A Change of Venue

Dear Readers,

Whether you have been committed, devoted followers, random one-timers, on-again-off-again, intrigued, but angered, or hate labels because it's simply another sign of the system- thank you.

I've been posting, almost weekly, for about a year here and decided I needed a change of venue. Partially for aesthetic reasons, partially because I first started Mini Manifestos in high school and was constantly reminded of that as I used it and because my vision has evolved and needed more flexibility.

I give you my new blog:  http://conorhilton.wordpress.com/

I've imported all my Mini Manifestos and a bunch of poetry I've written. I hope you stay with me as I transition. But if not, I likely will never know, you'll just be haunted by guilt or something- kidding. Mostly.

I'd love to hear your thoughts, so please, let me know what you think.

Best,

Conor

The Necessity of Mormon Culture

Last week I saw Neon Trees perform in Provo to a huge crowd. All the members of the band identify as Mormon, one of whom is openly gay. They definitely challenge stereotypes about Mormonism, bringing the question, “What does it mean to be Mormon?” to the forefront. 

 

Maybe you just need to have this as your profile picture to be a Mormon...

Do you need to believe a certain set of strictly defined doctrines? Do you need to go to BYU? Live in Utah? Be a Republican? Serve a mission? Not watch R-rated movies? Eat green jello and funeral potatoes? Deliver casseroles to neighbors/friends/Mormons? Shovel old ladies’ walks when it snows? Have temple recommend? Never wear shorts or flip-flops or show your shoulders or grow a beard? Tell terrible jokes about how you were tracked down to speak? Have a life-long love for all things Disney? Be able to quote The Princess Bride word-for-word?

Now that was a mix of cultural and doctrinal definitions for being Mormon, although different people would draw different lines and choose a varied mix of requirements to ‘be Mormon’.  That very fact suggests that there is a close connection between Mormon doctrine and Mormon culture. If this is so, it becomes dangerous to divorce Mormon culture from Mormon theology/doctrine, arguing that you can be a doctrinal Mormon, but not a cultural Mormon.

This is not meant to be a full-fledged defense of Mormon culture as it currently stands (I’m usually the one bashing or criticizing aspects of the culture, not defending it). However, to think that Mormon culture developed totally independent of Mormonism as a religion is naïve. Rather than simply embrace all aspects of the culture though, this should serve as a call to examine our culture and beliefs and see where discrepancies are. Do we believe damaging things that lead to un-Christlike behaviors? Do we behave in ways that conflict with our beliefs? Are things less clear-cut than we thought they were?

Obviously, I think there can be some conflicts between the culture and the teachings of the Church, what I may dub ‘doctrinally dissonant cultural creations’.  I don’t want to defend those necessarily, although they are probably an inevitable occurrence in the development of any culture.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines culture as “The distinctive ideas, customs, social behaviour, products, or way of life of a particular nation, society, people, or period. Hence: a society or group characterized by such customs, etc.” (interestingly this is the seventh definition for culture, but what I would consider perhaps the most frequent. I guess I just use words frequently in traditionally infrequent ways).

Basically, you can’t really have a religion without creating a culture (particularly given the emphasis that Mormonism has on practice). That means that to strip the culture from the religion is to try and take away the fruits from the religion, which creates a false picture. Now, I’m not suggesting that you need to peace out and drop everything if you hate Mormon culture, because, let’s be real, it’s not my favorite (to put it mildly). However, there needs to be consideration of what aspects of religion led to different pieces of culture.

 

Neon Trees: The Mormon Tabernacle Rock Band

If we simply accept that the culture is suffocating and damaging, but refuse to be a part of it, we are complicit in perpetuating that culture. If we want to change the culture, we need to immerse ourselves in cultural Mormonism and strive to be different from the norm, showing what could be, but still identifying as ‘Mormon’. Isn’t that kind of the whole idea behind the ‘I’m a Mormon’ campaign? To show this diversity of culture, within Mormonism (however distinct that may be from our own lived experience in Church culture).

That’s one of the reasons I blog, to engage with Mormonism, but show some of the room within the tent. I hope that my efforts, however limited can work some change in the larger culture. Like Gandhi said, “be the change you want to see in the world,” right?

So, in the future, before I bash on some cultural practice, I’ll try and examine the origins, see if I can trace it to a principle of value. Although, to be fair, there is some value in having a distinctive culture, independent of doctrinal belief. It creates a sense of community and a bond that unites Mormons wherever they are. You know how you can sometimes see people on the street or on the metro in DC and you can just feel their Mormonism? Some of that’s cultural. It creates a shared language and shared experience that brings people together.

