A number of the bloggernacle’s luminaries descended on the party town of Sacramento, California, last weekend for the 2008 conference of the Mormon History Association (MHA)—a theme many have blogged about.
If you missed all the fun, there’s no reason to be bitter because there’s always next year! And if you thought they couldn’t top Sacramento, hold onto your stove-pipe hats…next year, MHA’s going to Springfield…(wait for it)…Illinois! Continue reading…
Not too long ago I went to “maturation training” in Lehi, Utah, with my 11-year-old fifth grader, who was definitely already showing signs of puberty (pimples and hair, mostly). He’s a big, somewhat chubby guy, so he’s ahead of the curve as far as physical development goes.
I grew up in the Los Angeles area, and I remember getting my training at this same age. What a time warp! In 1977 they showed us well-produced films and went into a lot more detail. Thirty years later in Utah, an old guy got up in front of the white board and laughably sketched a few biological details, but he never really connected the dots or made it clear that tab A goes into slot B. By the conclusion, I felt so much had been left out that I raised my hand and said, “Uh, does part two come next year, or what?” Continue reading…
The Fallout Story is a rule of etiquette (that I made up) that I hold sacred for discussing breakups. The rule is: the dumpee owns the fallout story. The dumper is prohibited from making any disparaging remarks (henceforth and forever) about the dumpee, as a matter of courtesy. As a friend put it: “She keeps the ring; she tells the story.” This is where we get the phrase: “It’s not you; it’s me.” We all know that’s not true (c’mon, if it wasn’t them, why are you dumping them?), but it is good etiquette. The Fallout Story rule applies for all kinds of breakups: romantic, employment, loaning money or credit, and I would like to suggest, leaving the church (it’s usually called an “exit story” in this last case, but the rule applies). Continue reading…
Speaking to a group of Latter-day Saints in Nauvoo, Joseph Smith once said that if he had the lungs for it, he would preach a sermon that would make all of them shut their mouths and go home until they knew something about deity. He then asked the following question: “Why be so certain that you comprehend the things of God, when all things with you are so uncertain?” (TPJS, p. 320)
Why, indeed? Latter-day Saints are well known for declaring their beliefs with the preface, “I know…” It’s simply not enough to say, “I believe….” In fact, the “I know” phraseology is so common, that in order to add emphasis, some will go further, with statements like, “I know with every fibre of my being….” In the LDS community, this emphatic certainty is looked upon as a desireable thing, so much so that those who are less emphatic in their affirmations can be looked upon as a bit defective. This “knowledge” is often, in fact, presented as one of the great offerings of the LDS church. Hugh Nibley, in many of his works, referred to what he considered the “terrible questions.” “Where did I come from?” “Why am I here?” “Where am I going?” To Nibley, these were universal questions faced by all mankind, and not being certain about the answers made a person unbearably anxious. Continue reading…
Beyond white shirts, facial hair and Coke — the Bloggernacle’s equivalent of the Holy Trinity — nothing gets Mormon bloggers’ collective knickers in a twist quite like the perception that they are forced into silence during the Sunday meeting block. On an almost daily basis, I run across posts and comments in which members bemoan the fact that, during their worship service, they feel unable to share with others (i) some nugget of non-correlated history, (ii) their left-of-center view on a theological point, or (iii) their discomfort with a cultural practice that has been adopted by the rest of the ward as a founding principle of the Gospel. I personally know folks (and you probably do, too) who have reduced their activity level because they do not agree with lessons being taught. For example, a buddy of mine has bowed out of Gospel Doctrine altogether because he cannot get behind the idea of a literal flood in the Bible account of Noah.
As a bearded Mormon history nerd with a head full of non-traditional opinions, I empathize with these feelings. I, too, have stifled comments in Elders’ Quorum for fear of rocking the boat or derailing an otherwise by-the-book lesson. Just like you, I have simmered quietly while others expressed opinions that I found offensive. But, at the risk of biting the digital hand that feeds me, I’m here to say, I’ve grown weary of the complaints. Enough is enough, already. It’s time for us all to put up or shut up!
My third son just graduated from seminary. My three sons have all gone to early-morning seminary. They stagger to class at 6:15 in the morning, bleary-eyed and yawning. They’ve all graduated, but two of them did significant makeup assignments to “get credit.” My last son made up 92 days, which is something of a record in our stake.
Do you believe that God the Father, the Son, and maybe even the Holy Ghost visited Joseph Smith in the spring of 1820?
Or did Joseph have a vision of them?
Does the difference matter? Do you base your testimony, your faith in the existence of God, your continued participation in Mormonism, on a visit of Deity to a young farmboy?
This could be the most meaningful six minutes and 44 seconds that you spend today.
And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.
Exodus 33:11
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
1 John 4: 12
It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other-This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
Joseph Smith-History v. 17
Currently there are four active humor blogs in the Bloggernacle.
Amazingly, all of them delete material that someone considers personally offensive if you just politely contact them. I try to regularly read them, and used to comment.
Since all entities or groups will draw satire or humor, we can either nurture what we like or reinforce what we don’t by the way we react. Like many things, our choice is not in whether or not humor (like adversity) will exist, merely what shape it will take.
Do some good in the world. Visit some humor sites, encourage the good, pass on the bad. Nurture what you want to see.
A guest post by our friend Dan
Does the label “Mormon” truly explain who we are? Does it truly embody everything that we believe in? I propose that we consider a re-labelling of the brand “Mormon” to more accurately describe who we are.
“We know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” Many of us seem to break out into hives when this scripture is mentioned. A while back I read a comment about this scripture (by a member of the church) that suggested the “after all we can do” should be left off the next time someone uses it in a talk. What does “all we can do” mean, and why does it bother us?
