To take a line from Shakespeare — a pox upon both your houses. The Ex-Mos and TBMs continue to argue past each other and never the twain shall meet. While the thought of a kind, loving heavenly being comforts and then closes the ears of the believer, the list of inconsistencies, logical disconnects and “anti-Mormon” cliches assuages and then closes the ears of the non-believer.

Unless you frame your debate, it will continue to be unproductive, each side creating their own echo chamber of reinforcement until the cacophony makes it impossible for anyone to hear what is going on.

Here is where I would propose to take the discussion: How do you reconcile the conflicts? To quote this guy I once read, “By proving contraries, truth is made manifest.” Bonus points if you can tell me who said that. The discussion then moves from cliche and rote response to a value and factual discussion in an attempt to find common ground.

For example: Blacks and the priesthood. The Word of God is for all of God’s children. You are punished for your own sins, not Adam’s transgressions (or Cain’s.) Racism is a rampant cultural and historical phenomenon which prompted violent conflict between those who thought racism violated God’s law and those who believed their race was chosen by God to rule over the lesser beings (both sides used religion as the basis for their beliefs — one of those contraries Joseph was talking about.).

The argument came to a head in the spring of 1820 (bonus points if you know what else happened in the spring of 1820) in the United States with a Missouri Compromise. The Compromise held the Union together for about forty more years until war broke out, but the entire time temperatures were broiling on the race issue in the United States. Northern (upper state New York) abolitionist leaning religions moving south into Missouri and southern Illinois were not well received.

Not surprising that depending on your viewpoint the ban on blacks holding the priesthood came from:
a) false doctrine;
b) the human capacity for self-deception while striving for self-preservation;
c) individual racism of some church leaders;
d) conforming to the current societal norms; or
e) some other reason arising out of the factual scenario.

The anti- and the pro- both believe that the whole racism thing was a bad idea, they just get there different ways. Conflict resolved, sort of.

So who is right? How should we define, the capital T, “Truth”? I’m going to come clean right now — I’m in the Joseph Smith camp on this one, at least for how to determine Truth. The reason I’m in the Joseph Smith camp is that he is also in the historical philosophical tradition of the American Enlightenment and the scientific method and he made one of the first attempts to apply that philosophy to religious thought. Joseph Smith also had a strong sense of American individualism — study it out and figure it out for yourself. How he succeeded can be argued, but I love the empirical, scientific approach to religion. (To avoid numerous digressions into atheism, geology, cosmology and science, I’m only talking in this post about applying an empirical, scientific approach to internal subjective experience.)

The scientific method gives us a mechanism for creating hierarchal judgments on different hypotheses — the hypothesis that is the most consistent with all the data is the most correct, the most true hypothesis.

Another way of saying this is Truth is inclusive. If you draw lines that exclude, you don’t have the Truth, you’ve left something out.

Joseph Smith believed this and it shows in his theology, for example eternal progression and baptism for the dead. He wanted everything included and this is a huge comfort point for believers. It leads to a Mormon mother’s common belief that a non-believing child can eventually end up in the temple and end up included, despite the past. What a comfort that must be to her, based on her own world view.

So I am looking at TBM’s hypothesis which says “my view is right because it is more inclusive, God’s plan provides eternal salvation for all mankind, even Ex-Mos.”

The conflicting Ex-Mo hypothesis is “my view is right because the reality and data coming out of the religion is that the religion does exactly the opposite of include all mankind, it excludes everyone except the elect.”

So there are the two contraries, how do we manifest Truth. In the spirit of Johnathan Swift, let me make a modest proposal: Eat the children to stop the famine (sorry literary joke that I couldn’t resist).

Seriously, the TBM’s hypothesis fails because despite the efforts of the Church at inclusion theologically, the reality is countless people feel excluded and some are even forced to be excluded by a process known as excommunication. Just makes the whole “one heart, one mind” thing seem a little narrow and false.

The counter hypothesis and its proponents equally fail because it fails to include the large group who devoutly believes. This makes it equally weak and equally vulnerable to attack by those believers.

My proposed hypothesis, neither of you are correct. I’ve studied it out. Thought about it. Prayed about it. I came up with the answer that neither of you were true. (Told you I was in the Joseph Smith camp).

Our controversial guest post today is from Rock Waterman.  Check out the original unabridged post at his blog, Pure Mormonism, so titled from his observation that the organic religion founded by Joseph Smith was nondogmatic and libertarian.

A couple of weeks ago Jeff Riggenbach sent me his latest book, Why American History Is Not What They Say: An Introduction To Revisionism. I’ve had a passion for revisionist history for as long as I can remember, but something I read in Riggenbach’s informative volume caught me up short. It was an essential factor that I had never known or considered before, and which just so happens to have direct application to why the historical record about Joseph Smith and Polygamy is so confusing and contradictory.

While doing the research for her biography of Joseph Smith back in the 1940′s, Fawn Brodie wrote to a friend that “the more I work with the polygamy material, the more baffled I become.” She has not been alone. Every biographer since has struggled with the dichotomy of what Joseph Smith asserted and what the historical record appears to show.

I think Jeff Riggenbach may have uncovered the explanation for us.

Correcting The Past

If the study of history can be defined as “the science of discovering what happened,” then revisionism is the forensic science of methodically re-sifting through the evidence of the past to get at the truth of what really happened. According to Joseph R. Stromberg, “revisionism refers to any efforts to revise a faulty existing historical record or interpretation.”

Harry Elmer Barnes, the father of modern revisionist history, describes revisionism as “the effort to revise the historical record in the light of a more complete collection of historical facts, a more calm political atmosphere, and a more objective attitude.” As Riggenbach himself succinctly puts it, “We need to revise the historical record when we have new facts.”

What surprised me about Riggenbach’s book — and which is directly applicable to our discussion here — is his revelation that until quite recently there was no such thing as “history” as we usually think of it; that is, the kind of history that could actually be relied upon:

“It was the tail end of the 19th century before the calling of the historian had been professionalized and academicized to such an extent that a majority of practitioners in the field had come to hold the view of their discipline that we now take for granted -the historian as dispassionate seeker of truth, a scholar, much more like an anthropologist…Still, there were holdouts.” (Pg 27)

One “holdout” in the arena of Mormon historians may have been Joseph Fielding Smith, whose book Essentials in Church History was a book all missionaries were armed with in my day, and which turns out to have been of no more real use to the student of Mormon history than the 9/11 Commission Report is today for the person desiring to find out the complete truth about that particular event.  I relied upon Elder Smith’s book during my mission when I gave a presentation to a class of high school seniors in Milan, Missouri where I used it to refute “anti-Mormon lies” about Mormon complicity in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Elder Smith (an apostle at the time he wrote it) placed the blame for the massacre squarely on the local Indians and John D. Lee, who he painted as a renegade Mormon with only a tenuous connection to the church. At any rate, he strongly implied, the members of the Fancher party were asking for it and had it coming.  Even today I feel like a dupe and a fool when I remember how vehemently I defended the official church position against what was the real truth of that sordid affair.

But to give him his due, Joseph Fielding Smith was little different than any other compiler of American history a hundred years ago, including the most famous and reputable of all, George Bancroft, whose ten volume History of the United States, published in 1874, remained the unchallenged standard work for decades. But even Bancroft’s classic History was far from objective:

“Bancroft believed that his job was to write a chronicle that would make his readers proud of their country’s history, and when it suited his didactic purpose, he fabricated.” (Why American History Is Not What They Say, Pg 27)

It was not only Bancroft who was making up history to suit his agenda; Riggenbach demonstrates how this “style” was common among virtually all historians of the time. He shows how “most of them saw themselves in particular as the providers of an important kind of inspirational literature.” Facts were elastic. This practice of bending reality to fit the lesson plan was rampant in the 19th century. It was systemic. And it was considered normal. One can easily see the parallels between writers wishing to portray actions of the American government favorably, and those within the LDS church tasked with portraying Mormon history in the most positive light. According to Riggenbach:

“The American history taught in most schools during the past hundred years faithfully reflected received opinion, and received opinion sees the United States as a consistent, devoted partisan of the same spirit of individual liberty that once moved its founders -a peace-loving nation that wishes the rest of the world only the best, and never goes to war except in self-defense.”

“Apply this set of principles to what we know of the past and, at the end of the day, you’ll wind up with quite a pile of facts that didn’t meet the criteria and now litter the cutting room floor.”

“The facts about the gross violations of individual liberty that have been championed by U.S. presidents almost since the beginning, for example -John Adams’s Sedition Acts, Andrew Jackson’s genocidal treatment of the American Indians, Abraham Lincoln’s military conscription (to say nothing of his suspension of habeas corpus and his imprisonment of newspaper editors who dared to disagree with his prosecution of the Civil War), William McKinley’s brutal suppression of the independence movement in the Philippines after the Spanish American War, Franklin Roosevelt’s order to round up American citizens of Japanese ancestry and imprison them in concentration camps- are any of these inconvenient facts likely to be selected for inclusion in a textbook based on the “commonly shared principle” of the saintliness of the U.S. government?” (Pg. 24)

Similarly we Mormons may ask ourselves if we should really expect inconvenient facts that reflect poorly on the “saintliness” of our church leaders to find their way into books and Sunday School manuals published by the church.

History: It Ain’t What It Used To Be

In 1972 the church appointed LDS Professor Leonard J. Arrington as the official Church Historian. This was the first time a real historian, a trained academic, had been given that post. This important office had always been held by a general authority. Arrington opened up the massive church archives to other Mormon academics, and the era of The New Mormon History was born. Surprise, surprise! That magic era didn’t last long; just barely a decade.

The archives were a treasure house of information for the excited historians involved. They were soon discovering things that the even the current leadership of the church hadn’t known about. Paul Toscano reports that Hyrum L. Andrus was opening wooden crates full of church records that had been nailed shut since they left Nauvoo in 1846. All kinds of fascinating stuff was in there. Books and essays were written based on these newly found letters, diaries, journals, newspapers, and records. But not all of the information in these documents was seen as favorable to church leadership. Some of the revisions seemed to contradict elements of what had become the official church history.

A massively ambitious multi-volume church history was planned, utilizing the talents of the church’s most qualified scholars and historians. Then one day the order came down from on high to scrap the project, and the historian’s office was “reorganized.” Arrington, who had been introduced at general conference with great fanfare for a vote of approval ten years earlier, was quietly released in 1982 without even a mention in conference or any vote of thanks. The position of Church Historian was again placed into the hands of a trusted general authority. The archives were closed to all but a select few, and have remained closed to this day.

For a fascinating example of the work of a revisionist Mormon historian, and and insight as to why revisionism is such a volatile subject to some within the church, let’s look at Richard Van Wagoner’s reexamination of the famous transmogrification of Brigham Young.

Mighty Morphing Fact Arrangers

We all know the basic story. It goes something like this. After the death of Joseph and Hyrum, the church was left leaderless. So the million dollar question on everyone’s mind: Who was next in line to lead it? A meeting was called, and Sidney Rigdon was first to speak. As the story goes, Rigdon got up and campaigned for himself to be the new prophet. Then it was Brigham Young’s turn, and as he spoke, the gathered throng witnessed a miracle. It looked to them as if Brigham Young had been transformed into Joseph Smith before their very eyes. Brigham’s visage became Joseph’s visage, his voice was Joseph’s voice, his mannerisms were Joseph’s. Clearly the spirit of Joseph Smith himself had returned to witness to the membership that Brigham Young was his anointed successor.

That’s the way most of us have heard it, but virtually every element of that story is false. Nothing even remotely resembling the described supernatural transformation took place. How do we know? We have new facts. Using letters, diaries, journals, newspaper accounts, and church records, Van Wagoner walks us through the event. He revises the history. You can read his essay here: The Making of a Mormon Myth. (You can find another excellent analysis by Reid L. Harper in the Fall 1996 Journal of Mormon History.)

The simple but true facts are that on August 8th, 1844, Sidney Rigdon, as remaining member of the First Presidency, spoke to a large gathering of the Saints, advocating that the church continue to be led by a triumvirate with himself as President. The next day, Brigham Young gave a speech proposing that the church instead should be governed by the twelve apostles as a body. He was not campaigning to be the next leader himself, nor would anyone have accepted him if he had made such a proposal. The membership eventually voted in favor of Brigham’s plan because he made the better speech and it was considered wiser that church government be spread among the twelve rather than to continue with a new First Presidency under the ailing Sidney Rigdon.

And that was it. No image, no visions, no voice. Just a rip-roaring good sermon by Brigham Young. There was no transfiguration of Brigham Young into the form of Joseph Smith, no morphing, no eerie ghost noises, no nothing.

Again, how do we know? From primary sources; the letters, diaries, journals, and newspapers of the time. Brigham’s speech was reported on in detail in both Nauvoo newspapers and recorded by scribes for the official church records. Hundreds of members present wrote about Brigham’s persuasive argument in great detail in their private journals. Nowhere was there a mention of the miraculous or divine. Not a hint.

Until years later.

Van Wagoner takes us through the transformation; not the transformation of Brigham to Joseph, but the transformation from historical truth to historical legend.

You Really Had To Be There

After the saints were settled in Utah, church leadership began to shake out in the form of a hierarchy with certain apostles recognized as having seniority over others. Almost immediately Brigham Young forsook the plan he had proposed that church affairs should be administered by the Twelve equally, and quietly adopted the plan that had been proposed by Sidney Rigdon — with himself in Sidney Rigdon’s place.

Although in his famous speech in the grove at Nauvoo Brigham had insisted that “you can’t put anyone at the head of the Twelve,” in no time he managed to maneuver himself at the head of the Twelve and into the role of successor to the prophet Joseph Smith. This aggrandizement was not what the Saints had originally voted for, but Brigham had more than proven his leadership abilities by getting them across the plains and settled in, and who were they to question the senior member of the Quorum?

It was soon being spoken about that “the mantle of Joseph had fallen on Brigham.” What that meant exactly was anybody’s guess. “Mantle” is both a verb and a noun, and is a very abstract term in this sense. Nothing tangible or spiritual or visible had actually “fallen” on Brigham Young. It was meant as a metaphor. But in 1857, 13 years after the speech in the grove, Albert Carrington took the account one step further. In a speech before a huge gathering of Saints, he said that he couldn’t tell Brigham from Joseph that day when Brigham was speaking.

Someone else soon claimed that he had sensed the very spirit of Joseph Smith while Brigham had been speaking. Then another person declared that he saw the very personage of Joseph take over Brigham’s body.

That was all it took. Mark Twain has famously said that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on. Human nature being what it is, there was soon no shortage of pioneers declaring that they had seen the miraculous transformation too. It was a sign! It was a miracle! Brigham Young had been transformed by the spirit of Joseph Smith into the image of Joseph Smith himself!

Some of the most prominent church leaders got caught up in the illusion. “His words went through me like electricity,” testified apostle Orson Hyde in 1869, “It was not the voice of Joseph Smith but there were the features, the gestures, and even the stature of Joseph before us in the person of Brigham.”

Eight years later, a full thirty-three years after the original event, Hyde went even further. On second thought, it was the voice of Joseph Smith after all, and more:

“I heard the voice of Joseph through him, and it was as familiar to me as the voice of my wife, the voice of my child, or the voice of my father. And not only the voice of Joseph did I distinctly and unmistakably hear, but I saw the very gestures of his person, the very features of his countenance, and if I mistake not, the very size of his person appeared on the stand. And it went through me with the thrill of conviction that Brigham was the man to lead this people. And from that day to the present there has not been a query or a doubt upon my mind with regard to the divinity of his appointment; I know that he was the man selected of God to fill the position he now holds.”

There’s just one problem with Orson Hyde’s testimony. He wasn’t there. Orson Hyde did not arrive in Nauvoo until August 13th.

Other prominent Mormons who weren’t present added their testimonies too. John D. Lee’s personal diary, Van Wagoner tells us, “makes it clear that he did not return to Nauvoo until 20 August, nearly two weeks later.” But that didn’t stop Lee from later saying “I myself, at the time, imagined that I saw and heard a strong resemblance to the Prophet in him.” Wilford Woodruff told the story from the pulpit many times over the years, embellishing it more than any of the others with each retelling. Interestingly, Woodruff was present that day and had written the most detailed and complete contemporary account of Brigham’s speech on the day he gave it. But in that original account he failed to mention any of the supernatural sights and sounds he miraculously recalled years later.

If the church leadership were inclined to exaggerate, the rank and file were up to the challenge too. According to Van Wagoner:

“Retrospective retellings of a ‘transfiguration,’ in a variety of forms, can be found in dozens of sources, yet no two seem to agree on precise details. Elizabeth Haven Barlow, a cousin of Brigham Young, for example, wrote that her mother told her that ‘thousands in that assembly’ saw Young ‘take on the form of Joseph Smith and heard his voice change to that of the Prophet’s.’ Eliza Ann Perry Benson reminisced that the Saints arose ‘from their seats enmass’ exclaiming ‘Joseph has come! He is here!’”

Too bad the newspapers neglected to notice the crowd going wild. It would have made good copy.

