Of course this experience raises so many questions for me, and for perhaps should raise this questions for all Christians: How do we explain the witness of the Spirit to a child.

I actually do not have a good answer– a satisfactory explanation of spiritual experience like this is perhaps the biggest question I have in life. I know there are all kinds, including those that do not involve belief in God, but my son deserves one.  And he deserves one in language he can understand.  I reject many aspects of the explanation he is routinely given at LDS church, and I am not satisfied with what I did tell them.  So I put it to anyone who reads this–how would you explain this experience to my son, if he was yours?

Indoctrination is a big issue in our multi-cultural, increasingly divisive, political and ideological climate. At least one writer – David French– contends that Evangelicals’ failure to properly indoctrinate their children is part of the reason they fall short in church growth compared to moromons.   Citing the Barna Group’s conclusion that of the 84 million Americans who claim to be Evangelical, only about 19 million actually hold orthodox beliefs, French advocates that Evangelicals must follow the LDS lead in teaching their distinctive beliefs and culture early and well.

But indoctrination is an extremely inflammatory concept. It is almost universally condemned by those who don’t want children to be indoctrinated against their positions. But I don’t think indoctrination can or should have the bad rap given it by fervent opponents of religious indoctrination such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Arguably most childhood education in areas of history and even many areas of science smacks of indoctrination in one form or another.

Given its unavoidable necessity, I have started to take indoctrination of my own children more seriously. My kids are indoctrinated Mormons, their skeletons come from church.   They have a surface-level, Sunday-school understanding of the church, salvation, and the righteous life. But because I am no longer what can be fairly called a believing Mormon, I want to temper this indoctrination with indoctrination of my own–one that reflects the understanding I have developed in my spiritual life and education.  I am trying to find a way to explain Christianity differently without closing the lines of inquiry that I find critical.  I want to add a few limbs to my kids’ conceptual skeletons without making their existing frameworks useless.

So, my project is to develop simple, short, easy-to-understand narratives of important historical events and religious principles- sort of like the Gospel Principles Manual in the LDS Church. Something that can give my children a place to start inquiry based roughly on what I think are proper conclusions about history and the world; a different narrative to expand and allow critical evaluation of the narrative they receive in church.

I thought the history of the Christian church was a good place to start. Mormons believe that the true gospel of Jesus Christ and his authority to act on earth was restored after about 17 centuries of apostasy. To begin to explain this doctrine, they generally indoctrinate people about the history of post-apostolic Christianity with this sort of narrative:

Throughout history, evil people have tried to destroy the work of God. This happened while the Apostles were still alive and supervising the young, growing Church. Some members taught ideas from their old pagan or Jewish beliefs instead of the simple truths taught by Jesus. Some rebelled openly. In addition, there was persecution from outside the Church. Church members were tortured and killed for their beliefs. One by one, the Apostles were killed or otherwise taken from the earth. Because of wickedness and apostasy, the apostolic authority and priesthood keys were also taken from the earth. The organization that Jesus Christ had established no longer existed, and confusion resulted. More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the dissolution of the Church was complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the Great Apostasy. Soon pagan beliefs dominated the thinking of those called Christians. The Roman emperor adopted this false Christianity as the state religion. This church was very different from the church Jesus organized. It taught that God was a being without form or substance. These people lost the understanding of God’s love for us. They did not know that we are His children. They did not understand the purpose of life. Many of the ordinances were changed because the priesthood and revelation were no longer on the earth.

(Gospel Principles Manual, Chapter 16: “The Church of Jesus Christ in Former Times”.) Both Mormons and non-Mormons alike find this narrative lacking. Here is my very first attempt at a companion/counter narrative that touches on this and other issues:

Life is difficult and people look to God for meaning, support, and guidance to get through it. There are lots of reasons people want to be close to God (forgiveness, salvation, direction, comfort, etc.) and people explain the way God draws people to him many different ways. Jesus was a man who taught about a particular way to God that he believed was the best or only way to have a lasting relationship with God. Christians are those that believe Jesus on this point at least.  Most believe Jesus was some sort of God.

The defining morality of Christianity is found in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount.  This morality is a revolutionary, not-fully-set-forth way of approaching life and human relationships. Jesus wants people to live by the spirit rather than the letter of moral laws and he wants love to guide people and that other motivations should be subordinate.  Christian culture has incorporated all kinds of other systems morality and ethics but these remain the core.

