The World Is Wide Enough: the message of "Hamilton" is more relevant than ever

The past few weeks, I have been living in the 18th-century with my non-stop listening to "Hamilton": a new musical by Lin Manuel-Miranda that retells the life of Alexander Hamilton (the first Secretary of the Treasury) with a delightful assortment of rap, hip hop and jazz. Probably one of the most poignant lines comes from Aaron Burr, Hamilton's bitterest enemy due to decades of ranking jealousy, misunderstandings, and vehement political differences. Yet after shooting Hamilton in America's most notorious duel, he mournfully sings:

I was too young and blind to see
I should’ve known
I should’ve known  
The world was wide enough for both Hamilton and me.


The phrase "the world was wide enough" speaks to me on multiple levels. On the obvious note, it rings back to the show's juxtaposition of Hamilton as an impoverished immigrant from the Caribbean who "got a lot farther/By being a self-starter," with Burr's privileged American roots (his father was president of Princeton). When Hamilton and Lafayette proudly rap, "Immigrants! We get the job done," the play is a not-so-subtle reminder of America's indebtedness to foreigners like them. So, as our nation's leaders debate whether to accept Syrians and Muslims into our country, the play's tribute to an indigent, parentless refugee who founded our nation's economic systems is nothing short of powerful. America should be wide enough for the firmly established American Burrs and the Hamiltons desperately seeking a better life in this nation.

But as Aaron Burr laments his former feelings of acrimony towards Hamilton, this phrase also speaks of making room for people--not removing them. It calls us all to recognize that our world's beauty and complexity is rooted in differing--even opposing--opinions. And while we may no longer formally duel our opponents, I do worry that we are taking an increasingly Burr-like approach to ousting or shunning those with whom we disagree. Our love of man seems to be waxing cold.

My concern is largely rooted in the burgeoning student protest culture that focuses on dismissing those who may present challenges to their worldview of diversity. I certainly believe in inclusivity; I loathe racism and prejudice as anyone else. But something is wrong about a mildly-written email about Halloween costumes that warrants a student to scream and curse at their administrator. Something is awry with student activists (and a professor!) imtimidating a student journalist from entering a protest on public space.Whatever happened holding discussions with leaders? Writing op-eds? What lesson does it teach these students when they can simply oust others for having a differing perspective, rather than learning to calmly discuss and work with others toward a solution? While I hope that our nation becomes safer for traditionally marginalized groups, I simultaneously worry just how far my generation will go to maintain their views of "political correctness," which seems to justify sanctimonious bullying.

Indeed, recent student protests only seem to reinforce the Atlantic's landmark article, "The Coddling of the American Mind," arguing how teachers are reluctant to present the less popular point of view--for fear of causing offense. On a similar note, Arthur Brooks cogently argues that academia is increasingly biased against conservatives in his piece, "Academia's Rejection of Diversity," and calls for more ideological diversity. It is a painful irony that our educational system, rather than widening our world, may actually be narrowing it.  

We can all work to make our world a little wider. One can only hope that we don't end up like Burr and realize this lesson too late.

How I Confront Doubt: Part 2

Since responding to Hans Mattson's experience with encountering doubt, I have been interested to read the range of responses both here and elsewhere, ranging from effusive praise to vitriolic criticism. I would like to take this opportunity to respond to readers' concerns from my post:

1. Whether or not our church has the responsibility to teach members its history.

With the Internet's all-encompassing presence in our society, I am confident that our church will become more transparent about our past. And I think that more frank discussion and openness about these issues can be accomplished in two ways:

 1. Talking about these issues outside of church meetings, such as Institute (weekly church education classes) and special firesides (Sunday evening meetings).
 2. Members being willing to put forth additional study into Mormon scholarship.

I believe that official Sunday meetings, however, are an arena where we should continue to primarily focus on our doctrine, not on controversial historic events.

2. Why I only chose Mormon authors as resources.

Some were irritated that I only chose Mormon scholars as resources to draw from. I included those sources to demonstrate that other Mormons have seriously contemplated and researched the issues that Mattsson brought up. I definitely understand that part of scholarship is drawing from multiple perspectives to ascertain truth. However, Mormon studies has traditionally consisted of either active Mormons or scholars with an obvious ax to grind. There have not been many non-Mormons who can describe the faith in a dispassionate fashion (Jan Shipps is an obvious exception).

