For decades of my life I believed that a person who is black, gay, and/or single was barred from the top level of heaven (called "exaltation") but that I was destined to achieve exaltation and rule as a literal god with many wives in heaven because I didn't drink coffee and wore special underwear.
Perhaps a little context is necessary.
The purpose of life in the Mormon Church is loosely defined as a proving ground of sorts - a test to see if, in the face of good and bad choices, we will choose the good. Based upon our choices, be they good or bad, we will be assigned to various levels of heaven when we die (Mormons don't believe in a "hell", per say, but levels of salvation, some better than others).
What makes it endlessly complicated is that there is a list of things one has to do to climb this ladder of eternal success, and this list changes constantly. One day polygamy is good, then it's bad. One day certain people are excluded based on their skin color, the next day they're not. One day women can give blessings to people, then they can't. The list changes so frequently that there is quite simply not a single doctrine or policy in Mormonism that hasn't changed since the church was founded almost 200 years ago (I don't say this lightly - I've tried to find one and I can't). Mormons call this "continuing revelation" and is seen as a positive thing. God thought less of black people for a while, then he didn't. Simple as that. Among other problems, this keeps judgement of others alive and well, ranking people based on their perceived dedication to the prophet and the updated rules.
This is important though since this model of what life is all about is the foundational layer to the choices people make and the way they live their life. Doctrinal and cultural expectations determine when and who one married, how many kids they have, how they spend their time and money, what they wear/eat/drink/watch/listen to, and pretty much every other aspect of life.
So to try and simplify a model of the purpose of life according to Mormonism, I'll break up the church into two roughly equal time periods. The church was very different in the early days, so the requirements for exaltation were a little different. These were the days of folk magic, miracles, visions, theological inquiry, social seclusion, and polygamy. The next hundred years were more about theological standardization, corporatization, social integration and, therefore, monogamy. Then to add to these two models I'll add one model of how "The World" sees the purpose of life.
19th/early 20th Century
Let's take an example of Person 1. Person 1 was a boy born into an 1850's white Mormon family and lives his life a devout Mormon, living all of the commandments pretty well, which included taking multiple wives and swearing oaths in the temple and keeping those oaths (called covenants). In Mormon theology, Person 1 would likely qualify for exaltation. No one really knows but Jesus, which conveniently keeps everyone feeling like they've never quite "made it" and must do more. But in general, Person 1 would be seen as, at least, on his way.
Importantly, it was believed into the 20th century (and perhaps some believe today) that we were born into our families based on our righteousness before this life. In other words, if you were a scoundrel in the pre-earth spirit world, you were born into harder circumstances that made it harder for you to achieve exaltation. You can still do it - anyone can prove themselves - but it would be harder (this is part of the underlying theology that motivated Mormons to have so many kids, among other reasons). So, according to this model of life, Person 1 would have started high on the scale and ended high...
Person 2 was born into a "good" family but made "bad" choices and declined in net good choices over their lifetime...
Person 3 was born to drug-addicted, atheist parents, and didn't stand a chance to make the list of Mormon heaven requirements. But, amazingly, he did, and overcame the odds...
Person 4 was a pre-earth scoundrel, born to scoundrels, lived as a scoundrel, and died a scoundrel...
Of equal importance, apart from the disadvantage that some had in terms of a head start, there are others that, no matter how many good choices they made, were disqualified from reaching exaltation. Person 5 was born average, lived as a superstar, keeping every Mormon rule to a T, but was disqualified from exaltation because of one or more items on the long list of exceptions to exaltation. This list included, among others, being black, gay, monogamous, and/or not making temple covenants, which included a covenant to "blood atone" (i.e. kill yourself or others if certain sins were committed) in certain situations.
Okay, everyone together now...
20th/21st Century
There were a few notable changes in later church years, up to present day. First, the list of "good" and "bad" things that kept one out of exaltation shifted: abstinence from coffee/tea/alcohol became explicit (members, including prophets, drank in moderation until the early 1900s), as did a 10% tithe based on income, and earth polygamy switched to earth monogamy (although polygamy in heaven is still the official doctrine).
Second, a more gracious interpretation of our pre-earth-life decisions was adopted by most members and church leaders. Instead of "you are in a crap situation because of your pre-earth choices" the rhetoric switched to "there must be a relative judgement where everyone starting from where they are and being judged based on where they end up relative to where they started."
Lastly, more detail was added around exaltation exclusions for those in homosexual relationships, among other "sins". So assuming Persons 1-5 adopted this new list of commandments and lived accordingly, this model is only slightly different and would look something like this...
"The World"
There is a phrase in the Book of Mormon that has become shorthand for exactly the wrong way to live your life: "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die." This is taken to represent people of "the world" at their worst - gluttonous, hedonistic, selfish, maximizing current merriment at the expense of long-term happiness. But if you take a more normal interpretation of that phrase, it is actually quite profound in it's life lesson. "Eat, drink..." - enjoy good food and wine in the company of close friends and family (something both Jesus and Joseph enthusiastically supported). "...and be merry..." - who doesn't want to spend time being happy". "...for tomorrow we die..." - understanding that life is fragile and we must be present to enjoy it - or as Seneca said, "They lose the day in expectation of the night, and the night in fear of the dawn."
In any case, one model of life outside of religiosity - championed by the Stoics - is quite simple - to live a good life. There are no comparisons to others, rankings, hierarchal systems of categorization. People can debate what "good" means, but the purpose of life is quite simple when you aren't constantly trying to live up to an unclear and ever-changing list of good and bad according to white dudes in Salt Lake City, especially when that list of good is wrong (e.g. polygamy, race) and the list of bad is also wrong (e.g. homosexual relationships, saying the word "Mormon").
A popular refrain of ex-Mormons is that "everything that's good about Mormonism is not unique, and everything unique is not good." But I think the only way to actually see how true this really is, is to spend time away from the church. They would say that you'll lose the spirit and not see clearly. The alternative explanation is that you see inside much more clearly from the outside, and wonder why you supported a system that actively discriminates and gaslights people as a matter of practice, in the name of God, and requires unyielding compliance by it's members, including financial payment. You start to ask yourself, "I'm one of the good guys, right?"
Live a good life. That's it. Just because it's simple doesn't make it wrong or heretical. Love all people, don't judge others, trust yourself, love yourself, etc. The further I get from my time as a Mormon, the more it continues to blow my mind that these things are seen as bad when you get into the details of what it implies for devotion to a religious system.
I hope to educate my children on the many ways one can live a good life, including encouraging whatever way they find most useful as they learn and grow. But telling them that an old man in Utah will guide them in deciding when they should discriminate, when they should hold back their love, and when they should ignore their conscience and obey? I think I'll try my hand at the big, scary world model instead.
留言