A child is born in Bukavu

A child is born in Bukavu, and sadness fills his mother’s heart… Bukavu is not the city of David. It is a town in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo. War has been ravaging the country for years. Ever since Kabila invaded the former Zaire with military support from the US. It is a war that no one speaks of – but it has cost the lives of millions of people and caused unimaginable suffering.

The child’s mother is a young girl, a daughter of the area. This young girl is named Maria.  Maria was a girl like most any other girl in her town. She walked miles for water, she helped her mother with the cooking and she also tilled the land. She learnt how to read in primary school, but ever since the war her parents no longer could afford to pay her school fees. Maria was a believer in the Christian gospel – and went like all other young girls her age to church on Sunday.

Church was a mud hut with a roof made out of straw. There on Sundays, the kids would gather to learn about God. The preacher, an older man with glasses and graying hair, would always talk about God’s love for humanity – and that God once, long time ago, had come to the world as a male child to save humanity. In church, she had also learned some words of English. She knew that when you greeted someone, you had to say: “Good morning, class”. 

The morning breaks

That was then. Prior to the attacks… One day, as the morning broke and shadows gathered, foreign soldiers drove into town. The houses were set on fire. The adults were gathered on the square and the older men were executed one by one. This is how Maria lost her father – and she and her mother witnessed it. The soldiers held their heads for them to watch. Maria was afraid. After having seen the murder of her father, they also separated her from her mother. She was chosen from among the young girls to follow a group of soldiers. One of them stripped her of her clothes and forced himself on her – he, subject to the commanders’ orders.

Now she held this young child in her arms. Her heart was filled with sadness, and she knew that her firstborn child would have given her joy under other circumstances. Some months after the soldiers left, Maria was chased away. The villagers who were left behind were ashamed of her and of the other girls who had become pregnant. These girls were a constant reminder of the day when the men in the village had been powerless – confronted with the threat and the fear of a gun. “Do not ever come back”, were the last words she heard as she was running for her life into the deep woods. 

Maria sings to her little child a song she learned many years ago: “Lullaby, lullaby, my little one. Lullaby, my child so dear. Thy precious life has just begun. Thy mother holds thee near”. And yet, she knows the words do not ring true. True, all life is precious. But not one soul will ever value the life of this child. Born of a violent union, unwanted by his mother, into a world where people willingly march to the sound of guns. What future can she promise him? What life can this child possibly hope to have? Even though she loves him, he is a constant reminder of what happened to her, and like the villagers who once chased her away she cannot find peace when she looks into his eyes. 

Its ranks are filled with soldiers, united, bold and strong…

Victory, victory… The guys were singing and shouting, drunken by their thirst for blood and proud of their conquest. Bukavu had been encircled, trapped, taken, raped and ravaged. The soldiers executed the orders of their commander and had in turn executed the elders of Bukavu – one by one. Herodes was the commander’s name. His boys feared him.

They were now men. They had proven it – to themselves and to him who had led them into victory. Joseph, one of the soldiers, the one who raped Maria, was nonetheless feeling some unease. In following orders, Joseph had forced himself upon this young girl. The others had told him that having sex with a virgin was going to save him from the disease that was making him weak, this pandemic they called AIDS. But more importantly, the others respected him now. He had become one of them: their partner in crime.

You are the man! We saw you, Joseph. You did it. You made her cry – you and your gun. You made her scream. The words were both making him feel proud and good about himself, but for one reason, unknown to him, they were also haunting him. Could he look at a woman again without thinking of the pain he had caused to this young girl – whose name he would never know? In order to survive – either you dominate or you are dominated, Herodes used to say. To rule, you have to systematically brake down the bonds that bind communities together. They need to fear you or fear will overtake you…

I am trying to be like Jesus

War does not bring out the best in us – it brings out the worst in us. True, some acts are acts of courage – but aren’t those heroic acts always associated with saving lives, and not with taking them? Fear begets fear. It is the opposite of love. Misery begets misery. It is the opposite of joy. Violence begets violence. It is the opposite of peace.

The nativity story told the world of a little baby boy, born to Mary, a girl chosen among other girls to be the mother of a Savior, rejected by men and yet, many are they who believe he is their safe ticket to heaven. The story from Bukavu is the story of a little baby boy, born to Maria, a girl chosen among other girls to be the victim of a soldier, so he could gain accept in the eyes of his comrades, so he could become a man, taking by force what he believed was a safe ticket to health.