However, as this New York Times article describes, Mormon studies is becoming a more promising field, with more non-Mormon scholars making strong contributions. One of them is John G. Turner, who recently published Brigham Young, Pioneer Prophet with Harvard University Press. Interestingly, he stated in this article that our church leaders gave him "unfettered access" to historical documents, which gives me more confidence of our church's increased transparency. I genuinely look forward to how Mormon studies continues to emerge and shape itself in intellectual circles. 

3. The argument of a faith-based choice not being an intellectual act
In the future, I will elucidate further on this topic. In short: I believe it is unfair to criticize those who make faith-based choices, as religion is certainly not the only place where we cannot necessarily "prove" everything. Philosophy, for example, is inherently based on axioms. And science, though ostensibly the area of "hard evidence," is also a field where scientists have to exercise "faith" in their colleagues as well. A friend with a PhD in computer science from MIT, for example, affirmed that she has to assume that scientific observations are truthfully represented and that, often, claims from other scientists go unverified. We often choose to think and make choices based on confidence in someone or something, not necessarily on hard proof. Yet, as theologian Marilynne Robinson explains, "The world would be a very empty place if it were not in fact axiomatic." I definitely agree.

In closing: I believe that members struggling with doubt deserve respect and understanding. After all, as I have stated in a previous post, doubt is not inherently bad, but rather, an experience that can deepen our understanding of our faith. I pray and hope that with increased conversations and acquired knowledge, members can better walk the road of faith and doubt.

Image by mattpeel10.

Responding to others' comments to "Why I am Staying"

With the burst of accolades, acerbic criticism, as well as Google+ and Facebook notifications that erupted from this post, I am even more cognizant that retaining millennials in church is very germane to current religious discussion. I would like to use this post to respond to others' comments and criticism:

1. The exhibition of members' and church leaders' poor behavior.
Many people immediately described how they have been emotionally hurt by other members. Certainly, we should ensure that we are not stumbling blocks to others' faith. But I don't pretend that the Mormon church as an institution is infallible. It will never be perfect, because the people in it are not perfect. I have certainly been frustrated by members' behavior numerous times.  However, we are still taught to view our fellow members as brothers and sisters because we need to learn to work together, forgive freely (see my previous posts on forgiveness and toleration), and strive to view them as God sees them. Being a member of this church has challenged me to reach out to others whom I don't think that I would befriend otherwise, and served as an ideal laboratory for me to take the precepts of Christ's teachings into practice. I realize that this model is not unique to our faith. But I appreciate that it is in place for us to potentially develop the strong bonds of sisterhood and brotherhood that the gospel can help us achieve.

2. The issue of nonpaid clergy.
I realize that I may have offended others who have seen other leaders of other faiths genuinely care about their congregations. Like I said before, I am merely referring to my own faith experience, and I am very aware that leaders of other denominations have genuine intent. I certainly don't assume that church leaders won't make mistakes (see a previous post on this), but I do believe that for the most part, a local church leader's willingness to spend a substantial amount of time on congregations' needs with no monetary compensation is a strong indicator of their genuine intent. And as I have stated before, we need to listen to our leaders' words in "all patience and faith" (Doctrine and Covenants 21:5).

3. The issue of asking questions.
Many people perceive Mormonism as a religion where we blindly follow local church leaders, irrespective of what they say. This is simply untrue. We are a church that heavily focuses on personal revelation. Professor Kathleen Flake at Vanderbilt even refers to Joseph Smith as the "Henry Ford" of revelation, wanting everyone to have access to it.

For example, we are specifically told to receive a personal confirmation from prayer that what church leaders are saying are true. Moreover, we are taught that we can obtain a relationship with God, which comes through inquiring to him about our decisions and our concerns. I don't know whether we will receive answers to every question that we will have (see my previous post on doubt). But I have found that the more more I inquire and search the gospel for answers, the more knowledge I am capable of obtaining. I believe that God is one who earnestly wants to impart His knowledge to us, provided that we are ready to receive it.

