LDS Sunday School students will soon take a quick leap through 66 chapters of Isaiah in five forty-minute lessons. All too often, some uniquely Mormon interpretations are given to these chapters which merit a critical analysis. In this post I present six Mormonisms often used with the first few chapters of Isaiah which I believe hinder a deeper and more accurate understanding of these prophetic writings.  Let us know if any of these interpretations show up in your Sunday School class!

1. Isaiah 2:2,3 Popular LDS commentary on this verse identifies it as Isaiah’s vision of people from many lands coming to Salt Lake City, Utah.

Many prophecies of Isaiah are dual and can be applied to more than one time, situation or people. I am aware that latter-day prophets and apostles have related this verse to the Salt Lake temple or even to the Conference Center from which the word of the Lord is issuing forth in these days. However, if we insist too strongly on this Mormon-centric view, we can miss the primary application which this verse has to the millennial reign of the Messiah. The word “mountain” as used in the Bible is a metaphor for “nation,” “government,” or “political system.” In verses 2 and 3 Isaiah is speaking of the millennial condition when Christ shall establish the political Kingdom of God upon the earth. This will be established “in the top of the mountains,” or in other words “as the head of the nations.”

2. Isaiah 2:3 Isaiah wrote that the word of the Lord will come from Jerusalem, and the law will come from Zion, the New Jerusalem, located in Jackson County, Missouri. There will be two distinct centers of influence for God’s people.

This may be, but verse 3 should not be used as a proof-text. Here we have a synonymous chiastic parallel where

the Law = the Word of the Lord, and
Zion = Jerusalem (one and the same)

The chiastic structure of this phrase indicates that Isaiah equated Zion with Jerusalem (the one located in Israel!) If we accept this, we will be able to learn more about Zion as it relates to the ancient City of David.

3. Isaiah 2:9 In the Book of Mormon, verse 9 is clarified by adding the word “not” to the following statement: “And the mean man boweth [not] down and the great man humbleth himself [not], therefore forgive him not.”

This verse actually makes much more sense in its original context, without the extra “not” added in the Book of Mormon version. Verse 8 speaks of idols which are found throughout the land. And the mean (common) man and the great (important) man boweth down (to these idols). This version makes more sense coming as it does right after the description of people worshipping idols, the work of their own hands.

4. Isaiah 2:13-17 , see also 2 Ne 12:13-17 Some Mormons still insist that this passage is an example of the restoration in the Book of Mormon of passages that were lost in the Old Testament. As noted in footnote 16a, “The Greek (Septuagint) has ‘ships of the sea.’ The Hebrew has ‘ships of Tarshish.’ The Book of Mormon has both, showing that the brass plates had lost neither phrase.”

Pike and Seely have shown the challenges of accepting this interpretation. I love the poetry of the passage and find that the addition of the extra phrase and other interjected words spoils the beauty of the chiastic tripled bicola. Isaiah used poetic conventions frequently to emphasize his points. The Book of Mormon addition does not enhance the poetic structure of the passage, but instead inhibits it. The Greek “ships of the sea” and the Hebrew “ships of Tarshish” are probably different translations of one original phrase and it is not necessary or preferable to include both. Observe the perfection of the Masoretic text with the pattern of w- (conjunction) + al (preposition “upon”) followed by kol- (“all/every”) and then two words (here in English translation):

For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be

upon every one that is proud and lofty,
and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:

and upon all the cedars of Lebanon, that are high and lifted up,
and upon all the oaks of Bashan,

and upon all the high mountains,
and upon all the hills that are lifted up,

and upon every high tower,
and upon every fenced wall,

and upon all the ships of Tarshish,
and upon all pleasant pictures (fine craft)

and the loftiness of man shall be bowed down,
and the haughtiness of men shall be made low;

and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.

(if all this fascinates you, there is a well-reasoned apologetic view here. But I stand by my opinion.)

5. Isaiah 3:16-26 The Daughters of Zion and their apparel show the dangers of worldliness and immodesty.

If your Sunday School teacher identifies this passage (as does the lesson manual) with modesty in dress, s/he has missed the boat! The daughter of Zion, is a poetic term for the covenant people of Israel, and the items of clothing stand for different types of authority. In the Old Testament, authority was passed down with the symbolic action of transferring clothing. Thus the significance of the passing of Elijah’s mantle to Elisha, and Jonathan’s dressing David with his own clothes in 1 Samuel 18. As the son of the reigning king, Jonathan symbolically transferred his claim to the throne to his friend by stripping himself of his clothing and weapons and bestowing them upon David. In Isaiah, the covenant people are struck down because of their pride. Each of the articles of clothing worn by the daughter of Zion represent some authority or privilege which is being misused and thus removed by the Lord.

6. Isaiah 4:1 The Mormon speculation on this verse goes as follows: With so many men killed in war, righteous single priesthood holders are in short supply. Thus, plural marriage is reinstituted, with many women stating they will support themselves in order to receive priesthood covenant protection.

My examination of the Hebrew of this verse makes me confident in translating “one man” as “a certain man.” The verse thus teaches that in the latter day seven women (symbolic number of completeness, denotes the covenant people) shall take hold of a certain man (guess who that would be?) and ask him “let us be called by thy name,” which will take away their reproach (effects of atonement). In my view this verse is Messianic and has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy.

As Latter-day Saints, we certainly have many resources in our scriptural records and our doctrine to interpret the Book of Isaiah.  But I think we need not go overboard in trying to overpersonalize these passages.  As important as it is to apply Isaiah’s writings to ourselves, we must not lose the historical connotations and meanings within the text.  Since we have only 5 weeks to cover this important book of scripture, let us carefully choose the scripture blocks we will discuss, and maintain a focused and accurate exegesis of the material.

If your ward happens to be just a little bit behind on the Sunday School lessons, you might experience the synchronicity of having the Book of Jonah read on Yom Kippur.  This year, the Jewish holiday falls on September 18 (close enough to Sunday the 19th!) and Jonah is traditionally read as part of the celebration.

Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) is the holiest and most widely observed day on the Jewish calendar.  It is a day of fasting, lengthy confession of sins, prayer, and repentance.  Jonah’s prophecy is included in the liturgy for that day as a symbolic spiritual journey that each person undertakes.  I think the symbolism in Jonah’s story is very meaningful and I’d like to explore it in depth here.

The message of Jonah’s prophecy resonates within the human soul. We are born with a subconscious realization of the fact that we have a mission. We seek escape, because our mission is often one that we are afraid to attempt. Jonah’s story begins when he is given a mission from the Lord and he flees to Joppa and there boards a ship to Tarshish.  These places actually exist, but the meaning of the names of these cities are “beauty” and “wealth.”  We comfort ourselves externally by escaping from our inner knowledge of our mission through the pursuit of wealth, and by surrounding ourselves with worldly beauty.

The water journey is powerfully symbolic in literature.  Beginning with ancient sources in a number of cultures and languages, a hero’s voyage across the waters evokes adventure, danger, growth, and self-discovery.  Included in this canon is the ancient Mesopotamian story of Gilgamesh: one man’s search for immortality.  Although widely known for its parallel to the Biblical story of the Flood, this is a work which stands on its own.  It illuminates human relationships, experiences and feelings: loneliness, love, loss, revenge, regret, endurance, joy and sorrow, and the fear of oblivion that comes with death.  The Celtic narrative of Brendan the Navigator is a water quest designed to bring him into engagement with God.  His journey is cyclic; it takes he and his fellow travelers seven years to arrive at a place that was never so far from their starting point.  The Rime of the Ancient Mariner is a more modern water journey — an exploration of the significance of nature in a world characterized by religious uncertainty.  In all of these pieces, the human on a quest for immortality learns something important about death and life, the Divine, and his own inner soul.

In these water journeys, the ship is meaningful and symbolic of the human body. We face moments in life in which the fragility of our bodies is inescapable, as in when we face illness, or confront times of danger that seem to last an eternity until they are resolved. Jonah’s weakness is apparent in the story, but he also shows moments of triumph, as when he asks the sailors to cast him into the sea so that they may continue their voyage unencumbered; or when he prays in the belly of the great fish. As with Jonah, our recognition of our own vulnerability can bring us to finally transcend our ego, surrendering our desire to control events, and beginning at last to accept our mission in life, no matter what it is.  We can suffer the vicissitudes of life, and recognize that we ourselves have caused the storms to toss us back and forth. We can move forward to fulfill our purpose, but we are still not free of conflict and anxiety until we finally recognize that every step along the way, we are embraced by Divine compassion.

The great fish is the symbol of confrontation of the recognition that our ultimate fate is the grave. Each must have his or her days of darkness in the belly of the fish, facing the reality of death. For some, that recognition almost feels like a welcome refuge. For others, facing death forces them at last into pursuing life!

Finally, notice that with his desire to escape his mission, Jonah did not fear failure.  His fear was that his preaching would have an effect on the pagan people he was sent to, and they would also become God’s chosen people.  No, he wasn’t afraid of failure, but success!  This reminds me of an excerpt from Return to Love by Marianne Williamson (often erroneously attributed to Nelson Mandela):

Our Greatest Fear —Marianne Williamson

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.

Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.

It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us.

We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous?

Actually, who are you not to be?

You are a child of God.

Your playing small does not serve the world.

There’s nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you.

We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us.

It’s not just in some of us; it’s in everyone.

And as we let our own light shine,
we unconsciously give other people
permission to do the same.

As we are liberated from our own fear,
Our presence automatically liberates others.

Jonah is hardly the only prophet who was reluctant to respond to God’s call. Even Moses, the greatest of all prophets, tried to persuade God to send somebody else. Jonah was not the only prophet to show human weakness.  But in the end, Jonah’s tale even becomes a symbolic representation of the Savior, when the Lord identifies the three days and nights in the fish’s belly as analogous with what he himself will have to face (Matt 12:39-41).  Through his spiritual journey, Jonah learned to “think different“: to embrace his mission, to accept and work with his unique talents and failings, to develop compassion for his fellow man.

It is then that we are ready to return to God. While for each of us the path is our own, and never yet explored by any other person, Jonah knew the beginning and the end of the journey that we all make.

After the Satan figure is given permission to afflict Job as a test of his faithfulness, three of Job’s friends, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, come to visit him, sitting with him in silence for seven days. On the seventh day, Job speaks, beginning a conversation in which each of the four men shares thoughts on Job’s afflictions and adversity in general in profound poetic statements.  This is a lengthy dialogue between characters who alter their moods, question their motives, change their minds, and undercut each other with sarcasm and innuendo. Although Job comes closest to doing so, no single character articulates one true or authoritative opinion. Each speaker has his own flaws as well as his own lofty moments of observation or astute theological insight.  I believe the Book of Job is a jumping-off point for the reader to deeply explore questions of theodicy and the difficulty of understanding why an all-powerful God allows good people to suffer.

Eliphaz believes that Job’s agony must be due to some sin Job has committed, and he urges Job to seek God’s favor. Bildad and Zophar agree that Job must have committed evil to offend God’s justice and argue that he should strive to exhibit more blameless behavior. Bildad surmises that Job’s children brought their deaths upon themselves. Even worse, Zophar implies that whatever wrong Job has done probably deserves greater punishment than what he has received.  A character who is introduced later in the book, Elihu, also assumes that Job must be wicked to be suffering as he is, and he thinks that Job’s excessive talking is an act of rebellion against God. The interaction between Job and his friends shows the folly of trying to understand God’s ways.  The reader is privy to the information that Job has been righteous and the adversity comes from a bargain that has been made between God and Satan.  The fault of Job and his friends lies in trying to explain the nature of God with only the limited information available to human knowledge, as God himself notes when he roars from the whirlwind, “Who is this that darkness counsel / by words without / knowledge?” (38:2).