Thankfully, not every member of the church got caught up in the collective delusion. According to Van Wagoner:

Bishop George Miller, present at the gathering, later recalled that nothing supernatural had occurred on that day. Young made a “long and loud harangue,” Miller later wrote, for which I “could not see any point in the course of his remarks than to overturn Sidney Rigdon’s pretensions.”

Why It Matters, And Why It Doesn’t

Just as 19th century historian George Bancroft believed there was nothing wrong with fabricating and reshaping the facts as long as the resulting stories “would make his readers proud of their country’s history”, so did 19th century Mormons profess to fudging the facts if it led to promoting the faith. But such Mormon urban legends have a way of backfiring. Rather than strengthening testimonies, once the deception is revealed, testimonies are often destroyed. Witness the hordes of good and faithful people leaving the church in droves every year after discovering their testimonies were dependent on deeply held beliefs that had been manipulated by those they trusted most.

Nearly a hundred years ago B.H. Roberts was already concerned about this trend:

“Suppose your youth receive their impressions of church history from ‘pictures and stories’ and build their faith upon these alleged miracles [and] shall someday come face to face with the fact that their belief rests on falsehoods; what then will be the result? Will they not say that since these things are myth and our Church has permitted them to be perpetuated …might not the other fundamentals to the actual story of the Church, the things in which it had its origin, might they not all be lies and nothing but lies?”

Whack-a-Mole Wives

Members and ex-members alike deserve to take an objective look at the women who started popping up in late nineteenth century Utah claiming to have once been secretly married to Joseph Smith. We deserve to carefully analyze their claims one by one, and that’s just the kind of research Richard and Pamela Price have been engaged in for over thirty years.

Are these tales of secret marriages not that much different from tales of miraculous transfigurations, thought to aid in affirming the glorious doctrines of The Lord’s True Church? If an apostle could claim to witness a miracle he did not see, is it not conceivable that a woman might claim a marriage she did not experience? Did any of these women come forward earlier than the late 1870′s? Do we have any contemporary accounts of their secret marriages written in their diaries at the time they supposedly took place? Why don’t we hear anything of this until these women were well past middle age and the practice of plural marriage was under attack? Anyone could have claimed to have been married to Joseph Smith, since the marriages were alleged to have been secret and no marriage certificates exist. One wife would not even have known about any of the others. “You were married to Joseph Smith? No kidding! I was married to Joseph Smith!

“Well, howdy-do and pleased ta meetcha!”

All of these dubious claims were made by women who were firm believers in The Principle, having lived their entire adult lives as plural wives, nearly all of them to men of prominence in Utah society. They were absolutely convinced that the doctrine was introduced by Joseph, so a little exaggeration to affirm the legitimacy of the practice couldn’t hurt. Doubtless some of these gals may have come to believe Joseph Smith actually would have married them for real if he had actually met them.

Let’s take a quick look at just a couple of cases of women who have been presented to me as proof positive, absolutely-airtight-smoking-gun-evidence that Joseph Smith was a sex-obsessed Lothario.

The Smoking Gun Is A Toy Cap Pistol

1. Nancy Rigdon

Nancy Rigdon was the pretty nineteen year old daughter of First Councilor Sidney Rigdon, and the way the story is often told, Joseph Smith made advances toward her in a letter and she rejected him.

In volume II of Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, the Prices examine this story in depth and document all the juicy details. You can read the complete analysis on their website here . I’ll give you the short version.

A letter was delivered to Miss Rigdon which she was told was from Joseph Smith. The letter did not contain Joseph’s signature, and Miss Rigdon rejected it because she knew where it had come from. She suspected it was the work of John C. Bennett, who held incriminating knowledge about her seduction by Chauncey Higbee and hoped for her cooperation in entrapping Joseph. What ended up happening to the poor girl was that her affair with Higbee was made public, causing her no end of humiliation.

Wouldn’t you know it, Bennett somehow had a copy of that letter to Nancy Rigdon of his own, which he published in the Sangamo Journal, and later in his book, claiming it was written by Joseph Smith to Nancy Rigdon. Gee, I wonder how he got that copy?

Joseph Smith made affidavit denying authorship of the letter, and Nancy Rigdon herself affirmed it had not come from Smith, “nor in his hand writing, but by another person, and in another person’s hand writing.” Nancy’s father didn’t believe the letter was from Joseph either. Neither copy of the notorious letter has been found to this day. All we know of it is from what Bennett published.

Some smoking gun.

2. Helen Mar Kimball

I suppose if we came across the diary of an innocent fourteen year old girl expressing horrified apprehension about her upcoming wedding to Joseph Smith, a grown man in his mid thirties, that would be pretty damning evidence, wouldn’t it?

That’s how the journal of Helen Mar Kimball is often presented. But the journal was written by Helen when she was nearly fifty and had been one of the plural wives of Orson F. Whitney her entire adult life. Helen tells a retrospective tale of desiring to be obedient to her father who wished her to be given to the Prophet to wife. The actual purpose of her story was to bolster support for the practice of plural marriage, to which she was a devoted acolyte.

Far from being the private diary of a frightened underage girl, this was a story Helen composed in the late 1870′s which she wrote for publication. Her story has all the earmarks of the type of fabricated “history” created to build testimonies among those who may have come to question the doctrine of plural marriage. Her conclusion was that plural marriage was wonderful. She was in with both feet. Why, she even had the privilege of being married at one time to the living Prophet himself, that’s how super-duper the whole thing was.

“I learned that plural marriage is a celestial principle,” she testified, “and saw… the necessity of obedience to those who hold the priesthood, and the danger of rebelling against or speaking lightly of the Lord’s anointed.”

Helen makes it clear in an accompanying poem that her marriage to Joseph was for eternity only. That is, the marriage was never consummated. This is a typical caveat of the women who came forward with these claims. They seemed to enjoy the status of an eternal marriage to the famous founder of their faith, but most were careful to make the point that there was never any hanky-panky going on. Joseph would claim them as his celestial mates later in the hereafter. They even had themselves sealed “again” to Joseph in the Utah temple in case anybody didn’t believe them.

Those who insist that Joseph Smith was a sex-obsessed letch scoring dozens of clandestine conquests at Nauvoo will have to explain to me how the biggest celebrity in the city, during the busiest time of his life and with everyone’s eyes constantly watching his every move, would be able to woo, court, and wed two to three women every month. And then explain to me this unusual talent he had for constantly picking ladies who refused to put out.

Helen Mar Kimball’s purpose in writing her tract was to help bolster support for “The Principle” at a time when it was coming under attack from outside the church and generating questions inside. Like anyone else of her generation and in her position, when it suited her purpose, she fabricated. She didn’t write what she did because she was fishing for sympathy, she was trolling for converts.

Art or Science?

Today the study of history is a social science, no longer the malleable “art” that it was prior to the twentieth century. So perhaps it’s time Mormons as well as ex-Mormons applied the scientific process when trying to determine whether Joseph Smith was being honest in his denunciation of polygamy, or whether he was a flaming hypocrite.

“Occam’s Razor” is the scientific principle embodied in the statement that “the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.” Perhaps Fawn Brodie’s frustrated bewilderment at the conflicting evidence tying Joseph Smith to plural marriage was simply a result of her having been raised in the church (as were most subsequent Joseph Smith biographers) and accepted as a “given” that the doctrine of polygamy originated with Joseph Smith. Was she predisposed to ignore the simplest explanation?

How many of us have ever thought to check the provenance of D&C 132? Haven’t we always just assumed that it was written in Joseph’s hand? We unquestioningly accept as truth what has been handed down to us from people whose own recollections of key events changed radically depending upon the lesson they wished to convey, and who lived in a time when even the professional historians were no sticklers for accuracy.

After weighing all the evidence in any historical controversy, the best we can conclude about any given event is that it was more likely to have happened one way, and less likely to have happened another. Important factors to consider are primary and contemporary accounts (accounts written at the time), versus secondary accounts, hearsay, and later recollections.

So here’s what it comes down to. On the one hand we have countless contemporary accounts in Joseph’s own words testifying of his incessant crusade to root out polygamy in the church and his threats to prosecute its practitioners. On the other hand we have scribes as early as 1847 testifying to their complicity in tampering with the dead man’s journals, along with an entire gallery of pinch-faced dowagers appearing from out of nowhere with a claim to fame for their secret weddings to a long dead super-celebrity.

Taking Joseph Smith at his word and approaching the later claims as hyperbole typical of the zeitgeist is the only way to make sense of all the contradictions. It’s the only way the pieces of the puzzle fall into place. No one really knows the truth about what happened back then. I wouldn’t pretend to. I’ve only read half of the revisionist history on the topic, and I’m told there’s much more yet to be made available. But if I were to offer an early opinion based on the evidence I’ve seen so far, I would have to say that it seems more likely that Joseph Smith was sincere about eradicating polygamy in the church; and given what we know about the 19th century proclivity for embellishing reality without shame as long as it was for a good cause, I’d have to conclude that it’s less likely that we can rely on the claims of Joseph Smith’s several “wives”.

I don’t quite understand this reluctance some people have -both believing Mormons as well as others raised in the parochial Mormon culture- to automatically reject new information that might force a paradigm shift in their thinking. I like how B.H. Roberts looked at it: “I find my own heart strengthened in the truth by getting rid of the untruth, the spectacular, the bizarre, as soon as I learn that it is based upon worthless testimony.”

I actually like discovering I might have been wrong about something. It’s kind of exhilarating. It tells me I’m still learning.

The objective of all who are baptized by water should be to receive the baptism of the Spirit. Otherwise, our baptism is incomplete. Baptism has two parts: baptism by water and baptism by the Spirit. (Please reread these three sentences several times.)

The prophet Joseph Smith emphasized the importance of being baptized by both water and the Spirit saying, “You might as well baptize a bag of sand as a man, if not done in view of the remission of sins and getting of the Holy Ghost. Baptism by water is but half a baptism, and is good for nothing without the other half—that is, the baptism of the Holy Ghost” (History of the Church, 5:499).

He also stated, “The baptism of water, without the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost attending it, is of no use; they are necessarily and inseparably connected” (History of the Church, 6:316).

Speaking to missionaries on this subject, Elder Boyd K. Packer said:

“Missionaries sometimes think they are only to do half the work; they are to teach and then baptize by water, and that concludes their work. In many cases the other half, the teaching about the baptism of fire, never really gets done… Get that idea in your mind with those two fixed together so tightly that, as one, it becomes part of you. Then we will not have the first half done, as is often the case at present, and the other half left undone” (Elder Boyd K. Packer, Ensign, Aug 2006, p. 50).

Elder Packer apparently feels we can do a better job teaching about the baptism of the Spirit.

Before going on, I would like to make sure that the terms being used are understood by the reader. Baptism of the Holy Ghost, baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, baptism of fire, and baptism of the Spirit are used to mean the same thing by some writers. However, others, myself included, feel they mean something related but have important differences. I’ll explain what I mean later on.

To understand what baptism of fire is, we can turn to the scriptures. Before doing so, it’s important to understand what the Lord provided us with when He gave us the scriptures. The scriptures are not like an encyclopedia or a dictionary containing precise, easy-to-understand definitions of terms. Apparently, the Lord intends for His followers to search the scriptures to gain understanding. The scriptures contain revelations, which are the key to understanding the mind and will of the Lord. Revelation is given “line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little… ” (2 Nephi 28:30). This revelatory process, in some instances, can lead to difficulty for those searching the scriptures because each prophet is different in how he understands and teaches doctrine. With that said, let’s search the scriptures for understanding about baptism of fire.

The Savior taught, “Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day” (3 Nephi 27:20).

The Savior is teaching that repentance, faith in His name, baptism, and reception of the Holy Ghost will make His followers spotless at the judgment day. This verse is a general statement of the entire plan of salvation. It contains all of the elements of the fourth Article of Faith, with the addition of the doctrines of sanctification and last judgment.

In another verse the Savior gives more detail about the Holy Ghost, saying:

…“The Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one” 3 Nephi 11:36.

Studying the scriptures this way is like constructing a building with bricks; each brick adds one more part towards the completion of the structure.

Let’s consider other scriptures the Savior gave on this subject, 3 Nephi 12:1, 2, 6.

1. … After that ye are baptized with water, behold, I will baptize you with fire and with the Holy Ghost…

2. Yea, blessed are they who shall believe in your words, and come down into the depths of humility and be baptized, for they shall be visited with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and shall receive a remission of their sins…

6. And blessed are all they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled with the Holy Ghost.

In verse 1, the Savior introduces the term “fire and the Holy ghost,” saying He will baptize with fire and the Holy Ghost after we’re baptized with water.

In verse 2, we learn that fire and the Holy Ghost bring a remission of sins.

In verse 6, we learn that if our desire for righteousness is equivalent to hungering and thirsting (food and water) we can be filled with the Holy Ghost.

These three verses of scripture provide additional understanding. However, they also raise questions. One question that comes to my mind, is there a difference between “fire and the Holy Ghost,” and the Holy Ghost? Also, what does a remission of sins mean. Is it the same as forgiveness?

To answer these questions we can turn to the account of King Benjamin found in the book of Mosiah.

King Benjamin was nearing the end of his life and was visited by an angel.  He and his people already knew about the coming of the Savior (having the plates of brass and also the plates of Nephi in their possession, see Mosiah 1:16). The angel provided additional details. King Benjamin gathered his people into a group to teach them what he’d learned from the angel. He taught them about the Lord Omnipotent, Jesus Christ, taking on Himself a tabernacle of clay, working mighty miracles, and suffering death to atone for the sins of mankind. He also taught them the doctrine of the Fall, teaching, “I would that ye should remember, and always retain in remembrance, the greatness of God, and your own nothingness…” (Mosiah 4:11). His words were carried into the hearts of his people by the power of the Holy Ghost to the extent that they were overcome and had fallen to the ground:

AND now, it came to pass that when king Benjamin had made an end of speaking the words which had been delivered unto him by the angel of the Lord, that he cast his eyes round about on the multitude, and behold they had fallen to the earth, for the fear of the Lord had come upon them.

2 And they had viewed themselves in their own carnal state, even less than the dust of the earth.  And they all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men.

3 And it came to pass that after they had spoken these words the Spirit of the Lord came upon them, and they were filled with joy, having received a remission of their sins, and having peace of conscience, because of the exceeding faith which they had in Jesus Christ who should come, according to the words which king Benjamin had spoken unto them. (Mosiah 4:1–3)

The people of King Benjamin were a righteous people. They were described as “a diligent people in keeping the commandments of the Lord” (Mosiah 1:11), and a “highly favored people of the Lord” (Mosiah 1:13). They had constructed a temple (Mosiah 1:18), and there were many holy men among them (The Words of Mormon 1:17). Yet, prior to the experience recorded above, most or all of them had not received a remission of their sins! They had been baptized with water, but not with fire and the Holy Ghost.

Prior to this experience, the people of Benjamin were much like church members today: they had faith in Jesus Christ, they repented, were baptized by immersion for the remission of sins, and they received the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Let’s stop here and consider a few things:

As the scripture above teaches, the people of King Benjamin were baptized by the Spirit, receiving a remission of their sins, thus completing their baptismal covenant. I love reading this account. However, it raises at least two important questions:

1. Is this their first experience with the Holy Ghost?
2. Is this their first experience with repentance?

To answer Yes to either of these questions leads to difficulty. How could a people be described as a diligent people in keeping the commandments, a highly favored people of the Lord, and having many holy men among them, and at the same time conclude this is their first experience with the Holy Ghost and repentance? This conclusion runs counter to what the Book of Mormon tells us about King Benjamin and his people.

To answer No to either of these questions requires us to conclude that they already had the Holy Ghost and had experienced repentance. If this is the case, then why did they have the outpouring of the Spirit recorded in Mosiah 4:1–3?

On the East Coast this past 4^th of July weekend, it was hotter than blazes.  In addition, to heat, the arrival of Independence Day means we are halfway through 2010.  In the first six months of this year, how hot is “Mormon Law” – litigation over the role of the LDS Church in society?

Mormon Law can be divided into two categories. There are the Mormon vs. non-Mormon controversies (like employment, family law, and intellectual property cases), and cases pitting Mormons against the government (criminal, asylum, and benefits cases, and prisoner lawsuits).  To qualify as a Mormon Law case, the LDS Church must be relevant to a judicial opinion.  Thanks to the good people of Westlaw and their automatic alert system, it is easy to keep up on these cases in real-time.

In 2010, we see 16 Mormon Law cases so far. It means that we are likely to see fewer such cases in 2010 as in 2009 (50 cases), or in 2008 (63) or 2007 (71).  This downward trajectory suggests that Mormon Law is cooling down.  So far this year, we see employment cases, cases challenging Mormons for bias, cases involving delusional Mormons, and cases involving asylum, family law, intellectual property, teaching materials, and prison conditions.