4. Whether or not our doctrine can be reduced to a "laundry list."
For many people, our church is ostensibly a commandment-driven religion. However, I perceive these commandments as helping to refashion me into the person that God wants me to be.
A previous post of mine explores John Milton's poem "On His Blindness," where Milton decides that it is our desires of our hearts, not our talents, that make us valuable to God. I agree wholeheartedly. Like I said before, God will judge us by our hearts; not by our "church resume."

Image by Philip Newton.

Can tolerance be viewed as a lower form of love?

As may be obvious from my last post, I am very interested in acceptance, which leads me to my next musing: tolerance. I define tolerance as acceptance, though not necessarily agreement. Tolerance is a volatile topic; what we choose and not choose to tolerate largely characterizes us. So how do we define the parameters of our tolerance?

To start this conversation, let's consider toleration's (relatively short) history in Western thought. Locke and later Voltaire, incredulous that King Philip would revoke the Edict of Nantes (a treaty that recognized French Calvinism in a dominant Catholic country), advocated for the separation of religion and state. Locke even wrote an anonymous letter in Latin to the King, saying that it was gentle persuasion, not violence or government intervention, that led to genuine conversion. More importantly, one who possessed wrong beliefs did not deserve a broken body. It was Locke, Voltaire, and other Enlightenment thinkers who viewed the extent of one's tolerance as a sort of litmus test of being a "modern" person.

I would argue that we are very much inheritors of much Enlightenment thought. I think that it is little accident that society asks us to be inclusive to others, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Like these previous Enlightenment thinkers, we want to be perceived as a "modern" person, not blinded by a myopic perspective. But in a post-Enlightenment society, I think we need to consider how far does (or should) our toleration extend. Obviously, if we choose to uphold certain principles, we cannot tolerate everything that comes our way. I think that few people wish to tolerate the more nefarious aspects of our society: rape, abuse, etc. But tolerance can be a slippery slope when our principles may conflict with others. How far do we wish to tolerate others' freedom of speech? Religious fundamentalism? Right to bear arms? The right to marry whomever we choose, irrespective of gender?

To what extent we choose to tolerate others' beliefs and principles is a complicated one that we need to figure out for ourselves. The only "hard and fast" rule I can think of is our toleration towards others. I believe it is possible to look at tolerance as a lower form of love. For me, love can be partially defined as acceptance, though not necessarily agreement. We don't have to agree with every belief, principle, or political statement that comes our way. But we can accept others' humanity, which reaffirms our own. We can view others as human beings of great worth, and respect others' choices to define their "tolerance parameters." In choosing to increase our tolerance levels toward others, I would argue that we increase our capacity to love. 


Photo by RaeAllen.

How can a singles ward on Sunday be more of a spiritual experience?

 Before I delve into this topic, allow me to say that my singles ward experience has been a positive one overall. I am grateful for having the opportunity to associate with people of a high caliber. And of course, I am acutely aware that this model is in place, partly so that I can interact with dateable Mormon men.

However, the advantages of a singles ward's structure can also be its greatest flaw as well. I want to focus on the susceptibility for single men and women to approach church meetings as more of a social gathering with ample flirting opportunities, rather than a time for them to strengthen their testimony of Jesus Christ.

I realize that Sunday meetings are an incredibly conducive environment for catching up with friends whom we haven't seen throughout the week, as well as meeting and attracting the opposite gender. But if we lose perspective on why we go to church, we reduce our capacity for spiritual progression. And over a long period of time, we miss out on a weekly opportunity to prepare ourselves to be spiritual teachers for others, including our future children. So what do we do?

While I certainly do not propose eradicating the social culture associated with singles wards on Sundays, I think that our singles ward model may force us to work a little harder to ensure that we remember our purpose in attending church. I, for one, would be hypocritical if I did not admit to falling into the wrong mindset at times. While I think that my church experience is meaningful, I am trying to figure out ways that it can be more spiritually enlarging. I am interested in hearing other thoughts as to how other singles have tried to get more out of their church experience.

Here are my ideas so far:

1. Spiritually prepare yourself for church the same amount of time that you get ready on Sunday.

I don't know what men do in the morning, but ladies, let's be honest. We spend about an hour (if not longer) to look our best and (hopefully) catch that young man's attention. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this practice, but for the most part, I find that my spiritual preparation in comparison is sadly lacking. Have I actually read the Sunday school or Relief Society lesson during the week? Do I go to church with a prayer for my heart to be receptive to what the Spirit is trying to teach me? Do I have questions in mind, hoping that they will be answered? Maybe, but not often enough.