In spite of the criticism of his friends, Job believes that there is a “witness” or a “Redeemer” in heaven who will vouch for his innocence (16:19, 19:25). After a while, the upbraiding proves too much for Job, and he grows sarcastic, impatient, and afraid. He laments the injustice that God lets wicked people prosper while he and countless other innocent people suffer.  He feels that wisdom is hidden from human minds, but he resolves to persist in pursuing wisdom by fearing God and avoiding evil.

• Why DOES a loving and an all-powerful God allow human suffering?

Here is an explanation I heard in Houston, Texas, and I think it has a lot of merit. It’s distinctly LDS, it’s very simple, and it combines several of the common theodicies.

The Good Adversity

The first type of adversity one might experience can be said to be “good.” It is the kind of adversity that exists to strengthen the human soul. It may be a result of living in a fallen world. Just as a corollary to living we knock up against all kinds of adversity, such as natural disasters. I would add that not all people will choose to use this type of suffering as a chance to grow, but that is its purpose, and theoretically it is possible to overcome, and to learn from it.

The Bad Adversity

Another type of adversity that exists in the world comes as a result of bad choices that we make. This goes along with the scripture “Wickedness never was happinesss.” In general, right living leads to peace, prosperity, and happiness, while wickedness, evil, and sin will tend to cause misery and pain. Note that this principle is not the only factor leading to suffering. That is why it may appear that a righteous person is experiencing much more adversity than his/her wicked neighbor.

The Ugly Adversity

Ugly adversity occurs when another person’s free agency conflicts with someone else’s life. God allows us to make our own life choices and rarely interferes. Thus innocent humans may suffer as a result of someone’s poor choices. Latter-day Saints believe passionately that free agency is a vital ingredient for attaining sanctification. Thus ugly adversity must exist, causing unneeded suffering. Why did God organize the world this way? Because without choosing freely we could never develop the qualities necessary for godhood.

Now it’s your turn! How do you explain the problem of evil and adversity in the world?  Could an omnipotent God have created free beings that were already morally perfect, thus eliminating the need for adversity?  Does the Book of Job illuminate or obscure our understanding of this principle?  How do you understand and come to terms with adversity in your life?

Feminist readers of the scriptures are well aware of the passages in Proverbs 8 which personify Wisdom (GK Sophia, HEB Hokhmah).
These passages affirm that Sophia was there when God made the earth and acted as a partner with God in the creation. This idea fits in well with my conceptualization of the male/female duality of the Divine. The passages can be interpreted as instructions to the earnest seeker to discover and follow the promptings of a Heavenly Mother:

The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
When there were no depths, I was brought forth;
When there were no fountains abounding with water.
Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
When he prepared the heavens, I was there:
When he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
When he established the clouds above:
When he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment:
When he appointed the foundations of the earth:
Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;
Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth;
And my delights were with the sons of men.
Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children:
For blessed are they that keep my ways.
Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.
Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors.
For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. (Prov. 8:23-35)

If we are ever going to discuss the Divine Feminine in our 2010 Old Testament study, this is the lesson to do it. Many biblical scholars feel that the personification of Wisdom in the Proverbs represents a female Divinity.  In these verses Sophia addresses Israel as her children with the authority of a Divine Being, and has great power and dominion.   She is a “tree of life” (Prov. 3:18), connecting her with other Near-Eastern deities as well as the source of eternal life in the Book of Mormon.

In the scriptures, there is additional female imagery which tends to support the existence of a feminine counterpart to God. I hesitate to use them as proof-texts for a Mother in Heaven. These passages can just as well be interpreted to mean that a male Deity has loving and nurturing characteristics. However, if one believes, as I do, that “Elohim” consists of both a Mother and a Father God, the verses that follow add welcome insight into possible roles and characteristics of a Divine Mother Goddess.

One of the early titles for God in the Old Testament is El Shaddai. This word has been translated “Almighty God,” or “God of the Mountains.” It may have linguistic ties to the word “breast,” prompting some to translate El Shaddai as “the breasted One.” Though I might not go as far as to use this translation, I enjoy the word play which is typical of Hebrew writing and which connects this title of God to breasts and nurturing. In the language used in Jacob’s blessing to his son Joseph in Genesis 49, El Shaddai gives him

“blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb: The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.”

Isaiah uses many feminine images of God in his writings. Consider the following:

• Isaiah 42:14–a woman in labor whose forceful breath is an image of divine power.
• Isaiah 46:3-4–a mother who births and protects Israel.
• Isaiah 49:14-15–a mother who does not forget the child she nurses.
• Isaiah 66:12-13–a mother who comforts her children.

The following poem in Hosea 11:1-4 is in the first person, presenting God as a mother who calls, teaches, holds, heals, and feeds her son.

When Israel was a child, I loved him,
And out of Egypt I called My son.
The more I called them, the more they went from me;
They sacrificed to the Baals,
And burned incense to carved images.
Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk, I took them up in my arms;
but they did not know that I healed them.
I drew them with gentle cords,
With bands of love,
And I was to them as those who take the yoke from their neck.
I stooped and fed them.

It is possible that Hosea is indirectly presenting God as mother over against the fertility goddess of the Canaanite religion that he is challenging.
Interestingly, Hosea presents God as the husband figure in Hosea chapter 4, and the mother figure in chapter 11. These paired images suggest the male/female duality of God.

Searching for feminine images in the scriptures is a fruitful pursuit. There are many other examples too numerous to list here. I realize that different conclusions can be drawn from the presence of the Divine Feminine in scripture. Some faith traditions have posited that God is genderless, yet “accommodates to human limitations by using physical, relational, gender-laden images for self-disclosure.” Others believe that God is solely masculine and patriarchal but possesses qualities that we culturally see as feminine.  My inclination is to picture “Elohim” as a God consisting of both a male and female element.  I present this view as one which aligns with the Proclamation on the Family where it affirms the eternal nature of gender:

“All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”

Images by Kathy Ostman-Magnusen

Most Mormons won’t talk about anything remotely associated with the temple. Even among other endowed members.

So bringing up any of my wonderings on this subject with fellow Latter-day Saints will be met with resistance.

Next obstacle is my physical distance from the nearest Temple.  I currently live about two hours away from the nearest Temple.  There were some times in my life when I lived so far away that I could only attend once a year.  But even when I live close enough that I can go frequently, it’s not easy to find someone with whom I can discuss my concerns while sitting around the Celestial Room.

The quiet, meditative setting of the Celestial Room is not always conducive to a robust investigation of the sort I am contemplating. I yearn to talk about the 2005 changes to the initiatory ordinance. I loved doing initiatories before the changes, and I found a lot of spirituality, intimacy, and symbolism have been removed. I’d like to talk about these things with a faithful LDS woman who misses this as well, but isn’t about to lose her recommend over it. I’d like to find someone who isn’t freaked out by the presence of large tubs of water in early SLC Temple ordinance rooms and the liberal pouring of consecrated oil from large horns over the crown of the head. But I’d want her to be feminist and knowledgeable enough to also discuss the differences between the male and female versions of the pre-2005 ordinance and their implications for feminists. We’d talk about the words “having authority,” “under proper authority,” and “now authorized.” We’d discuss esoteric, mystical, symbolist, and romantic approaches to the initiatory. We’d speak of the importance of ritual and what, if any, priesthood is exercised by women ordinance workers.

Do you think I can hold out any hope for such a discussion? Must I always hold the sacred/secret deep within a cavern in my heart, never to see the light of day? Or do you think that Mary Ellen Robertson might be able to arrange a Friday night Sunstone temple session, complete with discussion period in the upper Assembly room, as a special part of this year’s Symposium?

I can always dream…

The prophet Elisha is introduced for the first time in 1 Kings 19.  Elijah has recently had his encounter with the 400 prophets of Baal and the still small voice of God on Mt. Horeb.  On his way from the mountain to the wilderness of Damascus Elijah finds Elisha plowing in a field.  He passes by him and throws his mantle over Elisha.  And scripture says that Elisha arose and followed Elijah, and became his servant.  Elisha doesn’t receive another mention until the end of Elijah’s ministry — when Elijah’s mantle falls from him as he is translated and is taken up by Elisha — and one can’t help but wonder about the relationship between the two in the interim.  How was Elisha prepared to succeed Elijah, and what relevance does this story have to succession in the Church today?

In the manual, our SS lesson discusses in depth how this story relates to succession in the Presidency of the Church, and how this “mantle” is transferred when the prophet dies.  But I think the story is also fitting for application on the ward level, where callings from Nursery Leader to Bishop are regularly passed around.  As we follow and serve under our ward leaders, we take upon ourselves the learning role of an Elisha.  In the Books of 1st and 2nd Kings, we may not have the details of how Elisha was prepared for his calling.  But 2 Kings 2:9-10 is instructive.  Immediately before Elijah is taken up into heaven he asks Elisha: “Ask what I shall do for thee, before I be taken away from thee.”  And Elisha replies, “I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me.”

Ask what I shall do for thee

Here the Elijah figure, or the one being released from the calling, is willing to train his or her successor.  He or she passes on the needed materials, explains what the calling entails, and makes themselves available as a source of information during the transition period.  I think it is important to see each calling as a legacy which is being passed down and improved upon each time a new member steps up to fill the position.  Holders of each calling should be willing to mentor others to succeed as their replacement.

Let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me

When Elisha asked to receive a “double portion” of Elijah’s spirit he was not seeking a ministry twice as great as his master’s but he was using cultural terms derived from inheritance law to express his desire to carry on Elijah’s ministry. Inheritance law assigned a double portion of a father’s possessions to the firstborn son [see Deut. 21:17]. Elijah’s response that “if thou see me when I am taken from thee, it shall be so unto thee” left the gift Elisha requested in God’s hands. Elisha does see Elijah being taken up by the chariots of God at the Jordan River and God does fulfill the request — Elijah received the “double portion” = the power and authority of his master.  This is demonstrated by Elijah’s performance of 8 works of God while Elisha accomplishes 16.

Elijah’s 8 miracles:

Elisha’s 16 miracles:

Each of us has likely experienced numerous changes in Church callings over the years.  I have had some interesting feelings both in receiving and in giving up callings.  I’ve discovered that we need mentors — wise and faithful guides, advisers, or teachers — to apply an unseen, affirming influence and positive energy as callings change.   The mentor’s spirit can promote healthy relationships in every presidency, classroom and organization.  There must be a willingness to share our ministry.  This sharing comes from a place of deep satisfaction and peace about the work we have done over the years.  The work hasn’t always been easy and there may be a certain reticence to let go of hard won accomplishments.  But the mentor’s spirit reminds us that it is not so much a letting go as it is a passing on.

Note especially what Elijah says next: “Thou hast asked a hard thing.” It’s hard both to give up and to accept a calling. For me, one of the hardest releases I experienced was that of Seminary teacher. I held the calling for several years. I put a lot of time and energy into it, and I came to self-identify as the Seminary teacher. I wanted to be the best one ever. I wanted to affect the lives of my students and I wanted them to love me. When a new teacher was called, I didn’t want him to be as successful as I was. To this day I have a hard time when a new Seminary teacher is called in the ward. It is just as hard to accept new callings with grace and equanimity. Some people feel inadequate, doubting they can measure up to what has been done by their predecessor. Some accept with pride, thinking that they can do a better job than has been done in the past. Neither attitude takes full advantage of the mentoring process.

As Elijah and Elisha continued walking and talking by the Jordan River, a chariot of fire and horses of fire took Elijah up into heaven in a whirlwind.  Both Elijah and Elisha experienced the presence and the power of God in that moment. I believe that we can experience the same as we struggle with the difficult issue of passing on and accepting Ward callings.

In the last few years there has been some grumbling by members who don’t have Mormon pioneers in their genealogy that it annoys them to celebrate the July 24th holiday, a commemoration of the day the first company of pioneers entered the Salt Lake Valley. I think partly to appease these voices, there has been an emphasis on “modern-day pioneers”–those who lead the way for others to follow and who blaze trails in other ways than traditionally recognized. There’s a relatively new Primary song, “I Can Be a Modern-Day Pioneer,” there are more talks given by General Authorities on the subject, and there are articles such as the latest Mormon Times article “Pioneer Journeys of a Different Era.”  There is a sudden dearth of Pioneer Day activities in wards outside of Utah, and in our ward last Sunday the only talk which mentioned pioneers emphasized modern-day contributions rather than those who crossed the plains.