After Jesus was killed, many people who followed him established religious communities centered around his teachings and spirituality.  Over time, these communities developed common beliefs and religious literature by writing about Jesus’ life and teachings and considering these writings reliable. The New Testament consists of what were generally considered the most reliable and important religious literature during the first century after Jesus. These religious communities also developed many traditions that guided what was taught, how the church was governed, and how religious literature should be interpreted.

For the first two centuries after the apostles died, Christianity was almost an underground religion, persecuted and made illegal by the government. The bulk of the believers considered themselves the members of a single Christian church operated as a group of independently governed local congregations.  Around 250 years after Jesus died, the Roman Empire legalized Christianity and the church. The church became wed to the political power of the empire.  About 750 years later this large multi-national split into two churches, the Orthodox church and the Catholic Church.  Even today, most Christians are part of these churches.

About 1400 years after the original apostles died, a Reformation of the church was started by a few religious leaders who rejected the authority of most of the traditions of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.  They rejected the authority of a priesthood, the sanctity of many traditions of the church, and believed the New Testament alone was the final– if not only– authority on Christianity. They also introduced another new tradition, the idea that people are saved from death and hell by faith in Jesus alone. Because the New Testament leaves many points of theology open for debate, the Protestant churches split into many factions. However, Protestants generally accept the same creeds.

Starting in the 1820s, Joseph Smith taught a form of Christianity that rejected the sanctity most of the important traditions both the Catholic and Orthodox traditions as well as the Protestant tradition the New Testament was the final, authoritative word on Christianity.  He taught against the creeds of traditional Christianity and claimed that he had received revelations directly from God that supplement the New Testament.  He rejected the older traditions as incomplete or simply incorrect in light of new revelation. Joseph Smith’s teachings were institutionalized by Brigham Young and other leaders of the LDS Church, where most Mormons claim membership. 

In the past 200 years Christianity has changed and grown extremely rapidly compared to the first 2000 years of existence.  There have been many others, like Joseph Smith, who have embraced the Christian scriptures, but have rejected the previous traditions used to supplement and interpret the scriptures. Jehovah’s Witnesses are an example of this. Christian churches have expanded and developed in the way they and their members approach the world and each other.

Because Mormons, Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants all believe in the New Testament, they are most easily defined by the traditions that separate them. The Catholic, Mormon, and Orthodox churches believe their traditions that they the one-and-only church with direct authority from God to operate. Protestants believe in a tradition where people from all kinds of churches can be saved so long as they believe in the most important traditions. Catholics have made efforts to accept Protestants back into their fold because Protestants continue to believe in what are considered the most important traditions. Mormons are very different from most Christians in that they reject all of the historical traditions and focus on the new traditions introduced by Joseph Smith and expanded by other leaders.

There it is,a first cut for your consideration.  Because I intend to put my project into practice on my actual children I am very interested in the feedback of other believers on (1) the project of creating such narratives to indoctrinate children, and (2) this particular narrative.

My bible study group was recently discussing this passage and my wife rhetorically asked “Was Stephen’s sermon effective?” The obvious Christian answer is “yes”, but I can’t imagine in the first weeks and months following Stephen’s sermon that many Christians thought that it was effective. The story does not tell of any Jew who became a Christian because of the sermon; in fact it seemed to have the opposite effect, entrenching the hatred and persecution of this new religious community. The church at that moment in time is what we today would call a mega-church. Thousands of believers were together, centered in Jerusalem with thousands being added daily. The church was becoming institutionalized adding structure and organization to make it more effective in its mission. As Stephen was dragged out of the city, all of the success of the early church seemed to be dragged out with him. Christians were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria and forced into secrecy and fear. Many more would lose their lives for preaching the name of Jesus. Jewish authorities would no longer call for patient tolerance of this new heresy but instead made it legal to pursue and punish all who dared devote their lives to Jesus. By all appearances and short term evidences the event seemed to be an utter disaster for Christianity.