Jesus taught us that he was not Herodes. “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”  Jesus was nonviolent. Not exactly what you would associate with being a King. He was God. He was love, both long-suffering and kind. That is why he came to earth as a man and not as a woman: not because God favors men, but because the concept of what it means to be a Man on earth is so contrary to what it means to being God in heaven – who Mormons believe is male. Be kind, as a child, he said to them, and loving as a hen gathers her chickens:

“O ye people of these great cities which have fallen, who are descendants of Jacob, yea, who are of the house of Israel, how oft have I gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and have nourished you. Yea, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not. O ye house of Israel, whom I have spared, how oft will I gather you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if ye will repent and return unto me with full purpose of heart”. 

Love one another

It was necessary for Jesus to come to earth in the form and shape of a male – to represent God as his firstborn son, the first among all great men, a king of kings. “Little children, a new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another”.

The divine irony is the fact that Jesus exhibits throughout his life traits that we call feminine: peaceful, loving, kind, sharing, meek, forgiving, gentle, and caring. He helped the poor and he healed the sick. We crucified him, because he was a threat to men everywhere. He challenged the very idea of what it means to be a man: strong, violent, forceful, greedy, noisy, arrogant and proud. He challenged the way we think about achieving peace, not by dominating others before they dominate us, but by showing us a better way to freedom – paved with love and with sacrifice.

In short, this was the message Jesus gave to the modern House of Israel, to the modern sons of Jacob: “What manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am.”  He showed all men an alternative masculinity – that of the nonviolent male who sides with the poor and the downtrodden. Come, follow me, the Savior said. 

For an alternative and nonviolent study of the Book of Mormon, mormongandhi is regularly publishing a study chapter on mormon nonviolence (latter day satyagraha) at http://mormongandhi.com. Each chapter follows the set-up of the Institute Study Manual of the LDS Church. In addition, you can share your thoughts and insights on the nonviolent readings of the Book of Mormon with other “peaceable followers of Christ” (Moroni 7:3) at the discussion forum (http://peaceablefollowers.wordpress.com) created in parallel to the “latter day satyagraha” site.

mormongandhi currently lives in Oslo, Norway. He has a BA in peace and development studies from Bradford University in the UK, where he studied religious peacebuilding, as well as a master’s in peace operations from GMU in Washington D.C.

mormongandhi is looking for alternative and more peaceful ways of thinking and living. He calls himself an advocate for nonviolence in the Restoration movement.

- Sacrificing Principle for Profit: Church Wildlife Enterprises and Hunting Preserves, Sunstone Magazine

I recently learned about the two Church-owned and sanctioned hunting preserves mentioned above and was stunned by what amounts to be the killing of animals for profit by the LDS Church.

Perhaps unlike other Church business enterprises, however, is the fact that missionaries were sent to “serve God in a most unusual way,” according to this July, 2000 article on Deseret News about the LDS Church’s hunting preserves.

According to the information packet from Deseret Land and Livestock obtained by the Sunstone speaker on this podcast, a guided archery hunt to bag an elk can fetch $11,500 plus tax and license, as of the year 2001.  (A more detailed price list can be accessed at around the 28 minute mark of the podcast.) When asked in a letter by concerned members of the Church how the hunting preserves could be ethically justified, the Presiding Bishopric (who oversees the hunting preserves) offered no response or explanation.

Now, many Mormons own a gun and many go hunting.  Millions of Americans go hunting every year and it’s a big industry.  So what’s the problem with the Church getting in on the profits?  Well, when we consider LDS scripture and statements by General Authorities such as the following, it’s clear that we’re not “just another hunting enterprise:”

“And surely, blood shall not be shed, only for meat, to save your lives; and the blood of every beast will I require at your hands.”  (Genesis 9:11, JST)

“I never could see why a man should be imbued with a blood-thirsty desire to kill and destroy animal life. I have known men—and they still exist among us—who enjoy what is, to them, the ‘sport’ of hunting birds and slaying them by the hundreds, and who will come in after a day’s sport boasting of how many harmless birds they have had the skill to slaughter … I do not believe any man should kill animals or birds unless he needs them for food, and then he should not kill innocent little birds that are not intended for food for man. I think it is wicked for men to thirst in their souls to kill almost everything which possesses animal life. It is wrong.” (President Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, Vol. 1, pp. 371-372)

“Now, I would like to add some of my feelings concerning the unnecessary shedding of blood and destruction of life … And not less with reference to the killing of innocent birds is the wildlife of our country that live upon the vermin that are indeed enemies to the farmer and to mankind. It is not only wicked to destroy them, it is a shame, in my opinion. I think that this principle should extend not only to the bird life but to the life of all animals … because God gave it to them, and they were to be used only, as I understand, for food and to supply the needs of men.” (President Spencer W. Kimball, “Fundamental Principles to Ponder and Live,” The Ensign, November 1978, p. 45)