I just want to register a caution to those who wish to move away from the traditional veneration of these honorable forebears. I want to remember their devotion to a faith that meant more to them than life itself. Social scientists often point to the Jewish culture and theorize that the reason it survived through so many years and the scattering of the people to so many different places was the very persecution which caused them to band together in small groups, and their longing remembrance of their homeland.

By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down,
yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.
For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song;
and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying,
Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land?
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth;
if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.
(Psalm 137)

This Psalm is a poignant lyrical device for recalling the story of Israel’s exodus from Egypt and its arrival in the promised land. It acts as an earnest reminder both to the exiled Israelites and to later biblical readers of the importance of the promised land for the celebration of the Jewish faith. Now that we Latter-day Saints experience little real persecution, and the importance of our history and sacred places is beginning to wane, are we in danger of losing some valuable aspect of our culture? Are we losing our Psalms, our legends, our traditional customs and stories?

I’d like to hear what our readers think. Do you feel a connection to the Mormon pioneers? Or do you think the holiday is unnecessary, especially to LDS of other cultures living in many different countries of the world? Should we attempt to graft new converts in to the Utah Mormon pioneer heritage, or should we transfer our loyalties to “modern-day pioneers?”

“Take an old piece of clothing,” our SS lesson advises, “or a piece of paper that is cut in the shape of a piece of clothing and tear it into 12 pieces. Explain that toward the end of Solomon’s life, the prophet Ahijah prophesied that Jeroboam, one of Solomon’s 12 superintendents over taxes and labor, would take over much of the Israelite nation. To illustrate this, Ahijah seized the garment from the back of Jeroboam, tore it into 12 pieces, and gave 10 of the pieces to Jeroboam.”  The lesson teaches that the influence of wicked leaders was instrumental in dividing the kingdom of Israel after Solomon’s death.

The Savior taught that “every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation” (Matthew 12:25).

I read this with some consternation, because lately I have been perusing a very interesting website.  It is a wiki collection of groups belonging to the Latter-day Saint movement put together by Alan Unsworth.  Does it surprise you to learn that there are at least 116 active groups and denominations which trace their history back to Joseph Smith, as well as 204 “Restoration Branches” and 154 defunct denominational groups?  And because many of these are secretive and insular, I don’t believe that this list includes them all.

One of the things that impressed me about the Mormon Church when I joined as a young adult was that Joseph Smith had received an answer and provided a solution to the tumult of opinions and the multiplicity of church organizations which surrounded him in nineteenth-century America.  I didn’t realize at the time of my baptism that beginning with his death, there have been serious divisions in the Church which continue to this day.  The more I have delved into the succession situation which faced the Church in 1844, the more I realize that several of the contenders for President of the Church at that time had legitimate claims.  The “main body” of the Church followed Brigham Young to the intermountain West, but those who gave their allegiance to Sidney Rigdon, William Bickerton, Granville Hedrick, or James Strang (and later Joseph Smith III) had good reasons for doing so.  The major movements can be easily viewed in the following visual:

Another major schism took place in the years immediately preceeding the Manifesto issued by Wilford Woodruff halting the practice of polygamy.  Many of the Mormon fundamentalist groups trace their history to an 1886 revelation given to John Taylor authorizing five men to carry on the work of the New and Everlasting Covenant of Plural Marriage and to ordain others to do so.  Other fundamentalist groups claim an apostasy in the LDS church and a restoration similar to that of Joseph Smith.  They ask their adherents to pray and receive revelation regarding the truthfulness of their claims, just as does the main body of the Saints.  A helpful chart of the major branches of the fundamentalist movement was produced by Brian Hales (click on image for clearer view):

When reading of the Divided Kingdom of Israel in the Old Testament, there is nothing which so reminds me of the situation the covenant people faced as the division among Restoration churches today.  Do you view the LDS Church as part of a divided kingdom?  Do you think it is justifiable to compare our situation today with that of Israel in the Old Testament?

Our Sunday School lesson this week attempts to deal with the conundrum with which we are faced when considering that Israel’s King Solomon, who was a paragon of wisdom having received this gift from the Lord, could make the decidedly unwise decision of marrying foreign wives and following them into idolatry.  

The lesson asks the following questions (answers provided):

• How did Solomon’s choice of wives show that he had turned away from God? (See 1 Kings 11:1–2. He married out of the covenant.) What did Solomon’s non-Israelite wives influence him to do? (See 1 Kings 11:3–8. Note that in the Joseph Smith Translation, verse 4 says that Solomon’s heart “became as the heart of David his father” and verse 6 says that “Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord, as David his father.”)
• What did the Lord do when Solomon broke his covenants and turned away? (See 1 Kings 11:9–14, 23–25, 33–36.)
• How do you think the blessings of wisdom, riches, and honor contributed to Solomon’s downfall? How have you seen these strengths contribute to the downfall of people today? How can we ensure that our strengths do not become a downfall for us? (See 1 Kings 8:61; D&C 88:67.)

I’m not sure that marrying “out of the covenant” as we consider it today has an exact equivalent in Old Testament times.  However, the Torah did command the Israelite people to avoid marriages with foreigners.  Deuteronomy 7:1-5 (a Seminary Scripture Mastery scripture, btw) states: “neither shalt thou make marriages with them: thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For he will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods; so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and He will destroy thee quickly.”  This is exactly what happened in the case of Solomon.  He must have realized the danger these associations presented, because he allowed the foreign women he married to live in his new palace in Jerusalem until the Temple was completed, then he moved them out of the city, saying, “No wife of mine shall dwell in the house of David king of Israel, because the places are holy, whereunto the ark of the Lord hath come.” (2 Chron 8:11; see also 1 Kings 3:1; 1 Kings 9:24)  However, in his later years, Solomon’s foreign wives influenced him to stray from the worship of the One God of Israel, to build altars and to offer sacrifices to the gods of other nations.

I urge the Sunday School teachers to tread lightly when covering this topic from the lesson manual.  You will surely have some in your class who will have personally encountered Solomon’s difficulty.  It’s a puzzle that’s harder to solve than the one he was faced with when two mothers claimed the same child.  It is a heartbreaking and a controversial one for me to consider.  On the one hand, my romantic heart appreciates the concessions Solomon made for the love of his wives.  The scriptures specifically describe how he “did cleave unto these in love.”  My reading of 1 Kings 11 shows a husband who is sensitive to the needs of his wives, building them places where they could worship their gods and feel at home among a foreign people.  He even joined them in their invocations.  This type of tolerant behavior would be encouraged today when dealing with any kind of mixed marriage.  But how far should one go when making concessions to a spouse who is not of one’s faith?  Should one attend their worship services, for example?  Should one allow his or her children to be taught religious catechisms which might conflict with our own?

The scriptures and the lesson manual teach us that Solomon’s wisdom failed when it came to his decisions regarding his wives and the idolatry into which he allowed them to lure him.  How much should a teacher emphasize these points and how much should we weigh the risks of offending?

Is it best to simply avoid all of these problems by never contracting a mixed marriage?  Many Latter-day Saints take the view that marriage outside of the temple, and especially to a non-member, should never be tolerated.  Some of our readers will undoubtedly hold that opinion.  I had a 50-year-old mission companion who had followed this admonition, remaining single her whole life rather than consider the alternative of marrying outside of the faith.  I think in her later years she became bitter and regretful that she had chosen this path.  Others seem content and sure about such a decision.  Ask Mormon Girl Joanna Brooks wrote a recent post here about the anxiety this difficult issue can cause in our young members.  Do you think the story of Solomon’s downfall in the scriptures gives definitive answers to the question of whether a Latter-day Saint should marry out of the covenant of temple marriage?  How much should the Sunday School teacher draw parallels from Solomon to class members?

Today I’d like to talk about some of the nuances to the word “morality.” The meanings that we don’t get in Mutual or Seminary or Sunday School. For purposes of this discussion, I would prefer to define “morality” as a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.

We Mormons like to think of ourselves as a moral people. We accept the Ten Commandments from the Old Testament, Jesus’ behavioral standards as described in the New Testament, additional ideals and clarification from the Book of Mormon, and random precepts such as the Word of Wisdom health code from the D&C. We even have our own rules of behavior that come from continuing revelation and church tradition. But out of all of these standards of morality, there are some in which we are truly invested, and some to which we merely give lip service.

As one indicator of standards of morality, let’s look at what we teach our children and youth. The standard of conduct that we hit the hardest is of course sexual purity before marriage. We do this to the extent that even the word morality has become synonymous with sexual behavior, as noted above. We reinforce this teaching with related cautions about masturbation for YM and dress standards for YW. I have been dismayed by the amount of emphasis dress standards receives in the Young Women’s program. This counsel eclipses all other religious instruction, including teaching of the Savior and the Restoration. Modesty in dress for girls is taught during YW classes, midweek activities, Standards Nights, Seminary, Sunday School, over the pulpit, at Stake dances, Girls Camp, EFY. Indeed, there is scarcely a church activity a YW can attend where she is not warned that she must appear dressed modestly. If her clothing is not appropriate, she is subject to being sent home to try again. The message is firm and unmistakable. Dress standards must not be violated. Here again the very word “modesty” has been coopted to mean only a particular pattern of dress for girls and women.

Additionally, sermonizing abounds in our youth programs on the importance of obedience to the Word of Wisdom. Due to this emphasis the youth of the Church would sooner steal a car, cheat on an exam, or spread vicious rumors about a peer than take a sip of coffee.

The emphasis on the remainder of the wide spectrum of right and wrong behavior is virtually ignored among Latter-Day Saints. To illustrate this point, fill in the blank of the following sentence:

Our Mormon youth are known for never ________________.

One might say that our youth would never drink alcohol, or smoke a cigarette. One might fill in the blank with “never sleep with a boy/girlfriend.” But would you even think of filling in the blank as follows:?

Our Mormon youth would never skip classes at school.
Our Mormon youth would never haze their fellow students.
Our Mormon youth would never tell a lie.
Our Mormon youth would never steal.

As a convert who attended evangelical Christian services, I can tell you that in other churches, these standards of moral conduct are given great emphasis. If you have grown up in the LDS church, it is likely that you consider loss of sexual purity and Word of Wisdom adherance as grievous sins. It is possible that you would add murder to this list, with the exception of those you kill while in the military. Other transgressions would be appraised as less important on the moral continuum.

Is there not a morality that is based on the other commands of God found in the scriptures? Is there not a morality that is concerned with practices that minimize the harms that people suffer? Promoting people living together in peace and harmony? Morality that requires charitable action for good? Overcoming selfish vices? What about a morality based on respect for the planet on which we live and the myriad creatures who live upon it?

I hope we can begin to consider the vast implications of religious morality. Morality within the Church should be more than simply refraining from sex. This wider morality should be discussed at least as often as the length of skirts. It should help us formulate ethical theories for personal conduct.

But why is a celebration of our country’s freedom considered a non-Sabbath avocation?  Would it be unthinkable to hold a short worship service followed by a Ward pancake breakfast? At our breakfast we had a reading of the Declaration of Independence, a congregational singing of patriotic hymns and prayer.  Then we ate and fellowshipped with one another.  The celebration seemed particularly well suited to worship and thankfulness.  The wholesome recreational activities gave us a break from our usual weekly work.  And watching fireworks with our families on Sunday doesn’t really strike me as detracting from the spirit of the day.  A 2001 Ensign article, Call the Sabbath a Delight instructs:

“…the Sabbath day was meant to be a blessing rather than a burden to those who observe it. Its blessings flow not only from attending Church meetings but also from engaging in activities appropriate to the spirit of this sacred day. Because circumstances differ among Church members, the kinds of Sunday activities each of us may choose in order to gain spiritual strength and draw closer to the Lord will vary.”