Employment Actions

The most interesting (and numerous) Mormon vs. non-Mormon legal controversies are employment cases   As I noted in my earlier writings, Mormons are usually the ones being sued by non-Mormons rather than the opposite.  The 2010 cases do not follow this trend; instead, there are more Mormon plaintiffs than LDS defendants.
In Tennessee, an ex-Mormon truck driver named Jerri Leigh Jackson sued a trucking company after it refused to allow her to participate in a training program. She claimed that “Mormons run and operate [the trucking company],” and that “[a]n excommunicated Mormon is dog meat to a Mormon run business.”  Jackson v. Swift Transport,  2010 WL 1439939 (M.D.Tenn. 2010); Jackson v. Swift Transport Co., 2010 WL 1439842 (M.D.Tenn. 2010).  In Hawaii, Edward J. Aga claimed that his Mormon employer discriminated against him, and that the Mormon employees got preferential treatment. Aga v. Winter, 2010 WL 145285 (D.Hawai‘I 2010)

On the other side of the scale are Mormon employees who sued their non-Mormon employers.

A Mormon named David C. Stoddard sued the U.S. Army for a hostile working environment.  His claim was based in part on an incident in which a colleague called him a cracker and asked him how many wives he had.  Stoddard v. Geren, 2010 WL 774156 (S.D.Tex. 2010). In Colorado, Mark Eugene Howard claimed that he was subjected to a hostile working environment at the Las Animas Sheriff’s Department, in that his colleagues told him he was “insane,” “delusional,” and “psychotic” because of his LDS Church membership and conspired to have him committed to a mental hospital. Howard v. Las Animas County Sheriff’s Office, 2010 WL 1235668 (D.Colo. 2010). Irena Dolgalvea alleged that a Virginia school district discriminated against her on the basis of her Russian national origin when it did not immediately hire her for a posted position as a Russian teacher, which had already been filled by another applicant by the time she interviewed for it. School officials told her that her superior credentials and teaching experience were worthless because, among other things, she had previously taught at Brigham Young University. Dolgaleva v. Virginia Beach City Public Schools, 2010 WL 325957 (4^th Cir. 2010).

Allegedly Biased Mormon Judges and Jurors

Martin Ventress, a black flight engineer, sued Japan airlines, alleging violations of California’s whistleblower statute, wrongful termination, and emotional distress.  The court confirmed the arbitration award in favor of the airline.  Ventress appealed, arguing that the Mormon arbitrator was biased against him.  He claimed that the arbitrator was a trustee for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which demonstrated an ideology of “rational nationalism;” was a graduate of the Kamehameha School, which offers preference to Native Hawaiian applicants; and belonged to the Mormon Church, which Ventress claimed “had a long-standing reputation of racial bias against blacks.” These affiliations, he asserted, established “evident partiality” by the arbitrator. The Ninth Circuit ruled that Ventress “has offered only bald allegations of partiality without any, much less persuasive, evidence to support these claims.” Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 603 F.3d 676 (9^th Cir. 2010)

In an Idaho property dispute, one of the litigants claimed that the judge was biased, which the appellate court described as “borderline-offensive ravings concerning the judge’s suspected affiliation with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, an affiliation that Judge St. Clair expressly disaffirmed in his order denying Bach’s motion for recusal.” Bach v. Bagley, 148 Idaho 784, 229 P.3d 1146 (Idaho 2010).

Jesus Rene Quintero, a criminal defendant, challenged the prosecution’s striking of a Hispanic prospective juror.  The prosecutor claimed that the decision was made because the potential juror was Mormon and seemed weak. Quintero v. State, 2010 WL 878995 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2010).

Delusional Litigants

Paul Stephenson, sued the FBI, claiming it is keeping a record about him concerning his ability to cure illnesses and see into the future, and his belief that he will someday rise to become the president on the LDS Church. The court rejected his “very confusing” complaint.  Stephenson v. F.B.I., 2010 WL 2024704 (D.Utah 2010).

It was big news when Brian David Mitchell, Elizabeth Smart’s abductor, was ruled competent to stand trial, over his attorneys’ claim that his extreme religious views were manifestations of mental illness. U.S. v. Mitchell, — F.Supp.2d —-, 2010 WL 723729 (D.Utah 2010).

Cynthia Grandchamp filed an application for Supplemental Security Income alleging that she had been disabled and unable to work due to back pain, depression, anxiety and a personality disorder. A mental health professional noted that Grandchamp reported that she hears the voices of Satan and angels and that she sees fleeting shadows or images.  The court noted. as to the “voices” of the devil and angel, the professional considered those to be hallucinations, and apparently did not consider the fact that they may simply be Granchamp wrestling with her conscience, the report indicating that she was an active member of the LDS Church and had recently been put on probation by the church for “having sex with a guy” suggesting some religious overtones to her presentation.  Grandchamp v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 2010 WL 1064144 (E.D.Mich. 2010).

Asylum

Mazda Rasasy, a non-practicing Mormon native of Thailand and citizen of Laos, failed in his asylum claim.  Rasasy v. Attorney General of U.S.,  2010 WL 2093882 (3^rd Cir. 2010).  A Mormon citizen of Colombia named William Herrera-Molina, similarly failed in his efforts to avoid being sent home.  Herrera-Molina v. Holder, 597 F.3d 128 (2^nd Cir. 2010)

Educational Materials

A public charter school in Idaho sued to defend its right to use LDS educational materials, after the state school board prohibited it. Nampa Classical Academy v. Goesling, — F.Supp.2d —-, 2010 WL 1977434 (D.Idaho 2010).

Prisoner Litigation

Melvin Barhite, who was arrested as part of the Texas FLDS round-up, sued the prison when officials confiscated numerous photographs of scantily clad young women in provocative poses.  Barhite v. Caruso, 2010 WL 1957493 (6^th Cir. 2010)

Intellectual Property

The Owner of trademark for “Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” brought a successful infringement action against competitor. Community of Christ Copyright Corp. v. Devon Park Restoration, 683 F.Supp.2d 1006 (W.D.Mo. 2010).

Family Law

In a parental termination proceeding, an LDS Church official testified about the parenting skills of one of the parents. In re T.M.J., — S.W.3d —-, 2010 WL 2542938 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2010).

What is somewhat surprising is what we do not yet see in 2010, given the trajectories of what I have written about elsewhere.  For example, there is not a single case in 2010 involving a Mormon criminal defendant who injects his/her church membership into the proceedings, and there is not yet any case in 2010 involving Mormon-related sex abuse .

Stay tuned ….

I was in the MTC when it happened, so it caught me by surprise when I was released back into the general population. I was sitting in Sacrament Meeting in an uncomfortable suit and things were going according to the usual pattern: song, prayer, business, sacrament, talks, music, talk, song, prayer.

When the final “amen” was hit, I was getting ready to stand up and leave the chapel when I was stopped in my tracks by a voice that said, “Thank you for coming out to Sunday School today, our opening song will be hymn number 149, and after that Brother Johnson will give the opening prayer and we’ll start song practice.”

Where to start?

First off, I was a little puzzled to be thanked for coming out to Sunday School. Truth is, I hadn’t really come out to Sunday School, I had merely failed to leave the chapel before this new guy got up and started speaking. Secondly, is 75 minutes not long enough to be sitting in once place watching something that’s not exploding? Were there complaints that Sacrament Meeting wasn’t long enough?

Whatever the case, I was stuck in some sort of “Groundhog Day” scenario where the past hour of my life seemed to be replaying, albeit with slight alterations.

While the changes in the meetings were all done under the guise of the Sunday School organization, it was clearly a power grab by the hymnal industrial complex and their newly minted foot soldiers, the song practice ladies. After the prayer and announcements of dubious importance, the song practice lady would get up and lead the congregation in songs that even the most faithful Mormon may not have known was in the hymnal. And no matter how famous or obscure, the song practice ladies almost always favored the longer hymns.

(Note to concerned readers: the term “song practice lady” isn’t really politically correct, I know. But come on, they were always ladies. There were never any “Song Practice Guys.”)

By the early 1990s, renegade song practice ladies were even leading congregations in what could only be described as analog versions of what would now be called mash-ups.

Example: “Did you know that you can sing ‘Dear to the Heart of the Sheppard,’ a hymn you’ve never heard of to the tune of ‘School Thy Feelings,’ another hymn you’ve never heard of. Why don’t you all get out your hymnals and give it a try…”

After a while my friends and I figured out that you could sing, “If You Could Hie to Kolob” to the tune of the theme from the Beverly Hillbillies. No song practice lady ever took us up on our offer to teach the ward this during song practice.

By the late 1990s, the tyrannical reign of the song practice ladies was over and we could all go back to standing up and walking out of the chapel after the closing prayer ends, like normal people. But some remnants of that era remain.

For instance, whenever a new ward chorister is installed, that person will almost immediately start grabbing more real estate in the church program. The most blunt instrument in the takeover is “A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief,” which is almost always deployed during the first week of a new chorister’s tenure. When combined with “I Believe of Christ,” and conducted at a dirge-like pace, the opening and closing hymns can easily eat up 20 minutes of a church service. Then come the directives that the ward will be singing all the verses of the longer hymns, even the loser verses that have been exiled to the small print at the bottom of the page.

Perhaps the most audacious power grab I’ve ever seen came in August of 2000. I was visiting a ward in Salt Lake City and it was time for the special musical number. There was nothing on the program, but the bishop got up and made the following announcement, “The ward chorister has asked for ‘impromptu ward choir.’” He pointed to the side of the chapel I was sitting on and said, “Everyone sitting on this side of the room, come on up and join us here on the stand.”

And that was that. I had just been conscripted into some random ward’s choir. Moments later, I was being forced so scowl my way through a song for the pleasure of a bunch of strangers. I don’t remember what hymn it was, but I’m certain it wasn’t on the topic of free agency, nor was it the perfect ironic choice, “We Are All Enlisted.”

 It is likely ward chorister tyranny will always be with us and there is little we can do about it except sit, smile, sing loudly, and thank heaven above that at least they took all of those Utah songs out of the hymnal in 1985.

So, what do you think? Do you have a tyrannical chorister in your ward? Do you think it’s important to song all 7 verses of “A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief”? Did anyone ward ever have a song practice man? Do tell.

He is getting his temple recommend renewed. He has his humble face on. He has paid up his financial obligations to his children. He is going through the outward steps of repentance again, assembling the props he needs to act the perfect husband. But this time it is not for me, it is for her.

He is telling her that he wants the white picket fence, the family and a dog. He couldn’t have told her how the most significant times when his abuse became physical were when I was pregnant. I don’t think he has drawn that connection, himself.

Nor could she know that after he kicked the cat into the wall in front of my child, I knew I would never own a pet again. Or how he let me believe for three months we were trying to get pregnant again, when he had obtained a vasectomy a year and a half before. Or of the last time, after his reversal surgery worked and I was pregnant again. How that time I stood my ground and refused to leave the house and my other daughter alone with him when he was angry. How I then knew I could never dare to have another baby. Nor could she know that he left me, and I, in agony, decided not to let him come back. He believes now that our divorce was entirely my decision, that the years of his threats are merely my imagination.

He has gone through his “full-disclosure” phase with her, I’m sure. She can’t know that it is a smokescreen. He uses honesty as just another tool. I wonder if he told her the same things he told me. I would guess he’s only disclosed the things that he knows I am aware of. That way, he is inoculating her against future revelations. Anything he does not think she will find out on her own is still safe behind his silence.

I’m sure he has told her that he stole from me while we were married, siphoning off marital funds towards his hobbies since he has admitted that much to me. He could not have told her the extent of it; he doesn’t know I know about the thousands of dollars over the course of just a few years. Nor could she know how often I went without because our finances were so tight, how my daughter wore ill-fitting second-hand shoes because that was what we could afford. Nor that most of my “extra” money now goes into the money pit fixer-upper house that he wanted and left me with, half undone and unsafe for children.

He has told her that I am intelligent and a great mother. He has no right to tell her that, not after the years of lies told to the people who could have been my friends. He told them then I was mentally unhinged, unsafe for my daughter, suicidal. What right does he have using me to make himself look good now? What a wonderful person he is to speak so highly of his ex-wife. Never mind my loneliness because of the picture of me he painted for the world. Forget the confusion and desperation I felt when I tried to make friends only to be treated like a nuclear bomb about to go off. Never mind the public record that shows he thinks me an adulteress, a psychopath and a lawbreaker. Now, he can use my virtues to exalt himself to her.

Should I tell her how when I dressed up and tried to make myself attractive, his Internet or movies or car were more interesting? It was when I felt my most ugly or ill that he used me. Or perhaps I could tell her how he would pressure me into doing things that made me feel dirty and cheap, how he would spend hours on the Internet researching how often sex should be done in order for me to be a good wife.

Would she want to know that if he does not get enough sex, his aggression builds up? Perhaps I should mention the unutterable pain I went through every time, until childbirth made it easier for me. The pain that he used to convince me I was an utter failure as a wife. The pain I squashed down so that I could perform the way a wife is supposed to perform.

She sits across from me, confident, smiling. To her, life is still a series of decisions that she can make. She hasn’t yet faced a life that will always be tainted, somewhat, with another person’s choice.

I used to wonder why liars were listed with murderers and adulterers. Now I know. Now I see that for him, lying is not a behavior, it is who he is. His lies penetrate so deeply under his skin that even he does not know what is truth any more. That is part of why he is so believable: he is always, utterly sincere.

I look at her and my heart tears. One part wants to scream at her to run away while she still can. The other part, rational, knows that she will never believe what I have to say, and sees that she will make about as good of a stepmother for my girls as can be hoped for. That part also reasons with my emotions, pointing out that by telling her what I have lived through, I weaken the shield I have carefully built out of his ignorance. If he begins to see how much I know, he will realize he can no longer lie to me, and my children and I will be in danger again. For now, while he is pursuing her, he is satiated and happy, and has no reason to attack me and mine. For now, there is some level of peace.

The rational part wins. It wins a lot lately, despite the rampant strength of my feeling side. As she hints around aspects of my relationship with him, I tell her that before I talk about it to her, I want her to go and pray and find out by the Spirit if she really wants to know.

She wants to get to know me, to offer the olive branch because, as she says, we are sisters in Zion. After she leaves, I begin to realize that by making the first move to build the bridge between us, she can know what a wonderful person she is. She and he are the magnanimous couple, having used the Atonement to wash away their sins, benevolent in their cleanliness, bestowing blessings on the poor, foolish, damaged ex-wife. She does not know the raw pain of the Atonement for me, or the hard lessons the Lord has been teaching me as He helps me put my life and myself back together. She doesn’t know how much happier, stronger I am now, and wiser, though I have so much more to learn. She doesn’t realize that I always intended friendship with whatever girl he ends up snaring. She will need a friend when he puts the props away and begins to act himself again.

Readers, what is your reaction to Leah’s story?  How can we balance the principles of forgiveness, repentance and the Atonement when faced with a person wielding unrighteous dominion?

How can we help those around us who are victims of misplaced gospel principles (such as family, the temple covenants, unity and selflessness in marriage, priesthood, honesty, forgiveness, etc.) especially in cases of abuse?

What does it mean to truly repent and forgive? How can we allow the Atonement to heal us when we have been (and are being) seriously wounded by another’s exercise of agency?

“Happy shall they be who seize your infants, And dashes them against the rocks!” (Psalms 137: 9)

Today’s “Best and Worst” post comes from Steve at Pine Mountain Walker, the originator of the “best and worst” series, with “Best and Worst Bible Verses.” Here is his choice for the #1 verse in the Bible, as well as a fun (and gruesome!) selection of “worst verses.” His comments are in blue, Hawkgrrrl style:

Best Verse:
John 8:32 (KJV): “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” 
Here’s one teaser verse that, if taken literally, may be the most redeeming verse in the entire Bible. Thanks to Yeshua, or whoever authored it. I realize this leaves the door wide open for what “truth” may be…  and I’m happy to leave it at that.

Worst Verses:
Genesis 19.4-8: “Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house… they called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.’ But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, ‘Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with a man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like…’
” At least these rapes aren’t condoned. Too bad he gave up his daughters though.

Exodus 32.27-29 (NRSV): “He said to them, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, “…each of you kill your brother, your friend, and your neighbor.” ’ The sons of Levi did as Moses commanded, and about three thousand of the people fell on that day. Moses said, ‘Today you have ordained yourselves for the service of the Lord, each one at the cost of a son or a brother, and so have brought a blessing on yourselves this day.’” Killing others in the name of God. Thankfully ministers are not ordained in this way today.

1 Samuel 15.2-3 (NRSV): “Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” Genocide in obedience to God.

1 Samuel 15.33 (ESV): “And Samuel said, ‘As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.’ And Samuel hacked Agag to pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.
” This one is so disgusting that even the International Bible Society (owners of the NIV) decided to leave out the “hacked…to pieces part” and softened it considerably with simply “put…to death.”  Reminds me of a recent story about an Iraqi father “cleaning his honor” by stabbing his teenage daughter to death from head to foot for being friend swith a British soldier.  Read the NIV version to see how even Bible publishers want to soften the unethical deeds in the Bible.

