So I often think about life when I finally finish the book I\u2019ve been working on for a long time. Probably a lot of questions and some unhappiness both from Orthodoxy and ex-Mormons. Both sides may be unhappy that I held such views while serving as bishop. That\u2019s understandable.<\/p>\n
One point I wanted to address was something I saw while John Dehlin was interviewing Bill Reel and both were saying how important full-disclosure was on issues that pertain to Mormon belief. They felt obligated to let Mormons know about the bad stuff so that such Mormons could have informed choices about their faith. Mormons who were\/are not as frank as them are apparently bad.<\/p>\n
I thought, \u201cHmm, I imagine they\u2019d probably criticize my attitude of mostly being quiet at church.\u201d And I don\u2019t mind being so criticized as I have many differences with those commentators, but I do think it would be helpful to explain why I do so.
\n
\nMany years ago, Joanna Brooks wrote a post at Feminist Mormon Housewives (I think, I can\u2019t find it there) talking about her practice of \u201cquiet\u201d at church. If I recall, she saw it as a spiritual act she had practiced since returning to church and compared it to the Quakers’ practice.<\/p>\n
The Quakers have a practice (generally) of not speaking in meetings unless prompted by the spirit to do so. I\u2019ve not been, but I\u2019ve heard that it\u2019s not usual for there to be mostly quiet during their meetings. Quakers hold that the act of quiet is spiritual, and Brooks said she felt that being quiet during Mormon church services.<\/p>\n
That post really resonated with me because I like the Quakers, and at the time and since, that\u2019s mostly how I like to worship in church. Of course, you can\u2019t always be quiet: talks and lessons, and the whole bishop thing meant I was expected to talk a whole lot more than I like to in church. With the release, I\u2019m back to mostly quiet again (though talks and lessons are fine too).<\/p>\n
\u201cQuiet\u201d was a practice I started around the time I got into church history, which happened at the end of my undergrad around 1999. Prior to that time, I\u2019d been a student that who liked to raise his hand a lot, but after a few years of mucking in Mormon history it started to feel really distasteful to me to play class \u201cknow-it-all\u201d at church.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, I also came to believe strongly in the complexity of history and that tossing out little tidbits from the back of Sunday School wasn\u2019t a good way to discuss history. Proper discussions of history worked better in other settings.<\/p>\n
The first time I remember sharing this view with a friend was in 2002, so it was around that time that I embraced quiet at church. I determined that Sunday School was quite a different place that school, and the function certainly was not to be \u201cThe Steve Show.\u201d Learning more about church history did engender some different viewpoints and I figured those were best shared in places like MHA and with other history buddies. Not church.<\/p>\n
Ideally, church was a place to focus on gospel principles. In teaching and speaking (and while I was bishop) I wanted to focus on the central question of \u201chow do we live the gospel when that\u2019s a hard thing to do?\u201d I know this doesn\u2019t always happen in church, but it\u2019s what I like to focus on.<\/p>\n
But as I mentioned in previous posts, my own study of Mormon history has led me to many unorthodox beliefs and I still like the Naked Gun reference<\/a> of occasionally looking around and saying to myself \u201cAnd where the hell was I?\u201d Though I do generally end up feeling like I can make sense of my place in the church and the feeling that the church is where God wants me.<\/p>\n