“Killing for sport is wrong…One day, to while away the slowly passing hours, I took my gun with the intention of indulging in a little amusement in hunting turkeys… From boyhood I had been particularly, and I may say strangely, attached to a gun. Hunting in the forests of Ohio was a pastime that to me possessed the most fascinating attractions. It never occurred to my mind that it was wrong-that indulging in “what was sport to me was death to them;” that in shooting turkeys, squirrels, etc., I was taking life that I could not give; therefore I indulged in the murderous sport without the least compunction of conscience.”  (Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, p.188-189)

Something happened between the days that those statements were made and the present day where sport hunting for profit within the Church was suddenly considered to be a good idea — so much so that missionaries were initially sent to tend to the grounds.  How did we get from the days where the Church fostered such a high regard for animal life that Joseph Smith prevented the unnecessary killing of rattlesnakes; when the pioneers would lay their hands upon their oxen to bless them; when their animals were valued as they were the key to their survival, and hunting was done only because it was necessary to sustain their lives — to the days when they’re hunted down for recreation and profit?  What does that say about our culture and our religion? 

Did I miss a change in LDS teaching concerning reverence for the Lord’s animal creations?  Or is the only change that we’ve put a price on their heads?

George Q. Cannon, counselor in the First Presidency under Brigham Young and editor of the Juvenile Instructor, probably wrote more concerning the humane treatment of animals than any member of the Church.  In 1868 he began writing editorials advocating kindness to animals and in 1897 he founded a Sunday School-sponsored “Humane Day,” which became an annual event.  Most members of the Church know nothing about it, but this program continued in the Church for the next twenty years.

It is perhaps a bit ironic that leaders of the Church — in the days of when members were more dependent on animals for their food and clothing — were so frequently vocal about the humane treatment of animals, emphasizing that we should never take their lives unless it is to save our own, whereas today — when we are much less dependent on animals for our survival, and are supposedly much more enlightened on the subject of animal intelligence, emotion, and sensitivity to pain – the leaders of the Church are mostly silent on the issue of animal welfare and see fit to send missionaries to tend to sport hunting grounds. 

 In the Deseret News article, referring to Elder Huff, who tended to Westlake, it says:

“Instead of knocking on doors, he spends his time bush- whacking in the thick brush along the southwest shores of Utah Lake, looking for the perfect place to nurture his birds by planting numerous stands of corn, rye and other grains….

Large holding tanks that are no longer used for farming now provide high-profile watering holes throughout the game preserve, attracting not only birds but rabbits, coyotes, deer and even antelope.”

Interestingly enough, President Joseph F. Smith made a very specific statement referring directly to hunting elk, deer and antelope, among others:

“I do not believe any man should kill animals or birds unless he needs them for food, and then he should not kill innocent little birds that are not intended for food for man. I think it is wicked for men to thirst in their souls to kill almost everything which possesses animal life. It is wrong. I have been surprised at prominent men whom I have seen whose very souls seemed to be athirst for the shedding of animal blood. They go off hunting deer, antelope, elk, anything they can find, and what for? “Just the fun of it!” Not that they are hungry and need the flesh of their prey, but just because they love to shoot and to destroy life. I am a firm believer, with reference to these things, in the simple words of one of the poets:

“Take not way the life you cannot give,
For all things have an equal right to live.”

Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol.4, p.48

President Smith seems to predict with amazing accuracy what is going on at places like Westlake, where ”prominent men,” (perhaps the “doctors, dentists and attorneys from Payson north to Ogden, including Park City,” that Elder Huff refers to in the Deseret News article) seem to be so “athirst for the shedding of animal blood” that they will literally spend tens of thousands of dollars to “go off hunting deer, antelope, elk, anything they can find, and what for?  Just the fun of it!”

Indeed, a very elite, lucrative kind of “fun” that had (as of 2001) a six-year waiting list.

Information about these hunting preserves is very sparse, but according to Jim Catano, who contacted the Church’s public affairs department and was “told by the director that he would answer my questions, a second-tier media handler was assigned to inform me weeks later that they would not answer any of the questions I’d submitted in preparation for this article.”  (The article he was referring to can be accessed here.)  After deciding to drop into Westlake unannounced and being given a tour by manager Kevin Albrecht, he found out the following in 2001:

“Our efforts in bringing our opposition to the attention of the Church hierarchy have already had an impact. Not only do missionaries no longer staff the facility but “canned hunts” in which birds that have been raised in captivity are released just before the hunters go in are no longer sponsored. Kevin said he had had several meetings with upper management as a result of our activism, and canned hunts were one of the first things to be changed.