2 Kings 2.23-24 (NKJV): “Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.” 
Balding folk may appreciate this one, but this is certainly a tough way to handle wayward youth…

Ezekiel 28.23 (NIV): “I will send a plague upon her and make blood flow in her streets.  The slain will fall within her, with the sword against her on every side.  Then they will know that I am the LORD.” 
So the LORD wants to be known by plagues and rivers of blood?  This is another good example of what I call “Scary God.”

Hosea 10.14 (NKJV): “Therefore tumult shall arise among your people, and all your fortresses shall be plundered as Shalman plundered Beth Arbel in the day of battle—a mother dashed in pieces upon her children.
“ So God is really targeting the children again and now throwing in their mothers!  Chopping people to pieces…  God’s no greenhorn at this.

What is your favorite verse in the Bible? Why is it inspiring to you? What verse(s) would you add to Steve’s “Worst” list? Why?


On its surface it was a pretty unusual activity. Every ward was to assemble a troupe of performers, write a sketch, then perform it on stage. Just before the show, each ward would be given some sort of twist that had to be incorporated into their performance. Apparently, most people didn’t understand the concept, and instead we were treated to a unique display of what Mormons consider comedy. In this case, it was a parody advertisement about Snuggies (those blankets with sleeves) that you can wear to the beach, and a PowerPoint presentation containing Facebook photos with in-jokes you’d only understand if you were a member of the ward. In case you’re wondering, we did “Good Morning Winter Quarters” which set a vapid morning show amongst the death and squalor of Winter Quarters circa 1846. (Sample—Female Anchor:  This is scurvy awareness month! Male anchor: I know I’m sure aware of my scurvy!)

Mormons are fond of comparing themselves to the Jews. We point out that we each have a dietary code, an exodus, and are even tagged with similar negative stereotypes. But we part ways when it comes to comedy. Whereas the Jews have a long and proud tradition in the comic arts, we’ve been a little more reluctant to tread there.

Now before we go any further, I should point out that there are funny Mormons out there. I used to perform with a comedy troupe that included several talented and funny Saints, Aron Kader has been blazing a trail with amazing standup detailing his background as a Palestinian-Mormon, and Elna Baker has achieved success in New York doing a mix of sketch and standup comedy, and has a memoir that you should all go out and buy a dozen copies of.

But I’m going to risk incurring the wrath of the internet by saying that Kader and Baker are the outliers here and that, as a people, we’re not terribly funny, or at the very least, we don’t place a high value on humor.

Mormons will tolerate a certain brand of humor that falls within the boundaries of The Donny and Marie Show and the Princess Bride… both shows I love. On one end, there is broad and corny humor. On the other side, the humor is cute and sentimental. In both cases, the comedy is broad, upbeat, and almost never contains a victim. Stray outside those boundaries, and there could be trouble.

For instance, one night I was trying to explain my religion to a decidedly tipsy and un-Mormon crowd at the Comedy Store and I told the following joke: “On the guilt scale, Mormons fall somewhere between the Jews and the Catholics. The problem is, God won’t let us drink to take the edge off it.” It got a big laugh that night, but the joke received a much colder response when told to a predominantly Mormon audience some weeks later.

I’m not exactly sure why we’re not good at telling jokes about ourselves that go much beyond, “how many Mormons does it take to change a light bulb?” (Answer: 5. One to change the light bulb, four to serve refreshments.) It may have to do with our practical nature built out of our pioneer heritage. Maybe comedy, which is often used to deflate the authority of those in power, just isn’t very compatible with a faith that values order and organized authority. Perhaps it simply has to do with the age of our culture. Compared to Jewish culture, we’re still in the awkward adolescent stage. Adolescents aren’t always good at having a laugh at their own expense.

But whatever the reason, about 300 in a cultural hall in Oregon who were promised comedy had to sit through a PowerPoint presentation that had captions like “don’t sue me” over a photo of someone who I assume is a lawyer. I may well spend the rest of my life wondering exactly why.

So what do you think? Are we really an un-funny people? Do you know any outstandingly funny Mormons? (Be nice, or at least funny.)

I really enjoyed studying about ritual – the ways that we use ceremony to create value and meaning – we just experienced one with our sacrament.

And I enjoyed learning about “memorates” – personal experience stories that people tell about their own encounters with the supernatural. In the church, we often call these faith-promoting stories, and that’s the way that folklorists look at them too – that these stories function to justify and validate the beliefs of the people who tell them. They create certainty in the face of uncertainty, and whether the stories themselves are true or not, this is a very valuable thing.

It was an interesting time, and I went through many shifts and changes as I looked more closely at what I believed, why I believed it, and how it fit with the beliefs of other people all over the world. It was a pretty humbling experience, to say the least. And as a result, I have developed this constant, nagging, unshakeable, internal tug-of-war between the skeptic and the believer. It is very much like the lyrics to a song:

When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful,
a miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical.
And all the birds in the trees, well they’d be singing so happily,
joyfully, playfully watching me.
But then they sent me away to teach me how to be sensible,
logical, responsible, practical.
And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable,
clinical, intellectual, cynical.

There are times when all the world’s asleep,
the questions run too deep
for such a simple man.
Won’t you please, please tell me what we’ve learned
I know it sounds absurd
but please tell me who I am.

That about sums up my graduate experience. It was kind of like worlds colliding. I had become skeptical, cynical, but I still had to exist in a believing world. What was I to do?

One thing I did was turn to the scriptures and to the counsel from general authorities and modern day prophets:
Mormon 9:27 - “Doubt not, but be believing.”  Thanks, but too late.
Bruce R. McConkie – “Doubt is an inclination to disbelieve the truths of salvation… it is a state of uncertainty… faith and belief are of God; doubt and skepticism are of the devil.”  Really? Yikes!
President Monson – “Remember that faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other. Should doubt knock at your doorway, just say to those skeptical, disturbing, rebellious thoughts: ‘I propose to stay with my faith, with the faith of my people. I know that happiness and contentment are there, and I forbid you, agnostic, doubting thoughts, to destroy the house of my faith. I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God’s word. I wasn’t with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it’.”

With these quotes, I think it is pretty clear where I ought to be when it comes to doubt and faith. But if I’m being honest, I fall far short of these ideals. I just can’t accept the premise that faith and doubt cannot co-exist in the same mind. They have to. Because they both exist in mine. And I don’t know any other way to be.

I do want to endorse President Monson’s counsel, however, that if you can dismiss doubt when it knocks on your door, from my experience, you will be much more comfortable and far less troubled — so by all means, if you can do it, do it.

But if you’re like me – if you can’t just dismiss your doubts – there must still be a way to keep those doubts from destroying the house of faith. Right? Please? Because I can’t not doubt, but I still want to hold on to my faith. So what am I to do?

Well, the simple answer is that I have had to redefine my faith to make room for my doubts and to find a value in these doubts – so I want to share with you how I have done this.

MY TOP TEN

I want to walk you through my top ten personal beliefs about faith and doubt. Disclaimer – these are just my own imperfect opinions based on my own limited experience. I could be wrong. But this is how I have found personal peace and balance in my life amidst this constant tug-of-war between the skeptic and the believer. So I share these with you because they have helped me, but I also reserve the right to change my mind at any time – it’s happened before, it can happen again.

If I really wanted to be borderline irreverent I might say that these are the philosophies of Glenn, mingled with scripture – but I don’t, so I won’t.

So here are my top ten:

1. Faith – at its most basic level – is desire.

I think this is consistent with the scriptures. Especially Alma 32. This is where Alma is preaching to the poor among the Zoramites.

You may remember that the Zoramites were condemned for their incredible pride – they would stand up on their rameumptom and show forth false humility – praising themselves for being the elect chosen of God, and condemning everyone else around them for following foolish and corrupt traditions. They cast out the poor and were very exclusive in their membership.

So Alma went among the cast out poor and taught them an allegory about faith – that it starts with desire – and that desire can be nurtured and tested and grown into a firm conviction. He compares it to a seed that is planted in fertile soil and cultivated until it grows and bears fruit and you can taste the fruit to know that the seed was, in fact, a good seed.

So faith starts with desire, but it isn’t JUST desire – you have to act upon that desire.

One of my basic desires is to be fair to people and respectful of their beliefs. And this desire has had a great influence over the mental gymnastic that you are about to see, because I also desire to hold on to my faith in spite of all of my doubts.

2. There is really no such thing as “doubt”

I guess you could say that I doubt doubt.

“Doubt” is just a word. It’s a word that we use to describe someone else’s belief that is contrary to our belief. For example, I could say, “I believe it is going to rain today.” And you could say, “No, I doubt it.” That’s really the same thing as saying, “No, I don’t believe that it will rain today.”

My point here is that “doubt” isn’t really anything but another way of saying “I don’t believe.”

3. There is really no such thing as “don’t believe”

I’m playing a game of semantics again. When you say that you “don’t believe” that it will rain, what you really mean is that you “do believe” that it will not rain. It is still an active belief.

I believe it will rain – you believe it will not rain. Your belief vs. my belief. And we may both have valid reasons for believing what we are choosing to believe.

I believe it will rain because I trust the forecast – it’s been right more than it has been wrong, and I don’t mind carrying an umbrella.

You believe it won’t rain because, despite the forecast, you just looked outside and no Japanese person in sight is carrying an umbrella, and the Japanese are never wrong about this sort of thing. Plus, you don’t want to be the only one carrying an umbrella, cuz then you’d look stupid.

So the point here is to define belief as an active thing, despite whatever words we use – whether we call it doubt or say we “don’t believe” it is all really just belief.

4. Faith and Doubt are not opposites – they are equivalents

If both faith and doubt are active beliefs, then they are really the same thing, aren’t they? They are both beliefs, just pointed in different directions.

Someone may say that faith has action but doubt has no action, but I would challenge that.

Yes, the faithful person takes an umbrella even if they are uncertain whether it will rain or not, and that is a faithful act.

But even the doubter takes action by choosing to NOT carry an umbrella and still walking outside anyway. Both are beliefs and both inspire action. Maybe this is the secret key to unlock the mystery of believing “all things” that we have been admonished to do. And then again, maybe not.

5. Faith and Doubt can co-exist

President Monson said that doubt and faith cannot exist in the same mind at the same time – and maybe I am using this quote out of context – but don’t we all doubt some things while simultaneously having faith in others?

For example, I doubt the traditional meaning behind the James 2:20 scripture mastery scripture “faith without works is dead.” I was originally taught that this was James’ response to the atonement of Christ. That we are not saved by grace alone, but must also show forth works for our eternal salvation, for faith without works is dead.

But when I went back and read all of James chapter 2, I saw that James’ message wasn’t about the atonement. It was about our own exercise of faith. It is saying that you have to put your money where your mouth is. If someone comes to you seeking food, and you say “bless you, and hunger no more” but you don’t actually give them any food, then you aren’t actually going to save them.

So I doubt the way that I was originally taught this scripture, but I still have faith that the message is a good message and that it comes from a good source. And that is a balancing act between doubt and faith.

6. Faith without doubt is dead

That is the GOT – the Glenn Ostlund Translation of James 2:20. Faith is a hope and a desire, but it is not a perfect knowledge. So there must be uncertainty, some degree of questioning or doubt, otherwise faith would be knowledge. Uncertainty in and of itself is not a bad thing in my world. And when uncertainty or doubt spurs us to positive action, it can actually be a very good thing.

7. Uncertainty is a scary thing

Without a doubt, doubt will make you more unsure about what you used to be very sure about, and this can be a scary thing. But one lesson that I learned as a kid is that anytime the scriptures say “have faith” you could interchange the phrase for “fear not” and the meaning would stay the same. So even with all of the different conflicting messages all around us in the world every day – even with all of the valid and reasonable reasons to have doubt, if we nurture our faith, we do not need to fear doubt. Doubt does not have to destroy our faith – it can bolster and lift it and lead us to new light and knowledge.

8. Our church has been built upon doubt – or at least upon the positive interaction between doubt and faith.

The First Vision would not have happened unless Joseph had experienced some questions and doubts about what he was hearing in the different revival meetings. But he also had faith that the Lord would answer his prayer. A pretty successful one-two punch, if you ask me.

And throughout the history of the church, doctrines and policies have been added or removed or amended because people have debated and doubted and questioned and reached out in faith, and received further light and knowledge. So there is a lesson to be learned here, that doubt and faith can interact together towards a good end.

9. Repentance without doubt is dead

We are constantly encouraged to evaluate and examine how we are living our lives. We are encouraged to repent when we need to repent, and I think that doubt plays a role here.

I have always found illumination in the Japanese word for repentance – kuiaratameru. If I understand it right, it literally means to remorse and to change. What causes this remorse? What leads us to a realization that we are in error? We must at some point doubt our very selves – we must doubt that our actions have been good actions. So perhaps this is another area where doubt can have a positive influence in our lives.

10. Humility is the key

Whether as individuals or as a church, regardless of what we currently believe or how strong our convictions, further light and knowledge can always reveal new truths, and our beliefs can always change.

Shouldn’t that awareness then lead to greater humility on our parts? Isn’t humility the way we learn to show Christ-like empathy and compassion and forgiveness for others, even when we disagree with them or when they disagree with us?

Isn’t that the humilty that caused the good Samaritan to stop and help the man on the side of the road, even though he probably doubted the other guys’ beliefs?

Isn’t that the compassion and empathy that caused Christ to say “forgive them father, for they know not what they do?” even as they were in the very act of doubting him to a painful and undeserved death?

Back to Alma 32 – Alma rejoiced when he saw that the poor among the Zoramites had been cast out. Why? Because they had been compelled to be humble, and that softened their hearts. No one wants to be compelled to be humble, but I think we should all have soft hearts — believers and skeptics alike. We should be open-minded, tolerant of different ideas, willing to admit our own imperfect understanding.

Doubt – for me – has compelled and pounded and softened my heart. It has lead me to a humilty in my beliefs, or at least an ability and a desire to step off of my own rameumpton and drop any pretense that I am any more elect than anyone else around me. Doubt has helped me repent of this pride.

In conclusion, I have atheist friends who are some of the most charitable, kind, Christ-like people that I know. When I ask them about God, they often say that it makes no sense to them that a loving God would put us in a no-win situation, and would punish us for living in a sinful world that God himself created.

There are many responses to this, but I want to give just one. If the story of the atonement is true – if Jesus Christ took upon himself the sins of the world and died for our sakes – then isn’t that the responsible thing for a God to do? Doesn’t that mean that he has personally erased the effects of sin and death that have come to us as a result of our following his plan and entering into this mortal probation full of death and sin? To me it is like he is saying, “don’t worry, I’ve got you covered. Have faith. Fear not. Now just go and love each other as I have loved you. “

I find great beauty and hope in this approach. And I have a firm desire for this to be true. I also have a strong faith in the principles of charity that we read about in Moroni:  “Wherefore, if a man have faith he must have hope; for without faith there cannot be any hope. And he cannot have faith and hope, save he shall be meek, and lowly of heart. Otherwise, his faith and hope is vain; and he must needs have charity; for if he have not charity he is nothing; for charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.”

This is my hope and my faith, in spite of my doubts.

How do you feel about doubt and its relationship to faith?

I’ve wanted to write this for a long time.  First I need to make a few disclaimers–one, to the best of my knowledge no serious research regarding the motivation of home-teaching pairs has ever been published.  That’s a huge disclaimer.  I’d be happy to be proven wrong.  Second, because of point one, virtually all of what I say here is logic applied to what we do know about motivation to conform to a new situation.  Third, if there’s anything that we know about behavioral psychology, it’s that it is incredibly difficult to make generalizations based on one set of samples and extend it to another.  I could spend a lot of effort proving that point, but I’ll simply cite the fact that when we are developing a selection measure in a workplace it must be validated for the organization in question.  It is impossible to take a stock measure and claim any sort of certainty that it predicts performance exactly the same from one job setting to the next.  Because of this, what I am saying is largely based on the broadest and most well-accepted theories of motivation available.

It is no secret that in many wards, home-teaching is an activity that every elder and high-priest is aware of, but only a select few do with any sort of consistent regularity.  I am personally convinced that it is due to a set of motivational issues that are never properly addressed. As a researcher, I get pretty peeved about many of the definitions of motivation out there.  Personally, I get annoyed when ward members start talks by defining commonly used words, but in this case I am justifying this because the word motivation has so many definitions that are used quite interchangeably, with little regard for what someone really means.

For instance, if someone says, “I’m not feeling motivated today” what they mean is that don’t want to do the things that they are feeling pressure to do.  If I say “she is a really motivated woman”, what I might mean is that she is ambitious, works hard, or is highly conscientious.  The problem with all this is that it lacks precision.  Although psychology is often viewed by chemists, physicists, and biologists as a ‘soft science’, the best researchers in psychology are exceptionally careful with their research methods and definitions.  In that tradition, I am arguing that if we really want to understand the core of a person’s reasons for action, we must be meticulous about definitions.  Thus, I am borrowing heavily from Gary Latham’s definitions for motivation, he, with Ed Locke, being one of the foremost researchers in work motivation.  He rightly points out that the word motivation has Latin roots, being a derivation of movere (for movement).  [Reference: Gary Latham (2007), Work Motivation: History, Theory, Research and Practice, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, p. 3]

With that in mind, I am offering a definition of the word that is simple–the desire to act (or move) in a particular fashion.  Thus we are never unmotivated (except possibly in a few instances of extreme depression)–we always have a desire to act in some fashion, whether or not that action is in keeping with the goals and desires of others or even those held up by the teachings of the gospel as being of utmost importance.