It seems to me that in many LDS homes, the Sabbath is as far from “a delight” as can be.  It has become a somber day of “don’ts” which our children and youth dread. My college-aged kids are home for the summer, and they have begun a tradition along with my high-schoolers.  They sit up on Sunday until the stroke of midnight, then they pile in the car and head off to Wal-Mart to buy snacks and fete the end of the Sabbath.  Our family attends our meetings, avoids purchasing things, and observes the general LDS guidelines for Sundays, but I wonder what exactly we are doing to gain spiritual strength and draw closer to the Lord.

A scripture in Galatians reads:

“For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.”

What do you think? Does the liberty offered us through Christ to supersede the Law of Moses extend to our Sabbath Day activities?  Would it be following the flesh to celebrate the Fourth of July with barbecues, picnics, fireworks watching?  Or could such family time be considered loving service? Does your family plan to eschew some of the activities you would normally do on Independence Daythis year because it falls on the Sabbath?

The Book of Psalms is one of the most beautiful and meaningful books of the Bible, and it is agonizing to realize that our Sunday School schedule only allows one lesson to cover the entire oeuvre.  In this post, I’d like to outline several possible ways to approach a one-hour lesson on the Psalms, and to request your input as to which appeals to you personally.

1. Messianic Approach to Psalms

Our lesson manual begins with a list of 13 prophecies of the life and mission of Jesus Christ which can be found in the Psalms.  (A more complete list can be found here.)  There are several reasons why a study of Messianic prophecy is a helpful way to approach the Psalms.  The prophecies can be used as evidence to strengthen faith in the Savior and identify Jesus as the true Messiah.  They are also a source of insight into the Lord’s passion, resurrection, ascension, reign, and judgment.

2. Literary Approach to Psalms

The Psalms provide some truly transcendent examples of Hebrew literature.  Many teachers use this opportunity to instruct their students on the nuances of Hebrew poetry, including parallelism, chiasmus, figurative expression, and other literary techniques.  An example of a lesson prepared in this manner was recently posted on Feast Upon the Word blog.  Other good basic lessons using this approach can be found here and here (comes with a power point presentation!)  A literary approach to the Psalms can assist in proper interpretation of scripture and provide a glimpse into the power these passages contain in the original language.

3. Doctrinal Approach to Psalms

Because of its many strengths, students don’t always realize the wealth of doctrine that is covered in the Psalms.  Themes that are covered include the plan of salvation, sin, justification, sanctification, judgment, faith, repentance, forgiveness, evil spirits, immortality, eternal rewards, and many others.  I personally have been excited and enlightened to find clarifying doctrinal tidbits in these verses.  This approach might take much time to prepare, but teaching students where and how to extract doctrine from the Psalms could be an important and valuable endeavor.

4. Devotional Approach to Psalms

John Calvin said of the psalms:

“This book I am wont to style an anatomy of all parts of the soul; for no one will discover in himself a single feeling whereof the image is not reflected in this mirror. Nay, all griefs, sorrows, fears, doubts, hopes, cares, anxieties – in short, all those tumultuous agitations wherewith the minds of men are wont to be tossed – the Holy Ghost hath here represented to the life.”

The Greek word “psalmos” comes from the Hebrew word “zmr” meaning “to pluck”; i.e., taking hold of the strings of an instrument with the fingers. It implies that the psalms were originally composed to be accompanied by a stringed instrument.  We are to pluck the strings of our heart (or sing with emotion) as we recite the psalms.  An advantage of this approach is increased spiritual access to the Psalms which serves as a reservoir in times of need. A recent comment on one of my posts lamented that we Latter-day Saints don’t turn to the Psalms for worship and devotion as often as we should.  This lesson could be a perfect opportunity to remedy the situation.

5. Historical Approach to Psalms

The oldest of the Psalms originate from the time of Moses (1400 B.C.). We have three psalms penned by Moses:

• Exo 15:1-15 – a song of triumph following the crossing of the Red Sea
• Deut 32, 33 – a song of exhortation to keep the Law after entering Canaan
• Ps 90 – a song of meditation, reflection, and prayer

After Moses, the writing of Psalms had its “peaks” and “valleys.”  In David (1000 B.C.), the sacred lyric attained to its full maturity.  With Solomon, the creation of psalms began to decline; this was “the age of the proverb.”  Only twice after this did the creation of psalms rise to any height, and then only for a short period: under Jehoshaphat (875 B.C.) and again under Hezekiah (725 B.C.).  The chapter headings often identify who wrote each Psalm.  We also have the “Psalm of Nephi” (2 Ne 4) which can be added to the canon.  A basic article on the authorship of the Psalms can be found here.  A more in-depth treatment is here.  An historical look at the Psalms aids our understanding because it places the verses in their context.

Caution: I certainly wouldn’t suggest trying to cover all of these approaches in one lesson.  Wouldn’t you love to have a Sunday to cover each one of these?  But since we don’t have that luxury, choose one of the above which appeals to you and embellish it.  I’d love to get some comments on which approach you find the most attractive and why.  Can you think of any other ways to consider the Book of Psalms?  Did your Ward Sunday School teacher use any of these approaches in teaching the lesson?

“It’s the people who write, who last. If any woman out there has any inclination to to remembered in the future, the next few generations, she’d just better get busy and write out her story, her experiences.” –Claudia Bushman

I haven’t been very satisfied with the writing of my own story. I wish I had a more representative record of my life. I began journaling in 1974 when I was 14 years old. I had a diary all through my high school years. I was certain that when I was a teenager I had some intelligent thoughts. But reading back in my journal, I am not so sure. By what I wrote, it seems that I thought about nothing but boys. Many things happened during the years I was in high school. The Watergate scandal, and the resignation of President Richard Nixon. The war in Vietnam. Unrest on college campuses and the Kent State Massacre. Manned space flights to the moon. The first test tube baby. Affirmative Action and Title IX. Radioactive leak at Three Mile Island. I remember all these things happening, but I did not find them important enough to write down. Instead, here is a typical journal entry, written on the date of the fall of Saigon and the end of the Vietnam War:

30 April 1975
This morning I had a big fight with Mom because someone took my toothbrush and I refused to go to school without brushing my teeth. I finally used someone else’s. Later we found out that Kenny had it in his room. Don’t ask me why. Today I made up the math test I missed on logarithms. We had swimming fifth block. We had a boy in our gym class that was swimming with us — we all wondered what he was doing there. He was a good swimmer though, and pretty cute. After school, Kenny, Doug, Mark and I sat outside and fooled around with a magnifying glass trying to start some paper on fire. We did, a couple of times. A cop car came by and Mark sat on the fire. Doug kept putting his arm around me. I wonder if he likes me again?
Tonight was Allison’s night to go somewhere with Dad but she wanted to see the movie “The Great Waldo Pepper.” But all of the rest of us wanted to see it too, so we all went. It was starring Robert Redford!! He is the best actor and so cute!! The only other movie I want to see is “Tommy.” It has Elton John (the singer) in it. I want to see him. He is the greatest!! And he sings the best songs!!

I joined the Church in 1979, when I was in college. For several years my journals are very saccharine and faith-promoting. I write a lot of quotes from the Book of Mormon and books I’ve been reading such as “Faith Precedes the Miracle.” I did find one entry that gives an insight into what kind of person I had become as a Mormon:

30 Nov 1979
A very sad experience happened to me before I left for Christmas. I saw T. drinking coffee in the cafeteria. She is a member who has not been attending meetings lately. I went over to talk to her and asked why she was drinking coffee. She said the doctor told her not to drink any beverages except for coffee and tea. I mentioned that it might be better to just drink water. She was very upset with me. That night I received a package which contained a Book of Mormon, a D&C, and two Institute manuals. This note was with it: “I give these things to you and you can give them to someone else but just don’t drive them up and down a wall and away from the Church as you have me. Don’t approach me on campus and don’t come down to the room to talk about it cause I will not answer the door.”

Hopefully I learned something from this experience!

In my missionary journals, I probably did a fairly good job representing myself, the ups and downs, and the things I was learning during this time.  I was diligent about writing every day, but I mostly detailed events having to do with the work of finding and converting; and my religious insights.  Soon after my mission I married and started having children right away. I wrote very rarely. This is the time I really wish I had kept up my journal. It seems that during these years I only wrote when I was angry and overwhelmed.

1 Oct 1991
Thoughts are flying through my head like crazy — I can’t get them down. The RS class and the article set off some kind of dissatisfaction in my mind. They seemed so basic and so boring — I tried to tell [a friend] how I felt but I didn’t really feel like she understood me. She said they’d had that discussion in their family and they’d concluded that the Church had to gear materials to the new-convert-type member, or as she put it, “the least common denominator.” I don’t know why they can’t include more meaty talks along with basic ones for new converts. I just feel so disappointed, jaded and cynical.

And then there are some entries about cars that break down, and financial troubles, and fights with the husband, and it sounds like I don’t have a positive thought for the next ten years.

Now that I’ve been blogging for a while, it looks like I may have fallen into the same trap. Though I am an active and faithful member of the Church, I tend to use my writing for airing my grievances. Apparently, I give the impression that I am an apostate or disgruntled member. I don’t know quite how to remedy this. For when I read blogs that are supposedly encouraging and faith-promoting, all I can think is “Yawn!” I want to show the spiritual side of myself, but I refuse to write a bunch of smarmy pablum.

Unfortunately, Sister Bushman, my writings probably won’t be of much interest to future historians. Neither am I representative of a twentieth-century Mormon woman. I’m just one of myriads of bloggers, sitting at a screen and pouring out the day’s frustrations, hoping to make a couple of sympathetic connections and stay sane at the end of the day.

The following statement was made by the LDS Church last Wednesday in conjunction with the execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner by firing squad in Utah.  I see this as a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of what was taught in the past regarding the doctrine.

Mormon Church Statement on Blood Atonement

In the mid-19th century, when rhetorical, emotional oratory was common, some church members and leaders used strong language that included notions of people making restitution for their sins by giving up their own lives.  However, so-called “blood atonement,” by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people.

Some church members and leaders used strong language

This statement glosses over the fact that it was the prophet and second president of the Church Brigham Young who initiated and publicly taught this doctrine numerous times, followed by later prophets and General Authorities in official discourse:

“There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.

“I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them….

“And further more, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further;

“I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.

“It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit…. There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, or a calf, or of turtle dove, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man.” (Sermon by Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 53-54); also published in the Mormon Church’s Deseret News, 1856, page 235)

so-called “blood atonement,” by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Officially, the doctrine of Blood Atonement was to be practiced voluntarily.  However, Michael Quinn has shown evidence that this practice was carried out among church members and leaders and sanctioned by Brigham Young in the early days of Utah. (The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Vol. 2, pp. 241-261)

An appeal to Latter-day scriptures on the application of blood atonement to the sin of murder results in confusion. Alma 24 :10 states that murderers can receive forgiveness by repentance, while D&C 42:18 teaches that murder is unpardonable.  Attempting to doctrinally resolve this seeming conflict in a Deseret News article on July 4, 1883, Apostle Charles W. Penrose taught that in some cases such as murder done in anger or provocation, murder might be forgiven, but only after the guilty party atones for the murder by the shedding of blood. (Charles W. Penrose (July 4, 1883), “An Unpardonable Offense,” Deseret News 32 (24): 376.)  President Joseph Fielding Smith agreed, while making it clear that this should be completely voluntary on the part of the sinner:

Through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel…Man may commit certain grievous sins — according to his light and knowledge — that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone — so far as the power lies — for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail…But that the Church practices “Blood Atonement” on apostates or any others, which is preached by ministers of the ‘Reorganization’ is a damnable falsehood for which the accusers must answer. (Joseph Fielding Smith (1954), Bruce R. McConkie, ed., Doctrines of Salvation, 1, Salt Lake City, Utah:Bookcraft.)

