eventually) Mercantilism in Europe. As European society continued to progress through the Middle Ages, the growth of trade and finance forced change upon a society that was, for centuries, operating on a set of rules that issued divine punishment for certain practices (such as usury). But these divine punishments eventually had to give way to the sweeping tides of change.
Increasingly thereafter, and despite numerous subsequent prohibitions by Popes and civil legislators, loopholes in the law and contradictions in the Church's arguments were found and along with the growing tide of commercialization, the pro-usury counter-movement began to grow. Nobles and other elites of European society quickly discovered that the practice of usury was virtually a gold mine waiting to be tapped. As trade and commercialization began to spread its roots further out into the Middle East and the Orient, European powers saw greater opportunities to increase their wealth. Even holy religious orders like the famous Knights Templar got into the act by taking advantage of their complex network of members that were branched out all across the European countryside.
But not everyone was in favor of this new justification on an old sin. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin, along with their followers, expressed severe disappointment with what was taking place, going so far as to claim that those who practice usury were carrying the "mark of the beast" mentioned of in the Book of Revelations. In many ways, this conflict between the pro and anti-usury crowds helped to spark much of the Antisemitism that began to permeate Europe at the latter portion of the Middle Ages.
In the end, the economic and social revolutions taking place throughout Europe, coupled with the eventual discovery of the "New World" made the conversion to an acceptance of usury a virtual guarantee. The new demands for goods from all across the globe created an environment that was simply too rich for the practice of usury not to flourish. This, of course, eventually contributed to the rise of market capitalism, which is essentially married to the practice of usury. As a result, the long-held prohibition on usury had gone the way of the Dodo Bird.
Glenn Beck has written yet another book, but this time he isn't passing himself off as an expert on climate change or trying to conduct yet another "progressive" witch hunt. Instead, Beck is trying to be George Washington. Much like his ridiculous 2009 attempt at trying to become the next Thomas Paine (a hysterical notion due to the fact that Paine had almost nothing in common with Beck), Beck has now moved on to bigger and better things (like moving from the #1 cable news network to nothing more than a glorified Youtube program). Being George Washington: The Indispensable Man, as You've Never Seen Him, the title of Beck's newest and greatest laugh-u-mentary, is essentially the attempt of a desperate man to stay relevant by hijacking the legacy of the father of our nation.
Unfortunately for Beck, most have caught on to his smoke and mirrors circus act and now accept the fact that he is not a historian. With that said, I don't want to completely toss the baby Beck out with the bath water. Even if his newest book is little more than an attempt to make George Washington look like a modern day conservative who hates progressives, loves talk radio, attends Tea Party rallies, wants Obama dead, buys gold from Goldline and is a Glenn Beck "insider", the work does do one thing very well: it illustrates how the legacy of Washington has become bigger than the man himself. George Washington, the man, was like any other: flawed, prone to rash decisions, arrogant and worldly. But George Washington, the legend, has reached a Herculean level of prestige. No American has, or likely will, reach the level of fame that Washington has achieved, and make no mistake, George Washington is certainly deserving of the accolades. In this respect, Glenn Beck's work excels. He treats Washington as a religious object worthy of our adoration and devotion. But again, as a work of history, the book is exactly like his earlier attempts at uncovering the past: piss-poor.
Beck's book opens by suggesting to the reader that each and every one of us, as Americans, are modern day George Washington's. Beck writes:
The news of my self-elevation to national fatherhood will likely spread from blog to blog, then to news sources and pundits, all of whom will be more than happy to spread the news that Glenn Beck's messianic complex can no longer be contained. None of them, of course, will take the time to realize the irony of the situation: they are literally judging a book by its cover.
So what's the truth?
Simple, I do believe I am George Washington.
But I also believe that you are too.
I don't believe this because I have an extraordinarily high opinion of myself. I believe it because I have a real understanding of who George Washington was.
And though I have no problem with Beck's suggestion that we all are capable of doing great and noble things, the political undertones are reminiscent of those employed by earlier politicians who also hijacked the Founding Fathers to legitimize their political goals. By declaring "I am George Washington," Beck is essentially trying to say that all of our Founding Fathers were cut from the same cloth as him. This is beyond ridiculous to anyone with even an elementary understanding of early American history.
But what is even worse about Beck's "book" is the fact that it twists facts to fit his strange and twisted agenda. Beck argues that Washington was a "devout Christian" but then provides zero evidence to support this claim (probably because all of the evidence supports the contrary). Beck also tries to argue that Washington saw "progressivism" as the greatest threat to American prosperity. A funny notion since "progressivism" doesn't come along for quite some time. Of course, Beck offers not a single shred of anything resembling evidence to support strange assertions that have nothing to do with anything.
In short, Beck's book is a textbook example of how somebody who knows little about history can completely derail any attempt at true and objective research into the past. Beck wants the Founding Fathers to be like him so much that he sacrifices any true historical pursuits upon an altar of psycho partisan politics. In so doing, Beck has once again rendered his work to be of little to no value. I would offer up a more detailed review of Beck's "book" but it simply became too painful to wade through all of his B.S. Yeah, it really was that bad.
Perhaps it would be best for him (and his most devout followers) to go off into their compound of "freedom" and leave the rest of us alone for good.
When it comes to pomp and circumstance in the United States, there are few ceremonies that can surpass the one we call the Presidential Inauguration. The peaceful transfer of power from one executive head to the other is a matter of national pride for most Americans and serves to highlight what is best about American democracy.
In light of President Obama's swearing in last week, I thought it might be fun to review the Inaugural ceremonies (particularly the Inaugural Addresses) of presidents past, and see what sort of similarities and differences might exist. After all, a president's Inauguration has, traditionally, served as a "coming attractions" of sorts for what a president hopes to achieve. Studying these ceremonies can help us to understand what each of the 44 American Presidencies held to be most dear.
Right out of the gate, the first thing I noticed when reviewing Presidential Inaugurations is the emphasis that each President placed on God, albeit in different ways. From Washington to Obama, no Inaugural Address omits invoking some sort of special reference to deity. But as I stated, the manner in which the particular invocation is made is quite different, and reveals a great deal about the President's (and society's) view of God and his relationship to the American republic.
From George Washington's first Inaugural Address we see his typical flavor of Providential neutrality, in which his "god talk" could apply to virtually any creed in any era. He stated:
It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency (my emphasis).