Thus, if we view it that way, the problem with home teaching is not a lack of motivation, but an over-abundance of motivation to things OTHER than home teaching.  Note that this applies equally to virtually any particular task or goal.  It may not be that a person lacks a desire to do something, it’s that they have stronger desires to do other things.

With that in mind, there are two potential solutions (working on a competing priorities model).  First to increase the strength of a person’s desire to do the home-teaching (this is tricky), or second, to reduce both the number and intensity of competing goal-sets.  Either solution is viable in general, but in a specific setting one may be more viable than another.

I should note at this point, that the above is true of virtually any goal-set, gospel related or otherwise.  Temple attendance, payment of tithing, adherence to the Word of Wisdom (which I can no longer abbreviate as WoW–that’s now a time-sink of infinite proportions designed to look like a game), caring for children in a particular manner, completing work-projects, doing homework, and so forth.

This is the strength of Locke & Latham’s model, as presented by Ed Locke in a 1997 article–it’s generic enough that it can be adapted easily to a variety of scenarios, while specific enough to actually be useful.  It’s also testable (falsifiable), which is a litmus test of whether or not an idea can be considered a scientific-theory.  But that’s another point.

This linked article has a great explanation of the theories I’m discussing: http://fisher.osu.edu/~klein_12/CTmodel.pdf [WARNING: PDF]

This article is even better: http://bit.ly/9NfLCA [WARNING: PDF] (this is the source for the above image).

While there is a lot to absorb in the above flowchart, much of which I simply don’t have time to explain, it should be noted that intrinsic to action is the concept of goals.  I want to focus on this for a moment.  Goals are necessary if you want to convince someone to behave in a particular fashion.  I believe this is a lesson taught consistently within the scriptures.  God wants the Israelites to stop worshipping idols with the Egyptians so he gives them goals.  The most effective form of therapy for most psychological malfunctions is based around this concept–cognitive-behavioral therapy includes goal modification.

The single biggest problem in this is that all too often in home-teaching we shy away from goals and we are unable to convince those who are supposed to be doing this relatively simple task to adopt the goal with sufficient force that it becomes more important than other goals (like watching Lost, or playing Xbox 360 [or PS3, or Wii, or some title on their computer--I'm system agnostic], or going to see Iron Man 2, or golfing, or whatever their preferred leisure activity is).

According to this model it comes down to #3: Values & Personality (which of course are fed by needs*–we absolutely value what we perceive we need). For my brother, while he values home-teaching in a service-oriented sense (and is there 100% when a home-teaching family has a specific need with which he can assist), he does not value it from a friendship perspective or a spiritual teaching perspective.  That’s largely rooted in the fact that he’s not an extrovert, but also has a root in his desire (perceived need) for action rather than talk.

In order to convince my brother that monthly visits regardless of a physical need are in order, it becomes necessary to reorder his evaluation of the importance of socialization, as he feels no particular compulsion in this regard (don’t get me wrong–he enjoys conversations with others, but he doesn’t feel a need for it; there’s an obvious analogy here, but I think I’ll refrain as I’d rather not offend).

In my opinion the shortest path to make that value change happen is a spiritual path, which is fine for home-teaching (if you assume that it is indeed a divinely appointed program), but for things in the day to day, this may not be a solution.

Certainly setting clearly defined goals is a step in this process, but it isn’t enough.  There needs to be an emotional attachment (values are, in large part, emotional attachments to a particular outcome), which is what we see in advertising.  Effective ad agencies know this: the goal is to have a person adopt the values that would lead them to value the product sufficiently that it becomes more motivating than competing motivations.  That is, we want to spend our money on their product rather than any other product.  There’s a lot of good research on this–mostly done by economists rather than psychologists (although one Daniel Kahneman is an exception–he won the Nobel Prize in Economics one year, but he’s a psychologist).

This is also why many companies (and drug dealers) give out free samples: they know that because you have a free portion of their product, you will place value on that product (there are a lot of reasons for this–but simply put, we value what we have in our possession more than that which we do not possess).  I think home-teaching is much the same.  In order to convince someone that monthly home-teaching visits have value for those performing them (rather than just those visited), I think the real solution is to get them started on it with a companion which already values it and that is able to engage them on a personal level.  This is a tricky proposition, but it is likely the most effective solution to a difficult problem.

Of course, all this applies just as much to visiting teaching. The question to readers is this: what motivates you to participate in the home teaching program, if anything does?  In the interest of full disclosure, I have recently had a really hard time doing my own home teaching, but I have in the past gone for a number of years without ever missing.  What has your experience been?

*Needs, in this instance, are not referent to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which has limited empirical support as a theory of explained action (motivation, if you will).  It might be useful in providing a general framework for talking about different types of desires or needs, but the data do not show it to predict behavior.  The most fundamental flaw is that Maslow envisioned a hierarchy in which needs at the base of the pyramid (food & shelter) are dealt with prior to pursuing other needs and did not allow for a mechanism which explains under what conditions an individual might pursue a need at the top of the pyramid prior to a more fundamental need (seeking spiritual enlightenment despite undergoing severe poverty and even starvation).  Thus, while an interesting idea or framework for conceptualizing needs, it fails to explain behavior, and is therefore of limited value.

Guest Post by Christopher C. Smith

Chris has a BA from Fresno Pacific University in Biblical Studies, an MA from Wheaton College in History of Christianity, and is pursuing a PhD from Claremont Graduate University in Religions in North America. In the tradition of Jan Shipps, he is a non-Mormon with a particular focus on Mormon Studies and Joseph Smith.

The Book of Mormon records in 2 Nephi 3 a very interesting prophecy attributed to the biblical patriarch Joseph of Egypt, according to which a “choice seer” would be raised up from the fruit of Joseph’s loins in the latter days.  “And his name shall be called after me; and it shall be after the name of his father,” the patriarch announces.  Clearly Joseph Smith is in view.

An addendum to this prophecy adds an interesting additional promise. “I will raise up unto the fruit of thy loins; and I will make for him a spokesman. And I, behold, I will give unto him that he shall write the writing of the fruit of thy loins, unto the fruit of thy loins; and the spokesman of thy loins shall declare it.”  The traditional Mormon view is that the “spokesman” of the prophecy is Sidney Rigdon (see for example George Q. Cannon’s remarks in JD 25:126).  This view is based on D&C 100:9–11, which proclaims that “it is expedient in me that you, my servant Sidney, should be a spokesman unto this people… I will give unto thee power to be mighty in expounding all scriptures, that thou mayest be a spokesman unto him.”  I would like to suggest, however, that a better candidate for the spokesman of the “choice seer” prophecy is Oliver Cowdery.

Note that whereas the D&C emphasizes Sidney’s preaching role, the prophecy itself emphasizes writing.  In fact, the roles of Smith and his spokesman are precisely the reverse of Moses and Aaron.  The prophecy says of Moses, “I will give power unto him in a rod; and I will give judgment unto him in writing. Yet I will not loose his tongue, that he shall speak much, for I will not make him mighty in speaking. But I will write unto him my law, by the finger of mine own hand; and I will make a spokesman for him.”  Whereas Moses needed a spokesman for speaking but not for writing, Joseph Smith evidently needed a spokesman for writing but not for speaking.  The reference to a rod is also suggestive.  Unlike Moses, Joseph Smith did not have “power in a rod.”  But if the roles of seer and spokesman are reversed, then we might surmise that his spokesman did.  And in fact, that is precisely what the D&C says of Oliver Cowdery.

Oliver Cowdery served as Joseph Smith’s principal scribe for the Book of Mormon and some early sections of the D&C.  Of all Smith’s associates, Cowdery was the most prominent in the early period.  D&C 28 specifically likens him to Aaron, and tasks him not only to write but also to “speak”, “preach”, and “declare faithfully the commandments and revelations” (D&C 28:3–8). Cowdery apparently sometimes made use of a divining rod, which the 1835 D&C describes as a “rod of Aaron”.  He even received revelations of his own (EMD 2:409; 1835 Pat. Blessing Book), and did much of the early preaching and baptizing.  But here’s the unambiguous kicker.  In Cowdery’s patriarchal blessing—given in 1835 by Joseph Smith, Jr. himself—there is a reference to “the prophecy of Joseph, in ancient days,” which pronounced blessings upon “the Seer of the last days and the Scribe that should sit with him.” Clearly the choice seer’s “Scribe” is here supposed to be Cowdery.

So what are we to do with the D&C’s application of the spokesman label to Sidney Rigdon?  Like Oliver, Sidney served as a spokesman for the prophet in both written and oral capacities.  Sidney had started as the prophet’s scribe.  In fact, when Joseph met Sidney in 1831, Sidney was specifically instructed to preach only “inasmuch as ye do not write [for the prophet]” (35:20–23). But by 1833 he had taken on a much larger role in the movement, and his role as “spokesman” was primarily a preaching and teaching role.  Clearly Sidney did serve as a spokesman for Joseph Smith.  But was he the spokesman of prophecy?

One possible reading of these sources is that by 1835 Joseph Smith had bifurcated the “spokesman” role of Joseph of Egypt’s prophecy into oral and written components, such that Rigdon was the “spokesman”, and an additional role of “Scribe” was created to accommodate the displaced Oliver Cowdery.  But there is another possible reading as well.  Perhaps the spokesman was never intended to be a single, unchangeable individual, but rather referred to a role or office that might be filled by multiple individuals simultaneously or in succession.  A capital “S” is used in the prophet’s journal when calling Warren Parrish his “Scribe”, as well, suggesting perhaps that he saw Parrish as filling the same eschatological role that just a few months prior had been assigned to Oliver Cowdery.  Smith in fact enlisted many talented scribes over the course of his life, selecting for the role some of the Church’s most talented and educated men.  He never felt constrained to limit himself to a single individual.  He had a whole cadre of spokesmen, some of whom moved in and out of the role as their fortunes and the Church’s changed.

I’m interested to hear how the commenters here at MM read this evidence.  How are we to reconcile D&C 100 with Cowdery’s patriarchal blessing?  Was the spokesman a person, or an office?  If it was a person, then who?  Cowdery?  Rigdon?  Or someone else entirely?

In C.S. Lewis’ final Narnia book The Last Battle, there is a powerful scene of an encounter between the Christ-symbolizing lion Aslan and Emeth, a noble-minded worshipper of the false Calormene demon-god Tash:

“[The Lion] touched my forehead…and said, Son, thou art welcome.  But I said, Alas Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash.  He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.  Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true…that thou and Tash are one?  The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false.  Not because he and I aer one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him.  For he and I are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him.  Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him.  And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted.”

Needless to say, a certain type of Christian evangelical is appalled by this.  I read an essay (by someone who evidently has reading-comprehension problems) arguing that by Lewis’s logic, Osama bin Laden’s diligence in pursuit of what he understands to be his religious duty must be credited as salvific worship of Christ.

And there is a danger, in seeking to be courteous to people who believe fundamentally different things from our own faith, to drift into seeming to say that there is no absolute truth — that all religious traditions are equally valid, that all religious roads lead to God, and the like.  And in fact, the varieties of religious experience are often used by folk-postmodernists to argue there is no absolute truth — that all truths are simply fronts for cultural biases, interests, or power relations.  However — although there is more of a common core of shared moral truth, across many diverse cultures, than often gets acknowledged – the truth claims of different religious traditions are often mutually exclusive.  In the case of Christianity and Islam, for example, Jesus Christ was either a prophet, or the incarnate God.  He can’t be both.  So the only way that “all religious teachings can be equally valid” is for none of them to be valid.  They obtain whatever fiction of validity they have, only from what they are given by their adherents.  Asking, like Joseph Smith, “Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together?”  (JS-H 1:10), the vernacular relativist concludes the answer must be “all wrong together.”  Otherwise, we’d have to privilege one faith claim above another — and in a pluralist society, we certainly can’t have that.  Wouldn’t be courteous.

But it does not follow, from the fact that finding the absolute truth is so difficult that different people, exercising the best of their imperfect judgment, reach different conclusions, that there is no absolute truth.  It is possible that, among all the “contests of these parties of religionists,” somebody is actually right — or more right than others.  Christians give the assent of faith to the proposition that Christ “is the way, the Truth, and the life; no man cometh to the Father except by [Him].”  (John 14:6.)  We are committed to believing that there is one absolute Truth, and that it includes the basic fact that the salvation of humanity rests on Christ crucified.

How can faith in an exclusive Truth be reconciled with religious pluralism, not to mention God’s justice, in a world where the accidents of birth are probably the greatest factor that determines what religion a person practices?

I think C.S. Lewis was on to something with his parable of Emeth — whose name is Hebrew for “Truth.”  I think of Matthew 26:32-46, where the sheep are divided from from the goats.  The scripture seems to indicate that at least some of the sheep are surprised at being sheep:  “Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee?  or thirsty, and gave thee drink?  When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?  Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?  And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

The Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, who was one of the major influences in the restatement of Catholic doctrine at the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, articulated a concept he called “Anonymous Christianity”:

“Anonymous Christianity means that a person lives in the grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted Christianity — Let us say, a Buddhist monk — who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so, if I hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an anonymous Christianity.”

The Catholic Church subsequently adopted the substance of Rahner’s thinking.  The Church’s Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium provides,

“Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”

The present Catechism now provides,

“Those who through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

The declaration Dominus Iesus (criticized by some religious liberals for, evidently, not abandoning altogether the Catholic Church’s proclamation that it is the one true church), stated,

“Nevertheless, God, who desires to call all peoples to himself in Christ and to communicate to them the fullness of his revelation and love, “does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression even when they contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and errors”. Therefore, the sacred books of other religions, which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace which they contain.”

Mormonism, of course, may have anticipated this doctrine (or a version of it) with the doctrine of proxy ordinance work for the dead.  Although there has been controversy on the point, many LDS authorities suggest that even those who have had the gospel presented to them in this life, but rejected it for good-faith reasons, may obtain to salvation.

Some consider the doctrine of “Anonymous Christianity” to be condescending:  Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists, goes this argument, don’t want to be saved as “anonymous” or honorary Christians; they should insist on being saved qua Jews, Muslims, or Buddhists.  In my view, “Anonymous Christianity” is as far as a revealed religion can possibly go and remain anything like itself.

However, “Anonymous Christianity” has a potentially startling flip side:  Just as a noble-minded Muslim, who follows the truly holy aspects of his religion, may have his inherently holy actions counted as worship of Christ, isn’t it also at least conceivably possible that I — by practicing the noble truths contained in my Mormon variety of Christianity — could be an “anonymous Buddhist?”  We tend to view even entertaining the possibility that the things to which we give the assent of faith may not be in every respect exactly as we understand them as a kind of infidelity, but is it really so?  To have effective faith in something, do we really have to know it with every fiber of our being, or say that we do?

My faith is in Christ, exercised within the framework of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I have reason to believe — or, more precisely, I choose to believe that certain experiences, whose actual import I may not be able to know with certainty, give me reason to believe — that God is pleased that I exercise faith in this way.  It may be that this is because the Gospel, as it it has been made known to me, is 100% true, to the exclusion of all contrary traditions — or it may be because my faith contains enough of the true God’s truth to suffice.

When Jesus was suffering on the cross at Calvary, those who put Him there surrounded Him to mock Him. They jeered, “If [thou art] the King of Israel . . . come down from the cross, and we will believe . . . .” (Matt 27:42)

I have emerged from the other end of a marriage that stripped me of my ability to trust myself. It is taking hard work to believe the things that I have survived. I have been accused of things I did not do in a court that seemed sympathetic to the other side. I have learned how to live with a measure of real and daily fear. I have witnessed almost every purpose of my life crumble in my hands. I have not, by any means, lived through the worst that life has to offer, but I have lived through my lot only to be confronted by those who cannot understand and so do not believe me.

My faith has also been left exposed to the elements, raw and aching. I have difficulty knowing what to believe or what to do. I have been confronted time after time with the choice to take the emotionally easy road, to accept what life is telling me, or to take a tiny, twisting and seemingly treacherous path without knowing for certain where I am going or if I can get there. So I think I understand a little better than I did those people who ask for proof.

I have noticed that sometimes those in scripture who ask for proof are given exactly what they ask for, such as Barak with Deborah, the people of Zarahemla, and the those of Ammonihah, while others are left to work out their uncertainty. Often, those who are given the sign they are seeking find that it doesn’t really change their opinions, in the end.

Perhaps the story of this type that I resonate best with is the tale of the man with the palsied son. When told that his son could be healed if he believed, he cried to Jesus, saying, “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief!”