The downside to that is that it can be incredibly challenging to become a part of the culture. As a convert, you not only need to accept basic Gospel principles, but a set of cultural codes (or at least gain an understanding of them, so you don’t offend others or unnecessarily alienate yourself from the rest of the congregation). And it can make us weird. Not that that’s inherently bad, but we’re a strange people (you could even say peculiar if you really wanted to).

I think this peculiarity can create a divide between those that may identify as Mormon culturally, but not religiously, or vice versa. Why do we need to draw a distinction? If someone wants to identify as Mormon, I don’t think we should necessarily draw a distinction there, trying to say that if they don’t meet requirements x, y, and z they aren’t really Mormon. Everyone needs something different and Mormonism can make lives better, regardless of how it’s experienced (obviously there are some theological implications for embracing Mormon culture and not doctrine, but that’s not quite the point. If the culture comes from the doctrine, at least at a fundamental level, engaging with the culture engages at some level with the doctrine, even if it’s diluted and removed).

So, to summarize: culture and religious beliefs are deeply intertwined, so we should not be too quick to try and separate the two. Culture can bind us as a group in ways that religious belief may not. However, there may be damaging bits of culture that should be changed, but to make that change a reality, we need to engage with the culture and strive actively to be that change, pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions between culture and doctrine.

Now, go enjoy your green jello and funeral potatoes, while watching Frozen, singing along and imagining our future, Hajj-like trek to the New Jerusalem that will be Missouri (mostly kidding, unless you’re into that sort of thing, then go ahead).   

A Cautious Defense of Critical (or Analytical) Thinking

Often, and particularly recently, I have been faced with distaste at the idea of critical thinking in a life context and an arts context. Given this, I offer a cautious defense of critical thinking (hopefully, it doesn’t get too bogged down in theory and lit crit jargon [oops] that it becomes inaccessible. It should be pretty clear, but maybe pray for understanding before you start to read ;) ).

So this is going to have two basic parts, one that’s more general and religious and a second that will be more about analyzing books, film, etc., what we can refer to as close reading, with some religious overtones. Ok, so I’m clearly partial to this approach to life and entertainment, partially because I analyze literature for school and my planned future profession, but that just means I have skin in the game, as they say. A passion driving my commentary.  Anyway, here we go.

First, I have found great value and insight by thinking critically. Now, by this I do not mean thinking negatively or thinking in a way to criticize (although I probably do my fair share of that, snarkily tearing down what otherwise may have been thoughtful and sincere commentary). Critical Thinking in this context means looking at things with the eye of an analyst, trying to understand how things work, how comments fit into a larger framework of ideas and perspectives, how the argument is structured, how the logic flows from the assumptions to the propositions to the conclusions, etc. This type of thinking relies on asking questions and seeking understanding. Some claim that the Church discourages such thinking, which culturally is true to a certain extent. After all, there is a danger in beginning to think critically, if you do not understand the proper application of the skills. To borrow a phrase from Bruce C. Hafen, it can become like a shiny, new pin of skepticism used to burst the bubbles of faith and sincerity of all around us.

 

Look at that menacing, shadowy hand preparing to pop this innocent, well-meaning balloon.

I know because I have been guilty of wielding my critical thinking skills like a shiny pin of skepticism. While it would be awesome if everyone understood logical fallacies and proper argumentative structure, they don’t (I'd like to think that basic argumentative structure is a key to fully grasping celestial knowledge, but don't know of any such strict requirement). So people can teach and make comments that are illogical or can be picked apart by those of a more intellectual bent, such as myself. However, to do so frequently misses the point of having such comments and conversations in the first place. They aren’t meant to convince us logically of something, it’s meant to convey a set of feelings and experiences that the individual feels are right.

So, why is it good to think critically if we shouldn’t at Church? Well, the Truth withstands critical thinking. So, while we shouldn’t let it distract us from the sincerity of others, we can use our critical thinking skills to process information and fit things into our own understanding. We can realize how the scriptures work together, the relationships between individuals and stories and principles, piecing together an understanding of the entire Gospel framework.

Having questions can spur our study. As we all learn from primary forward, questions spurred Joseph Smith to action and without that, I wouldn’t be writing about this right now at BYU (questions for the win, despite any later cultural pressure against asking questions).

Now, on to Part Two.

This bit may be slightly less accepted. I think analyzing and looking for themes and messages in books, songs, films, plays, etc. is valuable. I mean, of course I do. Would I study English if I didn’t?

An important question and argument comes up here about authorial intent, which has been happening for a long time and has a variety of answers. The main facet of the argument, at least for my purposes, is two-fold: one, that it matters what the author intended and two, that any interpretation of a work should be based around the intentions of the author.