According to both Penrose and Joseph Fielding Smith, the doctrine of blood atonement was the reason the founders of Utah incorporated in the laws of the Territory provisions for capital punishment, giving murderers a choice to be shot by firing squad as a “willing expiation” for their sin.

Blood atonement was understood to be a doctrine of the Church, and influenced policy-making and practice among nineteenth-century Mormons.  I believe that the majority of modern members will welcome a change in this policy.  But to present this change as anything but a departure from that which was taught by early Church leaders as doctrine is disingenuous.

We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people.

Finally we come to  the connection this post has to this week’s Sunday School lesson.  It is a common misperception that the Church teaches “the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ.”  But in reality, our manuals and even our LDS edition of the scriptures teach that there are sins for which complete repentance through Christ’s atonement is not possible.  The murder of Uriah by King David is one of these.  Though David spent the rest of his life and hundreds of Biblical passages repenting of this sin, D&C 132:39 states:

The Bible Dictionary explains:

[David] was guilty of grave crimes; but unlike Saul, he was capable of true contrition and was therefore able to find forgiveness, except in the murder of Uriah. As a consequence David is still unforgiven, but he received a promise that the Lord would not leave his soul in hell. He will be resurrected at the end of the Millennium. Because of his transgressions, he has fallen from his exaltation.

Even the Sunday School manual concurs, backing up the position with a quote by Marion G. Romney:

Note that adultery is a serious sin, but David forfeited his exaltation because the Lord held him accountable for the murder of Uriah.

President Marion G. Romney said: “David, … though highly favored of the Lord (he was, in fact, referred to as a man after God’s own heart), yielded to temptation. His unchastity led to murder, and as a consequence, he lost his families and his exaltation” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1979, 60; or Ensign, May 1979, 42).

The LDS stance that King David was unable to be completely forgiven despite his obvious and sincere repentance has greatly bothered me.  Most other Christian churches teach that the atonement was active in David’s case, wholly cleansing him from all of his sins.  But the Mormon church does not.  That the fallen condition of David is so pervasively taught in LDS scripture, General Authority addresses, and curriculum materials lends credence to the doctrine of blood atonement as taught in the past.  In such cases, the Savior’s sacrifice is insufficient to cleanse transgressors from certain sins such as murder.  I witnessed one of the ramifications in Church policy when an investigator friend of mine in college was denied baptism into the Church because she had previously had an abortion.

I am curious to know the opinion of our readers on this subject.  First, do you feel the recent official statement above reflects an honest articulation of the teachings of the Church on Blood Atonement? Next, do you think that David lost his exaltation, and if so, does this place limits on the effects of Christ’s Atonement?

The story of David and Jonathan is one of the most inspiring examples of true friendship anywhere.  Our LDS SS manual firmly places this lesson within the mainstream view of Biblical exegesis, presenting the two as strong personal and platonic friends.  As I studied the covenant made between these young men in 1 Samuel 18, I was touched by the loyalty shown by the young Jonathan, because he “loved [David] as his own soul.”  Because of this love, Jonathan relinquishes his hopes for his father’s throne in deference to God’s choice.  In a symbolic and ceremonial gesture, Jonathan strips off his robe, which represents the authority he holds to succeed his father, King Saul, and gives it to David.  He also gives David his sword and his bow, representing his military prerogative; and his girdle, which symbolizes spiritual truths and the kingdom of God.

But other writers, beginning with Homer and continuing to the present day, have noted the strong elements of intimacy and eroticism within the relationship.  David’s love for Jonathan is described as “wonderful, passing the love of women.”  Saul also reprimands Jonathan at the dinner table, accusing him that “thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness.”  Martti Nissinen concludes that this “choosing (bahar) may indicate a permanent choice and firm relationship, and the mention of “nakedness” (erwa) could be interpreted to convey a negative sexual nuance, giving the impression that Saul saw something indecent in Jonathan’s and David’s relationship.  Some also interpret this as Saul’s caution that choosing David as a lover meant that Jonathan could not produce an heir to the throne. There is also an exchange pointing to 1 Samuel 18:21. Here Saul tells David that when he marries Michal he will become his son-in-law for the second time.  There is reason to suppose the union of Jonathan and David represents the first.

What does it mean that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David?

In trying to interpret the story of these two Biblical figures, I am greatly influenced by my reading of Michael Quinn’s Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans.  In this book, Quinn describes a nineteenth-century Mormon culture far more hospitable to and tolerant of same-sex relationships than that of modern Mormonism, which he regards as “homophobic.”  He gives several examples of long-term relationships among Mormon couples he believes were homosexual.  But in doing so, he also admits of a world and an era where emotional intimacy and physical closeness of same-sex friends did NOT involve homoeroticism.  He gives examples of letters written in the nineteenth century between platonic friends which contained emotional intensity and passionate references.  Same-sex friends held hands, kissed each other on the lips, and sometimes slept in the same bed for years at a time. These things are more aptly described as “homosociality.”   Reading about this phenomenon gave me an insight into the world view of previous ages that I had not understood before reading the book.

At times when I read the story of David and Jonathan through my twenty-first-century lens, I have wondered if these men were not physically intimate.  The words and images used to describe their relationship are passionate, ardent, concupiscent.  But reading about some of the homosocial behaviors Quinn describes has convinced me that David and Jonathan were not gay.  I agree with Quinn that too many Americans find homosociality frightening. Some of my returned-missionary friends have spoken with embarrassment of the strong male bonding they experienced on their missions.  They recall vivid episodes involving platonic intimacy — walking arm-in-arm, embracing, and other emotional and physical affection.  We are suspicious and uncomfortable with these things in our modern paradigm.  But homosociality can be an enlightening concept to consider.  I’m glad this relationship is included among all of the other unusual associations described in the Old Testament!

BONUS: The woodcut of Jonathan and David pictured below may be astonishingly evocative, both to LDS members endowed before 1990 and to those familiar with Masonic ritual.

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2010/06/17/homosociality-and-the-friendship-between-david-and-jonathan/feed/ 22 http://mormonmatters.org/2010/06/10/you-cant-ride-two-donkeys-with-one-ass-saul-and-spiritual-rebirth/ http://mormonmatters.org/2010/06/10/you-cant-ride-two-donkeys-with-one-ass-saul-and-spiritual-rebirth/#comments Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:00:48 +0000 Bored in Vernal http://mormonmatters.org/?p=11625 OT SS Lesson #22

Ever since I was introduced to the word “liminal,” I have claimed it as my own. This word describes a threshold or a transitional position — a balancing point between two states of being. For many years I have felt poised on the threshold between two totally different ways of viewing the world. One is scientific and rational. The other is a place where angels materialize and shake your hand, where dreams have meaning, where God’s words come out of men’s mouths when they lay their hands on your head. Many members of the Church seem easily able to slip between both of these worlds. But I see a fundamental difference between the two world views. In the naturalistic view of the universe, events do not violate natural laws and are subject to the principles of empirical investigation. In the mystical view, divine intervention is possible outside of natural law.

Striving to make sense of my world has been like trying to ride two donkeys with one ass. I often feel quite schizophrenic for even making the attempt. I do it because I feel like both paradigms are equally valid and I can’t imagine jumping off on one side or the other and excising a vital part of my being. But living a double life makes me feel uncomfortable around everyone. For example, when I am with a certain group of Mormons I can’t fathom why they don’t realize that the founder of their Church took the temple ceremony largely from Masonry, a tradition whose roots are not as ancient as some suppose. Then when I am with another group of my LDS friends I feel equally out of place because I recognize some sort of cosmic connection to the Infinite which occurs at these mystical points of ascent.

Liminality in my life is reading the RS/PH handbook at home and critiquing it from a secular/humanist perspective; then later in Church giving that same lesson from a mystical worldview, and feeling some Greater Power assisting me to articulate the principles. Afterwards I feel dizzy and disoriented. Am I leading people astray? Was that a real experience or just my emotions or hormones coming into play?

This week’s SS lesson is centered around the heart; and the story of Saul, Israel’s proto-monarch, is a perfect place to start for someone who is not quite sure of the state of hers.

To begin with, it is possible that in the course of Biblical transmission, Saul’s birth narrative was dispossessed by another. Biblical scholars have noted that the wordplay in 1 Samuel 1 works best when applied to Saul’s name, but this has been replaced by Samuel. In Hebrew, “Saul” can mean “petition,” “request,” or “thing given.” Thus verse 20 may have originally read:

And she named him Saul, saying, “Because I have ‘sauled’ him (requested him) from YHWH.

The etymology is carried through in verses 17, 20, 27, and 28. But for a variety of reasons, the birth narrative has been transferred to the prophet Samuel.  Was it Saul, rather than Samuel, who was dedicated to the Lord by his mother?  Was it Saul who was divinely appointed and raised?

The reader next encounters Saul in a narrative of spiritual rebirth. Saul is searching for lost donkeys, and ends up visiting Samuel. This prophet anoints Saul and tells him that the Lord’s Spirit shall come upon him, he shall prophesy, and he will be “turned into another man.” That day, “God gave him another heart.” The significance of this regeneration which seems so obvious when reading chapter 10 is actually hotly debated in Christian circles.

“Was Saul saved?” evangelicals wonder.  They point to later actions and speculate whether his heart had really been changed.  I confess that Saul’s actions at Gilgal seem defensible to me. The Lord had commanded that burnt offerings be made before going into battle. Saul had gathered his army and the Philistines were threatening. Saul waited the agreed-upon seven days for Samuel, but he didn’t show. The Israelite army was beginning to scatter. So Saul went ahead and performed the sacrifice. What a conundrum he faced! Should he wait for Samuel, and lose his army? Should he go into battle without performing the sacrifice? Or should he offer the sacrifice himself, without the necessary authority? Doubtless I would have made the same choice Saul did. But we are told that his heart was in the wrong place — that “obedience is better than sacrifice” — and that at this point his kingdom was lost and given to another.

This was a pivotal moment for Saul, and through the rest of his life he wavered between acts of anger and rebellion, and heartfelt repentance. The mental distress he experienced is anguishing.

Saul strikes me as a man trying to ride two donkeys, and I have the greatest compassion for him.  I’d like to end this post with a poem by John Donne which I can envision coming from my mouth, and from Saul’s.  It’s a  lament from a soul which recognizes the pull of the profane and natural man, yet longs for a mystical union with the Divine.

Holy Sonnet XIV

Batter my heart, three person’d God; for, you

As yet but knocke, breathe, shine, and seeke to mend;

That I may rise, and stand, o’erthrow mee,’and bend

Your force, to breake, blowe, burn and make me new.

I, like an usurpt towne, to’another due,

Labour to’admit you, but Oh, to no end,

Reason your viceroy in mee, mee should defend,

But is captiv’d, and proves weake or untrue.

Yet dearely’I love you,’and would be loved faine,

But am betroth’d unto your enemie:

Divorce mee,’untie, or breake that knot againe;

Take mee to you, imprison mee, for I

Except you’enthrall mee, never shall be free,

Nor ever chast, except you ravish mee.

When we lived in Saudi Arabia a few years ago, I obtained a faculty position in the fairly newly-formed department of Health and P.E. at a university which was strictly segregated by gender.  The women’s side of the university operated independently, with our own female custodians, technical staff, professors and administration,  and very little oversight from the male president.  Our department consisted of five women, and we made all decisions collectively, with no titular head.  After the first semester I was there, one of our staff meetings was dedicated to the question of whether we should have a department head.  Being the newest addition to the faculty, I had little say in this decision, but I did bring up the point that we had successfully administrated the department jointly, and I questioned the necessity of one department head.  It would completely change the group dynamics that we had experienced as a body of women removed from a patriarchal hierarchy and which I very much enjoyed.  The reply from all of the rest of the women, though there had been no problems thus far, was that “you HAVE to have a leader,” that one person MUST be in charge of any organization.