Time upon time as I have found myself weeping bitterness into my abused pillow, I have cried these exact words in my heart, yearning to feel the fruits of my faith. I ache when I see so many people here on the Internet crying out because they have found themselves at a point in their lives when they just stop believing in the gospel as presented by the LDS Church. I ache because I have looked into that abyss myself, and felt its depths.

The classic analogy to illustrate how that feels is the scene from Indiana Jones when his father lays dying behind him and he is faced with a choice of faith: to walk into a seemingly bottomless chasm, or to turn around and let his father die. He makes that choice, and luckily it works for him. One thing that is poignant about that story is that he almost fully expected to die when he took that step, but he took it anyways because the alternative was worse.

To me, this is raw, living faith. Right now, I am standing at the other end of a failed marriage, and almost every one of the things I have dedicated my life to lie crumbled at my feet. But I don’t keep going to Church and praying with my Father in Heaven because I know that things will work out for me or because I feel as though who I am now has anything to do with the Church and my ward. I pray to my Father and continue going to Church because the alternative—to give up on my dreams and turn my back on what I know (and I do mean know)—is far, far worse.

I don’t know what my future will hold. I don’t know what my Father has in mind for me. But I know Him, and I choose, with eyes open and fear in my heart, to trust Him. I will not wait to believe.

That all seems like a bit more than can be explained in a single line of a Facebook profile. Perhaps I’ll just put “Naturally Rabid.”

What’s your Facebook political affiliation?  Are your FB friends of a similar or different political affiliation than you are?  What’s the most unusual one you’ve seen among your friends?  Discuss.

Today’s guest post is by David H. Bailey.

I am concerned about the increasing politicization of the Church in the U.S. during past two or three years. I can definitely sense it here in our ward and stake in the SF Bay Area, and from what I can see the same is true in Utah, Arizona and Nevada. Consider:

1. Many members interpreted the Church’s support of Prop 8 as an endorsement of a broad range of politically conservative causes (although the Church leaders likely did not intend that message). In most areas of the U.S. people with moderate or liberal political views now feel unable to make comments, even in LDS social settings, for fear of ostracism. Comments such as “the country is really moving in the wrong direction” are often voiced in church meetings.

2. Many LDS listen to Glenn Beck (especially) and Rush Limbaugh, even here in the relatively “liberal” SF Bay Area.

3. Two months ago, a Las Vegas area SP’s invitation to have LDS Senator Harry Reid (a Democrat) speak at a fireside on his conversion experience had to be withdrawn due to numerous threats of disruption and even violence.

4. Last Friday, the Utah Republican caucus booted out 3-term GOP Senator Robert Bennett, who has one of the most conservative voting records in all the U.S. Congress, because he is “not conservative enough.”

5. Mormons are strong supporters of the “Tea Party” movement, particularly in Utah and other western states.

6. Visceral opposition to Obama is common in LDS circles (from what I have seen). Many truly believe that he is not really a U.S. citizen, and that he truly represents Satan in the last days.

7. Visceral opposition is also raised about the new health program in LDS circles — terms such as “socialism”, “communism”, “death squads”, “rationing” are used.

I’m not a die-hard liberal — compared to most people I’m middle-of-the-road. I was supportive of the health care initiative — it was a huge shame for the U.S. to be the only nation in the top 25 industrial powers not to provide some health care program for its citizens. On the other hand, I believe that a relatively free market capitalist system is the most efficient, provided safeguards are in place to prevent excesses and protect consumers. I am also very concerned that politicians are not being realistic about shortfalls projected in the Medicare and Social Security system. In other words, I strongly feel that a viable two+ party system is important, with reasonable, intelligent views represented from both sides. And I think it is important that LDS people be a part of this system.

But I am concerned that an unwritten law is emerging that only a very conservative point of view is welcome in the LDS Church, to an extent significantly greater than at any time in my life. Thoughts?

(Mormon May Day was an international response to recent statements by latter-day McCarthyist Glenn Beck that social justice was a code word for communism; and that anyone involved in a church that preached such a deceptive perversion of the Gospel should leave their congregation and find a new place to worship. Participants in Mormon May Day held teach-ins and discussions around the topic of Social Justice and the Gospel on May 1, participated in a fast, and then bore testimony on May 2 in wards around the country.)

Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion! Wo be unto him that crieth: all is Well! (2 Nephi 28:24-25)

The reactions to Mormon May Day were overwhelmingly positive. People came out of the wood work to tell us how much they appreciated our efforts to assert a place in Mormon culture for liberals and radicals. Many people told me that had they known that there were people like us in the church they may not have left. While it became crystal clear to me that our work is sorely needed in the church, some members reacted with sincere curiosity. They had never noticed politics in church, and indeed many consider themselves ‘apolitical’. With these brothers and sisters in mind, the purpose of this post is to better articulate a deep frustration that many liberal and radical Mormons feel when they attend church. That frustration boils down to the fact that moral issues of the political right are constructed as moral absolutes, while the moral issues of the political left are either dismissed as misguided or minimized to the agency of an individual’s personal spirituality. This usually means they don’t get much air time in general conference, Sunday School or Priesthood/Relief Society. This leaves us with a problem: many Mormons feel that their interpretations of the Gospel are not valid because they do not fall within the contemporary orbit of conservative morality.

Here is what I mean.

Homosexuality and Protecting the Family

In the 2008 debate over gay marriage in California, the LDS church actively campaigned all over the state to defeat a California Supreme court ruling that legalized gay marriage. For many of us from California who sympathize with gay rights, we were horrified as testimony meetings and Sunday school lessons were filled to the brim with election slogans about protecting the family. The family, the rhetoric goes, is under attack from those who would expand the definition of marriage and it is our sacred duty to defeat this most recent affront. Using the civil rights struggles of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters as a measure of the strength of families is an excellent example of how a seemingly politically neutral and core aspect of the Gospel such as the family is framed in the moral language of the political right.

Now, this is not a polemical retort against the erosion of family values. I too believe that the family is being weakened, but my worldview causes me to look for the cause in a very different place than those on the political right. It seems to me that if we want to talk seriously about protecting the family as the basic institution of society, then perhaps we should start with the historical impact that free market capitalism has had on the family over the past 200 years. The massive upheavals that occurred in Europe and America—which are being repeated all over the globe through the globalization of production—are a result of the need for a landless and mobile labor force. It is easy for former CEOs and bootstrap entrepreneurs to wax moral about spending more time with our families while their workers scrape by on 60 hours a week. In this sense France is a more family friendly country than ours! Their workers fought for and won generous vacations with pay, universal healthcare, childcare, a 35 work week and living wages. If we are serious about protecting the family why not address issues that allow families to be together more rather than scapegoat the gay community.

Socialism

Glenn Beck follows a long line of Mormon cold warriors. But depending on who you talk to, Mormon radicals may agree with the sentiment that we need to limit the government’s role in our lives. Indeed, many of us at the Mormon Worker would like to eliminate it completely in favor of United Order style communes in every watershed.

While there is a spectrum of opinions on the Mormon left with respect to the proper role of the federal government, many of use see the words of 5 time socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debs as representing the true spirit of socialism; not as an absolutist political ideology but as a powerful call to live as Christ taught. While being tried for sedition, Debs, in response to his charges defiantly said:

“I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence. Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind then that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; and while there is a criminal element, I am of it; and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free” (Sept. 18^th 1918).

Deb’s stirring words are unmistakably inspired by the Sermon on the Mount, and when some of us proclaim sympathy with socialism, that is what we mean. None of us are suggesting that the Gospel is socialist, but there are certainly legitimate overlaps in the call for a classless society and an end to exploitation and Christ’s message of equality and love. Rather than mythologizing the cold war in pre-mortal rhetoric about free agency which implies God’s divine sanction of capitalism, perhaps we should take the words of Catholic Worker founder, Peter Maurin more seriously:

“Christianity has nothing to do

with either modern capitalism

or modern Communism,

for Christianity has

a capitalism of its own

and a communism of its own.

Modern capitalism

is based on property without responsibility,

while Christian capitalism is based on property with responsibility.

Modern communism

is based on poverty through force

while Christian communism

is based on poverty through choice.

For a Christian,

voluntary poverty is the ideal

as exemplified by St. Francis of Assisi,

while private property

is not an absolute right, but a gift

which as such can not be wasted,

but must be administered

for the benefit of God’s children.”

Ecology

We learn in D & C 58:16-20 that the good things of the earth are made to “please the eye, gladden the heart” in addition to the more utilitarian “food and raiment”; and despite being granted full access to the abundance of the earth, we are not to use it “to excess, neither by extortion.” It is significant to me that Joseph Smith’s vision took place in a forest which to us is now a Sacred Grove. What an inspiring refutation of the colonial Christian ambivalence toward nature and the “dark woods” to begin the last dispensation in a grove of trees; a stark rebuke to the Western world when that grove was filled with light on that morning in 1820. Soon thereafter nature would be reenchanted by the transcendentalist, wilderness and environmental movements.

For these reasons, it seems clear that the environmental crisis is a moral crisis; perhaps the most serious our civilization has ever faced. It will not be solved through legislation or adjustments to our consumption habits. So, when I attend church and don’t hear it addressed with unequivocal condemnation I feel confused. Isn’t our duty to care for the earth and each other as important as protecting the family, paying tithing, reading the scriptures, avoiding rated-R movies, family prayer, etc.? While policy prescriptions may be bitterly partisan, the fact remains that our stewardship over the earth’s bounty is a moral responsibility one that deserves the full attention of moral language.

War

Another area where liberal and radical members feel silenced and marginalized is around war and violence. Many church leaders grew up during an era of honorable war; of self-sacrifice for a national cause. However, many in the rising generation feel much more skeptical of leaders who proclaim just war. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan simply do not fit the narrative of an honorable war in defense of freedom. For many of us they were geopolitical maneuvering that had more to do with oil than bringing freedom to the downtrodden. Many of us were not only critical of the war, but participated in protests and other actions against the war. These actions were carried out not in spite of our religious conviction but because of them and are driven by the admonition in D&C 98:16 to “renounce war and proclaim peace.”

The invasion of Iraq especially, mirrors the kind of preemptive and unrighteous war that is harshly condemned in the Book of Mormon. For many of us, being a pacifist, or nearly so, is a core moral issue and to hear members of the church denounce those who would oppose the war as unpatriotic or worse bad Mormons is disconcerting. Let us be consistently pro-life; valuing not just the lives of unborn children, but also the lives of Iraqi men, women and children caught in the middle of an unjust and illegal occupation.

Healthcare

In Mosiah 4 we read that all the prayer and pious action in world mean nothing if we do not have charity and act upon it. One item on an oft repeated list of charitable to-do’s is “visiting the sick and administering to their relief.” We live in a country where over 40 million people do not have health insurance. Regardless of who you believe should administer healthcare, this is a massive failure on our part to live up to this Gospel commandment. Why, when we read that scripture do we not see the faces of those who cannot afford healthcare? We have allowed the polarizing rhetoric of big vs. small government obscure our duty to the sick.

God’s Politics

Christianity is supposed to transcend party politics, but that does not mean the Gospel is apolitical. Christ did not join Judas and the Zealots or the Essenes in the desert, but he adamantly critiqued the Sadducees and Pharisees for their blatant hypocrisy and priest craft. And while communism may very well have been Satan’s counterfeit, his real genius may have been setting it up as a straw man so that capitalism could slip in the back door. The Gospel is a worldview, not a hobby and I reject any neat delineation of my life as a citizen and my life as a Latter-day Saint. By decontextualizing the scriptures and church history and de-politicizing religious-right moral issues, contemporary Latter-day Saints have (whether they intended to or not) marginalized those who would interpret the Gospel through a distinct political worldview. To argue that the way the Gospel in talked about in church is apolitical or neutral is naïve and disingenuous at best.

Now, let me be clear, I am not calling for an extension of the cultural divide between American liberals and conservatives into the church; as should be clear I am opposed to using the Gospel to justify any political ideology. But as reverend Jim Wallis points out in his amazing book God’s Politics, the separation of church and state, does not mean the separation of our faith from our public life. As Wallis points out, there needs to be a coming together of moral issues on the left and right framed in religious language. This kind of politics, God’s Politics, “would not be an endless argument between personal and social responsibility, but a weaving of the two together in search of the common good” (76). While, it has been my purpose to expose the political bias of some seemingly apolitical aspects of Mormon culture, I am in agreement with Wallis that the Gospel is not republican or democrat, but a call to radical charity that includes both individual ethics and social justice.

Mormon May Day was meant to bring attention to a problem within Mormon culture. It was not about confrontation or criticism of Church leaders. When liberal and radical Mormons leave the Church we all loose a unique and valid perspective on the Gospel. I am pleading with Mormon culture to recognize many of the above issues as equally important to our salvation. I am also calling on liberal and radical Mormons to step out of their comfort zones and begin to open our mouths in church settings on topics that we feel passionately about and which are central to Christ’s message.

Chris Jones is a 6th generation Mormon and graduate of Brigham Young University where he studied journalism.  He served a mission in the Sweden Stockholm Mission from 2001-2003.  He is currently living in Valparaíso, Chile and will begin a JD/MA program in law and economics at Duke University in the fall of 2010.

Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Joseph Smith and Jesus.  I suspect this would make for an entertaining dinner party to say the least.  This may sound like a strange collection of ancient and modern figures, but they all have one important characteristic in common.  Their most important achievements happened while they were still young men. 

Scientific revolutions are often led by the youngest scientists,” claims author Jonah Lehrer in a Wall Street Journal article from February 19, 2010.  “Isaac Newton was 23 when he began inventing calculus; Albert Einstein published several of his most important papers at the tender age of 26…At the time, these men were all inexperienced and immature, and yet they managed to transform their fields.”

Lehrer then goes on to make a convincing argument that a dearth of young scientists today presents a problem for innovative breakthroughs in the fields of physics and chemistry.  He based his February article on multiple studies over the past few years on cognitive development.

“Why are young physicists and poets more creative?,” asked Lehrer in the article.  “Mr. Simonton [author of one of the studies cited] argues that they benefit, at least in part, from their willingness to embrace novelty and surprise. Because they haven’t become ‘encultured,’ or weighted down with too much conventional wisdom, they’re more willing to rebel against the status quo. After a few years in the academy, however, ‘creators start to repeat themselves, so that it becomes more of the same-old, same-old,’ Mr. Simonton says.”

While Lehrer, Simonton, and the other researchers focus on the implications of youth and creativity in scientific inquiry, this phenomenon has relevance for religion as well.

Take the case of Jesus.  In my hypothetical dinner group, Jesus is the old man.  The gospels report that at about 30 years of age, Jesus began his public ministry.  The pearls he left behind have transformed the world and maintain their power nearly two thousand years later.

Joseph Smith provides another example of creativity of youth in a Mormon context.  By the age of 25, Joseph had already presented the world with a new book of scripture and founded a new church that would see unparalleled growth and perseverance throughout the nineteeth century.  It is perhaps even more remarkable given the many other religious movements of the age that would flame out as quickly as they started.

And it wasn’t just Joseph.  The roots of Mormonism were planted by a group of young and vibrant men.  In 1835, just five years after Joseph’s church began, he called the 1st Quorum of the 12 apostles to join his first presidency.  Those 16 men (Oliver Cowdrey was the 4th member in the Presidency as Assistant President) had an average age of 30 years old.  Compare that to the current group of leadership in the LDS church, which has an average age of 74.5 years.

Certainly times have changed.  I’m confident many members of the church would feel some trepidation knowing that there was a group of 23 year olds to watch over and guide the church.  Yet there were four such young men in 1835, including Orson Pratt.  It is hard to argue against the influence Pratt had over the theological direction of the early church.

I am also confident that the success of Joseph Smith and his young church came in part because of the youthful energy that overflowed from the small group of Saints.  Joseph was unencumbered by conventional wisdom and willing to rebel against the status quo. The young Prophet was brimming with creativity, novelty, and surprise.

What does this mean for the current church?  This isn’t a call for a for a wholesale revolution of the church’s leadership, but I am making the case for an infusion of youth and creativity.  Church growth in many areas of the world is stagnant or declining.  Activity levels hover around 40 percent.  There is a real crisis that the leadership needs to address for the LDS church to be a robust institution in the decades to come.  While the youth often provide valuable service as missionaries, their skills often go underutilized through their twenties.  I am confident that by enlisting the church’s young minds, challenges with retention could be addressed more effectively.  These innovative thinkers could open new doors as well as the church focuses more attention on the fourth pillar of its mission: caring for the poor and needy.

It is often said that the rising generation is the greatest generation the LDS church has ever seen.  It’s time for them to rise to the challenge and show the world why that is true.

Okay, yes, I’m all amp’ed up about this one. Stupid David Leavitt has jumped on the anti-polygamy wagon again. He has taken on the custody case of a Juab County, Utah, woman who doesn’t want her soon-to-be ex-husband to have their children near any fundamentalist Mormons – see the following recent article from the Salt Lake Tribune: (and I have pasted some paragraphs below [emphasis mine]) -

Father says his custody rights violated because of Fundamentalist Mormon views

By Brooke Adams
The Salt Lake Tribune

Rocky Ridge » A Utah father is fighting an order that bars him from sharing his Fundamentalist Mormon views with his children or taking them to this small town he now calls home where most residents hold a religious belief in polygamy that a judge deemed ”harmful.”