Those who dismiss any attempts at reading into a work as frivolous, often suggest that the author never intended for that meaning. That may very well be true, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the meaning is no longer there because it was unintended. To illustrate think of a time you said something that carried a different meaning than you intended for the people that heard it. Is the meaning that others interpreted less-valid because you didn’t mean it that way? No. Once a work involves an audience, it becomes something separate that relies upon the audience in part to create meaning. An author may have intended for something to mean one thing, but if no one ever reads it, it is meaningless. At least in part, meaning is derived from the reader interacting with the text.

That got a bit bogged down with some critical theory, but hopefully we mastered the secrets of the fire swamp and made it out alive, unless you found it comfortable enough for a nice summer home.

The point of all that is to say that the author’s intent is much less important than the reader’s response. However, the best response is an informed response that understands some of the author, her background, his cultural context, her societal and historical pressures, etc. All of us are shaped by the time we live, the cultures we surround ourselves with, etc. so to ignore the impact that they have on a work of art is to do a great disservice to the labor that went in to producing it.

 

All these books, waiting to be read. And ANALYZED, while using that glorious spiral staircase. 

Some things may be created primarily to entertain, but they still convey messages implicit or explicit that we receive. To not analyze our entertainment is to be intentionally ignorant of what we partake of and what cultures are influencing and shaping our own thoughts and behaviors.

None of us want that, do we?

There are some caveats to that and some clarifications. First, there are levels of analysis and critical thinking. Not everyone needs to analyze Henry James’ use of free-indirect discourse in Washington Square to create an unreliable and self-undermining narrator or to be dissatisfied with How To Train Your Dragon because the ending undermines the entire narrative arc of the film, destroying what appeared to be the intended moral of the story.

Second, there may be a line where analysis can go overboard and read more into something than is useful. This is particularly true when you begin to see negative frameworks in everything to the point that they restrict your ability to enjoy the works at all. That line varies and is different for different people.

So that’s it. Think critically and much joy will be yours.

Where's the Magic?

I’ve felt recently kind of bogged down with intriguing intellectual questions, wading through a pit of pragmatic alternatives, struggling to find my place in this ambiguous, complicated and grey world. While much of this has been rewarding and reworked my understanding of Gospel principles and realities in a way that strengthened the foundations of my faith, an unnecessary and detrimental side effect has been the loss of the ‘magic’. The feeling of awe and wonder at God’s greatness. The delightful little occurrences that feel like they were caused by wizards and witches from Hogwarts or mutants with extraordinary powers.

 

BANGARANG!

Perhaps an apt analogy can be drawn from the Spielberg classic Hook. Robin Williams as Peter Banning (Peter Pan) is brought back to Neverland and forced to try and remember and recapture the happiness that let him fly. He struggles for most of the film, but eventually taps into that joy. However, this happy thought is more complex and challenging—his children. Illustrating that he has undergone a change, but is now fusing the childlike joy and glee of Neverland with his responsibility and maturity driven by love for others. (The analogy isn't perfect and doesn't extend throughout the film, but I think still has value.)

I’ve had similar feelings to Peter upon his return to Neverland. Bewilderment, thinking that he had achieved a higher state of living than the Lost Boys and everyone else, but this left him lonely and joyless. I occasionally feel similarly at Church, that the comments shared and other things are juvenile or in other ways simplistic and lacking in understanding. While this may be true, my focus on that misses the exuberance for life that their comments and insights convey. Who am I (not 24601) to deride their spiritual experiences and understanding? If what they believe works for them and brings them closer to God, then that’s good enough for the moment (maybe. Obviously, faith needs to be in something that’s true to be faith and not simply empty hoping and wishing, but I think there is probably a range of acceptable beliefs and the intentions will sanctify those that may believe a little wrongly. More thought needs to go into this).

So, as someone with a skeptical mindset, questioning many things and having developed a more nuanced and complicated paradigm for understanding the world and God’s interactions with humankind, why did I lose the sense of wonder? Can I get it back? Where’s the magic?

I think I began to focus too much on institutional and other large-scale problems that are far beyond my ability to resolve. While, it is important to understand those problems and issues, I personally need to focus on what I can do as an individual to bless others. And to look for God’s hand in my life, seeking divine guidance and inspiration—the magic.

Luckily, I had some brushes with the divine magic recently, reviving some spiritual joyous sparks. Like most twenty-somethings, I have been trying to figure out my FUTURE. I spent the summer in DC, which helped and hurt, drawing me towards politics, while simultaneously pushing me away. I loved my experience and the city, but I cannot go into politics, it’ll suck me in and I’ll be forever trapped in its tide, swirling around and around barely gasping for breath. And it doesn’t give me the same joy that reading, discussing and analyzing Dickens or Austen or James or Wilde does. However, it took a father’s blessing and watching Dead Poets Society to drive home what I feel called to do. And just as the wands in Ollivander’s choose the wizard, being an English professor has chosen me.