Washington's first successors followed suit in invoking a generic providential figure instead of a specific deity as the divine overseer of the infant American republic. John Adams petitioned the "Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty" to bless America, while James Madison asked for the blessings of "that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations." Even the Great Thomas Jefferson, who has been erroneously claimed as one of their own by the modern atheists, made reference in his now infamous Inaugural Address ("We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists") when he petitioned the "Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe" to "lead our councils to what is best." And, somewhat surprisingly, even Andrew Jackson, the "President of the People" only went so far as to invoke the blessings of "Providence" and the "Almighty Being" to assist him in his Presidential endeavors. It is safe to say that America's first eight presidents (with a possible exception for John Q. Adams who briefly paraphrased Psalms 127 when he stated "except the Lord keep the city the watchman waketh but in vain"), intentionally invoked a warm, generic providence as being the source of America's blessings as opposed to any specifically defined god from any particular creed. It wasn't until 1841 and the Inauguration of William Henry Harrison that a president paid homage to a specific god:
I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn to justify me in expressing to my fellow-citizens a profound reverence for the Christian religion and a thorough conviction that sound morals, religious liberty, and a just sense of religious responsibility are essentially connected with all true and lasting happiness (My emphasis).
But even after this precedent, many subsequent presidents returned to the standard of thanking, "that Divine Being who has watched over and protected our beloved country from its infancy" (James K. Polk) and "Divine" or "Kind Providence" (Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce).
A specific reference to Christianity isn't made again until 1861 when the Legendary Abraham Lincoln, while facing what would become America's greatest crisis, proudly declared that "Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty." Lincoln would again reference the Christian God in his Second Inaugural Address, but would do so with less confidence that this God was on their side:
Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered—that of neither has been answered fully.
Lincoln went on to quote several Bible passages including, "Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh!" (Matthew 18:7) and "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether" (Psalms 19:9). In so doing, Abraham Lincoln became the first president to make dramatic, substantial and blatant references to the Christian God in his Inaugural Address. Those presidents who followed Lincoln would invoke both the general divine providence of Washington, Jefferson, etc. (to include Presidents Grant, Hayes, B. Harrison, Cleveland, T. Roosevelt, Wilson, Taft, Hoover, FDR, L. Johnson and Clinton), while others paid homage to the Christian God of W.H. Harrison and Abraham Lincoln (including Garfield, Harding, Coolidge, Truman, JFK, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, G.H. Bush, G.W. Bush and Obama), depending on their own individual feelings and beliefs. Eisenhower went far enough to lead the nation in prayer as his first act of his presidency:
Regardless of which deity served to be the ultimate source of blessings and providential protection, the fact remains that ALL American presidents have, as a component of their Inaugural "coming attractions" petitioned the heavens as a source for further prosperity and as an object of communal gratitude. The name of this god has taken on many different shapes and colors (everything from Divine Creator, Almighty Providence, to Jesus Christ himself) but the point is that a god of some kind is beseeched to go before us all, as the avant garde of American society. This reminds me a great deal of Benjamin Franklin's admonition for a "public religion" as being the glue that would bind the American republic. In this regard, the American experiment has worked wonders and continues to amaze even to this day.
For students of Medieval Europe, the geopolitical entity known by historians as the Holy Roman Empire is a unique and fascinating topic to research. Speaking for myself on a personal level, studying the history of the Holy Roman Empire is a revealing and enlightening experience, because it shows just how much emphasis our Medieval forefathers placed on resurrecting the idea of Roma. Despite all of the social degradation cultural erosion and spiritual revolution that came as a result of the "fall" of Rome, Europeans, at least the elites of society, still embraced the belief in the glory of Rome, and tried to resurrect it with all of their might.
By nature, to study the history of the Holy Roman Empire is to take a nostalgic trip that inevitably leads you to the history of the Roman Empire itself. After all, the "Holy Romans" of the Holy Roman Empire considered themselves to be heirs to the glory of Rome itself. For them, Rome hadn't so much "fallen" as it had "transformed." It was their duty and blessing to carry on the sacred and glorious legacy of Rome. Rome may have undergone a "metamorphosis" but all of the ideology, power, glory and prestige that had been endowed upon the Caesars of old was theirs to cherish once again.
But in the end, this was all wishful thinking on their part; a pipe dream to help salve the Medieval world from this one painful and unavoidable truth: Rome, at least in the Western world, was gone. The "Dark Ages" had all but extinguished any flicker of hope in rekindling the true glory and power that was Rome, but this didn't stop our Medieval fathers from trying.
In reality, the Holy Roman Empire had very little in common with its namesake. It's title was little more than a relic to an extinct but still revered era. Yet despite its inability to resurrect the glory of one of mankind's greatest civilizations, The Holy Roman Empire did leave an indelible impression upon Europe; one that is unique and different from that of Rome itself, but still critical to the development of Europe.
Traditionally, the Holy Roman Empire's roots are dated back to either Charlemagne or Otto the Great (Otto I). Most Medieval historians are divided on whose reign it was that served as the true "starting point" for the HRE, but for me, it's Charlemagne all the way. First off, Charlemagne saw himself (much like his father) as the great "protector" of Christianity and the papacy. His campaigns against Muslims and "Christianization" (forced) of those he conquered, along with his coronation as Emperor by Pope Leo III on Christmas of 800, all illustrate Charlemagne's intent. He wasn't just a "conqueror" like Clovis or Charles Martel, who just happened to be "Christianized" along the way. Charlemagne was a believer all the way.
But Charlemagne's new found prestige wasn't enough. He needed to add more than just glorious victories in battle and spiritual religious endorsement to his legacy. And, naturally, the idea of being crowned Emperor or Caesar (Charlemagne was called both) had tremendous appeal. Essentially, this act would put him in the class of Augustus, Constantine and Marcus Aurelius. Charlemagne could become a legend.
But the Holy Roman Empire had little more than self-proclaimed titles to offer its chief leaders. Unlike the actual Roman Empire, with its vast territories, extensive infrastructure and complex social hierarchy, the Holy Roman Empire was brutish, limited and constantly infested with conflicts between the religious and secular worlds. For example, the Investiture Controversy, which primarily pitted the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV against Pope Gregory VII, revealed just how heated the divide between the religious and the secular world had become. Unlike Ancient Rome, which (at least until its later years) managed to maintain a monopoly of control, thus keeping religious zealots (for the most part) at check, the Holy Roman Empire was a constant fight between Emperors and Popes, men of glory v. men of God.
In addition to it's regular tussles with matters of religion, the Holy Roman Empire also lacked a cohesion between the reigns of its kings. Unlike Ancient Rome, which, though regularly beset by wars, coups and civil unrest from time to time, but was still able to maintain an intimidating and legitimate foothold on its empire, the Holy Roman Empire faced constant upheaval, never-ending turmoil and repeated revision of its borders. The Holy Roman Empire, depending on its leader, experienced every extreme on the political and social spectrum, at times emerging as the dominant power in Europe while at others appearing more like a laughable lame duck society.