The Evangelical Church in America is currently facing a paradigm shift. For most of American history it has enjoyed a “favored religion” status and enjoyed both significant political and cultural influence. The culture as a whole has entered into a post-Christian age, where all of the presumptions of Christianity are now actively questioned and rejected. Almost all of the tenets of the Sexual Revolution have been adapted by the culture and many of those ideas stand in direct contradiction to Christian ethics. Christianity is moving from a place of preference and respect to one of suspicion and derision. The influence on faith in the public sphere is rejected and religious freedom is actively redefined as “freedom of worship” by segments of the federal government.

“Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy” by Eric Metaxas has recently captured the attention and imagination of large swaths of the Evangelical church. It tells the story of a young German theologian who actively opposes the transition in the German culture and institutional Lutheran Church to adopt and adapt to Nazism (in an effort to remain culturally acceptable). Bonhoeffer eventually founded a rival Lutheran sect and an underground Bible college. He also joined a resistance movement that plotted a failed assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler. Eventually Bonhoeffer was captured and executed by the Nazis in the last days of World War II.

Many Evangelicals (Metaxas included) are inspired by Bonhoeffer’s resistance to the changing culture and its intrusions on the theology of the Lutheran church. They fear the sexual liberation of our current age will likewise intrude on Christianity and demand the same kind of rejection of core principles that Nazism did in 1930s Germany. Others are offended by these comparisons and remind us, with respect to our previous failures to show compassion and justice to the LGBT community, that Bonhoeffer stood against the oppression of the Jewish minority; likewise Evangelicals should seek the political and social benefit of today’s homosexual minority lest we spoil our future witness. Still others, have whole-heartedly accepted the Sexual Revolution and embraced the rejection of heteronormativity either by a rejection of Biblical authority or by alternative interpretations that endorse sexual expression outside the confines of covenant, heterosexual marriage.

I recently saw this quote posted on Facebook and I think it’s about half way there. “One of the biggest temptations we face in the post-Christian context is the temptation to be liked.” – J.R. Vassar  I think the other great temptation of post-Christianity is to intentionally seek rejection and find solace in being despised. Both temptations are too easily achieved. For the next 20-30 years Evangelicalism will be finding a new place in American culture. In that time I’m certain of only one thing, there will be a great many mistakes made by Evangelicals. Some will adopt the spirit of the age and offer nothing the world does not have on its own. Others will remain quiet when they should speak, worried that the offense of the Gospel will be a burden neither they nor the church can bear. Some, without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, will rebuke and condemn the culture and alienate the name of Jesus from a great many people. I’ve seen all of these things by friends and acquaintances. They will continue to happen in large scale ways and in individual conversations. They will be tragic and embarrassing.

There is a very fine line for us to walk, one that I constantly worry is not being well minded. I think that the days of the United States sitting in the center of Evangelical culture are behind us. New leadership, new expressions and new revivals will be found. In the mean time, I will pray for the day, when a Christian with tremendous character, but a seemingly low office of influence, finds herself (or himself) full of the Holy Spirit; saying things that utterly destroy all of the influence and institutions that we have placed our hope in — thereby causing the kingdom of God to flourish in the most unexpected and seemingly disastrous ways we can imagine.

Jesus pointed out the pretenders who did not seem to know they were pretending. To the Romans he pointed out that they were merely pretending to be the masters of the world. In fact, the Kingdom of God was in our midst and held sway over what mattered.  To those pretending to be good, he said there is no good but God.  To those pretending to honor the temple of God, he dealt a beating.  To those pretending to be his disciples, he exposed as denyers, betrayers, and court jesters. Jesus was God who pretended to be a man and–in the end–He exposed this pretense as well.

Few would disagree that those who follow Jesus only pretend to.   The Old Testament teaches us that we are foolish and pretending children to a Perfect Father who has given us his law, the New teaches us that we are all fallen and lost, incapable of following the law God gave–we can only pretend. The Book of Mormon teaches that when it comes to obedience, we are less than we are not the dust of the earth, only pretending to be submissive. Joseph Smith taught that our compliance and authority is often–because of our nature and disposition–simply pretense to fulfill our pride and hide our sins. Jesus’ apostles made it clear that Jesus was the Christ, we merely pretend to be Christians. Paul taught that whatever we are of Christ is not us, but Christ in us.

Ironically, Christians also like to point out pretenders.

