Below is a transcription of the Q & A from Sunstone. It will make more sense if you have read the paper first (which is on Scrib'd and titled Cutting Down the Tree of Life to Build a Wooden Bridge) because the questions were provoked by the presentation. These questions were asked and these answers given immediately following the paper and response:
Cutting Down the Tree of
Life to Build a Wooden Bridge
Question & Answer -
Sunstone Symposium
8-2-14 Denver Snuffer
[NOTE: This is the question and answer period
that was held following Denver Snuffer’s talk and after Dan Witherspoon's
rebuttal. I chose not to transcribe Dan's rebuttal because I do not have his
permission to do so and therefore leave it out. I insert some clarifying words
in brackets to make what was meant more clear.]
Tim
Malone: Dan, thank you for focusing on the fruit of the Tree of Life. I was
looking for that in Denver's remarks, but let me ask this question of Denver. My
take away is that you stated that the LDS Church has changed fundamental
doctrine, is changing, and will continue to change because of submission
to social and governmental pressure for fear of losing tax status. Is that a
correct take away?
Denver: The definition
of fundamental doctrine is not something that I applied to the Church, it's
what the Church has advocated (or defined) on its own (and for itself). I'm
contrasting what the Church said at one time was fundamental doctrine, with
what it has done to abrogate, denounce, renounce and even condemn unequivocally
out of their own mouth, their prior practice. Their motivation for
accomplishing that transition was the focus of the paper. I'm not trying to
make a moral judgment. I'm trying to understand the events against the backdrop
of why the events took place. Why change when they said it would be right or
wrong (to do so), when they said it in the name of Jesus Christ, like the
comment of Brigham Young that I read. I read his claim on purpose because he was
stating, "I'm telling you this as my status as a prophet of God. I'm
telling you this in the name of Jesus Christ, and I'm telling you this will
never change," and (it has been subsequently) changed. And now the Church,
after making the changes, has turned around and said, "We unequivocally
condemn that." That's the purpose of the paper and also to highlight the
fact that institutionally, this is a problem. The problem is that truth and
love and purity does exist, but it exists primarily in a form that is not (and
cannot be) institutional. According to the scriptures, there are only two ways,
“there are save but two Churches only.” And one church, if it's going to subject
itself to institutional control, vagaries of the law, the pressure of the tax
code, and everything else; that church will necessarily become sullied and
soiled, tossed and pulled, and ultimately wind up contradicting itself. But there
is another church that can remain pure, unsullied, untouched, untaxed, and unregulated.
That purity can exist in your heart. That purity can be found between you and
God. I think any institution is going to suffer the exact same history.
Voice: My
question is, if the fruit of the Tree of Life is not available to homosexuals
and to women once they are embraced within the Church, what will they find
instead?
Denver: The
problem addressed in the paper, and the turf upon which I feel very comfortable
discussing, is the problem of Church doctrine, with fundamental positions being
taken as if they were out of the mouth God Himself, and then contradicted (by
church presidents) later. That is done to illustrate the problem of the
institution. I don't think that I can, or ever should, have looked for
institutional approval for my relationship with God. There was a time I did.
There was a time I cared a great deal about that. But the institution has
rendered that now an impossibility, because I can't serve within the church.
That hasn't done a thing to deter my conviction, my relationship, my fidelity
to God. Likewise, I think in every individual's life, this world is a terrible
place, and this world is a wonderful place. It is precisely wonderful because
it is so terrible. It doesn't matter what circumstances you find yourself in,
everything down here is going to pull away at you. Eventually everything is
going to wear out, and break down. There are going to be disappointments,
challenges, disagreements and arguments. The comfort that you find, like Joseph
Smith in Liberty jail, "Peace my son, this is only going to be for a small
moment, and if you endure it well your going to be rewarded on high." I
don't think that an institution can embrace with love, everyone, because some
of us hate some others of us, and the institution would like to (claim that it)
love(s) us all. And those who get control, get to use the bully pulpit for their
purposes, and those that don't have it, get to resent it. I don't think,
ultimately, that the fix will be institutional. I think it will be personal,
and I think it will be individual, and I think there will be a gathering, and
that gathering will be called Zion, and it will happen because the
prophecies foretell it. But I don't think it's going to be after the fashion of
something that can regulate or take control of others, because anytime you
manage to get control, you wind up in politics and economics.