Regardless of how it differed from its ancient counterpart, the compelling factor we must all remember is that the Holy Roman Empire, despite all of its imperfections and struggles, was, at heart, an attempt to rekindle the glory of the ancient world. We must never forget that for many of our Medieval ancestors the glory of Rome was still very much a Utopian dream that they sincerely believed could be resurrected. And though much of this rebirth came in the form of Catholic Christianity as opposed to civic collaboration, the Holy Roman Empire should be seen as its contemporaries saw it: a rekindling of the ideas of Ancient Rome with a major dose of Christianity as a twist.
How much better is it to get wisdom than gold! and to get understanding rather to be chosen than silver! The highway of the upright is to depart from evil: he that keepeth his way preserveth his soul. Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before the fall. Better it is to be of a humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud." -Proverbs 16: 16-19
Last week, over 28 million people watched Oprah Winfrey's interview with cycling great Lance Armstrong, who, after over a decade of passionate and pathological denial finally admitted to using performance enhancing drugs throughout the course of his career. And while there is nothing remarkable about an athlete admitting to using PED's in today's society (it has become almost commonplace these days), Lance Armstrong's story is a unique case. Not only did he insist upon his innocence with greater zeal and determination than any other athlete, but he also regularly resorted to great and often hostile means to protect his legacy.
Let me say right from the beginning: I am not a cycling expert. I know little to nothing about the sport and would probably have to strain my brain to come up with even half of a dozen professional riders. Like most Americans, I know of Lance Armstrong almost exclusively due to the reputation he has gained as a seven-time Tour de France winner and as the founder of his cancer charity, Livestrong. And like most people who watched the interview, I too was struck by Armstrong's admission. But it wasn't his admission to using PED's that stood out for me. Instead, it was the detailed and calculated measures that Armstrong resorted to, over the course of a decade, that not only destroyed the lives and reputations of those who dared to challenge him, but also created an atmosphere of absolute defiance to anyone who stood in his way. Essentially, Armstrong considered himself bulletproof. No attack, no matter how personal, no drug test, no matter how thorough, could penetrate the Teflon exterior of cycling's golden boy.
But all of this came to a violent and ugly end last week as Armstrong, under the weight of mounting evidence and departing sponsors, was forced to admit that he had been living a lie. And in the process, America's white knight hero was brought back down to earth.
But the story of Lance Armstrong isn't as cut and dry as we may think. After all, Lance isn't the normal star athlete by any stretch of the imagination. Unlike Alex Rodriguez, Mark McGwire, Marion Jones, or the countless number of professional athletes who have admitted to using PED's, Armstrong's legacy transcends the world of sports. As a cancer survivor and founder of Livestrong, Armstrong has become a walking, talking rally cry for cancer victims all over the world. His inspirational story is undeniable, his impact to those who face this horrible disease immeasurable. His Livestrong charity has raised over half a billion dollars for cancer research while his personal triumph over cancer has inspired countless millions in a way that only a cancer victim can fully understand.
Let me be clear here, it would be arrogant presumption of the highest order for me to assume that I know what a diagnosis of cancer feels like. I have no clue and I hope I never do. The unimaginable shock and horror of such a diagnosis is something that only a cancer patient truly understands. As a result, none of us (or at least very few of us) have any right to pass judgement on Lance or any other cancer patient for how they choose to face this disease. It is for this reason that Lance Armstrong has become a paradox of epic proportions. One the one hand, you have a lying, cheating athlete who used banned substances to achieve excellence and then went to wild extremes to cover it up, often severely hurting those around him. On the other hand, you have a philanthropist of the highest order. A man who has given heart, mind and soul to defeating one of the most horrific diseases in human history. In a very real sense, Lance Armstrong is a 21st century version of Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. He is fire and ice personified.
But such is often the case with great and inspiring figures. After all, it is easy to love the demigod who rarely if ever makes a mistake. Sure, we would all love to believe that our heroes are the embodiment of perfection but such is rarely if ever the case. Some of the most iconic individuals are also often the most complex and troubled as well. For example, I have always been perplexed by how Thomas Jefferson (my favorite Founding Father) could write, "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal" while at the same time keeping over 300 human souls in bondage (not to mention having sexual relations and children with one of them). Or how about the case of the great King David, who, as the hero of all Israel, chose to fall to temptation by sleeping with Bathsheba and then cover it up by sending her husband to die on the front lines of battle. And while I'm not trying to equate Lance Armstrong with Thomas Jefferson or King David I do think the illustration is sound. Sometimes great figures have great challenges and the higher they rise the harder they fall.
We live in a cynical society. For whatever reason, Americans love to watch the rise and eventual fall of those in the public eye, and Lance Armstrong's story provides us with ample opportunity to rubber-neck this car crash to our heart's content. With that being said, I believe that Lance deserves our eventual forgiveness. Yes, the man lied and created an ugly situation for himself, leaving a trail of wreckage in his path, but such is life. As the great poet Alexander Pope aptly stated, "To err is human to forgive, divine." There is no doubt that Lance Armstrong has some ugly and difficult days ahead of him, but as he himself stated, "This is not my darkest hour."
And even though I never watched one of his races, nor did I care much for his sport, I am proud to declare today that I am now a Lance Armstrong fan! Yes, I know he lied, cheated and hurt anyone who stood in his way, but I believe that the final chapter to the Lance Armstrong story is yet to be written. I'm a fan of Lance because he is a walking, talking paradox, and as such is yet another example of the complexity of human existence. We are all capable of the most beautiful dreams and the most terrible nightmares. Every one of us walks the tight rope between virtue and vice. But the point is that we never cave to our mistakes. As Armstrong himself stated:
Pain is temporary. It may last an hour, a day or a year, but eventually subside and something else will take its place. If I quit, however, it lasts forever.
Amen, Lance. A professional theologian couldn't have said it better! And no doubt Lance will face his pain and his demons, as we all will. Sure, it is likely that Lance Armstrong will never again recover his reputation but at this point it really isn't about reputation. As Oprah Winfrey said at the conclusion of her interview with Armstrong, "I hope that the moral to your story will be: 'the truth will set you free.'" Hopefully such will be the case with us all.
Another year has finally come to an end and with it another opportunity to reflect on the people and events that helped to make 2012 an unforgettable moment in history. Yes, I realize that I am 24 days PAST the new year, but I still wanted to get this post in before moving forward with anything else. For the millions...er...half dozen of fans of Corazon's Corner, I am pleased to present the second annual installment of my Person of the Year award (you can see last year's winners by clicking here). So, without further delay, here are my selections for 2012's Person of the Year:
-----------------------------------------
10.) Michael Phelps Last summer, at the Olympic Games in London, Phelps became the most decorated Olympian of all-time, winning 22 medals overall for his career, 18 of which were gold. Phelps' dominance in the pool over the last 15 years (and 3 Olympic games) has made him swimming's ultimate hero, not to mention has earned him millions of dollars (impressive considering the fact that swimmers really aren't that celebrated). 2012 also marks the end of Phelps' dominance, as he announced his intention to retire at the conclusion of the London Games. Thanks, M.P. for all the memories! You were a joy to watch!