At the time I was struck by how much this assertion resembled the one I have heard from many Mormons justifying the hierarchical, patriarchal system in place in the Church, both within the institution and within our individual families.  The argument seems to be that harmonious resolution of difficulties is impossible without one leader to make final decisions.  I am not entirely sure I agree that no other model beside the “one-leader rule,” or what I will here call the “kingship” model is viable in administrating a successful community.

The kingship model of administration appears to have been particularly desirable throughout history.  It seems obvious that strong personality types would desire to set up a system of governance where they were in charge of making all the decisions.  But the scriptural record and our OT SS Lesson #21 show that groups of people also wish to configure their communities under the supervision of a king.  1 Samuel 8 recounts the story of the Israelite people, dissatisfied with judges and prophets, clamoring for Samuel to get them a king.  Their reasoning is found in verse 20: they want to be like the other nations, they want one strong leader to judge them, and they desire to be under the protection of a military commander who will lead them in battle.

Passages in the Book of Mormon also describe this desire of the general population to set up a monarchy.  In Mosiah 23 the people want Alma to be their king because of their great admiration for him.  In 3 Ne 7 a league of tribes attempt to establish a kingship in order to overthrow the tribal system of government then operating.  In Alma 51 there is also an attempt to overthrow the current leadership and inculcate a kingship, inspired in part by pride and aspirations to nobility.  In each case in the scriptures where there is a desire to crown a king, it is denounced as contrary to the ideals of freedom.  Several reasons are given in these passages as to why kingship is considered malapropos:

• It is a rejection of divine rule in favor of human rule (1 Sam 8:7)
• A king would allocate human and natural resources to his own advantage (1 Sam 8:11-17)
• One man should not think of himself as being above another; kingship gives those of high birth unfair power and authority (Mosiah 23:7; Alma 51:8)
• Not all kings can be trusted to be just (Mosiah 23:8,13,14)
• A king can oppress people and lead them into iniquity (Mosiah 23:12)
• A monarchy is not a free government (Alma 51:6)

Memorial Day is a United States federal holiday which “commemorates U.S. men and women who have died in military service to their country.”   At the risk of coming under the condemnation of Mormon bloggers everywhere, I wish to register my objection to the deplorable sentiments underlying this holiday.

We can all agree on the magnitude of the sacrifice offered by American soldiers. They answered the call of the leaders of their country to go to war. They did this with the knowledge that their own lives might be taken. I am not one who looks upon military volunteers as being either bloodthirsty warmongers or poverty-stricken and brainwashed victims. Their brand of courage is not ordinary, and will never be ordinary.

I must, however, denounce the commemoration of lives destroyed by militarism. Instead of celebrating lives given up for war, I would mourn the lives snuffed out and stolen by our country’s participation in martial combat. It seems to me that Memorial Day might more aptly commemorate the lives of America’s great Peacemakers — people such as Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King, Peace Pilgrim, Jeannette Rankin, A.J. Muste, Jane Addams, and a myriad of others.

“The job of the peacemaker is to stop war, to purify the world, to get it saved from poverty and riches, to heal the sick, to comfort the sad, to wake up those who have not yet found God.” (Muriel Lester, Social Activist, Gandhian Pacifist, 1883-1968)

Throughout history, nations have consigned their young men (and now women) to kill one another for reasons honorable or absurd. Often war was declared as a response to evil or oppression; other times violence came as political or economic conflicts that should have been resolved without violence. When the causes are just and when they are not, lives lost to war are sacred and full of promise and potential. Those who ponder these things can only regret that wars are still waged and lives are still lost. I wish that on the day which has been set apart as a “Memorial”, we would not only remember the courageous souls who were sent by their governments to die on battlefields, but rather we would regret and repudiate the conditions that lead some people to believe that offering their lives in military service is the best or only hope for peace, protection or patriotism.

“Indeed, conceit, arrogance, and egotism are the essentials of patriotism. Let me illustrate. Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others. The inhabitants of the other spots reason in like manner, of course, with the result that, from early infancy, the mind of the child is poisoned with blood-curdling stories about the Germans, the French, the Italians, Russians, etc. When the child has reached manhood, he is thoroughly saturated with the belief that he is chosen by the Lord himself to defend HIS country against the attack or invasion of any foreigner. It is for that purpose that we are clamoring for a greater army and navy, more battleships and ammunition.” (Emma Goldman: Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty From the 1917 edition of Emma Goldman’s Anarchism and Other Essays)

Military indoctrination, by its nature, teaches the young that the enemy is unworthy of life.

Christian pacifists are often asked about Romans 13. ["Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience."] The Mormon counterpart seems to be our Article of Faith #12: ["We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."] But I find my answer in Romans 12, which says to do good to your enemy and to overcome evil with good. In World War II, after all, there were many Catholics and Lutherans in Germany who used Romans 13 to justify fighting for the Nazis.

“Many people know the simple spiritual law that evil can only be overcome by good. Pacifists not only know it, they also attempt to live it.” (Peace Pilgrim, Philosopher, Activist, Ethical Vegetarian, Vegan 1908-1981)

A Memorial Day song in a new tradition, Hymn for Anzac Day, was sung for the first time at Mornington Methodist Church in New Zealand on April 29, 2007. Anzac Day is New Zealand and Australia’s version of Memorial Day. Notice the third stanza, where the brave who do not answer the call of war are also honored:

Honour the dead, our country’s fighting brave,
honour our children left in foreign grave,
where poppies blow and sorrow seeds her flowers,
honour the crosses marked forever ours .

Weep for the places ravaged by our blood,
weep for the young bones buried in the mud,
weep for the powers of violence and greed,
weep for the deals done in the name of need.

Honour the brave whose conscience was their call,
answered no bugle, went against the wall,
suffered in prisons of contempt and shame,
branded as cowards in our country’s name.

Weep for the waste of all that might have been,
Weep for the cost that war has made obscene,
Weep for the homes that ache with human pain,
Weep that we ever sanction war again.

Honour the dream for which our nation bled,
Held now in trust to justify the dead,
Honour their vision on this solemn day,
Peace known in freedom, peace the only way.

(words by Shirley Murray, music by Colin Gibson)

I challenge supporters of the American military machine to demonstrate how war brings about peace. How does more killing honor the lives of those who have died? The world has been at war throughout recorded history, and never has war brought definitive peace to any generation. Violent resistance to violence always fails to bring about peace. Rather, it establishes a realignment of forces under principles of violence. War is rarely motivated by the high ideals that its supporters use to justify it.

“Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction…. The chain reaction of evil — hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars — must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.” (Martin Luther King Jr.)

In this day and age, with our weapons of mass destruction and our new and improved ways of torturing each other, war is insanity. It is destructiveness; it is immorality; it is total waste. Our goal today must be the end of war. Negotiation should be our commitment. Perhaps the best way to memorialize the sacrifice of those who have lost their lives in war is to strive for a mastery of peace — a better way of resolving conflict — a commitment to the transformational power of love.

Sometimes I wonder how women in the Judeo-Christian tradition got stuck with the gender role identifications they have. The Old Testament doesn’t include many detailed descriptions of women, but when they do appear, they are not what you’d think. To prove my point, I’m going to investigate two women featured in this week’s Sunday School lesson, plus Deborah the judge/prophetess, and the ubiquitous “virtuous woman” of Proverbs 37.

Deborah

• Prophet – In the Book of Judges where Deborah is introduced into the Biblical record, she is identified as a “woman prophet,” and the wife of Lapidoth.  This may strike the members of a patriarchal religion as unusual, but the word “prophet” is a feminine form of the same word as that used to describe Moses and Abraham as prophets.
• Judge — We are told that the people of Israel came to Deborah for judgment.  Conservative Christian commentaries sometimes explain that this was necessary, because none of the men were worthy at the time.  But there is no indication in the scriptures that unworthiness made a man ineligible to serve as a deliverer.  This is especially evident in the case of Sampson.  It looks like the people came to her because she was a competent and talented judge, as well as being the one raised up by the Lord for that purpose.
• Leader — Deborah makes executive decisions in the military field, as when she chooses Barak to be the captain of the army.  She then accompanies him into battle, giving strategic direction.
• Mother in Israel — but NOT what you’re thinking!  Strangely enough, this is one of only two places where the term “mother in Israel” is used.  (Mother in Zion is not a scriptural term.)  Here it has nothing to do with Deborah having children; we don’t even know if she did.  Instead it refers to her guiding influence over the emerging nation of Israel.

When someone has been disappointed and broken, it affects all of his or her relationships. A broken heart could just be the cause of that cutting remark someone made to you, or even the rude gesture someone made out of a car window.  There’s a passage in the Old Testament that really comforts me when I am feeling the weight of loneliness and sorrow that sometimes comes over me.  It also comes to mind when I’m wondering how I can possibly make a difference in someone’s life who is hurting so badly.  Here’s my poetic interpretation of Isaiah 61:1-3:

He hath sent me to bind up the broken,
To cry to the captives: Behold, ye are free!
‘Tis the year of Jehovah’s good graces
Then eyes that are fettered, at last they shall see.
Day of our God’s just avenging:
All mourners in Zion shall comforted be.

I shall give to them beauty for ashes,
The oil of rejoicing in place of pain,
The garment of praise for sad spirit;
That strong trees of righteousness they might remain.
Oaks of Jehovah’s own planting,
That ever may be for His glory and gain!
(BiV’s Isaiah 61:1-3)

In the Garden of Eden narrative, we are taught that there is an opposite to everything.  Joy and sorrow are opposites, so are pleasure and pain. When Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, their eyes were opened and they were able to experience all of these things.  In the Isaiah passage above, it speaks of eyes being opened through the experiencing of some of these opposites: beauty/ashes, rejoicing/pain, praise/sadness.  These figures show us the value of living in a world where suffering exists.  A broken heart opens us to insights that we wouldn’t be able to see without it.

The Messiah figure in this passage also opens us up to embrace dependence.  I think humans have a tendency to adulate self-reliance.  With this comes pride and even solitude.  As we become more open to dependence — on Divine guidance, on a Savior and on each other, we learn love and community.  These are things which can heal the brokenness that is a part of living in a fallen world.  Isaiah 61 is a Messianic prophecy which teaches of a Savior who is sent forth by God’s spirit to replace pain with rejoicing, to give beauty for ashes.  But it also teaches us that we can go forth in the same spirit to bind up the broken.

I heard a story about a young man who proclaimed to have the most beautiful, flawless heart. As the crowd watched, he bared his chest to show a shining, golden, perfectly shaped heart.  Then an old man challenged him.  He came forward to show the crowd what his heart looked like.  It was beating strongly, but was misshapen and full of holes and scars.  It appeared that some pieces had been removed and others had been put in, but didn’t fit quite right. The old man looked at the young man, “I would never trade my heart for yours. Every scar represents a person I’ve given my love — I tear out a piece and give it to them. Sometimes they give me a piece of their broken heart, which I fit along jagged edges. When the person doesn’t return my love, a painful gouge is left. Those gouges stay open, reminding me that I love these people too. Perhaps someday they will return and fill that space.”

Over the years, my heart has come to resemble that old man’s.  What a Messiah means to me is recognizing this connectedness and interdependence.  It is knowing I am not as complete with a golden flawless heart that has never felt the great wrenchings.  It is opening myself to love and sorrow and rejection and recognizing that I can’t do it all on my own.  And then it is doing my best to give others a piece of my heart to help heal theirs.

Sandra Tanner was interviewed on the 5:30 segment of the news, with her collection of every edition of McConkie’s book.  She provided me with her view of the decision:

I believe the main reason McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” was taken out of print was due to its candid discussion of LDS doctrines that the church is now trying to hide. Such teachings as God once being a man, his wife–Heavenly Mother, and Jesus being the literal, physical son of God are just a few of the doctrines that are being minimized in current manuals. If the LDS Church felt “Mormon Doctrine” presented a faulty compilation of their doctrines, why haven’t they issued an authorized compendium of their beliefs? Mormons often say to me, “That’s not official doctrine” as though there was some place to look up the official teachings. Where is the official systematic theology of Mormonism?