Joseph Compton doesn’t like the label “Fundamentalist Mormon.” Instead, he prefers to describe himself as believing in “the gospel like Joseph Smith originally wrote it,” which includes the religious tenet of plural marriage.

But that belief has put him outside the law, 4th District Judge Donald J. Eyre said in ruling last fall that gave Kathleen Compton temporary custody of the couple’s four minor children, who range in age from 5 to 16. They also have four adult children.

Eyre ordered Compton, 49, to not “discuss polygamy or plural marriage with the minor children, allow the children to be in close proximity to those (other than himself) who practice polygamy or plural marriage or who aid or abet those who do.”

Eyre also barred Compton from taking the children within the incorporated boundaries of Rocky Ridge, a community located in Juab County where the berry farmer and fundamentalists who practice plural marriage live.

Allowing the children to associate with residents there would entail “unnecessary and harmful conflict” with the children’s non-polygamous upbringing, the judge said in his findings.

Compton said he is unwilling to deny his beliefs. But that does not give the state leeway to trample his rights under Utah law or the U.S. Constitution, he said.

“I want to be able to speak freely, I want to be able to travel freely, I want to be able to answer my children’s questions freely,” Compton said. “I have sincerely held religious beliefs that others object to. That’s OK. But I can’t have my free choice? That is what I object to.”

***********

Grave threat of harm? » Rocky Ridge, founded in 1972 and incorporated in 1996, has about 800 residents. A majority are members of the Apostolic United Brethren, also known as the Allred Group, which adheres to a fundamentalist version of Mormonism that includes plural marriage — which the sect only sanctions between consenting adults. The enclave includes homes, a private school, several businesses, an elk farm, a volunteer fire department and a church.

**************
The constitutional and parental rights issues raised in the Compton divorce case have been the subject of similar legal proceedings in Utah and several other states.

A Chicago judge ruled earlier this month that a Catholic father can take his preschool-age daughter to Mass even though the girl’s mother is raising her in the Jewish faith, undoing a previous decision that barred him from taking her to any “non-Jewish religious activities.” The judge said there was no evidence exposure to other religious practices would harm the child.

In 2006, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania overturned a lower court decision that prohibited a father from sharing his Fundamentalist Mormon belief in polygamy with his minor daughter, finding that “illegality of the proposed conduct on its own is not sufficient to warrant the restriction.”

Absent a finding that discussing such matters would pose a “grave threat of harm” to a child, there is insufficient basis for the infringing on constitutionally protected right of a parent to “speak to a child about religion as he or she sees fit,” the court wrote.

And the Utah Supreme Court ruled in 1991 that living in a plural family alone was not reason enough to prohibit a couple from adopting children of one plural wife after she died of cancer. Polygamy may be prohibited, but that does not mean the state must deny any or all civil rights to polygamists, wrote Chief Justice Christine Durham.

David O. Leavitt, who is representing Kathleen Compton, said Thursday that the Utah case is “very much going to become a battle over [Joseph Compton's] right to say what he wants and the mother’s right and society’s right to protect children.”

****************

“An illegal lifestyle” » The Comptons, married nearly 27 years, built a home in Mona at the edge of Rocky Ridge in 2007 after moving to Utah from Missouri, where Compton’s scriptural studies first led him to see things “as they originally were.”

Yet, like his wife, Compton considered himself — and still does — a faithful member of the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, despite being excommunicated after his fundamentalist views were outed last summer in court proceedings.

************

In her divorce petition, Kathleen Compton, 47, said she gave her husband an ultimatum after he sought her consent last year to take a second wife: He could choose his family or the new woman and polygamy.

Compton refused to abandon his beliefs, though he has not gone ahead with that spiritual marriage, he says.

In initial proceedings, Compton represented himself. He has now hired Salt Lake Attorney Daniel Irvin, who represented polygamist John Daniel Kingston in a child welfare case.

Leavitt, who, as Juab County Attorney, prosecuted polygamist Tom Green in 2000, argued in a hearing last summer that Compton’s beliefs were “an inappropriate and illegal lifestyle” and asked Eyre to prevent him from taking the children into the “geographic boundaries” of Rocky Ridge.

Leavitt also asked that Compton be barred from leaving the children “in the custody or in the presence of anyone other than [himself] who espouses religious beliefs regarding polygamy,” according to a hearing transcript.

Leavitt said it would be inappropriate to expose the children to a felonious lifestyle. And in Rocky Ridge, “a very high percentage of that community is violating that law,” Leavitt said as he urged Eyre to draw a line around the town.

“It seems to me that we defeat every purpose if we don’t keep those children outside the geographic boundaries of a place that is a known haven for polygamy,” Leavitt said during the hearing. “We wouldn’t let a child go into a known drug house for the same reason. They’re both felonies.”

In a telephone interview, Leavitt said he has a “difficult time with the argument that something that is a felony is not going to be found inherently dangerous to children.

“You first have to come at this with the understanding that bigamy is a felony, and if you know anything about Rocky Ridge you’ll understand that it is a well-known haven for bigamists,” he said. “Polygamy is a felony and it is in the best interest of children to keep them away from that kind of conduct.”

**************

“A good father” » During the hearing, Compton told Eyre he had no intention of pressuring his children to adopt his beliefs.

“I just want to be a good father and have the opportunity to be with them and associate with them,” he said, adding that, “there is nothing to show that teaching children the importance of plural celestial marriage is damaging.”

But Eyre adopted the restrictions proposed by Leavitt, saying they were in keeping with Kathleen Compton’s desire to “maintain a certain religious background.” The judge also included a requirement that visits with the children take place at his wife’s apartment in Utah County — something Compton argued would be a hardship.

“It’s not convenient for her or me,” said Compton, who has rented the couple’s home and is living with a monogamous couple and their children in Rocky Ridge. “[My children] ask me every time how much longer before they can come stay at my house. I want my visitation in my home. ”

***********
But Leavitt said Kathleen Compton believes her husband “very much” wants to indoctrinate his children in the fundamentalist version of Mormonism, which violates the family’s religious traditions.

“This woman wants her children protected from the influence of polygamists,” he said. “We should not get hung up on what a parent’s right of expression is and forget what the children’s right to safety is.”

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
So, why do I say ‘idiot’? First, Utah has NO POLYGAMY STATUTES !!!!!!!!! Secondly, if the residents of Rocky Ridge are living in a “felonious lifestyle”, then Leavitt should get his prosecutor buddies to go in and ARREST THE FELONS. You and I both know he won’t, and they won’t. Why not? Because, even if Leavitt may not have read Lawrence v. Texas (June 2003), he knows that, since that decision, there is NO SUCH THING AS AN “illegal lifestyle”.

Sorry, but it just chaps me that he swaggers around chanting this hot-air B***S*** about people living an illegal lifestyle in an illegal place, teaching illegal ideas and raising their children in an illegal atmosphere. This was the substance of the issue in -

Musser v. Utah, 333 U.S. 95 (1948)

in that opinion see also -
Footnote 8

“But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on.”

Mr. Justice Brandeis, concurring in Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, at 274 U. S. 376.
Utah wanted to punish Joseph Musser because, at the time, polygamy was seen as illegal and a threat to “public morals”, and Musser was seen as a criminal because he taught the principle of plural marriage in a religious context. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Musser’s favor because, inter alia, he was not inciting his listeners to go out and instantly commit crimes, and he had every right to complain about what he saw to be “bad laws” in an effort to seek justifiable redress of a valid grievance.

I invite Leavitt to read Lawrence and Musser. Either way, Davey, you are an idiot!

The pretty, stupid state of Utah really makes me sick sometimes. What a charade! What a farce! If you law enforcement tyrants really truly view the ten or more thousand polygamists in this state as FELONS, then why in the Dickens don’t you put your testes where your mouth is and go and arrest them? While you’re at it, show me where in Utah statutes the words “polygamy” or “plural marriage” are found.

Otherwise, SHUT UP and go back into your pathetic little anti-Mormon hole.

Leavitt alone, Davey !!!

I spent most of my first three decades in the church by subscribing to the mantra that “the gospel is true, but the people aren’t.” What I really meant by “the gospel” is anybody’s guess. In the beginning, I’m sure I identified it closely with the prophet and the church itself. Yet, even in my believing days, the gospel was always something beyond the leaders and beyond the bricks and mortar of daily Mormon life. The gospel was transcendent, it was the thing that Joseph found in the grove — it was bigger than me and it was bigger than any of the church programs or individuals in my life.

I’ve mentioned many times that my parents were liberal, but there were other influential and open-minded adults in my life as well. The Mormon bohemia of my youth was small and possibly the tamest bohemia on record, but it still gave my mantra longer legs and gave me a lot of breathing room. It was a badge of honor in my mother’s largely true believing family to ignore lesson manuals and make the lessons more interesting and personal. My dad’s parents were McKay Mormons who went to McDonalds during Sunday School and formed close friendships with Mormon intellectuals. My best friend’s parents were both college professors whom I idealized. She was a staunch feminist, he was a medieval scholar. He cooked and stayed home while she finished her dissertation. In high school, when we came home from a punk rock show, he would be waiting up for us, lying in the middle of the living room floor listening to jazz and reading Bede.

None of the adults in my life told me about peep stones or polyandry, they never came close to saying that Joseph made it all up. However, my mother answered my questions about polygamy or the priesthood ban with the assertion that church leaders, even prophets, were people and people make mistakes. I heard time and time again how important personal revelation was and that I should always listen to myself. Consequently, a lot of things I heard at church were put through the filter of my mantra. When Sister A or Brother B said things that were bigoted, sexist or simply unkind, I believed it was the people, not the gospel. This even worked when I went to BYU. Although, it was my first real contact with orthodoxy, it was pretty easy to believe that it was just BYU, not the gospel (I still think there is some truth to that).

I’ve written before about the impact of motherhood upon my faith, but lately I’ve become conscious of another, more subtle, layer of my disaffection. It was not until I was a 25-year-old Young Women’s president in a large family ward and I was reading and teaching the lessons myself that I realized Sister A hadn’t been taking liberties while she was teaching me, she was just quoting the manual. After repeating that experience many, many times, I slowly came to realize that it was my family that was off the reservation; we were the oddballs, not Sister A and Brother B. Still, as I came to have a more realistic and nuanced picture of the church and its history, I found it fairly easy to accept the more unflattering aspects and I experienced no anger and little disappointment. After all, church leaders, even prophets, were just people and people make mistakes.

What I found more difficult to reconcile was the realization that the thing I believed in – the gospel – was not the same thing as the church and often bore little resemblance to the gospel my fellow saints seemed to believe in. I could and still do find it at church, but I find it far more often while reading or listening to music, during long walks, on my yoga mat and especially in the spaces between myself and others. I don’t think my faith has really changed as much as my understanding has evolved. I still believe in the gospel, but my context for understanding it has expanded and I realize that the gospel has many names and many guises. The gospel is the Golden Rule, the Tao, dharma, enlightenment — it is my bliss. Although my parents hoped I would find it in the church, as they have, I am still grateful that they taught me to seek it and taught me to listen to myself because as I’ve allowed myself to be open to it, I’ve found the gospel everywhere.

Butt-prints In The Sand

One night I had a wondrous dream.
One set of footprints there was seen.
The footprints of my precious Lord,
But mine were not along the shore.

And then the strangest print appeared.
I asked the Lord,” What have we here?”
This print is large and round and neat.
“But Lord, it’s much too big for feet.”

“My child,” He said in somber tones,
“For miles I carried you alone.
I challenged you to walk in faith,
But you refused and gained no strength.”

“You laid quite still. You would not grow,
This walk is not for me, you know.
So I got tired. I got fed up.
And there I dropped you on your butt.”

“Because in life, there comes a time,
When one must walk, and one must climb,
and one must rise and take a stand;
Or leave his butt-prints in the sand.”

Brett Wilcox lives in Sitka, Alaska, with his wife and their four children.  As a Licensed Professional Counselor, Brett works with Alaskan adolescents in an experiential based wilderness program. Brett suffers from the delusion that his forthcoming fantasy novel will propel him into fame, fortune, movie deals, and the White House.

Sacrament meeting is definitely NOT the best place to come out of the closet. But by the time I made the announcement, I no longer had any misgivings about my identity or how I was going to live my life. I had even come to believe that God had led me to this point and was pleased with my choices. I knew there would be repercussions for going public at church — that if I didn’t have sense enough to be filled with shame, others would take it upon themselves to heap some, along with a generous portion of righteous indignation, upon my head.

The bishop had asked me to speak on the Word of Wisdom. I sometimes struggle with assigned topics, but this one felt like pure inspiration. Feeling passionate about the subject, I easily put together a talk made up of scripture, quotations from the Brethren, anecdotes, research, and statistics. All of that set the stage for my rather shocking disclosure. “Brothers and sisters, I’d like you to know that these things are true. I’ve tested these principles in my own life, and have been blessed by doing so. That’s why I can stand at the pulpit today and use the ‘V’ word in front of you and your children. You may have heard the rumors. I’m here to confirm that I’ve become…a vegetarian.”

Feeling as if I was armed with a carrot in one hand, a banana in the other, and suited with dark, leafy greens, I had thrown down the gauntlet and challenged the nation’s and the Church’s culture of unchecked carnivorism. My challenge went unanswered during Sunday school, but I sensed a tension that hung in the air. Before priesthood meeting officially started, a devout brother announced that according to the apostle Paul, the church had been warned against celibates and vegetarians. I was an apostate. The bishop rose to my defense. Another brother, siding with the first, made his statement by storming out of the chapel.

Since that fateful day in 2003, I’ve often considered what it means to be a Mormon vegetarian. Who are we? What motivates us? Why are we sometimes viewed suspiciously from within the church? And on the flip side, why is it that, in spite of the Word of Wisdom and the benefit of numerous supporting scientific studies, the vast majority of our church family continues to eat as much or more meat than our non-member neighbors? What prevents us from seeing the disastrous consequences that often result?

What exactly is a vegetarian? There may be as many varieties as there are flavors of Mormons. The most common are: Ovo (don’t eat meat but do eat eggs), lacto (no meat but do eat dairy), lacto-ovo (both dairy and eggs are OK), pescatarian (will eat fish), raw foodist, vegan (no animal based food or other products), flexitarian (will occasionally eat some meat), or some combination of the above.

Of course, food choices are merely part of the larger belief systems for most vegetarians. Here are some subjective generalizations I’ve observed in LDS vegetarians I know. We tend to see the Word of Wisdom as a spiritual law and our living it fully as a spiritual expression of our love and appreciation to God, and gratitude that He packaged the best nutrients in a dazzling assortment of tastes, smells, shapes, colors, and textures found within the plant kingdom. And many of us prefer food in its most natural state–whole, fresh, raw, organic, locally grown, and straight from the garden whenever possible. We view our bodies as our primary stewardships — as physical and spiritual temples. Our daily food choices honor our temples. We view life as sacred but not only human life–also the lives of animals, plants, and the Earth herself. We try to treat all creatures respectfully. Some show that respect by abstaining from the taking of animal life all together. Others eat meat (and thus kill) only rarely. Most see a whole foods plant-based diet as consistent with the diet of The Garden of Eden and the one that will prevail in the Millennium. Our food choices therefore reflect our willingness to live a higher law and to prepare for a brighter future.

Although I was raised on plenty of garden fresh fruits, beans, and vegetables, my favorite meal was pressure-cooked roast beef, whipped potatoes, and gravy. As a child, I didn’t understand the central role food and drink plays in the human culture. As an adult, I have learned that my own culture is largely invisible to me until it bumps up against other cultures. For example, I discovered that in much of the world, everything grinds to a stop in the absence of a coffee grinder and percolating pot. Neither did I realize for many years how rich and fat the American (and, by extension, the Mormon) diet is compared to that of the rest of the world and how much it contributes to our collective waistlines. When I first married my wife, I told her I would still love her even after she grew fat. She was far from flattered. But from observing my church and community culture, I didn’t think there was an option. Her mother was overweight as was mine, and so were many of the women around me. I associated fat with pregnancy and motherhood.

Shortly after we married, we moved to Japan and gradually adopted the food culture of the world’s longest-living people. I learned that obesity is more a result of our food and lifestyle choices, and not so much a result of genetics or motherhood. That fact would have been much more difficult to grasp had we not lived in Japan and partaken of their culture.

Occasionally, a few of our more outspoken Japanese friends commented on the obese state of Americans. Initially, I was amused but a bit offended. However, after living among the Japanese for a few years, my wife and I returned home and upon our arrival at the Los Angeles airport, we were both shocked at the sight — enormous people virtually everywhere, some being carted about the terminals in wheelchairs and golf carts. Our friends were right. Many Americans ARE fat. At my parents’ home, I loaded a plate with my mother’s delectable roast beef, potatoes, and gravy, but my stomach rejected (in no uncertain terms) my favorite childhood meal. Now it was my mother’s turn to be anything but flattered. Our bodies had grown accustomed to our Japanese diet. We hadn’t given up meat, but it had come to play a much smaller role on our plates. One of our most memorable culinary experiences in Japan was at a mountain restaurant operated by Buddhist priests. In a serene and unrushed setting, we enjoyed their vegan offerings. I remember that meal as an almost spiritual experience. And why not? Food is God’s offering to His children. The attitude with which we partake is our offering to God.

After living in Japan for over five years, we returned to the Wasatch Front with an adopted food culture, and we followed my father’s good example by planting a garden. Many meals consisted of nothing but fresh fruits and vegetables, and we felt good for doing so. When we connected to the Internet, I discovered the book “Diet for a New America” by John Robbins who had renounced his family inheritance, running the Baskin Robbins ice cream empire, and had done so for spiritual reasons. He wrote of a stewardship and partnership with the Earth, animals, and his fellow humans. I sensed truth in his writings. Later, when I came upon an online essay entitled The Word of Wisdom: The Forgotten Verses, I was surprised, pleased, and ready to hear that many prominent church leaders had voiced opinions similar to Robbins’. Their statements provided church approval for my further shift away from meat, and I made the conscious decision to no longer partake of factory-farmed meat.

Through additional research, I become convinced that milk, the drink touted as “The Perfect Food” in my seventh grade health class, was indeed the perfect food for calves, but was far from perfect when consumed by humans. I gave it up and found myself freed from intestinal problems that had plagued me since my days at the Missionary Training Center, where I had dealt with stress by gorging myself three times a day on the standard American diet.

Giving up meat and milk set me apart both from the majority of my American associates and from the majority of my LDS brothers and sisters. But that was okay; I felt cleaner, leaner, faster, happier, and younger as a result. When I began to experience personally the benefits I’d heard so extensively reported by others, I felt compelled to share my knowledge and experience with family and friends. Surely, I thought with missionary zeal, they would want to enjoy the same benefits I had. I had limited success in my proselytizing efforts but usually only with those facing severe illness or even imminent death. Those who abandoned the lifelong food choices that had caused their health crises experienced almost miraculous improvements in as little as a month. Amazingly, their health care providers didn’t seem interested in learning about the simple dietary changes that produced such profound results. Some were incredulous. Could inexpensive garden vegetables be more effective than their pricey pills, potions, and procedures?  I’m convinced that the culture of the American medical system has blinded many of us to the healing power of plants.

Certainly, many of the benefits my friends are experiencing would qualify as the promised “hidden treasures” of The Word of Wisdom. Here’s a list of a few of the treasures I’ve discovered since adopting a more plant-based diet.

1. Our personal and collective food choices impact each other. The Earth has limited water, soil, air, trees, animals, etc. Meat production consumes, pollutes, and destroys huge amounts of the Earth’s resources. A plant-based diet is good for my fellow creations, for the Earth, and for me.

2. Life is sacred. When I consider the Great Creator, it is easy for me hear the words, “And surely, blood shall not be shed, only for meat, to save your lives; and the blood of every beast will I require at your hands.” (Joseph Smith Translation, Gen. 9:9-11.)

3. Human beings are by nature and design plant eaters. Our bodies resemble the bodies of plant-eating animals, not meat-eating animals. Eating meat is a learned behavior. Our children grow accustomed to the practice before they even know that the meat on their plates comes from dead animals.

4. According to the Word of Wisdom, God is pleased when we abstain from meat. I want to please God.

I think back to that day in sacrament meeting. The brother who accused me of being an apostate now suffers from a debilitating chronic disease — a disease that strikes less often among vegetarians and which can often be held in check by eating a whole-foods, plant-based diet. The brother who stormed out of the chapel continued to suffer from the standard diseases of affluence until he died of a heart attack. One of his close friends, an enormous man, spoke at the funeral and reminisced about the times they shared watching TV and “stacking crackers.” I sat mortified in the congregation as this man unknowingly celebrated the cause of his friend’s death.

As the years have passed, my coming out at church has become a non-issue. Ward members are accustomed to our family’s diet. I did get scolded once for teaching primary children the Word of Wisdom “too well,” but overall, we fit in just fine. And we’re not alone anymore. Some members of our current bishop’s family are vegetarian as well. Vegetarian and meat dishes are served side-by-side at church socials. Occasionally, someone will ask how we stay so thin or what exactly we eat at home, but overall our food choices don’t seem to stir any pots. In fact, coming out proved less dramatic than I’d feared.  But I wonder what will happen when I speak in sacrament meeting and announce the gift I’m offering at the next ward potluck will be offered in the raw — raw food, that is.

The following is an excerpt from Sailing Single-Handed: A Navigation Guide for Single Latter-day Saints, by Christopher P. Halloran.

Every four years, a small group of men and women gathers in the Vendée region of western France to begin a three-to-four month sailing race around the world. Each of them will make the voyage alone, single-handed, in a 60-foot-long monohull yacht.

The Vendée Globe, as this race is known, is regarded by many competitive sailors as the ultimate open-ocean sailboat race. From France, the competitors sail south along the coast of Africa, round the Cape of Good Hope, then head east through the notoriously dangerous Southern Ocean, sailing south of Australia, past Cape Horn at the tip of South America, then north again to France. The race, which the competitors must complete without any outside assistance, is a test of courage, determination, self-reliance, resourcefulness, stamina, emotional fortitude, ingenuity, patience, and endurance.

Many years ago, I worked as a deckhand on a 65-foot yacht that we sailed from Gibraltar across the Atlantic Ocean to the Caribbean. For the most part, the trip across the ocean was relatively peaceful, but there were several occasions when I witnessed the fury of nature in a way that I never had before and never have since. The middle of the ocean can be a very scary place even on a fully crewed sailboat. Being alone multiplies the intensity of the experience by orders of magnitude.

Perhaps the metaphor of the single-handed sailing race is too extreme to represent what life is like as a single Latter-day Saint. While single Saints might not yet have a spouse, the community of the Church and, often, family can offer support and emotional sustenance. Nonetheless, many of the qualities exhibited by the courageous competitors in the Vendée Globe are ones that are required of single Mormons as they navigate through life on this Earth.

While sailing single-handed may not be the safest or easiest way to cross an ocean, doing so successfully can be a source of immense satisfaction and strength. Anyone who has traveled extensively will say that, no matter how long the trip, with the perspective of hindsight it always seems like a brief moment. For those who are currently sailing alone in the middle of the ocean, there is reassurance that on the other side of a successful voyage will come the companionship that has been missing for that short period of time.

For 48 years, I was embarked on that voyage. And then, mirabile dictu, I met the woman to whom I am now happily married.

I had not, prior to that point, been a recluse. Once, in a moment of panic about my persistent bachelorhood, I made a list of all the women I have ever dated, from the time I was a teenager. It included women I only went out with once and women to whom I eventually became engaged (there were two of those before I finally got married). I wanted to understand if there was a common thread, some underlying reason why I had not been able to close the deal. What, in other words, was I doing wrong?

There were a hundred women on that list. I can’t decide whether that is a lot or not very many. It probably would sound like a lot to someone who got married when they were 23, but if you average the number over 30+ years of dating, it’s really only three per year. Either way, I was not living a monkish life, hiding from human relationships.

I dated a lot of great people, many of whom I still count as my friends. I have been invited to eight of their weddings (nine if you count my wife’s) and am friends on facebook with at least 30 of them. There are a few on the list who hate me, but by and large I have maintained cordial relationships with most.

What I’m really trying to say is that I’m not a psycho. Or at least I don’t think I am. And my wife doesn’t think I am. I’m a pretty normal person who, for one reason or another, just wasn’t able to close the deal. Which probably describes many single Latter-day Saints of a certain age.

It’s important to note that I am an active, believing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I want to be clear that I begin from a position of faith and of active participation. If there are aspects of being single in the LDS church that I have found odd or difficult, it’s not because I have issues with the Church itself.

The impetus to write a book about being single and Mormon came one night when my wife and I were at an outdoor dance performance and ran into a single friend of ours – a truly fantastic woman in her early 30s. Our friend was with three of her single friends, all of them also fabulous single LDS women in their 30s.

Because Jennifer and I had only been married a relatively short time and I had been single for so long before getting married, our friend and her friends were eager to talk about potential solutions to the vicissitudes of being a single Mormon over the age of 25.

After that conversation, I was struck by how much we can want good things, the things we’ve been told to strive for, and how confused and lost we can feel when we are doing all that we can to achieve those goals but are still not succeeding.

I learned some valuable lessons during my 30 years of single adulthood and thought it might be worthwhile to share them in the hopes of alleviating some of the fear and confusion and, perhaps, providing insights that might catalyze a relationship. I’m not a psychologist or a life coach. All I have are my experiences. My hope is that they will be of value to someone who is in the midst of the same journey I was embarked upon for so long.

With that in mind, I have made my book available as a free download, either at its associated blog site (which is still in its nascent stages) or from a public folder on Windows Live. I recognize that the human experience is a varied one, so the book is not meant to be definitive. Because it is an electronic document, it is easily modified. So, to the extent that there are others who want to chime in on this subject, I welcome commentary, which I will incorporate into future revisions.

-Christopher P. Halloran

Ok, so here is our new survey, which focuses on Mormon culture and beliefs. The triple focus of this survey is to measure faith commitment, church engagement, as well as cultural belief on a variety of topics. The survey is 60 questions in length, and so may take as long as 6 minutes to complete. Some of the questions, due to their connection with obscure doctrine, may seem offensive to you. If this is the case, we apologize in advance.

Our goal is to get 5000 responses to this survey, and we will attempt to share this survey via Facebook, this blog, and email invitations. As soon as we feel the responses are no longer coming in, we will prepare our findings and publish them.

To invite friends to take the survey, just pass them this link via whichever method you prefer:

http://www.surveygizmo.com/s/271583/lds-survey

Thanks for your participation and support.

I’ve been kicking this post around in my mind for a while now so it came as no surprise when I found a Gallop Poll article entitled “Mormons Most Conservative Major Religious Group in U.S.” A whopping 59% of active Mormons consider themselves conservative; another 31% moderate, and only 8% liberal. In addition, 16% of active Mormons consider themselves “very” conservative, compared with only 1% as “very” liberal.

What surprised and saddened me even more than this disproportionate political bias was not that a majority of Mormons (inside and outside Utah) are conservative, but that 61% percent of “lapsed Mormons” (those who self-identify with Mormonism but seldom attend church meetings) consider themselves liberal or moderate; liberal “lapsed Mormons” are 20% alone. So that means, that 6 out of every ten people who do not regularly attend church, yet maintain ties, do not identify with the Republican Party or the conservative movement. These statistics do not count the thousands of people who have left the church permanently or no longer identify themselves with Mormonism due to feeling isolated, alienated or estranged by the politically conservative majority.

Following are a few personal experiences and ideas about how liberal and radical Mormons can begin to turn the tide on this state of affairs and make the church a safe space for those of us who do not self-identify as conservative or Republican.

First and foremost, those of us with radical or liberal worldviews (I myself most closely identify with libertarian socialism), must not be afraid to speak up, put forth and defend radical and liberal interpretation of the Gospel in our meetings, and actively challenge interpretations that we disagree with. Could it be that the growth of the Mormon “Bloggernacle” in recent years has been a result of those of us too afraid or timid to speak up in Sunday School, Relief Society or Priesthood? Now, for some of us speaking up in church may sound like a daunting task, and indeed depending on who is teaching it can be; there is very seldom much time, and sometimes the topics come with a lot of cultural and historical baggage. Perhaps many of us have not spoken up during church because we fear that it will create contention or that we will be looked down upon. Although I am not exempt from biting my tongue in church, or letting a Republican talking point pass for a Gospel principle, I am almost always pleasantly surprised when I do choose to speak my mind during church meetings.

For example, during the Proposition 8 debate in California I was visiting my hometown in Southern California. I attended church. It happened to be testimony meeting and member after member was getting up to praise the wisdom of the proposition and expound the threats that its failure would present to the Church and the family. As I sat taking this in, my pulse quickened, my heart raced, and before I knew it I was in front of my childhood ward (including the area authority) denouncing the Proposition. I spoke from the heart, and as my voice shook, I declared that as a Christian my primary responsibility was to the Sermon on the Mount and that I believed it to be bad politics to get involved in a civil rights issue which would inevitably put us on the wrong side of justice (again). When the meeting was over, I was mobbed by old friends, scout leaders, Priests’ Quorum advisors, and new members. Many agreed with me, some thought I was crazy, some strongly disagreed with me; but they all expressed loved for me and wanted to thank me for expressing my heartfelt convictions. One woman, who stayed at a distance until all the others were gone, came and with tears in her eyes thanked me. She was a new member, and her son is gay. She had been feeling so alone and conflicted about the church’s involvement in this issue. We talked, hugged, and she left with a smile. On that day I had spoken my mind on a very controversial topic and although many members did not agree with my interpretation of the Gospel, I left the meeting feeling fulfilled and part of a community that loved me.

This is the climate that I know can exist in wards all over the world, but that many of us are afraid to bring about. I tell this story because I strongly believe that there is a place both in the Gospel and the Church for radicals and liberals. We can still be of one heart and one mind while disagreeing on the particulars of interpretation and application of Gospel principles.

Another personal experience: During Sunday School here in New Haven, Connecticut where I currently attend church, we were on the topic of helping the poor. This was a few weeks before President Monson decided to include helping the poor and needy in the now four-fold Church mission. A woman visiting the ward said that she and her husband had worked with homeless people and believed that it was wrong to give them anything because this deprived them of the opportunity to pull themselves up by their boot straps and take personal responsibility for their own bad choices; and besides, any money given to homeless people would inevitably be spent on booze anyway, so why support their immoral habits? Now, I personally have tremendous respect for the appeal to personal responsibility that many of my Republican and conservative friends make when discussing issues of social justice and poverty. However, this sister did not understand what the scriptures plainly teach concerning those who would seek our aid. So, in a calm fashion I raised my hand, and began reading the words of King Benjamin in Mosiah 4.

“17 Perhaps thou shalt say; The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God. 19 For behold, are we not all beggars?…”

King Benjamin here is uttering a strong condemnation of those of us who would refuse to give of our substance to the poor. However, the sister articulated a very common view in our society that poor people are poor because of bad choices. However, the radical Christ calls us to repentance. If someone asks of us, we must give; even if we can smell the alcohol on their breath. But this is not all. As Joseph Smith makes clear, we are to be actively engaged in a good cause (D & C 58:27), and working toward a society where there are no poor among us (Moses 7:18). Meaning, we are not just to give a regular fast offering, or a couple bucks to the guy outside the supermarket, but actively working toward a society where the structural and root causes of poverty are eliminated. We disagree on the appropriate institutional scale of implementing such a task in society, but nevertheless we are incontrovertible called to the task. The Sermon on the Mount, 3 Nephi, King Benjamin, the D & C, indeed the entire Book of Mormon all contain radical critiques of social inequality, seeking wealth for wealth’s sake and contain numerous admonitions to radical Christ-like love and economic cooperation. Sorry, Brother Beck, but social justice is the essence of the Gospel, and the fact that someone like Glenn Beck can read the same scriptures as me and not see that is appalling.

One might ask if I would simply flip the Gallop Poll statistic for a 60% liberal slant. My simple answer is no; what I really want is to see a healthy proportion of all political and social viewpoints; one that doesn’t automatically exclude social justice, preemptive war, the environment, or helping the poor as Gospel topics because they are too “political” while piously rallying the troops around “moral” issues such as prayer in school, abortion or gay marriage. That is a double standard that is only possible because of a overwhelming politically conservative bias by Church members and hence church programs. I am calling for this because it is in the tension between ideas that truth is found; as Lehi says to Jacob: “For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things, for if it were not so…righteousness could not be brought to pass” (2 Nephi 2:11). A diverse and healthy representation of political and social interpretations of the Gospel will lead us closer to true principles than close-minded political or religious dogmatism.

Brothers and sisters, do not allow conservative politics to pass as neutral theology, it is dishonest at best, and destructive at worst. It is driving good people out of the church and becomes a positive feedback loop: the more conservative the church culture becomes, the less tolerable it is for liberals and radicals. So, to all of you Beck-ites out there, this is our church too and we are not leaving.

Here are a few ideas for shifting Mormon culture:

• Participate in Mormon May Day on May 1-2. See www.mormonmayday.org for more details in the coming days

• If you haven’t already, read Approaching Zion by Mormon scholar Hugh Nibley

• Then, give Approaching Zion as a gift to at least one person this year

• Begin to compile a list of your favorite scriptures on social, environmental, and political topics

• Start a discussion group

• Set a personal goal to make at least one comment in your church classes

• Invite a less active radical or liberal member to your house for dinner to see if you share similar views

• Visit www.themormonworker.org for a radical approach to Mormon theology and consider subscribing

[poll id="144"]

Discuss.