9.) The Super Hero So maybe this selection is a little over the top and is certainly influenced by the fact that my two young boys are DIE HARD super hero fans right now. With that said, I couldn't help but notice just how prevalent super heroes were in our culture last year. For example, the top two grossing films for 2012 were The Avengers ($623 million) and The Dark Knight Rises ($448 million), while The Amazing Spiderman came in 6th ($262 million). For whatever reason, the super hero has been a big deal in American (and world) culture in 2012, but I think it isn't simply due to their entertainment value. Super heroes make us hopeful. They make us believe that a better world, with better people (capable of amazing feats) is possible. The past few years have brought with them a measure of economic and social decline, but the super hero, albeit fictional, makes us feel like the darkness can and will eventually give way to the dawn. And if not....Hulk SMASH!!!!!
8.) Bashar al-Assad
Just another asshole dictator trying to maintain his pathetic regime at the cost of the people he claims to "love." Bashar is the second of four sons (and one daughter) of the al-Assad family, which rose to power in Syria in the 1960s. The family line is one of tyranny and evil, and Bashar seems more than happy to continue the family business. The struggle of the Syrian citizenry gripped the headlines throughout 2012, and al-Assad is a chief reason for it. His unwillingness to compromise or release even a small measure of control has caused misery and despair for far too many. One can only hope that Bashar's people will have the opportunity to show him the same love that the Lybians showed Muammar Gaddafi.
7.) Queen Elizabeth II
Back in June of last year, Queen Elizabeth II, along with millions of citizens of Great Britain and the Commonwealth across the globe, celebrated the Diamond Jubilee (60th anniversary) of Britain's second longest standing monarch. Queen Elizabeth II's reign has been one of constant change. She came to the throne at the conclusion of the Second World War, and witnessed first-hand the social, political and economic evolution of Great Britain from that of a dominant world power to a lesser but still very relevant nation. In addition, the British Royal Family has experienced a number of ups and downs that have caused popular support for their reign to ebb and flow over the years. Everything from Princess Diana, Lady Camilla, and a wild Prince Harry have captivated the tabloids, and brought the Royal Family unwanted attention. Yet through it all, Queen Elizabeth has managed to keep the British Monarchy relevant. Her approval is still quite high and doesn't appear to change any time soon. She truly has become the embodiment of everything special about Great Britain.
6.) Barack Obama
Any time you are the President of the United States you are probably a lock to be a top 10 Person of the Year every year. But when you win reelection it becomes a virtual requirement. Of course, we all know that President Obama won a second term in the Oval Office, despite facing a number of obstacles that, at least to some, threatened his chances in a big way. From a historical perspective, it is rare that a standing president with high unemployment levels and rising debt is able to win a second term, but Obama did just that, and did so in fairly convincing fashion. Some will argue that he won because of Romney's ineptitude, others will say he won because he was a success in his first term. Personally, I think he won because of a shifting electorate. Best of luck with your second term, Mr. President. We all wish you the best.
5.) The Changing American Voter
As stated in the comment above, I firmly believe that Barack Obama won reelection thanks in large part to a shifting electorate. The American voter is, no longer, what he once was. The clear shift in demographics, predominantly marked by a massive increase in Latino voters, has forever changed the American political landscape. No longer can a national candidate hope to guarantee his/her seat in office by focusing on the traditional "meat and potato" voting block. An increased number of Latino, African American and female voters, along with a younger demographic, has changed the game in a big way. President Obama's team understood this, Romney's did not. Pure and simple.
4.) Neil Armstrong
Okay, I must admit, I am a bit of a space nerd but that isn't the reason I made this pick. When it comes to exploration, there is no greater name than that of Neil Armstrong. People of this generation seem to forget (or never understood in the first place) just how important of an achievement the Apollo space program really was, and Neil Armstrong is its crowning gem. As the first man to walk on the Moon, Armstrong forever etched his legacy in stone with the likes of Columbus, Magellan and Lindbergh (he actually surpasses those guys). After his astronaut career, Armstrong essentially retired from public life. He was rarely if ever outspoken except for on a few key issues, the main one of course being the importance of further space exploration (a cause that I agree with 100%). With the passing of Armstrong, along with the retirement of the Space Shuttle, one has to wonder if America will ever explore the heavens again like we once did so many years ago. One can only hope that the legacy of this, the greatest explorer in human history, will challenge us to do better...MUCH better!
3.) Curiosity: The Mars Rover
On August 6th of last year, at approximately 5:17 a.m. (EST), a 7ft tall, 9ft long, 2,000lb robotic car named Curiosity made contact with the surface of Mars. This, of course, was not the first time that a human-built robotic object has graced the Martian surface. Far from it. Curiosity, however, is still a special achievement. Her size, strength, speed, mobility, on board navigation and communications alone make her the most advanced rover to ever venture into space. But that isn't all that Curiosity has packed under her skirt. Along with all of her technological advances, Curiosity is also equipped with the most advanced biological, geological, geochemical and radiological sensors/equipment known to man. Her mission, which is primarily to assess if life has/is/is capable of existing on Mars, has already yielded mountains of invaluable data, and will surely supply even greater amounts of data in the coming months. Thanks to Curiosity and other rovers like her, Mars is becoming less like the distant alien world our ancestors worshiped, and more like a friendly neighbor who lives next door.
2.) The Nut-Job
2012 saw no shortage of paranoid, idiotic, crazy, whacked out, Looney Tune, kookoo for Cocoa Puffs, doomsday nut-jobs! In fact, 2012 was full of them. Whether it was the Newtown Connecticut shooting, the Aurora movie theater shooting, the Seattle cafe shooting, the Sikh Temple shooting in Wisconsin (4 of at least 16 mass shootings last year), 2012 saw its fair share of psychotic evil. But that wasn't all. As if our crazy train wasn't full enough, 2012 also saw plenty of paranoid political propagandists as well. With the election of 2012, both extremes of the political spectrum had more than enough crazy to last a lifetime. But the biggest nut-jobs of the year have to be the dimwits who bought into the whole Mayan apocalypse. From doom bunkers to cataclysmic global power outages, these wackos spent ridiculous sums of money and time preparing for an end that never came. And, of course, let's not forget the other "end of days" loons. People like Warren Jeffs, who has convinced his polygamous flock that the world was going to end before New Year's Day, and the Westboro Baptist Church, which has protested everything under the sun in the name of some psychotic apocalyptic god. Yes, I think it is safe to say that the inmates took over at least a portion of the asylum in 2012. Here's hoping we can get rid of them in 2013. In the words of Jack Nicholson from the movie, As Good As It Gets, "Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here."
And the winner of the 2012 Corazon's Corner Person of the Year Award is.....{cue drum roll}........