Interestingly, KUTV has posted their news stories from last night online, omitting any mention of this segment.  There is speculation that it was held due to criticism of the way it was reported.  We will update you here as more details become available.

Written in 1958, Mormon Doctrine has served as a reference book for members of the Church for over 50 years, but has recently gone out of vogue.  References to McConkie’s work were taken out of the Gospel Principles manual when it was reissued this year for use in Priesthood and Relief Society classes.  Now it seems it is being further phased out.  It is only surprising that this has not been done before, since Mormon Doctrine has not enjoyed the support of every member of the highest Church Councils over the years.

I’d like to hold a little “In Memoriam” session here at Mormon Matters for Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine.  It was the first book I ever purchased when a brand-new convert in 1979, in the authoritative-looking black-and-gold binding. It was the perfect place for a convert to go for a source of Church teachings in a pre-internet age.  Thus, it shaped much of my early thinking about the Church.  This was the third edition, having been revised to be “more moderate” in 1966, and then again in 1978 after the Priesthood revelation.  Much of the Bible Dictionary in our current editions of the LDS scriptures come directly from Mormon Doctrine.  McConkie himself described it as “the first major attempt to digest, explain, and analyze all of the important doctrines of the kingdom” and “the first extensive compendium of the whole gospel—the first attempt to publish an encyclopedic commentary covering the whole field of revealed religion.”  Its teachings have had a major impact upon several generations of Latter-day Saints.

How have you been impacted by Mormon Doctrine?

Update: The story is now up at Connect2Utah.

Whenever I come across an odd story in the Old Testament, I feel compelled pull it apart and try to make some sense out of it. Why is it there? Does it have some symbolic meaning of which we are unaware? Are we misinterpreting crucial aspects? Would it make more sense within the cultural milieu? Such is the story of this lesser-known Biblical judge.

This strange little story begins with an “unlikely hero,” Jephthah, the son of a prostitute. He was taken into his father’s family and raised there, but after the death of his father the legitimate children forced him to leave. He made some reputation for himself among a band of “vain men,” so that when his countrymen needed help against the Ammonites, they came to him. Jephthah agreed to captain an army against Ammon, in return for being named their titular head. His first military action was an attempt to negotiate with the enemy. When that did not work, he gathered together the men of Israel. The Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he went forth to battle, making a interesting vow to the Lord. If the Lord would help him win the battle, he would dedicate to the Lord and offer up for a burnt offering whatever should come forth from the doors of his house to meet him when he returned.

After a successful conquest, Jephthah returned home and was greeted by his daughter, his only child. That she was a precious and only child is pointed up by the fact that the judges immediately before and after him were Jair (who had thirty sons who rode on thirty ass colts), and Ibzan (who had thirty sons and thirty daughters). The number of children is the only fact we are told about these two judges, making it very likely that they are there solely for the reason of emphasizing Jephthah’ only begotten child. But she was a female.

Not only was human sacrifice forbidden by the Lord, (Deut. 18:10), but burnt offerings were to be firstborn males (Lev. 1:3). Nevertheless, Jephthah had made a vow, and intended to keep it. His daughter acquiesced, asking only for two months time to go up to the mountains with some friends and “bewail her virginity.” At the end of the two months, she returned to her father, and he “did with her according to his vow which he had vowed, and she knew no man.” Thereafter it became a custom for the daughters of Israel to go up four days in a year to lament the fate of the daughter of Jephthah.

The tradition of Biblical scholars is to interpret this vow of Jephthah’s as an impetuous and evil action which had disastrous consequences. That Latter-day Saints have followed in this tradition is clear from the chapter heading of Judges 11: “He makes a rash vow which leads to sacrifice of his only daughter.”

This interpretation is problematic for at least two reasons. First, if this was a “rash vow,” why would the Lord be given credit for bringing about the victory of Jephthah’s army? In the Book of Judges, the people are punished with captivity and defeat when they forsake the Lord. Second, why would Jephthah make such a vow? Did he think perhaps an animal would be the first out the door to greet him? (In ancient Israel the animals were sometimes kept in the house.) What if the animal was an unclean one, such as a dog? To offer up such a sacrifice would be a great affront. But perhaps the greatest problem Biblical scholars face in the exegesis of this passage is the inclusion of Jephthah in Hebrews 11 — the “faith chapter.” Here Jephthah is included along with the great heroes of the Old Testament in obtaining “a good report through faith.”

I rather favor an interpretation that became popular in medieval times and has been revived recently — that Jephthah was promising only to dedicate his daughter to the Lord and not to kill her. This would parallel Jephthah’s daughter more to Samson and to Samuel than to Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac. But it would preserve the Messianic shadowing. Several points make this interpretation possible:

1. The Hebrew “vav” usually translated “and” may also be translated as “or” rendering the reading in Judges 11:31: “whatsoever cometh forth…to meet me…shall surely be the Lord’s, or I will offer it up as a burnt offering.” Thus Jephthah’s method of sacrifice would depend upon what came forth out of his door.
2. The daughter departed into the mountains to “bewail her virginity,” not her death. It is possible that she was being offered to some type of temple service which would necessitate her remaining unwed for the rest of her life. Note verse 39 which says that Jephthah kept “his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man.” This last clause would seem awkward and unnecessary if she were being put to death.
3. Certain Hebrew scholars believe that for as long as she lived, the virgins of Israel went at different times, each for four days in the year, to provide comfort and encouragement to the daughter of Jephthah at the tent of meeting. This custom must have ended at her death, since there is no further reference to it in scripture or Jewish history.

You see that it is possible to fit this story quite nicely into our Latter-day Saint canon. Faithful Jephthah makes a promise to the Lord, and keeps his promise. Faithful Jephthah’s daughter yields herself to her father’s vow and becomes a type of Christ.  Handel uses a variation of this interpretation in his oratorio, Jephtha.  I’ll share with you a lovely aria from the oratorio below.  Here Jeptha is reconciled to the blood sacrifice of his daughter, and sings “Waft her, angels, through the skies,” before learning that her death is not required, and she shall instead be dedicated to God in a pure and virgin state for the rest of her life.

The story doesn’t fit quite so nicely into feminist thought, however…or does it? What was the name of this intriguing daughter? What was she like? Didn’t she deserve to make her own decisions? Why must her life be subject to her father’s vow? Here’s the other side of the question: if Samuel and Isaac were obedient to the vows of their parents, isn’t it equal treatment for a young woman in the scriptures to show the same dedication? Is submission not a principle that Christ modeled, and which males and females must all learn? In my search for spiritual submission, is it helpful to have a female role model? Or would this simply reinforce unrighteous patriarchal domination which tends to crop up in religious settings? Can it be possible to spin this story into a celebration of a strong woman character who makes her own decisions and chooses on her own to follow the Lord? And what of my own life? Is it conceivable to view the submission I have promised in the temple as a glorious principle even though the submission my husband covenants is to God, and mine is to a mere mortal? Is the surrender I give freely in this holy place simply that required of all Christian disciples? Or does God require of women an additional offering? Does Jephthah’s daughter hold the key? Am I to become a daughter on the pyre? I’m still wondering.

The advantage of blogging the SS lessons instead of teaching them is that I get to cover the chapters that are totally skipped by correlation. (This one [Joshua 5] probably for good reason, but it deserves a mention SOMEWHERE.)

Everyone knows that good Jews are circumcised. God instituted the covenant with Abraham, and faithful Jews have been performing this ordinance on their 8-day-old males ever since, right?

WRONG!

Immediately after Israel crossed the Jordan into the Promised Land under their new leader, Joshua, they were given a commandment. They were told to again circumcise the entire company of the children of Israel.  This was necessary because none of the people who were born during the 40 years in the wilderness had been circumcised.  All the males who left Egypt over the age of 20 had been circumcised but had died in the wilderness.  Joshua circumcised their children, whom Jehovah had raised up in their place. They stayed at the Hill of Foreskins a while to heal.  God told Joshua, “Today I have rolled away (galal) the reproach of Egypt from you” and thus the place was called Gilgal. Gilgal means “heap of stones” or “stone circle”; it sounds similar to galal (“to roll away”).

Given that circumcision was commanded in the Torah, and also a necessary prerequisite to participation in the Passover celebration, why weren’t the Israelites circumcised during that 40-year period?  I think the answer has to do with Moses’ attitude toward circumcision.

Though Moses was born into an Israelite family, it is not certain that he was ever circumcised as a baby.  At least, it is not included in his birth narrative in the scriptural record.  To correct this oversight, some commentators have even tried to assert that Moses was “born circumcised.”  Whether or not this is true, we know that his sons did not inherit this genetic trait!  After marrying and having two sons in the land of Midian, Moses went back to Egypt with his wife and children.  We read about this incident in Exodus 4:18-26:

And Moses went and returned to Jethro his father in law, and said unto him, Let me go, I pray thee, and return unto my brethren which are in Egypt, and see whether they be yet alive. And Jethro said to Moses, Go in peace.  And the Lord said unto Moses in Midian, Go, return into Egypt: for all the men are dead which sought thy life.  And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt…

And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him.  Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.  So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

It appears that Moses and his wife recognized that the Lord was preventing Moses from proceeding because one of his sons had not been circumcised.  We can speculate that Moses circumcised his firstborn son at the proper age, and that Zipporah was appalled at the bloody act.  Perhaps that was why they decided not to circumcise the other son.  When the Lord chose Moses to lead the nation of Israel out of the land of Egypt, it was necessary that he make a decision: circumcise his son, or die!  Zipporah relented, but was not happy about it.  I think that this incident made Moses very conflicted about the practice of circumcision.  He himself may even have been circumcised later in life, a painful experience!  No wonder he was not strict about making sure the nation of Israel complied with this ordinance while in the wilderness.  But when Moses died and the new generation entered Canaan, a ritual was enacted as a type of the plan of salvation.

Tony Badillo explains the symbolism of the events which took place at the crossing of the Jordan and at Gilgal.  A careful reading of Joshua 4:8-9 shows that twelve stones were taken out of the river and placed on the new land as a memorial, and twelve stones were also taken from the dry land and placed in the midst of the Jordan.  The twelve smooth, rounded river stones symbolized Israel circumcised, analogous to the smoothness of the male reproductive organ after circumcision; a new spiritual beginning in a new land.  The twelve rough stones taken from the dry land represented the uncircumcised male organ; placed in the Jordan to signify death to sin.

Reading these OT passages with our SS lesson gives us the opportunity to reflect on the rich symbolic meanings which lie behind the violent act of circumcision.  I tend to identify with Zipporah on this matter, shrinking from the bloody, brutal deed.  But in the latter-day we are asked to circumcise the foreskin of our hearts, removing our pride and exposing our tender, inner selves to the influence of the Spirit.  We have to be “strong and of a good courage” to do this!   It can be more painful and difficult even than the physical act of circumcision.  As Badillo puts it: “Outer circumcision of the flesh may be done by anyone skillfully using a knife; but inward circumcision of the heart can be done only by the Lord’s spirit , and it is this type circumcision (for subduing the sinful inclination ) that Joshua’s men received at the crossing of the Jordan.”

A worthy Sunday School lesson, even if it didn’t make the manual!

I love my sweet Mom (Nan McCulloch) — for a hundred different reasons. She’s a wicked cook. A spectacular actress. A fantastic decorator and homemaker. She lets me come stay at her house at a moment’s notice, whenever I need a place to sleep. She’s empathetic. Supportive. Witty. Wise. EXTREMELY thoughtful. And smoking hot (as far as Mom’s go, anyway). I could go on, and on, and on. But what do I admire most about my Mom? I would have to say….it is her openness and curiosity. As a multi-generational, faithful Latter-Day Saint, she has always taught me tolerance of others (gays, intellectuals, feminists…Utahns. You name it). Once more, she is a fantastic example of a faithful, yet curious church member — who is not afraid to study things out, and to face the toughest questions.