He told me that in a meeting he recently attended of commercial hunting facility managers, people from other parts of the country were surprised how low the daily bag limit is (2 per day as opposed to “as many as you can shoot for a price”) and that the facility no longer plants hatched birds but relies only on wild reproduction. He informed me how strict rule enforcement is and that members must report birds they think they’ve wounded but can’t find as part of their daily limit. He’s fairly confident that members do this although I have my doubts that all do.”

Since information about these preserves is limited, I decided to get in contact with Jim in order to ask him whether he had any new information since his update in 2001.  He said that he had contacted Farm Management Corporation (wholly owned by the LDS Church to run its farm properties) sometime prior to 2003, but they “refused to talk to me and give me any more information on the subject at a certain point.”

So, while there have been positive changes as the result of protest about the initial practice of canned hunting, Jim says that it “didn’t change (his) mind about the merits of the existence of this facility.”  The end result has remained unchanged: animals being hunted down for Church profit.

This isn’t about sustaining the lives of doctors and lawyers or meat going to waste.  Who eats coyote?  And $11,500 for a few elk steaks?  This is about the number of animals being purposely multiplied by creating the perfect conditions and attracting them to the preseve for the purpose of being killed “just for fun” – not because they need the flesh to live on, as President Smith stated above. 

Ironically, The Humane Society of the United States  has a webpage dedicated to praising the LDS Church for its teachings about animal life.  Do we deserve the praise?  Or have we given nothing but lip service to our supposed respect for God’s creations and their right to life?

Despite past teachings and statements by General Authorities on the subject of hunting and the taking of animal life, many of you have no personal problem with sport hunting.  Obviously, you have the legal right to hunt and I realize that I’m unlikely to change your personal views on the matter.  I ask you, however, whether you would be troubled by any of the following purely hypothetical situations:

• The Church preaches against alcohol consumption, but purchases a vineyard in California and profits from the sale of the grapes being harvested to produce wine.
• The Church teaches that pornography is wrong, but has a stake in a popular fashion magazine featuring scantily-clothed women in sexual poses.
• The Church opposes abortion but owns property in Florida that an abortion clinic rents.

Would you be prepared to defend these hypothetical scenarios in the same way that you defend the Church’s hunting preserves?

Of all the good ways to make a buck, is this the best we can do?  Are we or are we not, as a Church, sacrificing principle for profit?

Gerald E. Jones stated the following in in an Ensign article from August, 1972 called “The Gospel And Animals:”

“The prophets have been consistent in reminding men of their duty to the animal world. As the Lord told Noah, “… the blood of every beast will I require at your hands.” (JST, Gen. 9:11.) It is our sacred stewardship to care for the earth and all the creatures on it.”

The prophets have been consistent.  What about the Church?

I’ll leave you with a quote from Joseph F. Smith from an editorial published in the Juvenile Instructor in April, 1927:

“… The unnecessary destruction of life is a distinct spiritual loss to the human family. Men cannot worship the Creator and look with careless indifference upon his creations. The love of all life helps man to the enjoyment of a better life. It exalts the spiritual nature of those in need of divine favor.”

Years later, an older gentleman — another very heavy smoker — investigated the Church and, despite having smoked for several decades, managed to quit and was baptized.  A strong, active member now, he has never looked back and (as far as I know) never relapsed.  One can say that without his strong desire to be baptized, he probably never would have quit smoking.

Over the years, I’ve encountered a few people who have expressed a desire to be baptized but cannot because of a problem with the Word of Wisdom.  For some, it’s a case like the elderly gentleman I mentioned at the beginning.  Sometimes lifelong smokers, they have repeatedly failed to quit and know that they are enslaved to their addiction — even though they may have a testimony of the Gospel and a desire to be baptized.

For others, it’s not so much a matter of addiction, but rather a doubt that God cares so much about whether or not they have a glass of wine with dinner that he would keep them out of his Church if they were a good, Christlike person otherwise.

So, it’s a matter of pride, right?

Probably.  But perhaps their argument is not so hard to dismiss when we look at the history of the Word of Wisdom — which was given in 1833 “not by commandment or constraint” (D&C 89: 2) and was not implemented in the strict fashion that it is today until after 1900 — making many of the early Saints, including Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, violators of this non-mandatory law due to their consumption of banned substances.