Dan: His
(Denver's) fear of institutions, I argue the same sort of thing. But it's
important that we work these things out in community with each other. So the
fact that we have an institution that provides the buildings, that provides
some of the structures in which we meet and interact with each other and learn
from each other, to me, shouldn't be outweighed simply by this. But again, I
think both of us would be in agreement, no matter what is said there, it's you
and your relationship with God. It's you and your relationship with the fire
yourself, that has to be able to drive it, to not be simply interacting with it
so far down the mountain where it's cooled, and that you can hardly tell that's
it's there. So I do want to shout out that it's important that the primary
actors in the world are not institutions, the primary actors in the world are
people, and we're complex, and we go forward and we go backwards, and we halt
and we run fast, and we stumble. When I see an institution changing the way the
Mormon Church is, even though it's frustrating that it's not changing anywhere
near the direction I want, and when they say stupid things that just make me
want to go crazy, I still see it as an advance, because we as people are
advancing. We are meeting each other, we are learning from each other, we're
engaging, we are understanding what's going on, and this is sure revelation.
This is sure revelation simply unfolding in a messier way. So again, I want to
get us together as often as possible.
Voice: I think
we can learn a lot from the community process, and discuss things, but that's
not revelation. My question is, usually the best we can do with personal revelation,
whether it is lay members or leaders, is a yes or no, magic eight ball kind of
a thing. And I don't want to denigrate that, I'll take what I can get, but how do
you move from that, to getting a complete sentence out of the Lord? [laughter]
Dan: I don't
think it's possible. I don't think the Lord speaks in sentences. Seriously. Every powerful spiritual experience I've had has
been so overwhelming, so much bigger, and beyond any kind of language. It's the
downhill, it's the explaining it to you, to my friend, to my congregation or something,
is where we put the words on it. And that's why it's so important to go back
and constantly do the dialog. I honor Isaiah,
I honor Abraham, and I admire them because they're examples to us of
going straight to the Lord and having that face-to-face relationship that
Genesis describes Adam had with God in the Garden. I'm with that process, but
just as I don't accept the cosmology of a flat earth, sitting on waters below
and a firmament held up by the pillars of heaven, I don't except Abraham's
pronouncements on cosmology. I don't feel the need to honor everything that
they say. I honor their interaction with God, and I try to look at that as a
model for my own life. And even in an institutional setting, we have to
remember this, we have to go straight to the source.
Denver: You know,
I was raised by a Baptist mother and got Bible verses read at me every morning
before I went to school throughout my childhood. When Mormon missionaries came
and told me about the Joseph Smith story, and when Mormon missionaries assured
me that Joseph saw God, and that, if you follow James 1:5 and you ask God, He
will give you an answer, and if you will pray about the Book of Mormon, God will make it known to you whether it's true
or not. I accepted that. I was young, I was still a teenager, but I accepted
that as literal. I accepted that as possible. I had faith that that could
happen. I'm not a theologian, but I do believe God not only talks in sentences,
but can make himself known to man. Literally! I believe all that. I believe
that God did appear to Joseph. I believe that He did appear to Isaiah. So
having that understanding, I did not think that there was anything unusual when
an angel appeared to me, because an angel did appear to me. I thought
that was the normal, usual, every day way that Mormon religion was practiced. Sitting
in a Ward as a teenager, looking out at all these experienced Mormons,
listening to the General Authorities, I thought they all were talking to God in
the temple every Thursday. I thought this was common, ordinary stuff. I presumed
that was what everyone (experienced and therefore) walked around with (as their
religion). It took a long time before I mentioned anything about any of the
experience that I had had, before I realized that that's not usual, that's not
normal, and that's not customary. And so, I'm (now) trying to make it
usual, I'm trying to make it customary, I'm trying to say, Yes God is real! Because
if I have seen Him, I think you can see Him, and (likewise) ought to. I think
everyone should make the fiery ascent to God's presence. I think it should not
be limited to an occasional "here," or an occasional "there."
