Adam Miller’s Letter to a CES Student (Podcast)

I REALLY liked Adam Miller’s “Letters to a young Mormon.” It should be required reading for senior year seminary in my book.

But sometimes when I listen to Adam pontificate, I hear every word clearly yet still come to the end of a sentence and think to myself, “WHAT???? What did he just say?”. I used the rewind button on my MP3 player more on this than any other podcast I have listened to and STILL don’t get a bunch of it.

So for me the subtitle of this podcast is, “You are not quite as smart as you like to think you are!” I don’t know if Adam could write any of the “XYZ for dummies” books! He might hurt his back stooping down that low to write that.

I guess that is why I can best relate to his book written “down” to young folk! 😳

But don’t get me wrong. I do like listening to Adam and I do get much out of it.

Mormonism comes into focus as living and true only when we stop looking directly at it and, instead, aim our attention at what Mormonism is itself aiming at. If you aim right at Mormonism itself, you’ll miss seeing the thing that is crucial with respect to deciding whether it deserves your enduring fidelity.

Ok, don’t aim at Mormonism but aim at the thing that Mormonism is aimed at. This reminds me of what a pastor once told me, “You can be saved and be Mormon, but it won’t be the Mormonism that saves you.”

So if Mormonism itself and our unique combination of beliefs, truth claims, priesthood authority, and ordinances are not necessarily saving in and of themselves but are instead only useful in pointing the way to the true source of salvation – then what is the true source?

Let’s ask the question, then: what is Mormonism aiming at? Most straightforwardly, the answer is summarized in that single most important Christian word: grace.

Mormonism is aimed at grace. If you also aim at grace (rather than at Mormonism), then two things can happen: (1) you will be saved and (2) you will find Mormonism to boot.

What? This just seems so foreign to my experience. It is Mormonism that seems to be obsessed with Mormonism. Mormon church meetings that seem to focus on how great and special our religion is and how everyone in the world will someday be compelled to see how right we were all allong.

Later Adam references how he himself finds himself challenged and changed in uncomfortable yet beneficial ways through his experience with Mormonism. I get that and I believe that. I only wonder why not perform an analysis to see if there are any other methods out there that might be more effective at pointing us towards grace.

From my perspective Mormonism as a vehicle to grace is clogged with all sorts of detours, obstacles, and distractions. As individuals attempt to disentangle the vehicle from all these distractions, they are many times regarded as unfaithful by the general membership. I feel that Bill Reel is a great example of someone who is trying to move forward in this direction in as faithful a way possible and too often he gets resentment and suspicion for his efforts.

So once again – if I am on a limited timeline and the object of my existence is to find or point to grace and Mormonism is only marginally helpful at directing to grace for me presonally, then why should I not consider other vehicles that are more personally effective?

Take the Book of Mormon. It seems clear to me that God wants our experience of the world to be reshaped by our reading of the Book of Mormon. And, more, it seems clear to me that he doesn’t want us pinning the success of that project on our success in trying to prove something that we can’t prove and that he has explicitly chosen not to.

But we’re told that we must pray to receive a witness that the Book of Mormon is true, as in, real Nephites and Lamanites, real Angel Moroni, real gold plates. A testimony over the pulpit that even gently, as unobtrusively as possible, makes it clear you don’t believe literally is not acceptable. It doesn’t fit in a religion that takes its story out of a real stone box on a real hill. I don’t think non-literal believers feel welcome, which is too bad because I agree with him:

The big problems are straightforward. We’re dying here. You and I. We’re getting sick, we’re getting old, and we’re dying. Our lives are small and our time is short. Our days are filled with suffering of all kinds: distress, worry, boredom, frustration, and loss. Time will have its way with us. And both we – and everyone we love, and everything we love – will pass away. We are losing to time and we will, finally, lose everything.

Religion is meant to address these problems. And, in the end, the fruit it bears in addressing sin and suffering and death are its measure.

It’s easy, though, to get sidetracked by other things. In fact, it’s tempting to get sidetracked by other things.

What’s critical is the ability to (1) relieve suffering wherever possible, and (2) especially to change, in a fundamental way, our relationship to the suffering we can’t relieve.

And, in the end, the fruit it bears in addressing sin and suffering and death are its measure. We bear good fruit, I think.

Yes, in my search I failed to see the old thread. I’ll adapt this one to include the Mormon Discussion podcast with Adam.

But we’re told that we must pray to receive a witness that the Book of Mormon is true, as in, real Nephites and Lamanites, real Angel Moroni, real gold plates. A testimony over the pulpit that even gently, as unobtrusively as possible, makes it clear you don’t believe literally is not acceptable.

In the podcast Adam addresses this question head on. He argues that Moroni’s test is not really about the literalness of the BoM itself, but the way it’s worded points you to the target that the BoM text points you to. He mentioned “remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things..” and says the test is clearly directing us to find the BoM to be a valid homing beacon to Christ and to grace. The BoM is not about the BoM.

In the spirit of Adam’s message I say most of our cultural hangups (on literal interpretations etc.) can be attributed to the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

I realize from some perspectives his reasoning is gibberish, that is valid and I agree. But when I try to see it from the angle he is coming from everything opens up to a grand simplicity. It reminds me of the opening scene of the movie “Contact” where the entire universe seems to fit inside the eye of a girl.

What does (or should) everything point to? What does the church and BoM ultimately point to? What does Christ point to? What do the ordinances point to? What does the Atonement point to? What does Grace point to? What does exaltation point to? If we can rise above ourselves and see the ideal — or if our experience in life will take us to the point where we can see past ourselves — I think we come to experiencing that “mighty change of heart” and come to understand the purposes of God in a new light.

A testimony over the pulpit that even gently, as unobtrusively as possible, makes it clear you don’t believe literally is not acceptable.

I like to ponder the question: Is my priority to be acceptable to my fellow men, or to God? This is the design of my religion, this is why my religion has power to try and transform my soul. Can I learn to love even those who would direct me (unknowingly of course) to spiritual harm? Can I remain pointed toward the ultimate goodness of God?

He mentioned “remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things..” and says the test is clearly directing us to find the BoM to be a valid homing beacon to Christ and to grace. The BoM is not about the BoM.

This has been my take on the BoM for a while, because it is I can let go of the historicity issue, I can even say it’s a parable. The challenge comes is that most everyone else seems to be in position Ann writes about.

But we’re told that we must pray to receive a witness that the Book of Mormon is true, as in, real Nephites and Lamanites, real Angel Moroni, real gold plates. A testimony over the pulpit that even gently, as unobtrusively as possible, makes it clear you don’t believe literally is not acceptable.

That is the prevailing, from the top down, current. Now in time the church may adopt Adam’s POV, but it isn’t in any hurry to do so now.

Unfortunately for some, the further they go towards what is being pointed towards (grace) the less that they fit in at church. Is it possible that the church can stifle the gospel?

Isn’t one of the goals of the Mormon theology learning to become like god? Once one becomes more like god the church has largely served its purpose. It’s a stepping stone, crutch, ladder rung, etc.

At the point where the church begins to stifle progress I suppose people can stick around and shepherd others in their discovery. Maybe others will see the church as a means and not the end, maybe not. I know outside guidance down this path wouldn’t have worked for me before I was ready but the church did have the right mix of crazy to make this all possible.

Another angle to toss around: If the church was eager to adopt Adam’s pov would that strengthen our own personal growth on the subject? Maybe yes and no but does the “fire” strengthen our steel?

Thinking hard on this one.