When Protestants and Mormons see Catholics and Orthodox, they see a bunch of people pretending to have authority from Christ.  When Protestants and Catholics see Mormons, they see people pretending to follow the Bible and a common men pretending to be prophets from God.  When Catholics, Orthodox and Mormons see Protestants, they see people pretending to be saved, pretending to speak in tongues, and pretending to be Christ’s Church.  All of the errant doctrines, prophecies, practices, prayers and priesthoods of the other Christians are merely pretend, only man-made pretense.

Unsurprisingly, most Mormons believe that most Evangelicals are merely pretending to be Christians.  Of course you may find the occasional ”true follower of Christ” among their bunch but most are merely pretending that their being “born again” means anything. Mormons pity them for their ignorance and are grateful that they don’t have to pretend.

Mormons are taught all people are assumed children of God by birth, so they pretend to be like God himself.  God is the great King with whom we contract,  Christ our advocate in his courts.  They, like God, live by immutable laws of heaven. The priesthood Mormons hold is the very power of God himself. Their families, the very fabric of heaven and divinity itself. They readily offer anybody the tools to start pretending this way, and to joy the blessings that come.

Evangelicals are adept at seeing through the Mormon pretenders.  Evangelicals deny that we can pretend to be God, so they only pretend to be His children. As well they should. They recognize, with science, that man is born base animal whom religion has taught to pretend to be like God. The God that made this unfathomably big universe must also be unfathomably large, unique, and powerful– unlike us in every way. Thus, Evangelicals strive only to be His children through Christ, the evidence of His unfathomable love.  Adoption is free, any impediment is merely pretend. Those that accept this doctrine are born into a new family, those that deny any important part of if it, can only pretend to be saved in His kingdom.

Science also points out pretenders. At root, it is a mechanism to remove the facade of authority from any who deny experimentally demonstrable facts. So science would also agree that we merely pretend to be Christians.[But those pretend Christians can happily point out with philosophers that--even in the most rigorous science--our knowledge is only the pretense of a Truth unsullied by all of this human pretending.]

What kind of Christian do you pretend to be? This is the question each Christian would do well to pose their ego. But it’s hard to ask that way, isn’t it?  It supposes that we might not really have it all figured out. That– on some important level–we might only be pretending- no matter what we do, say, or believe!  This is why we generally politely refuse to make this inquiry.

And rightly so!  We are pretending to be above all of that. Whatever it is that causes us to pretend the way I do must somehow be more trustworthy than those of other pretenders– on every important point at least.

When I was a Mormon I was sensitive to pretenders. Those who went to church but didn’t really take it seriously. Those who pretended to believe. Those who would show up in church but were just like the non-Mormon kids at school.  Of course I could distinguish myself from this group, despite my own sinful ways and inconsistencies, because I was pretending to be a true believer, dyed in the wool.  I was the kind of pretender who had disdain for pretense of others.

Now that I am not pretending to be a Mormon any more, I am coming to terms  with the fact that I was pretending then and continue to pretend to be a Christian now.  It is is nothing to be ashamed of really. How could it be? It is is our inescapable fate. The hope for those pretenders like me is that–at some point in practice–pretense magically can become a sort of equivalence.  When we become like a child, and yield our hearts to the game, it transforms us like falling in love transforms a more formal relationship.  We start pretending that his person is the only one in the world for us (which is a happy game indeed.)

What I am starting to find is that on some things, it doesn’t matter whether I think I am pretending or not.  When I really pretend hard to live as Christ taught, pretend that my sins are forgiven and God loves me and all others, and pretend that it is not mere nonsense to say that we children of God (i.e. the creator and sustainer of the universe(s)), I feel something quite unique and amazing in my life (which I pretend is His Spirit.)  When I see that that this same principle applies to others, I pretend that this is very good news.

Prophet: receiving spiritual guidance from the Spirit of God.

Priest/Clergy: administering teachings within a community. Teaching, preaching, helping, managing, setting policy, etc.

Member: special attachment, loyalty, and duty to particular community or group

Disciple: a devotee seeking to practice the principles taught by the prophets.

I admit it’s an over-simplified model;  there are a bunch more roles that come into play: e.g.,Saint, Missionary, Theologian, Convert, Skeptic, Monk, Mystic, etc.  And I am probably not using the terms in a  completely standard way.  But for me it’s a start on trying to grasp all the dynamics involved in living a faith.