Also, if we want to get technical, how many Mormons are truly living the Word of Wisdom?  How many of us are eating meat “sparingly” and only in times of “in times of winter, or of cold, or famine?” (D&C 89: 13)

Most of us will probably agree that adhering to the Word of Wisdom is a good idea.  I’m not attempting to argue otherwise because I love what it stands for.  But, when someone has a sincere desire to be baptized into the Church and is worthy in every way – except that he has failed to quit smoking, or perhaps has a beer or a glass of wine on occasion — are we perhaps forgetting the spirit in which the revelation was given?  Or is the current policy the way that the Lord always intended it to be and to change it would be lowering the bar?

Discuss.

First of all, the Church’s official stance on euthanasia is as follows:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life, and is therefore opposed to euthanasia. Euthanasia is defined as deliberately putting to death a person who is suffering from an incurable condition or disease. Such a deliberate act ends life immediately through, for example, so-called assisted suicide. Ending a life in such a manner is a violation of the commandments of God.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not believe that allowing a person to die from natural causes by removing a patient from artificial means of life support, as in the case of a long-term illness, falls within the definition of euthanasia. When dying from such an illness or an accident becomes inevitable, it should be seen as a blessing and a purposeful part of eternal existence. Members should not feel obligated to extend mortal life by means that are unreasonable. These judgments are best made by family members after receiving wise and competent medical advice and seeking divine guidance through fasting and prayer.

On abortion, the Church states:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.

The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:

• Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or

• A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or

• A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

I find it interesting that in regards to people suffering from a painful, terminal illness, “(e)uthanasia is defined as deliberately putting to death a person who is suffering from an incurable condition or disease” and the Church is opposed to it. And yet, when it comes to abortion, the Church states that it is acceptable when “(a) competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.”

Why is it OK to actively end the life of the baby, but not the terminally-ill cancer patient, when there is no hope of either of them surviving?  Is such an abortion not also “deliberately putting to death a person who is suffering from an incurable condition or disease… a deliberate act (that) ends life immediately?”

When it comes to the aborting the fetus, why is “(e)nding a life in such a manner” apparently NOT “a violation of the commandments of God?”

Why is the baby not obligated to be carried to term and to live for as long as it survives and endure a natural death like the cancer patient?

Discuss.

This post isn’t about marriage. It isn’t about sex.

It’s about love:  something that we all desire, crave, yearn, seek, and strive for. I have, and so have you.

Love comes in different forms: the kind that we have for a friend, a brother or sister, our parents, or for a fellow human being — which can develop into the very pinnacle of love; namely romantic love.

Romantic love is not sex. Neither does it necessarily involve or lead to marriage or sex. It’s that feeling of being captivated by another human being and caring for them, as well as expressing our emotions for them verbally or physically, often in a non-sexual manner such as holding hands, embracing, caressing, and innocent kissing: behaviour that is appropriate, according to LDS tradition, even between a couple that is not yet married. In other words, it’s not like loving your mom.

It’s not unheard of for people to live their entire lives and, if they never enter into marriage, never go beyond the non-sexual displays of affection that I just mentioned. Contrary to what some may think, most human beings are capable of living and functioning without sex, without suffering any “damage.” I’m not sure, however, that the same would be true for all who desire and yearn for romantic love, but are denied that opportunity. Can you imagine life without love? If you are not currently in a romantic relationship, you probably have it as a hope or are always on the lookout for an opportunity, even subconsciously. Right?

I’ve tried to think of an example of love that would be considered evil or immoral, unless it’s incestuous or between an adult and minor. When it comes to two consenting adults, I can’t really think of any examples of “immoral love” that aren’t somehow based on sex or deceit (such as an extramarital affair). A sexual relationship between two unmarried adults is immoral. Sex is, in this case, sinful. But is their love also a sin?

Look at the picture above. If the two people were of the same sex, how would you feel about it? Would you feel differently about it? Would you see their behaviour as immoral and something to be avoided? Why or why not?

This “compromise,” if you want to call it that, will not satisfy all. It will not satisfy those who demand no less than equal marriage status within the Church, heterosexual or homosexual, as well as Church-sanctioned homosexual relations; neither will it satisfy those who believe that two members of the same sex who even sit together like that couple in the picture are treading down a wicked path. The term “compromise” is, actually, misleading in my opinion, because the way I see it, the Church would not be compromising anything in regards to the doctrines or policies related to marriage, families, or the Law of Chastity. The only thing that would change would be that heterosexual and homosexual members of the Church would truly be held to the same standards of chastity and morality outside of marriage. That would mean that a couple, such as depicted in the photo, sitting on a bench on BYU campus or outside the Tabernacle, would face no disciplinary action for their innocent display of romantic affection — whether heterosexual or homosexual.

We know that we have a problem in the Church with homosexuals feeling alone, ostracized, without real purpose, and some even resorting to suicide.