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
1.) Malala Yousafzai
Though she may seem like any other average teenage girl, the life and story of Malala Yousafazai is far from mundane. Long story short, she has become the embodiment of everything hopeful and praiseworthy about the "Arab Spring." Her short life has served to illustrate the power and value of every human life, regardless of age, race, gender or religion.
Malala's story begins with her quest to challenge the social, political and religious norms of her home in Pakistan by insisting on her right to pursue an education (something forbidden to young girls). Her insistent petitions eventually let to her expulsion from school, along with severe condemnation for her family. Eventually, however, Malala's vocal pleas provided her with an opportunity to become a blogger for the BBC. Malala used the opportunity to share with the world not only her plight but her dreams, goals and aspirations. In so doing, this added a human element to conditions in Pakistan (and many other parts of the world), which garnered greater support for change. Eventually, the attention forced Pakistani officials to reluctantly re-open schools for young girls. Malala's efforts in this manner, coupled with her devotion to other women and human rights causes, eventually led to her being awarded the National Youth Peace Prize and International Children's Peace Prize. Malala has also been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize as well.
Sadly, Malala was shot and almost killed in October of last year by Taliban radicals. After spending weeks in a coma and months in recovery, Malala was eventually healthy enough to be transported to Great Britain where she had a full recovery. Malala's iron will and grit not only let to her physical triumph over her foes, but continues to aid her in the continued cause of peace and human rights.
There is no doubt that the "Arab Spring" still has a long way to go, but thanks in large part to the efforts of Malala Yousafzai and others like her, there is great hope for a renaissance of sorts taking place in the Middle East and other areas. Malala's impact will, no doubt, be felt for generations to come. As a Joan of Arc of sorts to the Muslim world, Malala's life serves as proof that nobody is too young or feeble to make a change. This makes her the PERFECT selection for the Corazon's Corner Person of 2012.
In the ninth chapter of the Gospel of Mark we learn of a father whose son was afflicted with a "dumb spirit" that caused the child to violently convulse, foam at the mouth and seek death via fire or drowning (some sort of mental illness?). The father, who had already desperately asked Christ's apostles for help, but were unsuccessful in their attempts to assist the young lad, turned to Jesus in his darkest moment of need. After explaining the situation to the Lord, and pleading for his help, Jesus replied to the father that "If thou canst believe, all things are possible." The father, perhaps hoping to hide his frustration and apparent lack of faith, quickly replied "Lord, I believe." But after pausing, or perhaps perceiving that Jesus could sense his lack of faith, the father finally came clean and implored the Lord to "help thou my unbelief." Instead of condemning the young father for his deficiency of faith, or haranguing him on the importance of steadfast devotion, Christ took the father's son into his arms and rebuked the spirit from him, making the child (and almost as certain his father) whole for the very first time.
This "routine" act of kindness on the part of Jesus is common throughout the New Testament. Whether it be those afflicted with leprosy, blindness or "evil" spirits, thousands of faithful believers sought the Christ if for nothing more than to touch the hem of his garment, sincerely believing that such an act would cure them of their frailties. And more times than not, the faith of the afflicted made them whole. When I read these stories I grow to admire the unshakable faith of those who never wavered in their quest for Christ. They are to be applauded for their remarkable allegiance to the King of Kings in the face of tremendous personal difficulty.
And while I recognize the worth of these miraculous accounts, I personally find the story of the frantic, faithless father in Mark 9 to be of particular value. Not because I too have a son suffering from an incurable infirmity, nor have I made personal appeals for aid to God's chosen apostles. I love the frantic father because I too, while cowering in the coldest corners of my own soul, have implored of the Lord not for personal healing or spiritual blessings, but rather, in the naked honesty of my own shortcomings, I have issued this simple petition:
"Help thou my unbelief."
For those who know me, this admission may come as a bit of a surprise. Throughout the majority of my life, I suppose that I appeared very much like the typical "True Blue" Mormon. I attended church, graduated from Seminary, served an honorable two-year mission, married in the temple, served in the church, yadda, yadda, yadda. By all accounts I was very much on the path of "persevering to the end." But as is often the case with life, perception distorts reality and the truth really is stranger than fiction. Reality is that I have, for roughly a decade now, struggled mightily with my faith. It has been one of the most difficult things I have ever had to deal with. To make matters worse, it seems as though the Internet and other media outlets these days are filled with stories of people who have left the church, while the tales of those who have chosen to stay can be hard to find. Perhaps this is due to the fact that many members who have struggled with faith are reluctant to admit so, since some within the church choose to look down upon those who admit to having a crisis of faith. Whatever the reason, I too have been reluctant to "own up" to my own personal crisis of faith, but have chosen to "come out" here and now, in the hopes that my story might be a source of peace or hope to friends, family, eventual descendants and even strangers who tread the sometimes turbulent waters of doubt. To borrow from Enos of the Book of Mormon, "I will tell you of the wrestle which I had before God."
With this being said, I must admit that my personal "wrestle" with the Lord has not ended with a profound heavenly manifestation, a voice from on high or any other from of absolute personal conviction. Instead, I have had to learn how to find solace in the ambiguous nature of faith itself and in the desolate gift (and yes, it is a gift) of honest doubt and uncertainty. What follows is my personal story of struggle and striving with the divine. Please note that you will not find a happy conclusion to my tale because this struggle is still ongoing with no apparent end on the horizon. But instead of looking for that conclusion, I have found that it isn't a glorious end in sight that we should seek for, but rather simply finding joy in the journey. I believe that this is what my story is ultimately about. I have elected to not discuss the particular historical/theological issues that caused my crisis of faith, simply because I don't want to create doubt in others or to come across as "bashing" the Mormon church. In reality, I believe that the specifics are irrelevant, since a crisis of faith can be the result of any number of factors. The compelling matter at hand is how one chooses to deal with the crisis when it comes. Here is how my particular crisis played out:
My Faith Crisis
My crisis of faith began almost immediately after returning home from my mission to northern Chile. Like many return missionaries I decided to begin college (where I chose to study history) and attended my local single's ward and Institute program. As fate would have it, one of the courses I was taking on early American history discussed Mormonism in a way that I had never before heard. I remember listening to my instructor talk about some of the particulars regarding the origins of Mormonism and wanting to call my professor out for his "ignorance." I would leave class feeling angry, confused and determined to prove my teacher wrong. But as I studied the details further, I quickly began to realize that my professor wasn't making stuff up. Of course he may have left out a lot of the "meat and potatoes" of Mormonism from his lecture (this was an introductory class on American history so he couldn't dwell on it too long) but the gist of his argument was sound. As you can imagine, this revelation hit me hard. I immediately wanted to find credible answers that didn't come from "cookie-cutter" Mormon sources, so that I could refute what my professor was saying. But the more I studied, the deeper the proverbial rabbit hole went. I quickly found myself surrounded by mounting evidence that seemed to oppose the very church I had defended during my two-year mission.