It seems to me that these roles are distinct, yet can be present in one person in concert and at various levels of intensity.  They can also be competitive. Mormonism– perhaps to its strength–gives each of these roles to almost every member:

Prophet: Mormon obviously believe that there are men that can speak authoritatively for God now, but they are also taught to cultivate an attitude of prophecy– explicitly told that each member is entitled to revelation. The doctrine of the Gift of the Holy Ghost makes the role of prophet central to every Mormon’s life.

Clergy/Priest:  Mormonism gives most members the opportunity to be clergy. Every male member is in the role of priest or clergy and are generally given– or should be given– specific responsibilities to administer in the congregation.  Women also have ecclesiastical/pastoral roles, if limited to areas not involving ordinances. There are low barriers to entry into ecclesiastical roles– no diploma is required. High levels of responsibility are offered to lay members without any training. Many times callings are given in spite of abject lack of qualifications (the prophet  role at work).  Generally willingness to do the work is the only requirement.

Member:  Mormons make a big deal about being a member of the church. Membership solidifies a community, makes members feel distinct from the world, and makes being a part of worldwide community not subject to question once you meet the criteria.  Mormons have all kinds of groups– each with a membership dynamic. The dynamic permeates to the most basic relationships.   Family membership– being a eternal part of a distinct family group–is not only approved by God, but integral to the purpose of life.   Most members wear their membership like they wear their citizenship. It is a role that they own and that they are ordained to be. The dynamic is akin to citizenship, which may be part of the reason that patriotism is strong in Mormonism.

Disciple:  Mormonism is very practical.  A good Mormon wants to be good. Mormons generally read the scriptures like a handbook for life.  The goal is to “liken the scriptures” to your life.  I have heard it said that because everybody will have the chance to be baptized, the Scriptures are ultimately not much more than a method of convincing people to keep the commandments.  Not a common belief, but it demonstrates how living the religion, rather than simply belonging or believing is part of the aim of Mormonism. Mormons differ from some Christian disciples in that they don’t generally have the cult-like devotion to Jesus or anybody else really. Being a disciple is a matter of contract with God.  Discipleship is practiced for the self as well as for God.  Mormons are taught that God is bound when we do what he says. (a remarkable thought actually.)  Mormonism discipleship incorporates minor elements of asceticism (fasting, Word of Wisdom), monastic life (Missionaries).

A visit to a Mormon congregation will reveal all of these roles– and the various members’ emphasis on the roles– in different degrees.  A Bishop is a sort of prophet for his ward as well as a priest and a disciple.  Every member has pastoral responsibilities as a visiting or home teacher.  The preaching is done by members. The doctrine of the Gift of the Holy Ghost combines membership with a prophetic role– giving it deep spiritual significance. Discipleship– arguably the most difficult role for a Christian– is generally taken very seriously.

For those that can bear the confines of Church culture (e.g. gender roles, legalism, conservative politics,homophobia, etc.) it can be a very fulfilling place to practice Christian religion. It can lead to a very rich religious life allowing the believer the spiritual benefits of the many roles. Because they are well-defined–and essentially thrust on people–it pushes them outside their comfort zone and can lead to personal and spiritual growth.  It also creates a close-knit community of disciples.  It forges a strong identity that persists independently of practice or belief.  It leads people to found and foster strong families, generally focused on virtue.

Of course there are downsides to the Mormon approach. Mormons are wont to get stuck in roles that they are not suited, at the expense of their happiness and spirituality.  I know Mormons who are so stuck in trying to be a prophet–at least in their own lives–that they live in a literal hell of personal compliance with arbitrary rules in order feel be worthy of the Spirit. Some are far to ready to consider their personal feelings to be divine.  I know some that are stuck in the role of priesthood leader and judge, and miss the point of Christian love and forgiveness.  Mormon focus on membership can lead some to exclusivity and pride, at the expense of discipleship.  Mormon discipleship lacks a personal element and can devolve in transactional religion– playing quid-pro-quo with God. And sometimes it’s all  too much to balance.   A common Mormon complaint is that there are too many things to do; religious roles often crowd out family roles– especially when professional responsibilities are added to the mix.  (Mormon women often express how liberating it is not to have to fill the role of priest.)