And at 70ish (sorry, Mom!)….she isn’t showing any signs of slowing down.

Bored in Vernal:

My mom is a professional woman, an athlete, a musician and a fabulous mother!  She insisted we live up to our potential and told us we could do anything. And she’s always provided the example in her own actions. Near the end of a successful career as the principal of a private school, she returned to the university for an advanced degree (in the days when this wasn’t done very frequently). She told us of a birthday she had when she was required to be in class, where she didn’t know many of the other young students. Instead of feeling sorry for herself, she brought cupcakes and made it into a party! She makes friends wherever she goes. Last year she won a State running competition in her age group (70-80) and qualified to go to the Senior Olympics competition in California where she took second place in the 200 meter dash. The local newspaper reported: “With every hair in place, Nancy Lund raced to victory Friday in the women’s 200-meter dash, smashing age and gender stereotypes as she went.”

That’s my mom!

Mormon Heretic:

My mom really does Rock!  She has a way of making me never want to disappoint her–my dad doesn’t necessarily have this trait.  She has always been a good listener to me, even when she didn’t agree with some of my crazy ideas.  Growing up, she really was my best friend, and a wonderful confidant.  I have often said that my mother has the patience of Job.  She is a true saint, and follower of Christ.

I love her immensely.

Ray:

My mom was one of David O. McKay’s secretaries before she married my dad – one of the youngest to ever hold that job.  She was a top-notch executive secretary, but she walked away from employment to raise her children.  When her first four pregnancies ended in miscarriages and a still-born daughter, my parents almost gave up having any biological children – but she wanted to try one more time, so my dad agreed.  The birth of my sister, followed by me 13 months later, followed by twins 11 1/2 months later led to a diagnosis that almost stopped the growth of their family again – but she wanted more children, so my dad agreed.  My mother had eight children, and I never heard her yell or raise her voice once.  She loved us with all her heart, and she prayed for us with all her soul.  I am grateful for the example she was to us of a totally dedicated daughter of God. My mom is a pianist – and she instilled in us a love of music that will never die.  I sing because it is natural for me, but I play the piano because she is my mother.  My mom translated things into Braille for the blind, typing away on the old Braille machines most of you probably have never seen.  My mom is less than 5′ tall, and I still can see her sitting on the floor in the winter, under the desk (where the opening for the chair was), next to the heater, reading a book – generally an inspirational/spiritual book or the scriptures.   Happy Mother’s Day, Mom.  I love you!

Single Mormon Chick:

“A mother is not a person to lean on, but a person to make leaning unnecessary.” ― Dorothy Canfield Fisher
My mother did this, but what she also did, twenty years after I left home,was to allow me to lean on her. It was brief, but it was significant.
I was raised by the best kind of mother. Firm, but loving. Tough, but kind. Always helpful, but never interfering. She taught me about faith and enduring through hardship and trials. She showed me that a genuine smile can really brighten someones day, so be generous with those smiles.  I inherited her smile, so I try to share it as she always has. I don’t have children, but i find that in addition to her smile, I inherited her maternal instinct. It shines through when dealing with my nieces and nephews and even some of the women that I serve in my calling at church.  We all need mothering sometimes no matter how old we are.

I am grateful to have the best mom.

jmb275:

(I know the picture seems weird, but my mom will understand.)

You brought me into this world and have been on my side ever since. During the most painful moments in my life you have been there. You bandaged me up (and sometimes took me to the hospital ) after so many accidents. You supported me in my many eclectic endeavors in my youth. You wrote to me religiously when no one else did. You were willing to listen when no one else wanted to hear it. You were open to discussion when everyone else was against me. You affirmed me, and yet you did not agree with all my conclusions. You loved me when I wasn’t sure anyone else wanted to. I cannot conceive of a better mother for me than my own. Thank you mom, I love you!

FireTag:

My wife Charlotte became the primary breadwinner of our family after my heart attack, which led her to expand piano teaching from a form of service to a full time business. That would have been enough, but her sense of the Spirit calling her wouldn’t let her rest. She realized her young piano students and the sick and elderly had something to offer each other. She built on opportunities to provide entertainment at a local Methodist-affiliated nursing home to create a now-10-year old program of monthly recitals that involve dozens of students from most major world religions. When a friend contracted breast cancer, she committed herself to find a way to produce music CDs that would be given as gifts to offer hope to patients undergoing treatment at Johns Hopkins Medical Center in association with the Avon Foundation. That “one-time project” quickly led to a request for supplying further CDs to a women’s hospital in the United Arab Emirates, where breast cancer carries with it social stigma unappreciated in the West. Her students brought her stories of personal tragedies among their families and friends, and before she knew what hit her, she was creating a foundation that recorded and sent music CDs to children’s hospitals throughout the United States. While jockeying for position in a gas line with another car, she discovered that the driver of the other car was responsible for helping to coordinate programs for wounded soldiers returning from combat – so the foundation was launched on a project, still ongoing, to deliver music gifts to Fischer Houses and USO’s at bases throughout the US and in Germany. So here’s my tribute to a Mother in Israel whose willingness to act on the leadings of the Spirit awes me.

Joanna Brooks

My mom is a force to be reckoned with.  She’s done so much genealogy that the Church has dedicated a wing of the Granite Mountain Records Vault to her.  In heaven, there are at least ten Cougar Stadiums’ worth of baptized, endowed, and sealed ancestors waving white pom-poms and chanting her name.  My mom has taught Gospel Doctrine so well and for so many years that she carries a chalk pen in her purse.  Every day.  Just in case.  Always ready with the scripture reference.  Always ready with the Journal of Discourses quote.

I’m just saying:  Don’t mess with my mom. You’ve been warned.  My mom rules.

I love you, Mom.  Happy Mother’s Day

Hawkgrrrl

When I think of my mother it is usually as I hear her words escaping my mouth, or even just her tone.  I wonder how many generations of mothers have said these same words in this same tone.  My mother was a convert to the church when she was 28, and from her, I gained perspective on spiritual matters like meaningful dreams, being willing to do something even without rational justification, and a healthy dislike for intolerant and judgmental attitudes (that differ from my own anyway).  In addition to these gifts, my mother gave me important life skills like a ruthless German efficiency (we both have the milk put away before it ever hits the cereal), a strong commitment to order and cleanliness, above average vocabulary and spelling ability, cheap-skatery (that has served me well!), and a strong independent streak coupled with a sense of adventure.  And above all these gifts, I will always be grateful for the moments in life when my mother defended me against injustices, protected me from my own worst instincts, and cut me slack when I didn’t deserve it.  To me, those are the hallmarks of motherhood.  I love you, mom!

A very Happy Mother’s Day to your mothers and ours!

I was captivated by this 550-page novel, and fascinated by how relevant it is to readers of all backgrounds.  The story is told from the points of view of three main characters: Golden Richards, the convert to Mormon fundamentalism; Trish, one of his wives; and the preadolescent Rusty, one of Golden’s twenty-eight children.  If you’re of a certain age and a close reader, you’ll be able to place the time period in which it is set by the subtle cultural clues: a reference to Starsky and Hutch, a Sears Roebuck catalog, Postum, and a 1963 Cadillac with only 4,000 miles on it.  That Golden is presented as an apostle of a tiny polygamist sect in rural Utah doesn’t keep him from his true character of all-American everyman.  He has four wives, but some of the same marital challenges which are familiar to us all.  His twenty-eight children present him with the same provocations as my eight, and probably your four, and my neighbor’s two.  The fact that Udall is so skilled at probing the universalities of life gives his readers an opportunity to ponder our own life journeys as we enter into what we might otherwise consider the divergent spheres of the husband, wife, and child of a polygamous family.

Consider, for example, how much the description of a church service Golden attended connected not only to fundamentalist Mormons, but to mainstream Latter-day Saints as well as the rural roots of American Protestant religion.  In a sudden burst of emotion occasioned by the recent death of his mother and the preachings of “Uncle Chick,” Golden understands “that he is a changed person; his old self, that tattered shitty thing he never knew he so much despised, has been tossed aside.  Now Uncle Chick is finishing his testimony, affirming his faith in the gospel, in the saving Principle they hold so dear, and just before he finishes he smiles, as if apologizing for all the dramatics, and says, ‘Remember, brothers and sisters, God loves you,’ and Golden knows it is true.”  Then the announcement is made for a social to be held after the meeting with Sister Maxine’s famous walnut brownies.  The congregations sings a hymn, the words of which have never struck him quite as they do at that moment, and afterward the congregation of  ”red-cheeked children” and “smelly old farmers” and “hard-faced women” evokes every Church social I have ever attended.

In Golden’s triple-homed household, you’ll find little touches you may recognize from your own families; whether it be the notes one wife leaves in strategic places: “Turn off Light When Not in Use,” or efforts to unclog a toilet, or an idiosyncratic pet.  So when it comes to both the dysfunctionality the Richards’ experience and the strengths they lend each other, you’ll realize that these things have part and parcel in all of our lives.  You’ll nod when Golden pulls into his driveway under still-lit Christmas lights feeling that just maybe everything will be ALL RIGHT — and then you’ll cry when death and tragedy prove that nothing is OK, there is no explanation that suffices, and one has to find a way to go on.

For those readers who can’t stem the craving for a peek into the polygamous lifestyle, don’t worry, you’ll get your fix.  There’s a generous helping of all the pathos and loneliness the sharing of a husband evokes for a woman, as well of the comforts of having loyal sister wives when emergencies present themselves.  I love the scene where Trish has just delivered a stillborn baby and Golden won’t look at him.  Her sister-wife Beverly makes Golden hold the baby and sing him  a lullaby.  Then he is sent off to make arrangements while the four wives weep and admire the baby and hold hands and pray.  This scene is as beautiful as another is disturbing: Rose has to work up the courage to ask Trish if she will forego her night with Golden so he can attend a daughter’s high school band concert.

“He hasn’t been in over two weeks,” Trish whispered, even though now that the dryer had rattled into silence her words carried easily into every part of the room.  ”I’ve seen him twice in the past month.  If I don’t see him tonight, who knows how long it will be, you understand?  Rose?  I’m beginning to think he won’t even recognize me anymore.”

She laughed — a pathetic attempt to lighten the mood — but Rose only nodded, and Trish realized that both her eyes were now leaking tears.  Unable to speak or make a gesture of condolence or regret, she sat in the sunken chair, a black-hearted villain in her bank-robber’s mask, her shameful features hidden from view.  Nola, whose scissors had been poised above her customer’s springy hair during the entire exchange, sighed and resumed her snick snick snick.  Rose eased her hands from Trish’s grip and gently dried her hair with a towel.

She did not wait for Rose to comb out her tangled hair, did not wait for her turn in Nola’s chair.  A bitterness had risen in her throat, sudden and hot — that she should have to feel guilty for wanting to be a participant in her own life, that she should be ashamed of wanting to spend a few hours with her own husband! — and she knew she should leave immediately… She stepped out into the bright day, the sidewalk scorching white beneath her feet, the sky a pale panel of blue over her head, and walked slowly at first, her hair wet and wild, her face still covered with the handkerchief, and then began to run, making a break for it like the outlaw she was.

And then there are the comic moments in plural marriage, as when Golden gets a piece of gum stuck in the hair of a very personal spot!  You’ll have to read the book to hear about that one.  Oh yes, Brady Udall has captured life in polygamy as if he has lived it himself.

I think that if — back when I was a 19-year-old born-again Christian — someone had given me a synopsis of the contents of the Book of Mormon, that I would have declined to read it.  And perhaps if someone had divulged the story line of “The Lonely Polygamist” to me before I read it I might have considered it too depressing, too emotionally difficult to engage.  But interestingly enough, the Book of Mormon has taken me on an exciting and life-changing faith journey.  And Udall’s novel has provided surprising opportunities as well.  Its flawed and sometimes dysfunctional characters have paradoxically given me a measure of  hope.