Perhaps it was mere coincidence, but the class I had immediately following this particular American history course was Institute. Needless to say, it was an interesting experience to juxtapose what I was hearing from school with what I was being taught in Institute. The two were not agreeing and something had to give. In an effort to come to a resolution on the matter, I began to "conveniently" show up at the Institute building at a time when I knew the instructor would be alone in his office. I would then start up a conversation on Mormon history and would make certain comments that drove at the heart of my growing concerns. The institute director, who I believe really was an inspired man, could tell that I was beginning to question things, but to my surprise he didn't offer me the typical Mormon solutions to these problems. Instead of telling me to pray or fast about things, he provided me with copies of No Man Knows My History, Mormon Enigma, and other books that are well known for their emphasis on the less-than-pleasant aspects of Mormon history. To make a very long story short, these experiences started me down a path which led to my discovering virtually all of the ugly facts of Mormon history.
Side Note: ***I think it is worth noting here that my crisis of faith had NOTHING to do with some sort of personal sin or having been offended by a member of the church. Too often we Mormons assume that anyone who leaves or questions the church does so for these and other trivial issues. And though I am certain that many do leave for those reasons, I also know that many do not. Every day scores of good, honest and virtuous people leave the church for the very issues I am talking about here. These are real, factual and undeniable truths that are often extremely painful when discovered by the sincere believer.***
Over the next decade or so I kept my doubts private and chose to continue down the path of a "righteous" Mormon believer. I held callings, attended the temple and did the other "dutiful" things that were required of me. But the doubts lingered, like an itch on your back that you just can't quite reach. Regardless of the doubt, I was able to effectively keep these issues on the back shelf of my mind, perhaps hoping that they would go away or that a magical answer would reveal itself as I continued down the straight and narrow path.
But the answers didn't come and the itch kept getting worse. Fast forward to 2011. I had recently completed my Master's Degree in history, writing a number of papers on Mormon history and always seeking to defend the church in each of them. But lurking in the private confines of my mind were those same issues that had plagued me for a decade. To make matters worse, I had nobody in which I felt I could confide. My dad, who was himself a big history buff, had died, as had the institute director that I had trusted in the past. I was hesitant to bring this stuff up with others because, as any devout Mormon will tell you, to publicly acknowledge one's questioning of the faith can lead to a number of problems. In addition, I had made the determination that I would NEVER be the cause of somebody else questioning their faith. The dark abyss of doubt and uncertainty can be lonely, ugly and incredibly depressing. I didn't want to introduce anyone to it.
For the first time I began to consider the possibility that I (and every other believing Mormon) had been duped into believing in a fraudulent faith concocted by the cunning of Joseph Smith's mind. This was a horrific thought to consider. After all, I had staked my entire personal tent of eternal salvation on the grounds of Mormonism. If this wasn't true, what was going to become of me? Was my family really eternal? Were my missionary efforts in vain? Were the ugly historical truths about Mormonism being covertly swept away in an effort to "perfect the saints?" "Was there even a God?" If so, I needed to know. I didn't want to waste any more of my time, energy and money supporting a work of fiction, and I needed more than a "warm fuzzy" to answer these legitimate concerns.
But as my mind continued to consider what I believed was a rational and objective approach to the history of Mormonism, my heart (or soul) was on a different journey. Despite all the ugly things I had learned, I could also recall the feelings of peace, love, community, joy, service, charity, sincerity and holiness that had been the result of my membership in the church. These feelings were every bit as real to me as the history I had been learning. They were the feelings that made me love going to church, want to serve a mission and attend the temple. I agreed with President Hinckley when he said that Mormonism makes "bad men good and good men better." But were these positive feelings simply the result of happy endorphins firing off in my brain? Did I love the church simply because I loved the feeling of belonging? Something had to give. The objectivity of my mind was telling me one thing, while the sincerity of my heart said something different. What was I to do? There was only one thing I could do. Like the frantic father before me, I too had but four simple words to utter to God:
"Help Thou My Unbelief."
And though I knew darn well that God wasn't going to rewrite history, nor was he going to give me my own personal Angel Moroni to sort it all out, I do feel as though this crisis of faith has taught me some key truths that I am forever grateful for. They are:
For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God. To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby. To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.
It is a mistake of Mormon culture (and there are MANY mistakes in Mormon culture) to quantify doubt with sin or error. Doubt can be a powerful force for good in the world. It is both right and proper that we humans question EVERYTHING about the world in which we live. I firmly believe that one of the greatest purposes of this life is to learn as much as we possibly can. How is this to be accomplished without sincere doubt? Is not doubt the primary ingredient to the scientific method? How can one possibly exercise faith unless he/she also has doubt? As Joseph Smith himself taught, "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest" (History of the Church, vol. 6, Pp. 428). Honest doubt is every bit as important as honest faith. Don't ever feel bad for questioning things.
But as is the case with all things (the law of opposition), doubt can also destroy faith if taken to an extreme. Much like peanut butter and jelly, we need equal and healthy doses of both faith and doubt to make the perfect sandwich. In his book, The God Who Weeps (a book which everyone should read) Terryl Givens aptly illustrates the importance of both faith and doubt when he writes:
The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true and which we have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing to be true. There must be grounds for doubt as well as belief, in order to render the choice more truly a choice, and therefore the more deliberate, and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. An overwhelming preponderance of evidence on either side would make our choice as meaningless as would a loaded gun pointed at our heads. The option to believe must appear on one’s personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. Fortunately, in this world, one is always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.
The call to faith, in this light, is not some test of a coy god, waiting to see if we "get it right." It is the only summons, issued under the only conditions, which can allow us fully to reveal who we are, what we most love, and what we most devoutly desire. Without constraint, without any form of mental compulsion, the act of belief becomes the freest possible projection of what resides in our hearts. Like the poet’s image of a church bell that only reveals its latent music when struck, or a dragonfly that only flames forth its beauty in flight, so does the content of a human heart lie buried until action calls it forth. The greatest act of self-revelation occurs when we choose what we will believe, in that space of freedom that exists between knowing that a thing is, and knowing that a thing is not.
2.) We Humans Aren't That Smart: Homo Sapiens consider themselves (appropriately so) as the dominant specie on this planet, but the arrogance of this declaration pales when we consider the immensity of the cosmos. Being the top dog on an insignificant little blue rock in the corner of an insignificant galaxy means little to the Master of space and time, especially when only 1% of our genetic makeup separates us from a simple primate. Yet despite this fact, we humans love to pat ourselves on the back for having "discovered" so much. We boast of our technological achievements as if we have become the masters of all knowledge. Reality is that we have as much to boast about as does the simple caterpillar, which does little more than crawl around eating whatever crap it can find to stay alive. We have forgotten the sound words given to us by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:12, which states:
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
The imperfections of humanity prevent us from seeing (literally and figuratively) the reality that surrounds us at every moment of every day. Now, I am not suggesting that we humans are incapable of ever discovering reality, or that our minds cannot be trusted. Humanity has made some pretty remarkable advances. In addition, humanity's small place in the universe doesn't negate Mormonism's problems by default. But it does help us to realize that there is much more than meets the eye. We caterpillars may be capable of nothing more than aimless crawling and scavenging (in the grand cosmic sense), but with the help of metamorphosis, we have the capacity to grow wings and one day soar above the trivial nonsense we once esteemed to be of great importance. But it takes a lot of work.