Evangelicalism probably offers a lot freedom but perhaps higher barriers to entry to some roles. You generally don’t have to worry about being a prophet, priest, or even a member.  When the roles are not thrust upon you, it seems you can pick those you most like or are most suited to fulfill.   The doctrine of grace that can be readily embraced lifts a lot of the heavy weight of discipleship, and actually frees people up to only do what they want to do. (Of course this allows people to choose very shallow levels of activity, which could be seen as a strength or a weakness of the faith.)

I think the freedom from defined role allows Evangelicals to incorporate passion into their religion better.  Evangelical seems to allows most to approach God as themselves, and not in relation to a role they should fulfill.  Evangelicals may also simply have time to praise.  Its easier to take an hour or so and stand and sing praise songs to Jesus when you don’t have a Sunday school lesson to prepare (and several to listen to), a home teaching assignment, a welfare assignment, a talk to give, a job to work, a bunch of kids, and a church leadership calling.

Recognizing the dynamics of the benefits and drawbacks of defined roles– both chosen and imposed–leads me to all kinds of questions:   Is there a better balance between individually chosen roles vs. institutionally defined roles that could be struck in Evangelicalism and Mormonism?   How could Mormonism benefit by allowing members to de-emphasize certain roles without judgment, and allowing people to chose their roles more?  Could Evangelicals benefit from more roles that are imposed on them by others? As an individual, what roles would be best for me to act in and which would be best for my family and others?

Maybe these sorts of questions can lead us to think more collectively and creatively about how Christianity works across Mormon and Evangelical traditions, how it could work better for us, and how we could work better for it.

Over the years the blog has been a place for me to vent a lot of the deep thoughts and patent nonsense that bubbled up during this process. (Regulars here will recognize I write far more of the latter than the former.)  But lately I have been thinking about what attracted me to this blog– and how it might help me in the new spiritual life that I face.

Me & the Evangelicals: I grew up in Kansas, on the edge of the Bible Belt, but knew hardly anybody who was a believing Evangelical christian in the way that I was a believing Mormon.  I can only remember one kid who was a preacher’s kid who seemed as into his church as I was mine.   I was a missionary in Southern California. When I was called, I was really bummed that I had to go stateside and English speaking. But looking back it was really a great time. Lots of people to talk to, fantastic weather, and all kinds of cultures and religions, and no language to hassle with. But one thing that being a missionary here did was sour me to Evangelical Christians.  I spoke with hundreds of them about religion, and even baptized a few of them. For the most part, I was not particularly impressed with their religion. To a dyed-in-the-wool Mormon,  they had strange theology, a weird emphasis being saved, were overly political and prayed funny.  But what really turned me off was–of course– the anti-Mormon element among many Evangelical groups. I had many many lovely conversations with Evangelicals when they really opened up about their faith in their lives, but some of the most wacky, intense situations I had on my mission were with Evangelicals who seemed both afraid and aggressive toward me. I felt this sort of off-putting fear in various degrees from most Evangelicals.  My fellow missionaries and myself would often mock or deride “born-agains” for their weird behavior and absurd biblical interpretations and theology.  They were easily and happily dismissed. (Yes, I see the irony.)

So from my more mature Mormon perspective, Tim– the owner of the blog–appeared a refreshing difference. Over the years I came to find out that he is an articulate, passionate, reasoned believer who takes his religion extremely seriously yet has a lot of tolerance and a good sense of humor. I think his personal life demonstrates he has a real commitment to living as a Christian. I have met the man, and he carries a really good spirit with him.  Even though I don’t accept his theology, he strikes me an admirable disciple of the sort of Christian love that I really do believe in.  And he didn’t seem that afraid of Mormons. (For all I know most devout evangelicals are like Tim, I just wasn’t interested in getting to know them on their terms.) He definitely seems to be against the Church, but genuinely seems to care about showing Mormons something that is demonstrably precious to his life.  I think this puts him on about the same level as I was as a missionary. This made the discussion interesting and engaging.

And I think the discussion is important, even though I’m a non-believer in any recognized form of Christianity. There are things that you can learn from believers that skepticism can’t teach you. And its easier to be skeptical of words than a hug or a handshake. I’m a lawyer who studied philosophy; I can pick apart arguments, but its harder to argue with tangible Christianity in life.