I think we should have an abundance of witnesses. And the prophecy that Moroni spoke to Joseph
Smith, that the time is going to come when no one needs to say to anyone else,
"Know ye the Lord, for they shall all know Him," needs to be
fulfilled. It is lying dormant (still and should not be). [applause]
Dan: You can go
with your symbol system, you are going to go with your expectations. A Buddhist
will never have the experience with the angel, with Jesus, and things like
that. What Denver is having is not the same experience as what Hershel had, what
Mohammed had, and things like this. And so when we talk about whether God
speaks in sentences, what language does He speak in? He speaks in the systems of ours that open up
to this sort of level of presence. A deep dive through one symbol system is
wonderful and it's pretty hard to get out of it, but I think we need to stay
aware that there are so many people diving and meeting God, meeting the divine
and so many other different ways. I honor Denver's experience, but I can't
limit God to that single system. I'm with Mormonism's expensive views.
Denver: This
much I know: The angel said, "On the first day, of the third month, in
nine years, your ministry will begin, and so you must prepare." Those are
the words! I can quote them still. He spoke in a sentence.
Voice:
The more these situations are going on, I feel so strongly, more and more, I
just keep getting that this is all about unity, and it's an opportunity for us.
And if unity is about "agreeing" then frankly God did a terrible job.
So the more I see of this, what I keep going to is, the quest for Zion seems to
me, to be the quest for open heartedness, and charity, and unity. And so when I
see one side that says, An actively gay person will never come into the
presence of God. This person will go to hell. And then on the other side, I see
a person who is an active Mormon, or a person who doesn't approve of
homosexuality, who is an awful person because he's a hater. And I see those two
things. And I see Christians say that Mormons are going to hell. It seems to me
that we more dig our feet in and say, I'm right, and I'm trying to push this
agenda…we are working away from God, and away from Zion. More and more I think
that if we could say, This is my experience, this is what I believe, and let me
hear where you are, and what you believe, and let's talk and consider. I think
that's great. Even though I may disagree with you and think you're wrong, I
trust God to lead you to what is right, and I trust the atonement of Christ to
take care of whatever you've got wrong, just like I trust that for me. I think
that truth exists, but I think when we all know all truth, we'll all agree. And
in the meantime we are trying to find a way. So my question is, first of all,
is that possible? I mean do you agree?
Denver:
I agree very much. In the first book I wrote I said, "Religion was
intended to be applied internally only."
Voice: Thank you. My other question is, my theology for the
issue of our day, homosexuality, is that I believe that homosexuals are a gift
to us, to teach us great things. I think we need to learn charity. I also
believe that God does have a standard, but I want to know if those two things
can coexist. Can we say, I truly love you, I'm thankful for you, I accept you, but
this is my theology and morality. Can we be in this place where we love each
other and seek unity without agreement?
Denver: I grew up in a little town in Idaho. Homosexuality in
the 1960s was almost a nonexistent issue (and even though it existed, it was
not a source of fighting). There was a restaurant in Mountain Home, Idaho that
was owned by a gay man and his boyfriend, who lived together (in a house about
two blocks away from my parents’ home). Everyone knew that they were "funny."
They were comfortable living in a community that was full of a bunch of retired
military and active military people in Idaho in the 1960s, where I suppose, they
were just as Republican then as they are in Idaho now. It was known, it was not
talked about, I mean there might be a passing reference, but that was it. I
worked in those guys’ restaurant. One of my first jobs was washing dishes in a
restaurant owned by a gay fellow and his live-in lover. It was no big deal.
There was no politics involved, there was no agitating on the issue.
One of my law school classmates is here. A few years ago he
wound up on a drive (to a business meeting in) Idaho with a fellow who was gay.
(The gay fellow) announced (to my classmate) that he was attracted to him. It
was one of those awkward moments. [laughter]
When (he and I subsequently talked about
it), we kind of chuckled about it. But the fact of the matter was that both he
and I had a business relationship with that fellow and (his announcement) was essentially a
nonevent. It was strange. It a was, (however, merely) "Thanks, but no."
I think we ought to be ginger about the way in which we deal
with one another's weaknesses and problems. I think we ought to be firm in what
we believe, and apply it rigorously internally, and then have compassion on
every idiot you are going to meet-- because we are all idiots, myself included. I
agree with you.
Dan: I agree with you too, but where you
pushed to be a little too far is when you said, "I love you but these are
my standards" To me, I'm simply willing to say, I'm going to hear you, I'm
going to be with you, I'll see as much of your life as you will show to me without
trying to have a resolution. When I talked about the Hegelian dialectic, it's a
process, and I'm completely fine for it taking forever in my own heart.
Cathleen Gilbert (Moderator): We are out of time. Thank you
to Denver Snuffer and Dan Witherspoon. [Applause]