I was recently in Europe, partly for a vacation and partly for a series of talks in Austria. During the trip I had the pleasure of touring a major church and hearing the guide answer questions. Someone asked, why did people of the distant past support the church so stupendously, with so much of their time, nearly all their income beyond subsistence, and, really, their every life product? The guide answered, I think brilliantly. She said, you have to try to imagine being back there yourself. There was no sewage, no electricity, no color, no music, no entertainment, not even cleanliness, in people’s daily lives. It was harsh, harsh, and more harsh - except when you went to the church. Continue reading…
John Nilsson just mentioned this in his post, but I wanted to start a separate thread for this news. Also, John Dehlin suggested to our panel that it would be a good idea to try to keep up with current events.
So first of all, let me say that I don’t have a very strong opinion about this case and don’t claim to understand it. As I explained to the guy I car pool with, I suspect the FLDS is breaking laws but I also suspect that there is little chance of a fair trial for the FLDS, so we may never know if things were handled properly or not. Apparently I was wrong.
According to the Utah Catholic bishop, John Wester, the Vatican has issued a directive to not release parish records to LDS researchers (who then use them to perform vicarious ordinances. As I understand it, these records have been a major source of names for LDS temple work.
What impact will this decision have on LDS temple work? Slow it down? Eventually force temple patrons to bring their own names every time they go to the temple (like was standard practice a century ago)? Jewish groups acting on behalf of Holocaust victims were the first group to stir controversy about this, now the Vatican. The issue is not just the revulsion of these entities at LDS proxy work, but also the increased visibility this gives the practice of LDS temple work every time one of these news stories break. How long will it be before other groups follow this trend and shut down access? What kind of a “backlog” of temple-ready names exists to keep temple work going should the world tell us to leave their ancestors alone?
And how would you feel if the FLDS, say, began doing temple work for YOUR grandparents? Speaking of the FLDS, the Texas appeals court has just ruled the state had no right to seize FLDS children…Discuss either topic!
It seems, sometimes, that the lessons I learned on my mission are the ones I see again and again.
One of the things I learned was the difference between spirituality, religiosity and emotionalism.
A guest post by our friend Ray
I view the purpose of this life as becoming like Jesus was in His mortal life - and the purpose of the next life as becoming like Christ is now in His post-mortal life. For me, everything else (specific doctrine, intellectual understanding, nuanced discussions of exegesis, whatever) is secondary to that. Continue reading…
There are BYU professors, and there are BYU professors. Brother Keller is in a class by himself. His life story alone fascinates me. Converted to the church as a young adult, Continue reading…
I’ve always felt in my own life there needs to be a need before I get divine help or inspiration. For example if I’m having problems with patience with my children or wife at home, I pray that I will have more patience and try to get more understanding for my lack of patience. Patience is the need or trigger. Continue reading…
I intend this to be the first entry in a regular series, something you can look forward to on a Monday afternoon. Like all series, we can shift the air time around if necessary, like if I’m competing with American Idol or something.
Here’s the idea: I post two contradictory passages from scripture or statements by authoritative LDS folks (that’s the evidences part) and you suggest how they can be harmonized, or were never in conflict in the first place, etc. (that’s the reconciliations part). The title is taken from John A. Widtsoe’s regular column in the Improvement Era where, as editor, he would field tough questions from LDSaints and answer them. Here goes:
And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.
And again, tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill.
And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.
Doctrine and Covenants Section 89: 7-9
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Matthew 15:11
Ezra Taft Benson taught that “the Book of Mormon … was written for our day. The Nephites never had the book; neither did the Lamanites of ancient times. It was meant for us. … Each of the major writers of the Book of Mormon testified that he wrote for future generations. … If they saw our day and chose those things which would be of greatest worth to us, is not that how we should study the Book of Mormon? We should constantly ask ourselves, ‘Why did the Lord inspire Mormon (or Moroni or Alma) to include that in his record? What lesson can I learn from that to help me live in this day and age?’ ” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1986, 5; or Ensign, Nov. 1986, 6).
I end up talking with people on this theme several times a year.
There are people who feel terribly betrayed. Especially when a spouse leaves the gospel. Apostatizes.
In my last post I wrote about how we are all forced to take a thought and translate it into words and that this is a sloppy and imperfect process. To make matters worse, the person that has to take those words and decode them back into a thought will fail to do so correctly in many cases because they’ll get stuck on the words used, either because they don’t realize words have many meanings or because they have incentive to misunderstand.
In this post, I want to apply what we’ve discussed to a real life situation: Bruce R. McConkie’s talk on worshipping Jesus.
Case Study 2: Do Mormons Worship Jesus?
The word-offense in question comes from Bruce R. McConkie’s now famous (infamous?) talk entitled “Our Relationship with the Lord” where McConkie states that Mormons do not worship Jesus. Continue reading…
Unless your last name is Van Winkle, you likely already know that, yesterday afternoon, the California Supreme Court concluded that the state’s law prohibiting same-sex marriage (SSM, for short) is unconstitutional. Put more simply, in 30 days, SSM will be a reality in California. For those of us here on the Left Coast, things are about to get very interesting. Within hours of the ruling, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, without a hint of irony, told a gathering of reporters: “I plan to marry as many people as I can.”
Like many others, I’m still working my way through the 100+ page opinion. We lawyers sure love our footnotes, and one in particular has got me thinking. To be clear, I am no fundamentalist Mormon, and I certainly am not bucking for the opportunity to bring another set of problems wife into my happy family. But I can’t help but be annoyed by the apparent fact that, over a century later, courts are still content to rely on outdated and prejudicial attitudes towards Mormon polygamy.