Yeah, that sounds cheesy and cliché, but it feels right. And, admitting that there can be that sort of guidance, like Inigo’s father guiding his sword to hit the right knot, builds that fire and my faith. Sure, I don’t know if that’s what happened and you can probably come up with a way to explain my feelings, yet I still believe that I was (and ideally am) touched and guided by something divine. That for me is faith. Not knowing, but believing in God’s guiding, sanctifying hand.

And that’s the magic. Pretty simple really. Believing in something a little supernatural. Privileging that belief over the pragmatism that fights with it (a tension I explored about a year ago).

God loves me and you and you, and yes, even you. I choose to believe that because of that love, Our Heavenly Parents guide and comfort us when needed. They reach out letting droplets of divine love and inspiration grace our minds and hearts. That is my happy thought and now I can fly (and fight and crow).

THE END: Judgment, Resurrection, Burning and That Jazz

It’s been a little while since I posted anything—caught up with leaving DC (there was great sorrow) and family stuff before heading back to school (great rejoicing?).

Prof. X wearing Cerebro, reaching a zen state and maybe reliving his entire life or something.

Anyway, this will be sort of a general overview of Last Days-Judgment-Armageddon-Resurrection stuff, with future posts going more in depth into each of those areas (at least that’s the plan, so look forward to that.).

Part of my view for THE END is colored by my overall view of history. I generally view history in a Hegelian fashion—moving forward and upward, but in a cyclical spiral motion, repeating trends and things from the past, but in slightly different iterations. I think for the most part we are living in a time that is better than that of ages past. This is not to say that there is nothing to learn from studying history. On the contrary, I think looking to the past can give us valuable insights into the workings of the world. We can be aware of the implications of decisions by drawing parallels. Obviously there is some limit to this as it is extremely rare for circumstances to match up exactly and the differences may drastically alter the outcome.

All of that is to say that I don’t really subscribe to the whole ‘world is going to Hell in a handbasket’ framework. Sure, there are awful people doing awful things. But, I have more faith in humanity than that. Generally, I think we’re a more loving, just, merciful, Christ-like world. (At least until I read comment sections I can hold that view pretty solidly.)

It seems to me that there are two components to the Second Coming. First, a bunch of really wicked people that get burned to a crisp. Second, some really righteous people that are so good Satan is powerless (that’s one reading, anyway).  I feel like most talk of the Second Coming typically focuses on the first component, warning us not to be wicked and to pay our tithing for fire insurance (ha ha ha. Seminary jokes are the best…). I think it may be more helpful to focus on the second, but that’s just me.

JUDGMENT. What an imposing word, especially in all caps. I still haven’t settled on a view of judgment that is completely satisfying for me (particularly because TIME. How are we all supposed to be judged in some intimate, individual, incredibly personal experience? There are billions of people. I mean, maybe judgment’s already happening, but I don’t know), but I’ll sort of sketch out the general principles that I think will be a part of it and some ideas that I’ve had that make sense to me.

 So here’s kind of what I think, it’s a little out there and the specifics aren’t that important, but I like them. When it’s your turn you go into some incredibly comfortable room, probably surrounded by bookshelves, walking on thick, shag carpet to be greeted by Jesus with a huge grin and welcoming hug. Kindness beams from his eyes as he hands you some celestial food (popcorn and chocolate milk are good candidates), motioning for you to take a seat in the most comfortable chair you can imagine. You take a seat and then the lights dim and some crazy holographics come up (a bit like when Xavier uses Cerebro to search for mutants). Only this follows your life. There are some bars across the top that show your spirituality, sensitivity to the Light of Christ/Holy Ghost, along with a set of boxes that need to be checked corresponding to various ordinances of salvation. As you interact with people you see chain reactions in varying colors. You realize that the colors correspond to whether the impact you had was positive or negative. The images flash by, sometimes pausing to show an extended benefit or harm to an individual, often people that you had no idea you touched the way you did.  Perhaps these people even come in and out of the room thanking you for the impact that you had on their lives. It’s a very touching experience.

The film draws to a close and then Jesus comes back in and you chat a bit. At this point you receive whatever Kingdom you will be most comfortable in, or earned, or deserve or something like that.

Now, a brief thought on resurrection. People seem to emphasize the perfect frame aspect, which I think has a much stronger spiritual component than physical. Sure, your body will be ‘perfect’, but I think the range of perfect bodies is quite large. Perhaps this is because I sort of like my physical peculiarities (my crooked pinkies most notably). Anyway, that’s the gist—probably perfection in a harmony of the physical and spiritual rather than appearance.

That’s a wrap.