3.) History, Science, Mathematics, Philosophy, etc. are Wonderful Things, but They are NOT the Crystal Balls to All Truth: As somebody who has passionately studied history for several years now, it is sometimes hard for me to accept the fact that there are many things that we will never be able to explain about the past. In addition, much of history (and other disciplines) is subjective, meaning that depending on one's perspective, intentions, source material, etc., you can easily end up with multiple opinions for the same topic. Besides, we cannot forget the fact that these human disciplines are imperfect and will never be able to explain the deep abiding realities of human existence that many "professionals" esteem as "fantasy." Again, from the words of Paul:
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
History, science, mathematics, etc. are all wonderful things, but they are not perfect things. There is much to our existence that cannot be proven or explained through the philosophies of men.
4.) Truth, Regardless of its Source, is a Precious Commodity: It has always puzzled me when I see scientists, theologians, etc. arguing over who has the "most truth" or who comes closest to the truth. Truth is not a palpable track of land waiting to be staked, but rather is a pervasive, all-encompassing force that penetrates everything. One cannot "claim" truth as being something that is exclusively theirs to distribute. Instead, truth is to be found in the public domain for all to enjoy. For me, this means that I am not confined exclusively to the truths of Mormonism, Catholicism, history or science, because truth is not in the domain of Mormonism, Catholicism, history or science. Truth is truth, independent and free of all dogmas and disciplines. It is our job to grasp hold of this truth, wherever we find it, like an iron rod.
For Mormons, this notion has been somewhat distorted over the years. Joseph Smith NEVER taught a rigid, dogmatic faith but was rather a Universalist at heart. He created a Mormon faith that was a big tent with an open door to all, with any and all forms of truth being granted immediate entry. As my all-time favorite Joseph Smith quote teaches us:
"We believe ALL things, we hope ALL things, we have endured many things and hope to be able to endure ALL things. If there is ANYTHING virtuous, lovely or of good report or praiseworthy, WE SEEK AFTER THESE THINGS" (13th Article of Faith. My emphasis).
Which truth claims was Joseph Smith NOT wanting to incorporate into Mormonism? This should be a clear lesson to all members who want to sweep away the TRUTHS of evolution, science, physics, other religions, other holy books, etc. Mormonism is but one small (yet beautiful and important) instrument in the grand symphony of life, and the music of that symphony is what we call truth. The better we can all play our instruments in harmony with one another, the more likely we will be able to discover the truth that lies before us. For me, all truth really can be circumscribed into one great whole.
Should I Stay? Or Should I Go?
And though I would love to be able to report that my faith crisis has led me to a concrete and absolute assurity of the validity of my beliefs, I am forced to admit that doubt is still very much a constant companion in my life. I question things all the time. I occasionally doubt my own personal convictions. I regularly revisit the issues that bother me. But what I have learned, and believe 100% in, is that doubting is NOT a sin, nor is it the same thing as fear. It is a gift to have a questioning heart. Such was the case with Thomas, one of Jesus' original Twelve. It wasn't enough for Thomas to simply see what appeared to be a resurrected Lord. He had to touch, smell and examine Jesus before he believed. But once he did believe, Thomas was the first of Jesus' apostles to fall to his knees and proclaim, "My Lord and my God." So, to those with a doubting heart I say, "God bless you!" You are the gatekeepers who gleefully sift through the mire of blind religious devotion and staunch scientific rationalism to recover those small but precious pearls of truth. Though Mormon culture may, at times, make you feel uncomfortable, know that you have a very special seat at the table.
But most important, know that you are NEEDED!
Mormonism has never been (or at least shouldn't be) about conforming to a very narrow view of life. Jesus' original apostles were a diverse collection of fishermen, tax collectors, and political activists. They argued, fought, disagreed and even betrayed/denied Jesus. But they, like President Hinckley, understood what the main point of Jesus' message was: make bad men good and good men better.
We doubters may never have all of the answers to our legitimate questions and that's ok. We must always keep in mind that those answers (along with the questions themselves) are often irrelevant when the rubber of life meets the road of God. Remember, the first principle of the gospel isn't faith in Mormonism or faith in Joseph Smith, but FAITH IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. Mormonism saves nobody. For all of their beautiful and inspiring messages, no book of scripture is capable of delivering you to heaven. Only the Alpha and Omega is capable of that.
So, what would I say to the person who has struggled with their faith like me? What would I advise the person who is at the crossroads of staying in the faith or leaving the church? Here are just 10 quick tidbits of advice:
1.) Time is on your side. Nowhere is it written that you must decide right now whether you fully believe or fully disbelieve. You may never fully make up your mind. You are in no rush. Don't let pressures dictate your course of action. This is YOUR choice so be thorough. Be calculated. Don't rush it.
2.) Don't shun the members. When people experience a crisis of faith (especially when it centers on historical matters) they often think to themselves, "If only the general membership knew what I know, then they might sympathize with my plight." This is nonsense. There are lots of good, faithful members who have been EXACTLY where you are. And even if you can't find any, it is wrong to assume that there are no members out there who care. Sometimes we doubters can become a bit cynical, assuming that all members are cut from the "Utah fabric" and therefore are unwilling/incapable of understanding where we are coming from. This is the wrong way to think. Most members really do care.
3.) Scripture may be bad history, but history is terrible scripture. And yes, there is a difference. Both have their place, but both are not dependant upon the other. One inspires, the other informs. History has its place but so does scripture. Use them both and know their purposes.
4.) Don't follow the crowds. This goes for those who leave the church and those who stay. There is no reason to become the stereotypical Mormon or anti-Mormon. For all of its teachings on communal harmony and responsibility, I am convinced that being a good Mormon means being an individual. You are the captain of your own ship. Decide what Mormonism means to you and then do it. As Dr. Seuss said, "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." And if you choose to leave, don't become the cynical post-Mormon who leaves Mormonism but then can't leave it alone. And if you decide to stay, don't get on your high horse, acting like your decision was somehow a reflection of how wonderful and virtuous you think you are. Be an individual and not another member of the pro or anti-crowd. Own your decision.
5.) Pray like you mean it. The last person you should try to sugarcoat things for is God. Be raw. Be real. He can take it.