Would acceptance of non-sexual same-sex relationships within the Church help to ease the burden of those who struggle and help them to remain in the Church?

What if gay members of the Church were truly held to the same standards of the Law of Chastity when it comes to expression of love and dating relationships?

What, if anything, would the Church be sacrificing or compromising on in order for gay members to be able to date openly in the same way as heterosexual couples without facing discipline?

Why is/isn’t this a good idea?

The family belongs to a religious group that believes in “natural” healing methods and Daniel himself has stated that he believes chemotherapy will kill him (as if the cancer won’t).  He told a judge that if anyone tried to force him to receive chemo, “I’d fight it. I’d punch them and I’d kick them.”  According to the news article,

“The Hausers are Roman Catholic and also believe in the “do no harm” philosophy of the Nemenhah Band, a Missouri-based religious group that believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians. Colleen Hauser testified earlier that she had been treating his cancer with herbal supplements, vitamins, ionized water and other natural alternatives.”

“Minnesota statutes require parents to provide necessary medical care for a child, Rodenberg wrote. The statutes say alternative and complementary health care methods aren’t enough.”

According to the judge, Daniel has a learning disability, is unable to understand the seriousness of his illness, and therefore not able to make an educated decision in the matter.

Personally, I agree with the authorities in this matter.  But even then, there are some difficult questions that don’t really have an easy answer:

I suppose that we’ve all thought about what our lives would have been like if we weren’t LDS. Actually, whether you’re LDS or of another faith, perhaps you’ve tried to imagine what it would be like to convert to a different religion.  Sometimes I wish I could just pick and choose different aspects of different religions and make them into my own, ideal religion.  So here are just some of the things that I would like to snatch up from the buffet of world religions and philosophies:

Catholicism: First of all, I’m under no illusions about my ability to be a “good” Catholic and accept all the Catholic dogma.  (Goodness knows I can’t do it with Mormon dogma either.)  But I LOVE a lot of things about Catholicism. The obvious attractions are the history, traditions, and churches.  I’ve visited countless Catholic churches and cathedrals throughout Europe and Mexico and have always felt something special inside of them. Aside from being awe-struck on a purely secular level by beautiful art and stunning architecture, it’s hard to not somehow feel closer to Deity in such an atmosphere — especially when you throw Gregorian chants into the mix. It commands reverence in a way that I probably haven’t experienced anywhere else. I felt it when I just happened to be in Notre Dame in Paris during an Easter Sunday mass a few years ago, as well as when I visited Palais des Papes in Avignon, France, or the stunning cathedral in Florence, Italy. I love the fact that many of the cathedrals are always open and you are free to walk in, light a candle, and just sit quietly and meditate in a place that is spiritually inspiring.

Another thing I love about Catholicism is intercessory prayers to patron saints and the Blessed Virgin. Many mistakingly believe that Catholics pray to Mary and the saints in order to worship them, which of course they don’t.  As Mormons, we do something similar by petitioning each other to pray on behalf of ourselves or others. We do it in temples with the prayer roll and we do it in sacrament meeting when we ask the congregation to pray for someone in the ward. Catholics, however, have the option of petitioning departed saints to plead their case before God. I love this idea and would love to think that I could pray to Mary, or Heavenly Mother, or “saints,” Mormon or non-Mormon, and have them petition the Lord on my behalf for something that I need.

I used to always imagine Catholic confession to be a horribly embarrassing practice that I was glad we didn’t have in the LDS Church. However, after reading Catholicism for Dummies, I sort of changed my mind about it. In fact, I could almost see the appeal in being able to go to a priest, who has taken an oath of confidentiality (very important factor!), tell him everything I’m feeling guilty about and then hopefully receive penance for my sins. In some ways, I think it must be very therapeutic. As Mormons, we only go to the Bishop for major sins, but Catholics confess even their lesser sins to a priest.  Pope John Paul II outlined three main reasons for confession:

1. we are renewed in fervor
2. strengthened in our resolutions
3. supported by divine encouragement

Seventh-day Adventist: I knew nothing about Seventh-day Adventists until I noticed that a vegan friend of mine had it listed as her religious views on Facebook. I was curious and did a bit of research. It has certain similarities to Mormonism, both in doctrine and policy, and Adventists do a lot of humanitarian and community work. In fact, my husband’s uncle, who suffers from extreme back pain, recently stayed at a rehabilitation centre run by Seventh-day Adventists in Norway and after a 3-week stay, he looked like a new man. Being a heavy-drinking, chain-smoking meat eater, we were skeptical about how he would like this  alcohol-free, smoke-free, meat-free environment, but he apparently enjoyed his time in the centre very much.  He is even back to work on a part time basis, instead of having to rely 100% on a disability pension.  Seeing what it did for him, I wish he could live there permanently.