So from my new perspective–that of person seeking a new way to engage in Christianity–I think that the Mormon/Evangelical discussion may be a way to discover how Christianity is working for different believers.  As my Mormon bias sheds away, I am much more interested in how each individual’s chosen brand of Christianity helps them to be better disciples of Jesus– how it transforms them or helps them transform themselves– even if they happen to be Mormon or Evangelical.  I think that the Mormons and Evangelicals here may have something to teach me– and each other– if they can look past the that I don’t/can’t seem to believe their theology and share in concrete terms what the Spirit is doing in their lives to make them better Christians.

So, for those that care to share: What advice can you give to someone like me– who is probably not interested in adopting your particular theology (no matter how correct you think it is) but wants to know what gives you the ability to love deeper and wider?  How does your surrender/devotion/prayer/faith/theology help you love others better even when it might be painful, uncomfortable, or inconvenient?  .

I felt certain that Mormonism would be used as a political device against Mitt Romney, specifically the priesthood ban. I was wrong. There certainly were left-leaning writers and opportunist who attempted to promote that angle, but those stories never really made national news. I thought a SuperPAC, unofficially affiliated with Barack Obama would create at least a few television ads attacking Mormonism’s past. Those ads never materialized. I have to say that I think the country is probably better for it. I think John McCain displayed considerable honor by not leveraging Rev. Jeremiah Wright in 2008 and President Obama returned the favor in terms of Mormonism in 2012.

Mormonism will continue to gain some national exposure about once every 10 years. But it will likely never receive the kind of media exposure it did over the last year. I don’t think the LDS church made any significant gains in converts or positive public perception, but it likewise did not suffer any large embarrassments.

About the most damaging thing to happen to Mormonism was the release of hidden video of the Endowment Ceremony. Interestingly enough, the publisher of that video, NewNameNoah, had his YouTube account suspended yesterday. If the LDS church had any role to play in that action, I think they couldn’t have chosen a better day than Election Day to make it happen. Any hopes for media coverage of that censorship will be unable to find a voice in the current news cycle. The video will live on and will remain publicly available, but will be much more difficult to find off of YouTube. [update: the account was reactivated the next day]

Second on the list of hits against the LDS church would be the church disciplinary actions against David Twede, the managing editor of MormonThink.com. The church wisely chose to suspend its disciplinary actions and Twede resigned on his own terms. He was able to successfully draw greater attention to his website but I think Twede made a number of missteps in equivocating about his potential excommunication being somehow tied to political comments against Mitt Romney.

Third on my list of problem areas for the church in the national exposure was the rise in prominence of some “non-correlated” Mormons such as Joanna Brooks and John Dehlin. They’ve found courage in their unorthodox views and the church has shown, that at least for the time being, it will not be calling people with such vocal views into disciplinary hearings as it did with the September 6. I think these individuals will be sticking around in the discussion of Mormonism and will be called upon by their new found media contacts to speak on Mormon matters at least as frequently as the official church spokesman. Many would consider this the greatest positive to emerge from this Mormon moment.

Robert Jeffress began the year with a discussion of Mormonism’s cultic status within Christianity. By year’s end Billy Graham was removing the word “cult” from his website not only in reference to Mormonism but toward several other religions as well. This may be the greatest benefit to Mormonism from the Romney campaign. The Evangelical use of the word “cult” as a reference toward heretical, new-religious-movements has probably come to an end. I think moving forward you will see “cult” being exclusively a reference to mind-controlling organizations.

Though a positive for the nation, I think the lack of attention on Mormonism in the outcome of the campaign is actually a negative for Mormonism. It shows that Mormonism (and perhaps religion in general) is largely irrelevant in the national discussion. People simply don’t care beyond a passing curiosity. In terms of future converts, it’s much better for a religion to be hated than to be irrelevant.

I’d wager that the next time a spotlight such as we’ve seen cast on Mormonism in 2012 will be caused by either a large political movement to legalize polygamy or some sort of leadership crisis. I anticipate the former (and for sure decriminalized polygamy) before the latter. Many Mormons may have hoped that a Romney presidency would bring about a long awaited acceptance in American culture. The energy and opportunity for that sort of shift has now ended. In the United States, Mormonism will now return to being a topic of discussion for Mormons, former Mormons, a few curious onlookers and detractors and a shrinking number of potential converts.