In adopting this lackadaisical behavior, I find myself in danger of maintaining an attitude that I already know the gospel, and I don't have to study it. I forget that no matter how long I have been a member of the church, understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ is a lifelong pursuit. For me, I think that balancing my spiritual and physical preparation can lead me to have a richer church experience. So, as of this week, I have made a resolve to study the Relief Society and Sunday School lesson for 45 minutes--the same amount of time that I get ready for church on Sunday morning. Hopefully, I can avoid these pitfalls that I have just described.

2. When getting ready for church, ask, "Am I wearing this to maintain a worshipful attitude? Or am I wearing it to attract attention?"

It's an interesting conundrum at times getting ready for church on Sundays. We are told to dress nicely in order to maintain a worshipful attitude. Yet that same environment also includes a myriad of attractive men as well--and it is so easy to dress beautifully for them, rather than God. Yet in doing so, we risk reducing ourselves to merely a body that is meant to attract men (you can read my post on modesty for my expanded thoughts on this). That's hardly empowering. A friend of mine told me that she asked herself the question posed above while getting ready for church, and I have tried to adopt this practice.

3. Before making a comment in Sunday School ask, "Am I making this comment to get noticed? Or am I saying it because the Spirit directed me to?"

A friend gave me this advice, and it has been really helpful for me when debating whether or not to raise my hand. Sunday School can be such an ideal platform for us to overtly display our knowledge, or our capacity to have rich spiritual experiences. I have found that the best Sunday School discussions are those where people go with the intent to learn from others and contribute to the conversation as the Spirit directs them.

4. When speaking to others in church, give them your full undivided attention.
A friend of mine told me that when speaking to people, she strives to listen to them like they are the most important person in the world at that moment. I have been trying to incorporate this perspective, as I am often guilty of having the "wandering eye" when I speak to others. I get so interested in trying to find those whom I visit-teach and catch up with other friends, that I can get distracted when speaking to another son or daughter of God. I think that the more we strive to treat everyone like someone of infinite worth with something important to say, we help create a more Zion-like environment.

These four points are all things I am trying to work on. What else can we do to have a more spiritual experience in singles wards on Sundays?

Photo credit by mbush_utah.

JK Rowling's Dabbling with 17th-Century Alchemy

Perhaps JK Rowling should credit her first book's success to her knowledge of 17th century alchemy. Her first book, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (called "The Philosopher's Stone in Britain) is rooted in what used to be considered fact, rather than fiction, for centuries. Nicholas Flamel was an 14th-century alchemist (one who searches for the process of transforming base metals into gold), and he was widely credited for producing "the philosopher's stone": the stone that could transmute metals to turn to gold, as well as produce the "elixir" of eternal life.

Flamel's reputation was greatly revived in the 17th century with a recrudescent fascination of the alchemical process. Almost a century earlier, Paracelsus had ushered in the idea of chemical mixtures restoring physical health, giving way to a new search for a mixture that could produce immortality.

I was so giddy when I found this out. At the time, I had been slaving away in the Boston College library trying to understand the alchemical references in Donne's "Devotion 11," probably mirroring Hermione's experience of combing through page after page in Hogwart's restricted library section. I think I may have been just as excited as her when I found out for myself just who Nicolas Flamel really was.

Abercrombie's marketing from a 19th-century feminist position

Many of you are aware that Abercrombie 's CEO recently affirmed that his market clothing was "exclusionary," as it is supposed to only appeal (and fit) the "cool" kids. In fact, Abercrombie's clothing is so exclusive that it does not include a woman's size above a size 10--sparking outcry and vitriolic criticism worldwide.

Obviously, I do not condone Abercrombie's philosophy. But I think that the CEO's choice to exclude overweight women from their clothing is important to consider in a post-modern world. Society has come a long way in valuing women other than their fertility and physical attractiveness. In fact, it was long held that children inherited their physical body from their mother and their soul from their father. From this belief, women became associated more with beauty and men for their wisdom and knowledge.