What I like best about Seventh-day Adventism is its emphasis on a healthy vegetarian diet. Most avoid coffee and caffeinated drinks like Mormons, but I like the fact that they promote and practise a vegetarian lifestyle — something that very few Mormons do.  Adventists are credited with the development of certain health and vegetarian products, and according to Wikipedia, research by the US National Institute of Health found that the average Adventist in California lives 4-10 years longer than the average Californian.

The Black Churches: Of course, there isn’t just one “black church.”  But there is something special about the way of worship among African Americans. I’ve never personally been to a “black church,” but I’ve watched some services and sermons on TV. The minister giving the sermon is often quite animated, often backed up by an energetic choir and background music, and the congregation is lively. Mormons, by contrast, are pretty conservative in their style of worship. No standing, no clapping, no waving, no shouts of “amen.” I don’t think that either of these styles of worship are “right” or “wrong.” I see value and purpose to both and am perhaps most suited to a style of worship where I can sit quiet and do nothing, but can certainly see the appeal — and perhaps even need — for a more animated style of worship.

Jainism: I first heard of this religion because of an Indian acquaintance of mine, who is a Jain. What I like about Jainism is its respect for all life. According to Wikipedia’s page on Jainism, “(B)ecause all living beings possess a soul, great care and awareness is essential in one’s actions in the incarnate world. Jainism emphasizes the equality of all life, advocating harmlessness towards all, whether these be creatures great or small. This policy extends even to microscopic organisms.”

A devout Jain will not only refuse meat, but even root vegetables such as onions and potatoes, in order to preserve the life of the plant.  I encourage you all to read a bit about Jainism.  It really is a beautiful religion, in my opinion.

Veganism: I know, it’s not really a religion, right?  Well, no, not in the traditional sense, but I think that veganism holds, to many of its adherents, a spiritual aspect to it. I have a few friends who are vegan and although they’re not really “religious” per se, they consider veganism to be their spirituality and are probably among the most compassionate and loving people I know — towards both humans and animals. Veganism requires people to really think about how their dietary choices and actions affect animals, as well as their fellow human beings and the environment. Although I’m not vegan myself, I definitely have a bit of “vegan envy” of those who are able to avoid all animal products for ethical reasons.

Unitarian Universalist: UU’s believe in “complete but responsible freedom of speech, thought, belief, faith, and disposition.  They believe that each person is free to search for his or her own personal truth on issues, such as the existence, nature, and meaning of life, deities, creation, and afterlife.  UUs can come from any heritage, have any sexual orientation or gender identity, and hold beliefs from a variety of cultures or religions.” That statement is something that I can wholeheartedly agree with, but there is a lot more to it.  See more about what UU’s believe here.

Agnosticism: Simply put, agnosticism is “the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism, though it is not a religious declaration in itself.” (Read here for more information.)

I have my days, but for the most part I don’t really doubt that God exists. I do doubt sometimes, however, whether we can ever really “know” that God exists. Wikipedia breaks down different types of agnosticism and I would say that I strongly identify with “Agnostic theism,” also called “religious” or “spiritual agnosticism:

“– the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. Søren Kierkegaard believed that knowledge of any deity is impossible, and because of that people who want to be theists must believe: “If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.”

So what would I be if I weren’t a Mormon? In terms of style of worship, I feel very drawn to Catholicism for the reasons that I mentioned above. In terms of ethics and morality, I absolutely love the message of Jainism, particularly the reasons behind its dietary code. It adds a more religious element to veganism and that’s something that I find very appealing, even though I’m not vegan.  Although I abstain from meat for ethical reasons, I recognize my own personal hypocrisy since I still use eggs and dairy (organic when possible, but even that is no guarantee of ethical practices), as well as a bit of fish on occasion.  I think that believing in the Jain doctrine would give me the motivation needed to go that extra mile and abstain from all unethical dietary practices (although I admit that I can’t imagine ever giving up root vegetables).    Still, though, I feel drawn to Christianity because of Jesus.  But Christianity can be a maze of confusion, with all the different denominations, interpretations and disappointing feuding and hypocrisy. (Mormonism in itself can be a maze that can test one’s spiritual endurance.) Had I not been raised Mormon and found my own little niche in the Church, I think that I would have been drawn to something like Jainism, but would have perhaps still felt that something was missing. If I had found Mormonism later in life, I think I would have been drawn to the Plan of Salvation — which is my favourite part about Mormonism — but I think that I would have been scared off by certain elements of Mormonism and therefore would not have investigated it further.