6.) Humility ALWAYS pays off, but is a pain to practice. Remember that you don't have all the answers and never will. Get over it. The fact of the matter is that you aren't entitled to all the answers. God doesn't owe you an explanation but you owe him every explanation. Even if you choose to leave the church be humble about it. And if you choose to stay, be more humble about it. Your experience, and the knowledge you have gained, make you no better than anyone else.
7.) The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. Don't lose sight of this. The church isn't about missionary work, memorizing scriptures, giving cool talks/testimonies or having "high" callings. The church is about Christ. Mormonism saves nobody. Christ is where salvation is to be found. Mormonism may be the vehicle to get you there, but in the end it is just an imperfect means to a perfect end. Keep your sights where they need to be and don't get distracted by the rest. Learn to separate sound from noise. Christ is the purpose behind every flavor of Christianity. The rest is just colored bubbles.
8.) Prophets Aren't Perfect. Too often I have heard from people who leave the church that they were "appalled" to discover that J. Smith, B. Young, etc. weren't perfect men and did questionable things. And though I can understand why they feel that way I have to ask: where is it written that a prophet must be a perfect man? Quite often the opposite is the case. Many prophets are (frankly) pathetic men. Abraham was, at times, a coward, Moses killed an Egyptian and then covered it up, Enoch was sort of dumb and not a good speaker, Jacob stole Esau's birthright, Jonah wanted God to kill everyone in Ninevah, David slept with Bathsheba and then sent her hubby to the front lines to die, Peter denied Jesus 3 times, Paul killed Christians and was often a jerk, and yes, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc. were often messed up as well. But remember what the Lord told J. Smith in Doctrine and Covenants 124:
for unto this end have I raised you up, that I might show forth my wisdom through the WEAK THINGS OF THE EARTH.
Perhaps it would be easy to believe in Herculean demigods as the Lord's chosen prophets, but when he chooses the weak and the simple...now that requires some faith. What other reason would God have to tell us all to receive the words of the prophets, "in all patience and faith" if not because he knew they were imperfect men? (Doctrine and Covenants 21:5)
9.) The Lord Expects Progress, Not Perfection. We all need to beat ourselves up a little bit less. I for one am the GREATEST offender of this. There is no harsher critic of each of us than the man/woman staring across from us in the glass. We would all do well to take a collective chill pill. We serve a loving, caring God, not a lightning-throwing, finger-pointing jerk. The god that endowed us with reason and intellect doesn't get pissed when we choose to use it. As I have said before, doubt is a gift. But when things do get a little too much to handle, just remember the words of this famous nursery rhyme:
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the King's horsemen and all the King's men, Couldn't put Humpty together again... BUT THE KING COULD!
God will work wonders with you...if you let him.
10.) There is Beauty in Desolation. I think that anyone who has undergone a crisis of faith can relate to feeling as though they were walking through a spiritual world of desolation. Prayers seem to go ignored by the heavens, "inspired" leaders give no inspiration, scripture provides no guidance, fasting just makes you hungry and blessings/miracles seem to disappear. In short, anything divine feels more like a fairytale than reality. And though I think much of this boils down to perspective (there can be an abundance of faith, inspiration, etc. if we open our eyes to it) there is absolutely nothing wrong with feeling the emptiness of desolation. In many respects, desolation can be sanctifying. It's easy to have faith when there is an abundance of faith-promoting/spiritual experiences taking place in one's life; it's quite another thing when we experience desolation.
But have no fear. This is normal. Even the great Mother Teresa confided to her journal that she felt as though "heaven from every side is closed." and that she had "Such deep longing for God" but that she was repeatedly "repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal." Before partaking of the desirable fruit, Lehi reported that he was forced to travel "for the space of many hours in darkness." (1 Nephi 8:8). And before experiencing the amazing wonder of seeing the Earth rise over the lunar horizon, Astronaut Buzz Aldrin described landing and walking on the moon as, "Magnificent desolation":
And make no mistake; desolation can be magnificent. As C.S. Lewis stated:
God allows spiritual peaks to subside into (often extensive) troughs in order for ‘servants to finally become Sons,’ ‘stand[ing] up on [their] own legs—to carry out from the will alone duties which have lost all relish… growing into the sort of creature He wants [them] to be.
How else are we to be molded and shaped if it isn't through those tough, desolate times? There are many ways to make a sword, but the best way of all is by using fire to manipulate the metal. Sometimes the fires of life appear as desolate valleys instead of triumphant mountains.
And to the member who rebukes, belittles or in any way judges the individual who walks the path of doubt, or has chosen to leave the church, I offer up this small critique:
Do not allow arrogant presumption to convince you that all who question/leave the church do so because of sin. This simply isn't the case. In fact, over the past few years, the church has witnessed a massive exodus of some of its finest members. As former Church Historian Marlin K. Jensen stated:
Maybe since Kirtland, we've never had a period of - I'll call it apostasy, like we're having now...It's a different generation. There's no sense kidding ourselves, we just need to be very upfront with them and tell them what we know and give answers to what we have and call on their faith like we all do for things we don't understand.
The overwhelming majority of those who choose to leave the faith do not make this decision lightly. It is usually a heart-wrenching decision that causes extreme stress in their lives. You may not be able to understand it but you should be able to respect it. For thousands of devout Mormons, the intellectual and spiritual shock at discovering the ugly aspects of our faith simply becomes too much for them to handle. As a result, their spiritual and mental shelves cave in. And don't fall into the trap of assuming that you are somehow more choice because your shelves are intact. Some of Mormonism's best and brightest have elected to depart. What they need is love, support, charity and kindness, not judgement, finger-pointing and accusations. Now is the time to practice your faith: "Love one another as I have loved you."
And to those who choose to leave, I say this: you will be greatly missed! I kid you not when I say that you are among the best and the brightest; the cream of the Mormon crop. You are/were leaders, thinkers motivators and disciples. But please know, the door is ALWAYS open for your return. Do not allow cultural and social factors to be what keeps you away. And yes, I will be the first to agree that Mormon culture is often misguided. But if you do choose to stay away, please do so without malice in your heart. Whether you like it or not, Mormonism is a part of you and always will be. Don't let bitterness cloud your mind. It does everyone harm, especially you. Depart in peace, knowing that many still admire you and consider you a friend.
Folks, we are all in this boat together...every single one of us. The believer and the doubter; the saint and the sinner. We all need each other. Besides, in one way or another every single one of us is a doubter. We all need that extra hand to sweep down and scoop us up when we fall out of the boat. Life is tough, but there is no sense in making it tougher by passing judgement, making accusations, pointing fingers or allowing personal prejudice to blind our senses. And when things seem at their worse, and we have nowhere else to turn, when all hope seems lost and we've reached our breaking point, know that you, like the frantic father spoken of in the Book of Mark, can always find solace by proclaiming to the heavens:
