Social Networks Are How Humanity Works

As a community, the church is like all other social networks; there are people you like, people you dismiss, people you trust, people who irritate you, and so forth.  Ideas pass from person to person, both good ideas (healthy habits, positive attitudes) and bad ideas (unhealthy habits, negative attitudes).  The benefits of belonging have a lot to do with the people who surround you.  If the social contacts are beneficial, membership is valuable.  If the social contacts are not beneficial, membership can be detrimental (this is one reason prisons are bad social networks if we hope to rehabilitate criminals).

Dirty Little Secret:  Not every social network is beneficial to every person.

Rule #1:  Recognize that it’s a social network.  Choose to be in it.

Weak vs. Strong Connections

Social networks include strong connections (in Facebook, your “friends”) and weak connections (“your friends’ friends” and their friends).  Strong connections create your social norms – they tend to be most influential on your idealogies, views and habits.  But weak connections are also valuable – it’s how we typically meet our spouses or find a new job.  Also, as information flows through our social network (via influential people), we can become susceptible to ideas and habits that originated through weak connections.

Dirty Little Secret:  People often take a passive stance with their relationships.  They may not scrutinize the sources of information (norms) that come to them.  Or they may not make good choices about strong vs. weak connections.

Rule #2:  Choose your strong relationships carefully (and be mindful of the influences of their strong relationships), and use your weak relationships to add to your network.

How Ideas Pass Through a Social Network – Why God has ”Hand”

According to the book, you accept new ideas from people in your network that you admire, people you view as successful or educated.  The people who are influential to you are the ones you consider your closest “friends.”  The people you influence are the ones who view you as their closest “friends.”  Influence flows through social networks, from those perceived to be successful, educated, or wise to those who aspire to be like them.

In an episode of Seinfeld, George laments that he doesn’t have “hand” in the relationship with his girlfriend.  The one with “hand” is the one who is more influential on the other; the one without “hand” is the one who hopes to gain most from the association.  The one with “hand” has all the power and can take the relationship or leave it.

This is like the hierarchy of intelligences described by Joseph Smith in Abraham 3:19 -

• when “there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.“  So, influence flows from the most intelligent to less intelligent spirits.

So God has the potential for the most influence among all intelligences.  But if you don’t know God, you just have to deal with the smartest mortal people you can find, be they authors, spouses, family members, prophets, talk show hosts or drinking buddies.

Dirty Little Secret:  People sometimes think friendships are equal or that advice from friends is all good since they have your interests at heart.  It’s not all good.

Rule #3:  Understand and define your position in your social network and in your relationships (who has “hand” with you; with whom do you have “hand”?).  IOW, don’t take advice from stupid people or from people who are taking advice from stupid people.

Social Epidemics

Ideas move from person to person through a social network.  These might be useful, productive ideas (“smoking is bad for you,”) or bad, unproductive or unhealthy ideas (“fried food dipped in lard is delicious”).  Likewise, within the church, various doctrinal interpretations operate like social epidemics.  An interpretation is introduced by someone, and that idea spreads if people view it as 1) credible on its own merits, 2) coming from a reliable source, and 3) not contradicted by a better sourced, more convincing argument.   BTW, rejecting bad ideas increases your influence over time as does embracing good ideas.  Look at what has happened to smoker populations over the last 30 years for an example of this.

Dirty Little Secret:  You are always vulnerable to the ideas and social norms of your network, especially if you are unaware that you are.

Rule #4:  Pay attention to how ideas flow in your network; accept the best ideas from the best sources.

Four Types of People in Communities

There are four different personalities that emerge in all societies: collaborators, freeloaders, punishers and loners.  This pattern recurs whenever societies form:

1. Individual loners live in relative isolation or small family groups.
2. Individuals learn that they can achieve more in collaboration.
3. Some individuals in the system (free-loaders) decide they can reap the rewards of the group without participating.
4. Some individuals resent the freeloaders and self-designate as punishers to control the behaviors that are counterproductive to the society’s greater good (at least in their view).

What might these types look like in a church setting?

• Loners.  These folks don’t really participate or interact much, so they are socially neutral.  They may be peripherally associated with the ward (Jack Mormons) or they may attend regularly.  They are more like visitors than members; they give nothing to and take nothing from the organization.
• Collaborators are the “norm” or the “majority.”  These are your average people who try to help others, accept help from them, and wish the community well as an insider.  They both give to and take from the organization.
• Freeloaders may be perpetual takers but not givers.  This could be in the form of taking things like church welfare, member contributions of time to the organization, individual service from others, or spiritual edification without putting equal or greater amounts of the same (service, money, ideas, spirituality) back into the community over time.
• Punishers  are out to define and protect the boundaries of the organization.  They want to say who is in and who is out.  If they are influential, they can convince others to “unfriend” you or to “friend” you.   They want to punish and get rid of the free-loaders.
  • Sometimes they go too far and start to “punish” those who aren’t free-loaders overall, but who are going through a rough period in which they need more than they can contribute.
  • They may also target loners if they mis-assess them as free-loaders due to their low contribution.

Dirty Little Secret:  We need punishers like we need antibodies.  But antibodies unchecked lead to excessive allergies, rejecting things that are not harmful or even that are good.

Rule #5:  Give as much or more than you get.  Don’t freeload.  Ignore punishers if you can, and stay the heck off their radar.  If you get there somehow, make it clear you are not a freeloader.

Can You “Friend” God?

The book posits that “friending” God is actually an effective way to create a broader social network because suddenly all of humanity is the friend of a friend (other believers) or the friend of a friend of a friend (anyone who knows another believer).  It all depends on who you consider to be “God’s friends,” which varies.  Some Christians would say all Christians are “God’s friends,” (although many exclude the types of Christians they don’t like such as Mormons).  IOW, belonging to a religion (friending God) does increase your social network instantly and substantially, and to some extent, you can define how it does that.

Dirty Little Secret:  God may not be a respecter of persons, but religious cultures are, and so is your social network.

Rule #6:  To maximize your religious social network, you have to friend God.  This can be as simple as viewing everyone as connected and being filled with love toward all humanity.

Friending God puts you in a theoretical sibling relationship with all of humanity.  In reality, the connections created are mostly “weak” ones (not direct friends), but they do carry the social benefits of weak connections:  links to 1) prospective spouses, 2) job opportunities, and 3) new ideas (good and bad) that pass through chains of influence to you.

Likewise, ”unfriending God” has some of the immediate disadvantages – you suddenly erase your weak connections, isolating yourself from those benefits of the community.  Similarly, a relationship with God is like a relationship with anyone else, except that it’s even more one-sided and subject to personal interpretation (although all relationships are like this to an extent).

Unfortunately, marriages sometimes fail when people mistake a weak connection (through their mutual “friend” God) for a strong connection.  Strong connections take personal investment and time to develop.

Dirty Little Secret:  Strong connections require admiration and influence.  And in a marriage, it has to be a two-way street.

Rule #7:  Bear in mind the difference between a strong tie to God (if you even have that) and a weak tie through God to another person.  Building strong ties takes work.  Marriages require strong ties with influence in both directions (not too much “hand” on one side or the other).

Are any of these tips helpful to you?  Do you disagree with any?  How does the church work for you as a social network?  Do these models help?  Discuss.

On the one hand, we teach that God is omniscient, all knowing, the smartest of the smart, prognosticator of prognosticators, etc.  OTOH, we teach the doctrine of eternal progression:  that as man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become.  We also teach that eternal progression is part of God’s plan for us, and that we are to learn and grow “line upon line, precept upon precept.”

Since “the glory of God is intelligence” (D&C 93:36) and “intelligence or the light of truth was not created nor made nor indeed can be” (D&C 93:29) and when “there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all” (Abraham 3:19) – does that mean that there are hierarchies of Gods based on intelligence or the “light of truth”?  Is intelligence something that we can’t increase?  Does that mean that eternal progression is not increasing our intelligence?

  So, what does eternal progression mean?

• Does it mean that we continue to make mistakes and learn from them?  Are we allowed to make mistakes after we die?  Does God still make mistakes?  Does he have some discarded practice earths floating around out there?  (Maybe that’s what happened to Pluto)
• Does access to knowledge constitute eternal progression (e.g. celestial Wikipedia, when the earth becomes a Urim & Thummim)?
• Does God explore strange new worlds (presumably created by other Gods), seek out new civilizations and boldly go?
• How does God become like His Father?  Is that just getting old, but no additional skills are required, kind of like going from CEO to being on the board of directors?
• Is there a God threshold?  At which point do we say “Now THAT’s Godhood.  Yesterday, that was pre-Godhood, but today you’ve arrived”?  Is that when one has atoned?  If so, are there enough atonements to go around or are there lower level God positions for those who aren’t going to go that far?
• Can stupid people become Gods?  Wouldn’t stupid Gods have stupid spiritual kids?  Do different planets have different intelligences?  What if we ARE the stupid ones?
• Wouldn’t it be boring as all get out if you were a God and there was nothing new to learn or experience?  Is God in a constant state of ennui?  Isn’t that why the Greek gods were always chasing tail and creating havoc – boredom + power?
• Isn’t lack of progress the Mormon definition of hell?  If God doesn’t progress, doesn’t that = hell?  That can’t be right.

So, take a moment to consider what your opinion is and answer the following poll:

Discuss.

• self-discipline (especially those Opus Dei guys)
• organization (even OCD one might say)
• consistency (predictable?)
• get more done (overachievers!)
• deeply committed athletes (who don’t take steroids) may be abstainers.  (They write a book or sell a bunch of cheesy rubber bracelets, and we eat that stuff up with a spoon!)

But indulgers don’t exactly have great things to say about abstainers either.  When’s the last time that the self-disciplined, church-going white-collar guy with the tidy apartment and even tidier life got the girl in a Rom-Com?  No, it’s always the laid back, blue-collar bar owner with a heart of gold and a huge slobbery dog – right?  Indulgers also have some admirable traits:

• tend to be more open-minded (hence Scientology)
• less stressed out (perhaps it’s the marijuana brownies)
• have more fun (play now, pay later)
• life is an adventure; exploration is valued (no holds barred!)
• tend to be more artistic & individualistic (wacky even)
• have more empathy (been there, done that)

Denominational churches are typically set up to reward abstainers; abstainers are highly committed to the church’s rules and regulations and they often end up running the place.  And abstainers often view indulgers as “weak” and self-serving, unable to live to the high standards they themselves embrace.  Indulgers are often turned off by the rigid environment in churches, which further reinforces the disdain of the abstainers.

So, where do you fit?

Discuss.

• Growing out “forelocks” as Hasidic Jews do.
• Eschewing technology as the Amish do.
• 7th Day Adventists considering Saturday as the Sabbath.
• Celibacy among priests and nuns of the Catholic faith.
• Jews not eating shellfish or pork.
• Muslim women wearing the hajib or burka.
• Scientology – where do I start? (not technically a religion, but you get the point)

It’s easy to distinguish the “bizarre” from the “true” when considering other faiths because we tend to think that the things we have in common are “true” but the ones we don’t are “bizarre” and can be dismissed.  The same holds true when Mormonism is viewed from someone on the outside, unfamiliar with our practices.  Consider how the following things look to outsiders:  Word of Wisdom, garments, fasting monthly, paying 10% in tithing, the temple, not seeing R-rated movies, polygamy, and Sabbath day observance.  Which  of these are “true” and which are “bizarre”?

Generally, a practice is justified using one of the following means:

• There is an underlying principle that drives the practice. This can be tricky, though, and different people may accept different underlying principles.  Consider the following possible justifications for the Word of Wisdom:
  • A health code.  Tobacco has been shown to be unhealthy, so one could say that the Word of Wisdom is a health code.  However, alcohol, tea and coffee have not been shown to be unhealthy (users of these substances don’t have significantly shorter life spans, for example), so it could be difficult to convince outsiders that this is a “true” principle on the grounds of being a heavenly health code.  Also, the WoW does not outlaw some more clearcut unhealthy practices like eating too much fatty fried foods.
  • Addiction Avoidance.  The principle could be that there should be moderation in all things and because some people become addicted to these substances, this is how to preserve one’s ability to choose.  But because this is not true of all people, it’s kind of a shotgun principle that results in abstinence for all that only benefits a few.
  • Spiritual enlightenment.  As RSR pointed out, JS’s view of the WoW was that it would foster spiritual enlightenment.  Of course, since it was not widely adopted until much later, this calls the practice into question.
• Secret or revealed knowledge.  One justification for unique practices is that it’s touted as “secret” or “restored” or “revealed” knowledge.  The “we don’t know” defense might fall into this category if the assumption is that the practice was revealed, but God’s ways are too mysterious for our limited human understanding.  In the latter case, the “defense” of the practice is really just an assertion and may sound illogical to outsiders not prone to believe in revelation.
• Symbolic meaning.  Some justifications for unique practices are that they have a symbolic meaning intended to teach adherents through allegory.  Sometimes this is used in conjunction with a “revelation” defense to bolster a difficult to explain justification.  While no one would dispute that circumcision has a “symbolic” purpose, early adult convert Christians were naturally reluctant to adopt this Jewish symbolic practice, which created a big division in the early Christian church.
• Proof.  There is generally an underlying assumption that the unique element is ultimately “provable,” or at least so adherents believe.  IOW, adherents would believe that ultimately the “truth” of the practice will be revealed, either in this life (born out by science, for example) or the one to come (when God says, “Yep, that was my idea!”).

OTOH, a practice might also serve a purpose to create sociological benefit by defining the community or making “a peculiar people.”  If these elements are more “bizarre” or unique to create boundaries between groups and not necessarily based in truth, they may exist primarily for sociological reasons:

• To identify who is in and who is out of the group.
• To control the weak members of the organization and keep them in line.  This makes the group more easily identifiable for admirable traits and aids missionary efforts.
• To discourage intermarriage outside the group.
• To provide an Abrahamic test of faith to new adherents and to foster loyalty through arbitrary requirements.

The tricky thing is that it’s not always cut & dried whether a unique practice is based in truth or is just there to reinforce group boundaries.  Here are some possible classifications for unique practices.

1. Justifiable / truth-based.  There is a clear, easily explained justification for the practice that is based in true, verifiable events.
   • Rule of thumb:  If you explain the practice, you find your logic convincing.
2. Partially justifiable / principle-linked.  There is a justification or a link to a principle that can be used to explain the practice, but it is not self-evident and probably sounds a little weird to outsiders.  Others might consider the justification unconvincing or weak.
   • Ergo:  You find the logic of the practice partly convincing, but partly weak.  You have to make up what is lacking in logic in faith or suspension of disbelief or only accept the practice partially.
3. Bizarre / unjustifiable / faith-based.  There’s really no justification or explanation that makes any kind of logical sense to non-adherents or non-believers.  Trying to explain the practice leaves one tongue-tied and feeling a bit silly.

• IOW:  You neither have a convincing explanation for the practice, nor do you buy the ones you’ve heard.  You may suspect the practice primarily exists for sociological reasons, to make us a “peculiar” people.

Of course the other difficulty is that someone may have what they feel is a good explanation for a practice, but another adherent may not buy it or believe it or may find it weak, so there’s a good deal of subjectivity.  And subjectivity means it’s a perfect time for a poll!  For each of the below unique Mormon practices, please choose whether you think it is True, Partially Justifiable or merely Bizarre.  Be honest!  (I apologize in advance if my descriptions of what might constitute a true, partially justifiable or bizarre reason don’t work for you individually – as I said, lots of subjectivity involved here!)

So, what do you think are some of the difficult to justify practices, from your perspective?  Are there some I didn’t include here?  Do you see value in this kind of boundary definition or do you think all religious practices should have logical justification or be discarded?  Does your lack of justification for an individual practice make you less committed to the practice?  Does it impact your religious devotion overall?  Were you surprised by some of your answers?  Discuss.

First, let’s differentiate between “bad” or ineffective behaviors that are commonly described and good or acceptable behaviors:

Bad behaviors or responses:

• Encouraging faithful spouses to leave apostate spouses, even when there has been no infidelity or abuse.
• Controlling behaviors.  Threats, ultimatums, and coercive actions to try to force someone back into the church.
• Being manipulative or intrusive.  This could include “love bombing” or trying to smother someone back into the church.  This can also entail crossing personal boundaries, going behind someone’s back, conspiring with local leaders, etc.
• Emotional outbursts.  Tears and tantrums designed to cast the person leaving as someone who is victimizing the parent, spouse, relative or friend through their departure from the church.
• Assuming that the departing person has committed a grave sin or simply wants to live a lifestyle free from the restrictive standards.
• Judgmental comments and other rejecting behaviors; making it clear that love is conditional on one’s being Mormon.

Good behaviors or responses:

• Listening with an open mind.
• Loving unconditionally, regardless of level of belief.  Making it clear that the person is loved as much as before.
• Sharing one’s own personal doubts that demonstrate acceptance of the person’s struggle and empathy.

Clearly, it’s easy for someone leaving the church to see these “bad behaviors” as being another flaw of the organization they have chosen to leave.  Given that there is so much variety in experience, it seems that there are three things at play:  the family’s traits, the departing individual’s traits, and to a lesser extent, the organizational culture.

Clearly, some of the drama can occur because of how the departing person handles it.  Even absent “bad behaviors” on their part (e.g. yelling, blaming, etc.) there is still some inherent tension whenever someone leaves:

• Rejection.  When someone leaves the church, they are rejecting something that those family members still embrace.  The reaction is the same whenever you choose to leave an organization or you change your views – you now have one less thing in common, and that’s got to have some impact.  If you like Mac computers, but your spouse is into PCs, that is an area of contention that will result in two separate laptops in  your household.
• Family traits. Family members often share common traits when it comes to dealing with conflict and even how they view their religion.  IOW, when a person who is leaving the church sees their family’s way of being church members, they may recognize that those are the same behaviors they had as church members and now find those traits irritating.  Criticizing your family is often criticizing yourself.
• Definition of “bad behaviors.” Some departing individuals may be too sensitive or have too high expectations for the reception their announcement will receive.  It’s probably best for both sides to cut each other more slack.  For example, some of the above “bad behaviors” clearly have some good intentions behind them.  They are just ineffective and can be offensive or lacking in empathy.  But perhaps they are the best way some people know how to respond.

So, what behaviors can be traced to the church as an organization?

• Leader counsel. There is mixed counsel from leaders when it comes to how to address family members of different faith levels.  Most recent counsel is geared toward inclusion (E. Wirthlin and E. Cook’s recent talks are good examples of this), but some counsel seems a bit more conditional, focusing on not encouraging sin through acceptance of behavior outside the standards (E. Oaks‘ recent GC talk).  Given that the counsel is mixed, I personally see this as further evidence that parents and family members hear what they want to hear and behave the way they are predisposed to behave, feeling justified based on reinforcement from leaders, even though different leaders have approached this issue different ways.
• Culture.  Do members typically reject those who have left the church, or do they seek to understand and continue to love them even though they no longer share a faith?  My experience has been very low drama and accepting, both in my own family and in the wards I have been in.  Perhaps that is not typical of other wards or areas of the church as evidenced by these stories.  What are your experiences?
• Eternal Family Doctrine.  This just ups the ante.  We do view our family units as eternal, so actions of family members have some sort of significance on each other.  Because there is lack of clarity what exactly will happen after this life, family members often fear the worst and “freak out” when someone leaves the church.  Personally, I think this one is just fear overcoming one’s better judgment.

Why does the organization often get blamed for things that are family traits?

• Too close to home.  It’s a little easier to blame the church (one more step removed from yourself than your family is).  After all, you have chosen to leave the church, but even if you wanted to, you can’t really leave your family.
• Bigger target.  Organizations are easy scapegoats because they are larger than what we can control; whether it’s your company, the government, or a retail chain, it’s easy to personify an organization and imbue it with the personality traits of a few of its representatives, employees or members.  Especially if you decide that you dislike that organization.
• Defensiveness.  When family members come out in defense of the church, those who have rejected the church may feel that the family member has chosen the church over them.

So, what do you think?  What bad behaviors have you seen from the faithful when someone leaves the church?  Is that typical or not?  Does the church foster good or bad behaviors with regard to apostate family members?  Are individuals more accountable for those behaviors or is the church?  Discuss.

Not sure a Kindle is right for you?  Well, I’m not sure either.  Here are some pros & cons to consider:

• Books are cheaper, especially classics which are nearly free (no copyrights to deal with – I got the complete William Shakespeare for 99 cents!).  Most contemporary titles are $9.99 vs. the usual list price of $12.99 – 17.99.
• You can store ~1500 books in one lightweight device
• It’s very lightweight, a vast improvement over taking actual books with me on my travels.
• The screen is easy to read and navigation is pretty simple.
• I get less eye strain than with my Blackberry:  the screen is not backlit, so it’s not like a computer screen.  You have to use a reading or book light if you need to light it up, as with a book.  You can change the size of the text to make it bigger or smaller.
• You can wirelessly browse and buy new books (via Amazon) whenever you want from the device.
• You can upload pdfs directly into the device for easy viewing while you are traveling.
• You can bookmark, highlight passages and make notes as you go right within the text of the book.
• You can download the first chapter of just about anything in the Amazon Kindle store to see if you want to buy it.  The sample chapter saves on your device until you delete.
• In addition to books, you can get newspapers, magazines and blogs like Mormon Matters.  The content is there, although the interactivity is generally not available (e.g. commenting) as it is with online content.

On the downside:

• The device is expensive – over $250, so you should be an avid reader to make it worth your while.
• Not all books are available – none of the Harry Potters are, for example, but there were 60+ screens of LDS titles.  There are many many titles available.  You can check the Kindle store on Amazon.com to see if a book you are interested is available.
• Different books have different navigation abilities – some are better put together than others.
• I have an unused $50 GC to Barnes & Noble.  Maybe I can use it to buy books for other people.  
• I think it might be easy to steal the device and re-register it.  Not that I’m recommending that.  Of course, how many Kindle thiefs are really out there?  Bookish con artists – maybe Sawyer from Lost.  He reads a lot.
• You can’t turn it on during takeoff or landing on flights (because it’s an electronic device).  So I guess you’re stuck reading the SkyMall catalog or chatting up your neighbor.

If you are a techy or bookworm, you may already have one.   If so, what’s your assessment?  If not, is there a Kindle in your future?  Discuss.

Let’s first tackle the implications of the different things we might follow:

• The Prophet. Even toddlers are taught the song “Follow the Prophet,” not a personal favorite either musically (it’s the ”100 Bottles of Beer on the Wall” of the Primary songbook) or lyrically (the line “if you don’t believe me / go and watch the news” sounds like something Archie Bunker or Sean Hannity should be saying acerbically, not tiny tots singing sweetly).  Frankly, listening to an angelic chorus of youngsters sing this song makes Mormons sound creepy and cult-like.  I’d totally sign a petition to kill this song.  However, there’s no doubt that Mormons are taught to follow the Prophet, the living head of the church who is responsible to define the gospel for Mormons globally during his tenure (which only ends when God “releases” him / he dies).
• The Brethren.  This is similar to the Prophet, but generally includes all modern-day apostles, both living & dead, but all white (with an emphasis on the living ones).  Some would expand that beyond the apostles to include other high level leaders such as the 70, and possibly even the unseen correlation committee.
• Christ. Obviously, the purpose of the church is to come unto Christ.  Of course, this implies that WWJD covers all the scenarios you encounter, and that you feel confident in your interpretation of WWJD.  Of course many who wear a WWJD tee shirt are doing all kinds of things I don’t personally think J would D.  So, there is some interpretation here.  Are you really following Christ, your interpretation of him, your best version of yourself, or what others have told you?
• The Gospel.  Because there are many ways to interpret some aspects of the gospel for specific situations, this would usually mean the gospel “as you understand / interpret it.”  You might base your interpretation on some favorite scriptures, teachings of leaders, personal experiences, etc.  But your basis and understanding may differ from others’ in some particulars.  For cafeteria Mormons (and there really are no other kinds), it’s whatever is on your tray.
• The Spirit.  In Mormonism, this can mean different things to different people, but it generally means that when you need to know what to do, you seek personal spiritual guidance through whatever means have worked for you in the past:  prayer, thinking about it, dreams, reading scriptures or other inspirational materials, etc.  The more superstitious folks might use means like “Bible dips” (opening the scriptures to a passage and then using that to determine their course of action).
• The dictates of your own conscience.  This can mean using your own personal life experiences, wisdom, opinions, and preferences to determine your course of action.

A few times in leadership trainings, I have done what is called a Rokeach Value Survey.  In this exercise, you are presented with various values or life goals, most of which are probably desirable to you, and you have to rank order them.  This is done by comparing two of them and asking “If I could have A but not B, would I prefer that or to have B but not A.”  Basically, through this “false dichotomy” exercise, you determine which is your most dearly held value.  (Values considered are things like:  freedom, human love, a comfortable life, health, etc.)  Consider these types of dichotomies for yourself personally as you answer the poll.

• What if something a current Prophet says differs from something the Brethren have said?  Do you assume the prophet has more authority and is more timely than the other statement?  Does how you feel about what is being said (the dictates of your own conscience) change your feeling?
• What if a spiritual prompting differs from the dictates of your own conscience?  Would you take a leap and follow the spiritual prompting or would you assume it was indigestion?
• What if something the Brethren say differs from your interpretation of the Gospel?  Do you (generally) assume they know better and get on board?  Or do you assume they are mistaken and that your view is correct?

I’d like each of you to consider the following possibilities using this same methodology to choose the most important one to you personally.

Were you surprised by your results?  Do you object to false dichotomies on principle?  If so, get over it!  Discuss.

My husband can do all the voices, but even without the voices, these are pretty spot on for style!

Top 10 Ways General Authorities eat Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup

10. Paul H. Dunn: “I remember back in WWII that I ate a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup. Back then, they were big enough to live on for a week. Being the only soldier to have survived the battle in my brigade, I really didn’t know if I could eat it or not, but I remember my fallen buddy’s words as he died in my arms: “Paul, if you just take one bite at a time you can tackle anything.” So I took that giant cup and, breaking it with the bat Babe Ruth gave me after I struck him out with two outs in the bottom of the ninth in the seventh game of the World Series, proceeded to wolf down the tiny morsels.”

9. David B. Haight: “Imagine 70 years ago on a rough road between Idaho and Logan. There were no Circle K’s, no 7-11’s. You had to bring your Peanut Butter Cups with you. Ruby and I split one for the first time in 1937.

8. Dallin H. Oaks: “The Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup challenges us to consume. From the beginning there have been three steps in eating a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup. First, remove the wrapper. This is best done quickly, by turning the cup over, grasping the outer fold and pulling away from the bottom, Second . . .

7. Joseph B. Wirthlin: “When I was young I would sprint to the corner store, buy a Reese’s and run my hand through my hair before taking it down in one bite. These days I don’t sprint (pause), and I have no hair (pause), but the Peanut Butter Cup remains.”

6. Richard G. Scott: “If you have not eaten a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup, I plead with you. Eat one now. Enjoy the chocolate, the peanut butter. Do not delay. If you have thought, “That’s not for me”, I plead with you to reconsider. Of all foods I treasure, this one was the first.”

5. M. Russell Ballard: “The time has come when members of the church need to reach out to our friends and share a cup, a Peanut Butter Cup. It is not enough to raise a chocolate bar, it must now have peanut butter.”

4. Thomas S. Monson: “I remember I ate my first Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup when I was a tender lad of eight. My mother came up to me, and with a loving twinkle in her eye, asked, ‘Tommy, are you eating a Reese’s?’ And I would invariably smile up to her, ‘Yes, Yes, I am.’  ‘But Tommy, did you know that Sister Jensen next door hasn’t eaten a Reese’s Cup in years?’ My young mind thought upon the plight of my neighbor. Tears were shed. Hearts were gladdened. A cup was shared.”

3. Boyd K. Packer: “In all my years, I have always eaten my Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups the same way – the established way we have been instructed to eat them. There is a far greater evil in this world, though – those who believe they can eat their cups in a way unconventional to the time-honored manner. We must be true and faithful and eat our Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups in the customary and recognized approach as it has been established.”

2. Neal A. Maxwell: “I intentionally initiate the delicious design of deglutition of the Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup by nibbling a negligible nit of the culinary creamy cavalcade. It is exclusively through small entities that the great things are fabricated.”

1. J. Golden Kimball: “H#%ll, Heber, I’ll eat a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup any d%$*&d way I want!”

A recent article on cnn.com talked about the gaps in teen knowledge about sex, and their dangerous sexual practices as a result of their ignorance.  The article attributed this lack of knowledge and misinformation to a recent focus on abstinence in education rather than teaching about contraception.  Some of the misconceptions they found:

• 27% of women and 34% of men reported a belief that contraception would cause cancer (or other life-threatening side effects); as a result, many avoided using contraception
• 63% stated they knew nothing about oral contraceptives (“the pill”)
• 30% had little knowledge of condoms, including not knowing how to use one; 28% of men believed using two condoms provided extra protection (when in reality this “princess and the pea” approach causes breakage)
• 18% of men believed that vertical sex reduced the likelihood of pregnancy
• 40% of respondents fatalistically believed that contraception was irrelevant, that people get pregnant “when it’s their time” (I assume that means just those who are sexually active.  What if it’s “your time,” but you aren’t having sex?)
• 32% believed that the government encourages birth control to limit minority populations.  (I wonder how much of this group also believes the moon launch was faked.)
• nearly half of respondents believe that pharmaceutical companies don’t care about side effects, only about making money

The obvious next thought I had after reading this article was:  These are the people who are parenting the next generation of kids.  And  much sooner than they think.

Art imitates life.  A popular TV show new in 2009 is Glee, the story of an Ohio high school’s show choir.  Main characters in the show exemplify some of these sexual misconceptions and seem to be a not-so-subtle indictment of abstinence-based sex education:

• Quinn, the teen president of the Celibacy Club becomes pregnant.
• She convinces her boyfriend Finn that he is the father although they’ve never had sex because they had a racy make out session in a hot tub.  And he believes her!
• The male students admit that they only joined the Celibacy Club to hook up with the girls.
• The female students have a secret motto:  “It’s all about the teasing, not the pleasing.”
• A further dig is made at the “abstinence” crowd as Quinn’s baby bump is noticed (and overlooked) by her mother as she helps her prepare for a Purity Ball (a daddy-daughter dance to celebrate the daughter’s commitment to celibacy).  When her pregnancy is revealed (in song, no less), her parents kick her out of the house and their lives.
• Their teacher is equally ignorant.  His wife convinces him she’s pregnant (when she’s not).  She also tells him she knows the sex of the baby at 10 weeks (which is not possible, but he doesn’t know any better).  She also convinces him that he can’t touch her stomach or have sex with her without harming the baby.

So, time for some poll questions to see what you think about sex education.

Discuss.

I will freely acknowledge that being a woman in the church and bringing up a question about Priesthood practices would probably subject me to some derisive comment from BY types about how it’s as unseemly as a dog walking on its hind legs or some such thing.  I admit up front that I am not an expert in these matters, but I have been a member of the church for my whole life, and have attended many different wards across the US and some outside the US.

If you are a man in the church, you are either in Elder’s Quorum or High Priests, depending on the highest office in the Priesthood bestowed.  The lessons taught are the same (the manual is also shared by the Relief Society).  If you are in the Elders’ Quorum, you are more likely to be asked to help people move, to participate in ward basketball, and to administer blessings to the sick.  If you are in the High Priests’ Group, there are social activities for the men and their wives.  Uhm, which group sounds better to you?  Basketball + moving people or dinner parties with wheezing fossils (no offense to the wheezing fossils out there)?

Officially, an active LDS man remains an Elder until he is in a calling (such as a bishop or stake leadership calling) that requires him to become a High Priest.  However, there are a few exceptions (that I’ve seen in various wards) that can result in someone being moved from the Elder’s Quorum into the High Priest’s Group without having been in a “High Priest” required calling:

1. Age.  If a man in good standing is over the age of 50 (or lower for some wards), he may be either 1) invited to attend HPG based on age, despite priesthood level, or 2) ordained to the office of a High Priest to move him into the older group officially.
   • This seems a little arbitrary and could lead to hurt feelings or feeling disenfranchized for men who are older but haven’t been ordained as High Priests.
   • **In some wards, a very young HP will unofficially join the EQ based on age.
2. Organization.  If a ward has too few High Priests to fill all the roles associated with the High Priests’ Group, additional Elders may be ordained to fill these roles.
   • If a ward is too small or has too few to fill one of the two quorums, why not just collapse into one Priesthood Quorum?  This feels like ordaining people to justify unnecessary callings.  Aren’t there any programs to hand out or Primary classes to substitute for?  Is this problematic because the HPG is actually led by the Stake President but the Elder’s Quorum has a ward level leader?
3. Discretionary Ordinations.  It is not required for some callings, like Executive Secretary, to be ordained High Priests, but local leadership may (at their discretion) decide to ordain someone to the office of High Priest in this or similar roles.
   • Not a big deal I suppose, but it seems pretty arbitrary.  At least it is restricted to a handful of borderline justifiable positions and is less likely to create bad feelings as a result.

Why is this forced hierarchy necessary?  Doesn’t it bring out the worst in people (envy, pride, competition, and favoritism) where charity should rule the day?  Is it necessary?  Relief Society has been egalitarian (all ages) for a very long time.  While there have been issues in the past, it does seem to be getting better due to a few changes.  The manuals are more doctrinal now, less “family focused”; they are more applicable regardless of life situation, age, marital status, etc.  So, do men NEED to feel that they have a goal (aging up into a different class) in order to feel that they are engaged and participating in the church?  Is there a legitimate reason the Elders and High Priests can’t meet together weekly?  Is this some secret male testosterone-driven thing I just don’t get?  Discuss.

First, a few of the articles with their key points:

• Entertainment Weekly’s Owen Gleiberman asks and answers “Edward Cullen, stalker?  Yes, but so is the hero of the Graduate.” His point:  This is a novel about a vampire, so stalking is the least of his sins (he compares calling Edward Cullen a stalker to accusing Dracula of trespassing and sexual harassment).  He also lists many other films and books in which the male character could be accused of stalking (e.g. Say Anything, Pretty Woman).
• Entertainment Weekly’s Owen G. talking about “New Moon:  why its girl-driven success is good for the future of movies.”  His point:  most teen movies are geared toward males, so teen movies for females (even unenlightened, quivering female doormats) are a step in the right direction.  He also lauds the lack of consummation as (kind of, in a retro-way) empowering to the female audience.
• Anita Singh of The Telegraph (a UK-based news source) reports:  “Twilight sequel New Moon is anti-feminist claims professor.”  The point:  New Moon is not only anti-feminist in its themes, but who could expect anything else from such a patriarchal backwards religion like Mormonism?  According to Prof. Sieber:  “This is a film full of gender stereotypes—testosterone-driven male aggression, females who pine away over lost loves, boys who fix motorcycles and the girls who watch them.”  As Anita Singh paraphrases Dr. Sieber:  “Bella’s choices are influenced by Meyer’s background as a member of “the highly patriarchal” Mormon church.”
• Religion Dispatches bloggers Anthony Petro and Samira Mehta reveal the hidden Mormon theology of the Twilight Series in a post titled:  Big Vampire Love:  What’s so Mormon about Twilight? They include such Mormon parallels as:  sealing and eternal marriage, chastity, and family values.  The post does not beef about sexism or anti-feminism and treats the religious angle with curiosity and respect, not disdain.
• Graeme McMillan of i09 wrote a post:  Official:  Twilight’s Bella & Edward Are In An Abusive Relationship.  This post shows that the relationship between the main characters in Twilight hits 15 of the markers of an abusive relationship according to the assessment questions from the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

Lest I get too far ahead of myself, here’s a list of the anti-feminist traits people have identified in the books:

• Bella is a typical “damsel-in-distress” waiting to be rescued and only comfortable when in the protection of a man.
• Bella never drives – only the men drive in Twilight.  They literally are the ones responsible for Bella’s direction and movement.
• Edward acts not only protectively, but crosses the line into stalker / predator territory. His controlling behavior is abusive.  (I suspect that abusive relationships are more the norm among those of previous generations, bloodsucking vampires, and fictional characters in general:  Edward hits the trifecta on this one.  No offense to Team Edward.)
• Bella suffers from low self-esteem.  After a breakup, she literally wallows in the mud.  Perhaps critics would have appreciated a nice Aretha Franklin R-E-S-P-E-C-T moment coupled with some cutesy shadow-boxing (a la Meg Ryan in You’ve Got Mail).
• Bella gets married straight out of high school, although the men in the books are all college educated.  One wonders what her fall back plan will be should Edward encounter Buffy the Vampire Slayer at some future date.  Slinging hash at the local diner?

Of course, many of the same criticisms (and more) could be leveled at The Little Mermaid (literally gives her voice away at age 16 to ensnare a man with her body language – wanting only to be a “part of YOUR world,” meaning Eric’s world, rather than making her own way) which we know was written by that uptight, patriarchal, right-wing, er, gay, show-tune writing duo:  Mencken and Ashe.

So, time to weigh in with a few poll questions!

Confession time:  I haven’t read the books or seen the films, so I’m just reporting what has been written in the media here.  Regardless, that picture (above) is hawt!

Religions often act as “morality delivery systems.”  According to Jonathan Haidt in an NYT article titled “The Moral Instinct,” morality has 3 traits:

• Morality must invoke “universal” rules. Prohibitions of rape and murder, for example, are felt not to be matters of local custom but to be universally and objectively warranted. One can easily say, “I don’t like brussels sprouts, but I don’t care if you eat them,” but no one would say, “I don’t like killing, but I don’t care if you murder someone.”
• Immorality should be “punished.” Not only is it allowable to inflict pain on a person who has broken a moral rule; it is wrong not to, to “let them get away with it.” People are thus untroubled in inviting divine retribution or the power of the state to harm other people they deem immoral.
• Morality differs from other psychological mind-sets. This is the mind-set that makes us deem actions immoral (“killing is wrong”), rather than merely disagreeable (“I hate brussels sprouts”), unfashionable (“bell-bottoms are out”) or imprudent (“don’t scratch mosquito bites”).

We know from history that some behaviors that were once considered immoral (e.g. divorce) are now considered morally neutral and some behaviors that were considered morally neutral (e.g. smoking) are now considered immoral (due to harm caused to others). Additionally, people have different morality “thresholds” (e.g. the continuum between sport hunters and vegans). In short, some of what passes for morality is preference alignment (meaning people who make the same choices I do are “moral” while those who don’t are “immoral”). We have a gut reaction that something is wrong, but we don’t really know why, so we try to explain or rationalize our response. This would be fine if those gut reactions didn’t differ so much from culture to culture and from era to era, and even from person to person within culture and era.  Even things that are major morality taboos for us have been “norms” in some other societies:

• Sex with minors.  Older men initiating younger men into sexuality was a norm in ancient Greece.  Marriage in previous eras has been allowable pretty much as soon as the participants had reached puberty, much younger in the case of political alliances between dynastic families.  Large age discrepancies were far more acceptable in previous eras, especially to create financial security through the union.
• Incest.  In our society, we have a very strict prohibition on sex with someone too closely related, but in Hawaiian royalty, sibling marriage was considered an obligation to keep the royal blood pure.  Likewise, even in our own society, marriage to cousins was quite common as recently as the 1800s.
• Murder.  While we find intentional killing repugnant, it is often “allowed” or even encouraged when outside of one’s own ‘tribe.’  We currently call this war, but killing of outsiders has also been done throughout history as a method of purifying one’s race (killing neighboring infidels so that there will be no intermarriage) or appeasing deities (through human sacrifice of outsiders).
• Cannibalism.  Again, this is about the worst thing imaginable in our current society, but some cultures had cannibalistic rituals such as eating the dead to inherit their spiritual properties or eating their victims slain in battle to honor them.  Whatever floats yer boat, I guess.

According to Haidt, there are 5 morality “instincts” that are universal:

• Harm. The difference between sticking a pin in your own hand (ouch!) and sticking a pin in the hand of a child (!!). We might wince at the first, but we recoil in horror from the second.
• Fairness. Accepting something for free that was due to a random error (lucky me) vs. something for free that was stolen from someone else (!!).
• Community. Saying something bad about Mormonism to another active Mormon vs. saying something bad about Mormonism to an evangelical.
• Authority. Slapping a colleague as part of a comedy skit vs. slapping your bishop or your boss as part of a comedy skit.
• Purity. Actors in a play behaving in a silly manner on stage vs. actors in a play behaving like animals on stage (e.g. crawling around naked and urinating on stage).

So, while these might be the 5 morality “instincts,” they are still not truly universal for several reasons:

• Different thresholds for each.  Even within a community, there are often different thresholds for all of these five instincts.  One person may consider something as “harm” (or abuse) that another person thinks is “tough love.”  One person might consider something a purity issue (e.g. washing hands in the restroom) that another person considers a matter of preference (I hope I’m not shaking hands with this person).
• Different specifics for each.  While everyone may view someone as an authority, those authorities differ from person to person based on affiliation.  For example, depending on political affiliation, someone may deem Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh worthy of special respect as an authority, but may not afford the same respect to Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama.  Likewise, I may view my parents as authority figures, but their parents didn’t necessarily view them the same way.
• Conflicting morals.  At times, these 5 instincts are in conflict with one another.  Is it immoral to harm another person if it helps the community (i.e. “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one”) or if an authority commands it (e.g. Nephi killing Laban)?  Is it immoral to harm another person as a means to achieve fairness (e.g. death penalty or even corporal punishment)?
• Morality vs. Preference.  Is it moral instinct or merely preference if the choice is inherently distasteful?  Once disgust enters, we cease to be rational.  What is the line between morality and squeamishness?  What makes one person feel squeamish doesn’t faze another.  For a person who is homophobic, their irrational fear of homosexuality may mean it is more of a question of (strong) preference than morality.
• Self-Serving Morality.  And aren’t “moral” choices that are based on “community” and “authority” mixed up with what is “imprudent”?  IOW, is it morality or fear of retaliation from authority or fear of being ostracized by the community?  And is purity always tied up in our fear of “impurity,” therefore, more a matter of preference than morality?

Some do not believe that morality is more than a social construct.  Do you agree or do you feel there is a universal form of morality that transcends time and culture?  How do you distinguish cultural norms and niceties from actual morality?  Can you readily identify a universal morality and cite examples?  If not, does this mean that there is no such thing as a universal morality or do differences in threshold and specifics mean that people have suppressed their understanding of the universal truth?  Discuss.

While there’s a tendency at times in the Bloggernacle to pick scabs and focus on the things that drive us nuts or that don’t make a lot of sense, I thought this week’s holiday was a perfect excuse to share what I love about the church.  Here’s my Top 10 (in no particular order).

1. Tithing.  It’s egalitarian, like a flat tax.  No matter how little or how much you make, you can feel like you are contributing proportionally the right amount.
2. Fast Offerings.  OK, not a big fan of fasting per se due to headaches and grumpiness, but I love the concept of understanding hunger in a personal way once per month and using that money to help those who don’t have enough to eat.  What a great principle!
3. Sincerity.  I seldom encounter a church member who is not trying very hard to live a good Christian life, to raise a strong family or to live what they believe.  People are just so gosh darn nice and earnest.  While outsiders may be skeptical of that, I think most insiders see that it’s a byproduct of the lifestyle.
4. Helpfulness.  I love that no matter how menial or repetitive the task, members are willing to pitch in and do whatever is needed:  putting away chairs, cleaning up after a social, helping in the nursery, and cleaning the ward building are just a few, to mention nothing about the humanitarian and service projects.
5. Human potential.  I love the concept that we are God’s children and can become like Him in a very real way.  It’s a genius concept!  Far more compelling than sitting on a cloud strumming a harp listening to instrumental soft rock.
6. Word of Wisdom.  OK, so it’s not perfect – we’re probably over-reaching a bit – but I love the idea of all of us forgoing what is harmful to “the weakest of the Saints.”  And I love the original intent of the Word of Wisdom–that through keeping our minds free and bodies healthy and not indulging in things that are harmful or addictive we can achieve more spiritual enlightenment.
7. Pantheon of Leaders.  There are so many different church leaders with different perspectives and styles that if one of them rubs you the wrong way or fails to inspire you personally, there are many many more to choose from.
8. Personal Revelation.  Not only are we given ongoing revelation from leaders, but we are entitled to our own personal revelation, making it a church of prophets in essence.  Everyone has the ability to receive inspiration for their own lives, families and responsibilities.  That also helps us stay open-minded.
9. Callings.  While it sounds like some sort of shangri-la to go to a church where you are one of thousands in the congregation, church is over in an hour, and there are coffee and donuts afterward, there is nothing like a calling to take you out of your comfort zone and make you grow.  The hardest callings are often the most rewarding in terms of the skills you gain, and even just giving talks creates a ton of personal and spiritual growth.
10. Open Canon.  The concept of ongoing revelation and that scripture continues to be revealed (even if it is in the more fluid form of General Conference talks now vs. new sections to the Doctrine & Covenants) means that change is inevitable.  Doctrines continue to be revealed and reinterpreted.  Change happens.  Our understanding evolves.

These are just a few of the things I would hate to do without in my religious worship.  What things are in your Top 10?  Any similarities?  Differences?  Discuss.

According to the dictionary, to know has 6 different contemporary meanings (when used with a direct object): 

1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty; e.g. “I have a clear and certain understanding of eternal families.  My dead grandfather came back and said ‘yup’ that’s the way it is.”
2. to have established or fixed in the mind or memory; e.g. “I would be able to pick Jesus out of a line-up.”
3. to be cognizant or aware of; e. g. “I am aware of their being a devil on my shoulder, prodding me to do evil; can you guys see this?”
4. to be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report; e.g. “I have met Thomas S. Monson, and he sure looked like a prophet to me.”
5. to understand from experience or attainment (usually fol. by how before an infinitive);  e.g. “I understand the gospel because I have lived it and it makes my life better.” 
6. to be able to distinguish, as one from another;  e.g. “I know this church is the one that Jesus leads vs. those other false ones that Jesus merely dabbled with.”

To believe, on the other hand, has the following 5 meanings (when used with a direct object): 

1. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.);  to give credence to; e.g. “I have confidence in the idea of the atonement and that it will apply to me.”
2. to have confidence in an assertion;  e.g. “I believe that the church is a restoration of the early Christian church.”
3. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation;  e.g. “I believe Jesus was resurrected.”
4. to suppose or assume; understand (usually fol. by a noun clause);  e.g. “I believe in the counsel that was given at General Conference.” 
5. to believe in a) to be persuaded of the truth or existence of; b) to have faith in the reliability, honesty, benevolence, etc., of; e.g. “I believe I have heavenly parents who care about me.”

Ether 12:6 - I would show unto the world that ^afaith is things which are ^bhoped for and ^cnot seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no ^dwitness until after the ^etrial of your faith.

Alma 32: 18 & 21 – 18 Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to ^abelieve, for he knoweth it. 21 And now as I said concerning faith—^afaith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye ^bhope for things which are ^cnot seen, which are true.

What do people at church mean when they say they “know” things they relate in their testimony?  Here are some possibilities:

1. They aren’t certain, but they’ve decided to act on their hope (the first stages of faith).
2. The language of certainty is the norm; they are simply spouting cliches or don’t want to sound “different” by expressing what they believe or hope.
3. They haven’t questioned to this point in their life or experienced doubts; therefore, they are “certain” by default.  They still have the unblinking faith of a child.
4. They have experienced a witness of a specific concept after acting on their faith.  They “know” this specific thing based on that witness.
5. They have experienced some general sort of “witness” (loosely defined) that they are applying holistically to all concepts taught at church, assuming that one witness covers all points of doctrines (all win or lose together).

So, what do you think it means when people say they “know”?  Is it a cliché that is damaging to those who don’t “know” but assume everyone else does?  Is it dishonest?  Is it an act of faith to say we know when we only hope or believe?  Would you rather hear more accurate language in testimonies?

Discuss.

Aside from psychics, who seem to be able to sense ghosts everywhere, ghost sightings seem traceable to some commonalities:

• Bad photography.  If you look at some of these photos of ghosts, it’s easy to see that mixed in with the ghostly are photos of people’s blurry gray thumbs or “energy orbs” that look remarkably like glares from the sun.
• Places with a known violent history.  The question this raises is whether knowledge of the violent history is sufficient to raise the hairs on the backs of people’s necks.  IOW, is the power of suggestion what causes the “ghostly experience”?  Or, is it possible that violence leaves a negative energy signature behind that results in these experiences?
• Places where a lot of people have lived and died.  This seems somewhat logical also; the more populous an area has been for a long time, the more likely that violence may have occurred there.  Does the hustle & bustle of life leave an energy signature behind that people can sense?  OTOH, there have been pre-historic people in many places on the earth.  It’s not possible to know, in some cases, that a place was populated tens of thousands of years ago.  Do the traces of humanity fade over time?
• Personal visitations.  A friend of mine who is a grief counselor says that so many of her patients have experienced some sort of contact from beyond the grave, that she considers it a natural part of the grieving process, a way to find psychological closure when a loved one has gone.
• Humid climates.  It occurs to me that many of the “most haunted” places I have been also have humid climates:  the deep South, the northeast, Hawaii, Jamaica, England, etc.  Is it possible that we sense creepiness more in a humid climate because our bodies are more sensitive to changes in wind or temperature?

So, what do you think?  Are ghosts real or just people spooking themselves?  Are they sentient or just traces of energy?  And most importantly, have you ever seen or felt a ghostly presence?  Happy Halloween . . .

Buddha was a teacher who lived over 500 years before Christ.  The influence of his teachings had spread far in the centuries before Christianity.  Buddha is viewed as an awakened teacher who provides insights to help people end their own cycles of suffering.  Others have made additional parallels between Buddha and Christ, although there are many differences as well.

Many Christians are completely closed off to the notion that Jesus encountered Buddhism and that it influenced his teachings, considering Buddhism either a false, pagan religion (wrong on all 3 counts, IMO) or citing the fact that Buddha was only a teacher, not a God. Fair enough, but some early Christian docs refer to Jesus as not divine (gnostic texts often take this stance, IIRC). And certainly, if we are focused on becoming Christlike, that’s placing him primarily in the role of teacher.

The idea that Jesus was Buddhist was an underlying theme of the totally fictional book Lamb: The Gospel of Biff, Childhood Pal of Christ, a somewhat irreverent novel.  In the book, Jesus & Biff (his BFF) take off at age 12 and explore the path to enlightenment by looking up the 3 wise men to find out what Jesus is supposed to do with all this divinity of his.  (SPOILER ALERT:  He decides to become a Bodhisattva (savior) after his travails.)

Another Jesus/Buddhism parallel is this notion that Jesus is buried on an island in Japan, and that the Jesus of the NT is his Japanese brother who took his place. That’s another theory that has evangelicals’ knickers in knots. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shingo,_Aomoriand again here:http://www.thiaoouba.com/tomb.htm

Many sayings of Buddha could just as easily have been said by Jesus and his followers.  (The following comparisons are from a Mormon theological perspective, including NT, BOM and D&C quotes):

The NT doesn’t give much insight into Jesus’ life between age 12 and 30.  Did he encounter Buddhism and seek personal enlightenment that colored his ministry?  Or are these ideas just inherently the best ones humanity will continue to stumble upon in our spiritual lives?  Discuss.

In a recent talk, E. Bednar cautioned us to remember the difference between what is real and what is a simulation.  Are internet relationships real?  Are internet friends real?  Would you know your internet friends if you passed them on the street?  He specifically cautioned against getting lost in fantasy worlds that we have created instead of living our lives in the real world.  And he suggested that using an avatar or false persona to live a double life in which you can break the commandments is dangerous spiritually.

So, how do you know if you are an internet addict?  A site called netaddiction.com lists some of the symptoms:

• Failed attempts to control behavior.  I assume this is just internet behavior, not behavior in general.  Like, I have a hard time controlling my kids’ behavior, but I don’t think that counts.
• Heightened sense of euphoria while involved in computer and Internet activities.  Euphoria, not so much.  But my butt has fallen asleep occasionally.
• Neglecting friends and family.  This one seems on point with E. Bednar’s talk.  Of course, you might be on line WITH friends and family.
• Neglecting sleep to stay online.  I suppose, but you might also stay up late reading, yet no one accuses people of being a book addict.  They just say you are well-read.
• Being dishonest with others.  Again, I assume this is specifically dishonesty about internet usage.  Not just, “No, that skirt doesn’t make you look fat, honey.”
• Feeling guilty, ashamed, anxious, or depressed as a result of online behavior.  This could be linked to porn usage, neglecting the real people around us, or even just feeling that internet relationships are less satisfying somehow, like empty calories.
• Physical changes such as weight gain or loss, backaches, headaches, carpal tunnel syndrome.  Wait, you can lose weight throug internet usage?  I did not know this.
• Withdrawing from other pleasurable activities.  Again, this assumes that other pleasurable activities have been offered.

So, let’s see how bad we are.  This is adapted from the online diagnostic at the addiction site.  Remember, it’s anonymous, so you can answer truthfully, even about your lying:

Let’s see how many scored in the “at risk” range:

How do you keep your internet usage from morphing into addiction?  Do you think this is a generational problem?  Were kids of prior eras just addicted to other things that didn’t get a cool name?  Discuss.

Jungian dream analysis includes several underlying assumptions:

• that dreams are subjectively meaningful for the individual
• that people, objects, animals, and events in the dream are representative of the dreamer’s inner life (and not to be taken at face value or literally)
• that a proper interpretation of dreams can lead the dreamer to great self-awareness and to understanding the psychological direction of his/her life at a given time
• that some themes, events or characters in a dream are archetypal or representative of collective spirituality, not just reflective of personal meaning

So, to apply Jungian dream interpretation to the First Vision, we would consider the following elements:

People.  In Jungian perspectives, people in dreams are almost always a manifestation of a part of the person dreaming.  There are seven archetypes one may encounter in a dream:

1. The Persona is the image you present to the world in your waking life. It is your public mask. In the dream world, the persona is represented by the Self. The Self may or may not resemble you physically or may or may not behave as your would. For example, the persona can appear as a scarecrow or a beggar in your dream. However, you still know that this “person” in your dream is you.
2. The Shadow is the rejected and repressed aspects of yourself. It is the part of yourself that you do not want the world to see because it is ugly or unappealing. It symbolizes weakness, fear, or anger. In dreams, this figure is represented by a stalker, murderer, a bully, or pursuer. It can be a frightening figure or even a close friend or relative. Their appearance often makes you angry or leaves you scared. They force you to confront things that you don’t want to see or hear. You must learn to accept the shadow aspect of yourself for its messages are often for your own good, even though it may not be immediately apparent.
3. The Anima / Animus is the female and male aspects of yourself. Everyone possess both feminine and masculine qualities. In dreams, the anima appears as a highly feminized figure, while the animus appears as a hyper masculine form. Or you may dream that you are dressed in women’s clothing, if you are male or that you grow a beard, if you are female. These dream imageries appear depending on how well you are able to integrate the feminine and masculine qualities within yourself. They serve as a reminder that you must learn to acknowledge or express your masculine (be more assertive) or feminine side (be more emotional).
4. The Divine Child is your true self in its purest form. It not only symbolizes your innocence, your sense of vulnerability, and your helplessness, but it represents your aspirations and full potential. You are open to all possibilities. In the dreamscape, this figure is represented by a baby or young child.
5. The Wise Old Man /Woman is the helper in your dreams. Represented by a teacher, father, doctor, priest or some other unknown authority figure, they serve to offer guidance and words of wisdom. They appear in your dream to steer and guide you into the right direction.
6. The Great Mother is the nurturer. The Great Mother appears in your dreams as your own mother, grandmother, or other nurturing figure. She provides you with positive reassurance. Negatively, they may be depicted as a witch or old bag lady in which case they can be associated with seduction, dominance and death. This juxtaposition is rooted in the belief by some experts that the real mother who is the giver of life is also at the same time jealous of our growth away from her.
7. The Trickster, as the name implies, plays jokes to keep you from taking yourself too seriously. The trickster may appear in your dream when you have overreach or misjudge a situation. Or he could find himself in your dream when you are uncertain about a decision or about where you want to go in life. The trickster often makes you feel uncomfortable or embarrassed, sometimes mocking you or exposing you to your vulnerabilities. He may take on subtle forms, sometimes even changing its shape.

Setting.  This includes the mental state of the dreamer as well as the dream setting.

Action.  This refers to the events that occur in the dream, and the actions of the person the dreamer identifies as the self.

Objects or Symbols.  These could be archetypes (symbols common to all cultures) or symbols with unique personal significance to the dreamer.

Emotions.  These reveal information important to the interpretation of the dream.

Animals.  These represent our basest human instincts.

In considering the various accounts of the First Vision, the elements that have a Jungian significance are:  the Persona (with a possible link to the Divine Child given the age of the dreamer), the Shadow, the Wise Old Man, and consideration for setting, action, and emotions.  There are no versions in which the vision included female figures or animals, so those elements will be considered irrelevant for this analysis.

Setting.  JS was yearning for forgiveness of his sins (1832 version) and spiritual enlightenment (all versions).  He sought “wisdom” from God directly.  He was also obsessed with his personal welfare and salvation.  This setting (pre-vision) carried into the dream state.

Immediately, JS is confronted by a Shadow type.  Based on Jungian analysis, this Shadow is JS’s repressed negative side, his weaknesses and subconscious flaws.  These flaws “bind” his dream self (the Persona), making it impossible for him to move (to progress) or speak (to represent his own interests).  IOW, in order to continue to seek enlightenment, JS had to confront and overcome his own flaws that were holding him back and making any progress impossible.  (Often, dreams make funny little puns like this.  You are “wrestling with your demons” figuratively in life, so in your dream state, you do so literally).

When he is released from his Shadow side, he finds the enlightenment he seeks in the form of light and a visit from either an angelic messenger (1832) or God the Father & the son (1838).  Regardless, these are familiar archetypes for the Wise Old Man/Woman:  an authority (what bigger religious authority could he envision?) who gives direction or wisdom or advice.  He petitions for forgiveness of his sins (1832) and to know how to obtain salvation/which church to join (1838).  Of course, these archetypes also represent parts of our own personality.  IOW, Jung might say that JS has tapped into his inner wisdom, his internal wellspring of creativity and enlightenment.

We all know the specifics of the answer he was given as recorded in the 1838 version.  Consider that advice from a Jungian perspective, and there is a subtle change.  JS asks which external source of truth is right for him to follow.  He is told to stop looking outside himself for enlightenment because those sources of wisdom are not correct and are corrupted by others’ perspectives.  He is left to wait for further inspiration (or to find wisdom from within as Jung would see the God figure as a manifestation of JS’s spiritual side).

This is a classic hero myth: the quest for spiritual wisdom.  The hero must first reconcile his double nature (the Shadow and Persona) in order to transcend and achieve enlightenment.  Interestingly, one could also see the endowment as another telling of this same story, personalized for attendees – one’s progressive quest for spiritual wisdom and enlightenment, with a similar culmination.

So, what do you think?  Is a Jungian view of the First Vision useful?  Does this add meaning for you?  Do you consider dreams and visions too similar for this type of approach to be of value?  Discuss.

E. Scott

• The porn warning, usually reserved for Priesthood session, goes mainstream.  Sisters, this is what equality feels like!
• The analogy of trying to taste a grape (revelation) while eating a jalapeno (experiencing strong emotions like anger or passion) was interesting.  He was advocating stoicism, and it reminded me of that Greek philosophy.
• He suggested teachers should sometimes close the manual and teach through the spirit.  Were the correlation committee’s ears burning?

E. Bednar

• It was nice to hear some real life examples of a high ranking leader’s failed FHE attempts.  I particularly liked “he’s breathing my air.”  What parent hasn’t heard that sibling complaint?

Pres. Uchtdorf

• Lovely talk about how to become a disciple of Christ and the importance of love.
• Referred to “heavenly parents,” which reminded me of what my 11-year old son said the other morning when I mentioned the idea that we have a Heavenly Mother.  He said, “Well, I never heard of her!”

E. Oaks

• This talk might be best understood when compared to E. Oaks’ much-criticized interview on homosexuality.  He tempered several of the things that were uncomfortable to people about those statements, including:
  • rather than “mandating” what parents should do about wayward children, he said parents were entitled to their own revelation.
  • he said it might be extreme to shun wayward kids (and also extreme to ignore their behaviors)
  • he used cohabitation as an example, not homosexuality, indicating that chastity was the issue, not the specific way in which the law of chastity is broken (IOW, placing homosexual and heterosexual violations of the law of chastity on equal ground, where they theologically if not politically belong).

E. Hales

• This was an anti-atheism talk about Korihor.  E. Hales was confident that those who pray to know if God exists will believe that he does.
• I just saw the movie The Invention of Lying last night, which was somewhat atheist, but also totally awesome.

E. Callister

• Contrast of JS’s flaws with those of Peter in the NT was a nice idea, although none of JS’s actual flaws were discussed.

E. Kent Watson

• Temperance in all things.  He obviously stole my “Moderation in All Things” Post.  Seriously, dude.  Just ask next time.

E. Packer

• Did this talk while seated – is his health failing?

I also noticed a LOT of uses of the word “believe” in place of “know.”  This could be becoming a new trend, and if so, I applaud it!

What did you think?  Any thing you particularly liked or didn’t?  Discuss!

The purpose of the worthiness interviews is to provide the youth with private access to the bishopric should they need to confess or confide anything to them or to seek their counsel as an ecclesiastical leader.  The standard questions include asking the young man or woman if they live the law of chastity.  More detailed follow up questions are not specified.

Some concerns about protecting the youth have been raised including:

• that parents are not present in these interviews
• that a same sex adult is not present in the case of young women
• that there is an opportunity for abuse behind close doors
• that the interviews are intrusive; the youth should not be asked sexual questions unless they come forward to confess something
• that worthiness interviews in general are a control mechanism and pose a psychological danger to members
• that a rogue local leader may go on a fishing expedition for sexual details, either due to a domineering personality or to satisfy prurient interests
• that local leaders will provide psychologically harmful advice to the youth regarding masturbation or other sexual practices
• that local leaders will not be attuned to individual needs of the youth or parents

Some concerns about protecting the leaders have also been raised:

And while we’re at it, even parents have expressed some concerns for themselves:

It sounds as though everyone (youth and bishops alike) dreads these interviews (and if people aren’t dreading them, maybe that’s worse).  Do any of you have a positive experience from these interviews that you would like to share?  Any bishops, previous bishops, parents, or previous youth out there with an opinion to share?

What do you think?  Discuss.

The phrase “Moderation in all things” is attributed to Terence, a Roman comic dramatist who lived from 185-159 B.C. (or alternately to Plautus, same profession, who lived from 250-184 B.C.)  However, suffice it to say, the philosophy of living moderately (avoiding excesses) was common in ancient Greece and Rome.

First, a few quotes from church leaders about this concept of “moderation in all things”:

Joseph F. Smith:  “The saints should not be unwise, but rather understand what the will of the Lord is, and practice moderation in all things.”

Ezra Taft Benson:  “A priesthood holder should actively seek for things that are virtuous and lovely and not that which is debasing or sordid.  He does things in moderation and is not given to overindulgence.”

James Faust: ”Part of the spirit of the Word of Wisdom is moderation in all things, except those things specifically forbidden by the Lord.” 

Dallin Oaks:  “Moderation in all things is not a virtue, because it would seem to justify moderation in commitment.”

It would seem there are some differences of opinion about whether moderation is good or not.  This seems like a question of personal philosophy rather than a matter of doctrine.

So, where do you fall on the path between abstinence and indulgence?  Do you tend to push the envelope, believing that the restrictions are already strict without making them more stringent, or do you define things as narrowly as possible, believing that even the very appearance of evil can lead to a weak person’s downfall?  Is it situational?  Personal?  Here’s a poll to see where you fall on some of these possible Word of Wisdom indulgences:  coffee, tea, alcohol, and meat.

 Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Discuss.

Many churches have abandoned their exclusivity claims surrounding ordinances, if they ever had them in the first place (a little hard to claim for some sects, based on their foundation stories).  Many Christian sects will accept baptism from other sects, for example.  Catholicism considers Protestant sects to be part of Catholicism (even though the whole point of the sect’s schism was to declare Catholicism invalid), and now some of those sects’ ordinances are even considered valid in the world of Catholicism.

So, why are ordinances ingenious?  Here are a few reasons:

• Ordinances are tangible.  An ordinance is an act or rite that solidifies personal religious commitment, and doing so through an organization means that that organization is the necessary facilitator of salvation.  You can sit at home and commit yourself to God, but an actual ritual that symbolizes your commitment can make that commitment more substantial.
• Ordinances are products.  Cynics have suggested that ordinances such as temple access are “bought” through tithing.  It could just as easily be said that ordinances are bought by our commitment to the religious practices that precede the ordinance.
• Ordinances reinforce authority claims.  If our religion is the only provider of a “legitimate” product that brings salvation, we corner the market on ordinances.  Sure, you can go down the street where they’ll baptize anyone, but that and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee, as the saying goes (well, that and $4.75 if you are going to Starbucks).
• Ordinances are progressive.  At least in Mormonism they are.  You start with baptism (I’m not counting baby blessings because you are pretty much just laying there, and all it does is put you in the church’s record system).  Then, you move on to temple covenants, which require even more preparation and commitment.  Maybe this could be improved by adding more frequent ordinances, one every 10 years like renewing vows or something (proxy work for the dead is the best we’ve got).  But we’ve added other “soft” ordinances into the system already, and for PH, there are additional ones at different ages to reinforce commitment.

So, compared to other sects, Mormonism clearly uses ordinances more fully to create commitment and to reinforce the authority of the organization.  It is a far more effective approach than undermining authority or watering down ordinances by accepting them from competing sects.  What do you think?  Discuss.

Although Mormons have a less strict stance on birth control than Catholics, this has not always been the case.  There have been some anti-birth control statements in the past (mostly before reliable safe birth control and indoor plumbing were widely available), and those statements have not necessarily been refuted.  Here are a few historical statements that might be of interest:

• Joseph F. Smith, prophet (1916).  In answer to your communication in which you ask me for my views on the issue of “birth control, or the limiting of the number of children in a family to one or two”… I have this to say: The first great commandment given both to man and beast by the Creator was to ‘multiply and replenish the earth;’ and I have not learned that this commandment was ever repealed. Those who attempt to pervert the ways of the Lord and prevent their offspring from coming into the world in obedience to this great command, are guilty of one of the most heinous crimes in the category. There is no promise for eternal salvation and exaltation for such as they, for by their acts they prove their unworthiness for exaltation and unfitness for a kingdom where the crowning glory is the continuation of the family union and eternal increase…”
• Ezra Taft Benson, apostle (1969).  The world teaches birth control. Tragically, many of our sisters subscribe to its pills and practices when they could easily provide earthly tabernacles for more of our Father’s children.  We know that every spirit assigned to this earth will come, whether through us or someone else.  There are couples in the Church who think they are getting along just fine with their limited families but who will someday suffer the pains of remorse when they meet the spirits that might have been part of their posterity.
• Ezra Taft Benson, prophet.  True to form, many of the people who desire to frustrate God’s purposes of giving mortal tabernacles to His spirit children through worldwide birth control are the very same people who support the kinds of government that perpetuate famine. They advocate an evil to cure the results of the wickedness they support.
• Spencer W. Kimball, ap0stle (1971).  Many good people, being influenced by the bold spirit of the times, are now seeking surgery for the wife or the husband so they may avoid pregnancies and comply with the strident voice demanding a reduction of children. It was never easy to bear and rear children, but easy things do not make for growth and development. But loud, blatant voices today shout ‘fewer children’ and offer the Pill, drugs, surgery, and even ugly abortion to accomplish that. Strange the proponents of depopulating the world seem never to have thought of continence!”
• Spencer W. Kimball, prophet (1979).  It is an act of extreme selfishness for a married couple to refuse to have children when they are able to do so.
• Harold B. Lee, prophet (1972).  [W]e declare it is a grievous sin before God to adopt restrictive measures in disobedience to God’s divine command from the beginning of time to ‘multiply and replenish the earth.’ 
• J. Ballard, seventy (1995).  Thus we see that in marriage, a husband and wife enter into an order of the priesthood called the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. This covenant includes a willingness to have children and to teach them the gospel. Many problems of the world today are brought about when parents do not accept the responsibilities of this covenant.  It is contradictory to this covenant to prevent the birth of children if the parents are in good health.  Thirty-five years ago when I first started practicing medicine, it was a rare thing for a married woman to seek advice about how she could keep from having babies. When I finished practicing medicine, it was a rare thing, except for some faithful Latter-day Saint women, for a married woman to want to have more than one or two children, and some did not want any children. We in the Church must not be caught up in the false doctrines of the world that would cause us to break sacred temple covenants.
• Julie Beck, general RS president (2008).  Mothers who know desire to bear children. Whereas in many cultures in the world children are “becoming less valued,” in the culture of the gospel we still believe in having children. Prophets, seers, and revelators who were sustained at this conference have declared that “God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.” President Ezra Taft Benson taught that young couples should not postpone having children and that “in the eternal perspective, children—not possessions, not position, not prestige—are our greatest jewels.”  Faithful daughters of God desire children.
• lds.org (current statement regarding “birth control“).  Children are one of the greatest blessings in life, and their birth into loving and nurturing families is central to God’s purposes for humanity. When husband and wife are physically able, they have the privilege and responsibility to bring children into the world and to nurture them. The decision of how many children to have and when to have them is a private matter for the husband and wife. . .  Husband and wife are encouraged to pray and counsel together as they plan their families. Issues to consider include the physical and mental health of the mother and father and their capacity to provide the basic necessities of life for their children. . . Decisions about birth control and the consequences of those decisions rest solely with each married couple. Elective abortion as a method of birth control, however, is contrary to the commandments of God.

The church’s strong pro-family stance seems to make it unlikely that the church would ever encourage birth control, even if it is not prohibited.  The current Church Handbook of Instruction states that birth control is not prohibited but surgical methods are discouraged.  As the product of a reversed vasectomy, I still find myself somewhat indifferent to that instruction.  So, let’s see what the rest of you think with a few polls:

 Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Is all this detailed instruction because people keep taking private decisions to their bishops (vs. to the Lord) or is it because leaders feel members are making bad choices?  Discuss.

In a recent talk, the speaker had attended an interesting interview with an evangelical who had converted from Mormonism because of what he felt was a misunderstanding on our part of the atonement, that Jesus’ atonment was in fact personal and not just for mankind.  This idea that there might be other youth who misunderstand the theology prompted the speaker to open a discussion with the youth.  He shared the following quiz questions with the youth in the stake.  I thought I would post the 4 true/false questions here for our readers:

1. The church does NOT teach that we are saved by grace.
2. The church teaches that we are saved by works.
3. The final judgment will be like legal scales; if your good works outweigh your bad works, you will be rewarded.
4. We will get the reward we’ve earned.

Most of the youth surveyed correctly answered #1 and #2; however, #3 and #4 were a mixed bag, with a split down the middle in understanding the atonement as revealed by those questions.  Why is this?  Here are some theories:

• The “church” is just a group of people who don’t always understand the gospel.
• The doctrine of salvation (three degrees of glory) adds in a meritocracy component missing in a pass/fail (e.g. Heaven/Hell)construct.
• Other Christian sects essentially wage war on “works” (as if works undermine grace) to illustrate that Mormons aren’t Christians.  Mormons are on the defensive on this point theologically, which results in over-emphasis of works in our teaching.
• Mormonism as a community is highly focused on outward behaviors (works) which are measurable rather than the internal behaviors such as belief and acceptance of grace (in other sects, witnessing). 
• Even though both are emphasized, works are easier to grasp because they are “controllable.”  Kids especially want to know what they have to do (the rules) to meet minimum requirements because kids need structure.

The speaker also distinguished between mercy (not getting something bad that you deserve) and grace (getting something good that you haven’t earned).

So, are we failing to clearly teach the concept of atonement to our youth or do they understand it?  Does the community speak louder than the theology?  Discuss.

So, first of all, what is meant by being predisposed toward religious belief?  Here are the characterizations from the article:

• imagining the invisible hand of the supernatural in acts of randomness (aka “answers to prayer”)
• conjuring “non-physically present agents” and imagining “what if” scenarios involving these agents (e.g. angels and devils)

Hmmm.  Based on that, I’m not sure I’m religious after all.  Interestingly, the Reformation rejected many of these “superstitions” of Catholicism.  So, does that mean Protestants are less religious than Catholics?  Really?  I guess this means that religion = superstition.

Data shows that the parietal lobe (which detects where our physical body ends and where the larger world begins) can be suspended during intense meditation or prayer.  This indicates that our brains are wired to “commune with God.”  This is the quintessential religous experience.  So if the belief in God is hard-wired into human brains, then the logic goes that it is innate and therefore unchangeable.  Yet, the number of unbelievers has doubled since 1990.  This begs the question whether it really is innate or not.

New data suggests that maybe this predisposition to believe is not innate after all, but created by our environment (yes, the old nurture vs. nature argument).  There are two prevailing ways of looking at the data:

1. Our lives suck because we believe. Religious belief creates dysfunction (religious wars and being judgmental), causes stress (through guilt and perfectionism), causes us to fear death (and eternal damnation), causes us to become poor (through misplaced altruism and donations to churches).  This is the party line of some prominent atheists who are anti-religion.
2. We believe because our lives suck.  Religion is our way of dealing with stress, fear of death, poverty, and dysfunction.  If people live in an environment free of these things, they tend to become agnostic or atheist.  This is kind of like the idea that poor people cling to “God and guns.”  It’s what is meant when they say “religion is the opiate of the masses.”  Is it also what was meant when BY said he feared the Saints’ ability to withstand prosperity.

Interestingly, this trend holds true across most believers:  the worse their lives, the more religious they are.  The more prosperous people are, the less religious they are (the more secular).  This sounds a lot like the BOM prosperity cycle.  Once you get rich enough, you “outgrow” religion.  It reminds me of the joke about the guy who is going to die, and he says if God saves him he’ll give half of everything he has to God, so God saves him.  Then the guy says, “Oh, nevermind, God; looks like I got it covered.”  (cue rim shot).

Of course, this is tricky logic when applied to Mormonism because the most recent Pew Forum shows (yet again) that higher levels of education and income actually create higher levels of religious commitment, contrary to the trend in other faiths.  IOW, Mormons somehow bust the BOM prosperity cycle.  Take that, Nephites!  Maybe it’s all that reading of the BOM.

The article posits that it may be a combination of our brains being hard wired to believe, but that life circumstances have to reinforce that worldview (e.g. life has to be sufficiently dysfunctional) in order for the programming to kick in.  So, here are some more logical questions if that’s true:

• If social progress is the enemy of religion, should religion quit trying to solve social problems?  Should it try to create more social problems?   Remember, Jesus said “I came not to bring peace, but a sword.”
• Do things like “persecution complex” and imagining we were are in an actual war with Satan (people ranking as generals and so forth) work to kick in the God programming?  Are these “imaginary dysfunctions” adequate to the task or do they wear off like placebos?  Do we need actual persecutions and enemies for it to work long-term?
• Once your God programming starts, can it be rewritten or changed, or do you always have a glimmer of belief (or a nagging fear you are wrong in unbelief)?
• If your God programming doesn’t kick in by a certain age, does it take a major dysfunctional event (like personal tragedy) to get it to work, or is it too late for it to fully develop?

These questions are still unanswered by science, so each of you will have to come up with your own speculations!  What do you think?  Discuss.