Margaret Fuller, one of the most seminal 19th-century feminists, lambasted these views in Woman in the Nineteenth Century, as she recognized that these beliefs reduced women solely to a body, rather than a body with a soul. Moreover, she asserted that when men viewed women as simply a body meant for physical pleasure, they subsequently reduced themselves to the bodily sphere as well, as they were solely focusing on their carnal appetite. Rather, Fuller argued, both men and women had to be aware of the the need for the soul's nourishment, which came as a result of intellectual activity and an earnest search for truth. That is not to say that the body was inferior to the soul; physical exercise in her mind was vital in assisting the soul. But in focusing more on activities intended to fuel their vanity, women, in her mind, became a "blighted half-being."

Today, an unprecedented amount of women have more opportunity than ever to engage and enlarge their intellects, and, in many ways, Fuller's dream has been realized. But when we read comments such as those by the Abercrombie CEO, we are reminded that there are still threads of societal regression. We are still showing signs of valuing women to the extent that they are aligned with an ideal physical form. The outcry of Abercrombie's marketing brings me hope that society is moving in the direction of valuing the woman's souls over their bodies. And I hope that it continues.

Why Mormons Should Care About Emanuel Swedenborg

Someone asked me recently whom I would wish to meet someday. I answered Emanuel Swedenborg, because I think he played an intrinsic role in establishing the intellectual and cultural environment of Joseph Smith. Let me explain.

In studying the Transcendentalists, I was intrigued by Emerson's numerous references to Emanuel Swedenborg. By the almost reverential veneration that Emerson gives him (no small feat!), I assumed that Swedenborg had to be an important person--and I set out on a research hunt. It turns out that Swedenborg is one of the intellectual and spiritual giants of the 18th century that no one really talks about anymore. That's a shame, because he was the first man to discover atomic theory (several centuries before Einstein) and was known as one of the most brilliant scientists of his time.

But Swedenborg's life takes an interesting turn when he is 57. He claims to have had heavenly visions, where he was able to view heaven, speak to angels, and even describe the Last Judgement. He faithfully wrote down these visions, which allegedly happened for 27 years, instigating both fascination and contempt. One of the most interesting visions that Swedenborg explains is marriage in heaven, a goal that was possible for men and women who had the appropriate spiritual language or "conjugial love." As Mormons believe in marriage being able to continue on after this life, Swedenborg's view of marriage in heaven is perhaps the most obvious link to Mormon theology. His story may also sound familiar to Mormons as well, since his heavenly manifestations made him believe that the true church of Christ was not on the earth, leading his followers to establish "The New Church" (still in existence today).

But I think that Swedenborg left an even greater impact on Mormonism than we might think.

Joseph Smith's theology has already been connected with both Romanticism and Transcendentalism, as both movements divorced from the classic view of man's fallen state and considered how knowledge could be acquired by means other than rationality: experience, intuition, and human imagination. Both emphasized the obtaining of a relationship with the divine, often achieved through a oneness with nature. 

 Swedenborg, however, was an important precedent to these beliefs outlines above. His series of visions defied what was considered "rational"; he was acquiring knowledge of heaven through a means that no one else had. Moreover, it was Swedenborg, not Emerson, who first taught of the intrinsic link between nature and man's soul. Robert Sampson, a Harvard theology student and Swedenborgian, gave a sermon in Boston that included the need for men to understand nature, where Emerson happened to be in attendance. Little wonder that his first treatise, Nature, was published several years later.

I would argue that Swedenborg was a perpetrator of the Romantic and Transcendentalist air that Joseph Smith was a part of. When Joseph is 14, he certainly uses a sense of rationality in believing that James 1:5 applied to his situation, as he sought knowledge for himself. But in believing that God would give him an answer, as well as going into nature to acquire knowledge, he also shows himself as adhering to more recent, burgeoning intellectual traditions. Moreover, in claiming to have a divine manifestation, Joseph was also showing an adherence to Swedenborgian thought, as he also believed to be heaven's spokesman.

As a Mormon, I believe that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. I also believe that God works on a macro-level, as He helps work to propel certain intellectual movements, such as Romanticism and Transcendentalism, to accomplish his purposes. I also believe that Swedenborg was an important progenitor of the Restoration--and he deserves more credit than history has given him.