So I think that if I weren’t a Mormon, I would have felt drawn to a combination of Christianity and Jainism, but would have most likely considered myself to be agnostic because I may not have been able to sincerely believe the doctrines of these other faiths in order to consider myself a true follower.  I do consider myself a true follower of Mormonism, since I do believe in most of its doctines, but I don’t proclaim to know that Mormon doctrine is true, as many Mormons do.

After doing this post, I think I’ve finally figured out what I am at this stage in my life:

I’m a practising Mormon Agnostic Theist with Jain envy.

(Perhaps I’ll have to change the name of my blog.) 

What about you?  What would you be if you weren’t a Mormon?  And are you “envious” of any other religions out there?

The Bible is full of great examples of people who did really bad things — the type of things that we shouldn’t even think of doing, with the biggest no-no being murder. So that’s why I have problems with a couple of important Bible figures.

The first one is King David and his arranging the murder of Uriah in order to score with Bathsheba. In the Bible Dictionary it says:

“Like Saul he was guilty of grave crimes; but unlike Saul, he was capable of true contrition and was therefore able to find forgiveness, except in the murder of Uriah. As a consequence David is still unforgiven, but he received a promise that the Lord would not leave his soul in hell. He will be resurrected at the end of the Millennium. Because of his transgressions, he has fallen from his exaltation (D&C 132: 39).“

In D&C 132: 39 it says:

“David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.”

I would say that Uriah’s murder should fall into the category of “premeditated murder” because David certainly had time to think it over and come up with a plan to get rid of him. It doesn’t get much more evil than that. David has apparently not found “forgiveness,” but did he receive a special “promise” from the Lord about not leaving his soul in hell? Did he do something special to get a “get of out jail card,” or will all murderers have a chance at that same “promise?”

Perhaps more troubling to me is the Apostle Paul (aka Saul — but not the same Saul mentioned above in the story of David) and his involvement in the stoning of Stephen. As we all know, Paul was once the ancient equivalent of an anti-Mormon, but took it to the extreme. Some of his actions against Christians would have done the Taliban proud. In the Book of Acts, we read:

“And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” (Acts 7:58-59)

“And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him. As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.” (Acts 8:1-3)

The Bible doesn’t say that Saul (Paul) was the one who personally hurled the stones at Stephen. However, it appears that he played pretty much the same role in Stephen’s murder as David played in Uriah’s. Paul “consented” unto Stephen’s death, on top of throwing men and women in the slammer (for all we know, they could have been executed as well). The fact that “the witnesses laid down their clothes” at Saul’s feet indicates to me that he was probably the leader who had the power to make sure that this execution was either carried out or stopped. Even if he didn’t cast any stones himself, is he any less guilty than David or any other murderer?

So Paul repented and was converted to Christianity. If anyone ever turned their life around for the better, it was him. Although not confirmed, evidence suggests that Paul was martyred himself, when he was beheaded under the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero. But these are the things I’m wondering about Paul:

• Was he not guilty of murder in the stoning of Stephen? And worse yet, premeditated murder?
• Even though he became an apostle, was turning his life around enough to erase his past?
• Why does King David remain unforgiven and fallen from exaltation, while Paul went on to become a revered apostle of Christ?
• How does this apply to modern-day murderers in society? Should they have any hope of forgiveness or is premeditated murder unforgivable?

There is one problem, however.  This wealth of information is NOT equally available to members of the Church.

If you are reading this, you are someone who is now perhaps a minority in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: an English-speaking member with access to the internet, probably living in America.  This means that you are able to read virtually everything that has ever been written about Mormonism.  And if you can’t find it online, chances are that your local library can get it.  If not, you can buy it on Amazon and have it shipped to your home without having to worry about crazy shipping costs or customs duties.

Over half of the Church’s membership now lives outside of the US.  Many of these members have little or no knowledge of the English language.  Their resources in terms of information regarding their own religion is scarce.  Often the only things they have in their own language are official materials put out by the Church: the scriptures (sometimes only an incomplete translation of the Book of Mormon, and perhaps no Bible Dictionary or Topical Guide), the RS/Priesthood manual, other auxiliary manuals, and maybe the Liahona.  No Journal of Discourses, no Jesus the Christ. Forget Rough Stone Rolling and don’t even think about Mormon blogging.

A bit over year ago, I barely knew what a blog was and the term “Bloggernacle” was a foreign word to me.  Back then, I still told my non-member friends who asked that the Church allowed polygamy to take care of all the spinsters and singles and the suggestion that Joseph Smith married women who were already married to other men would have just been anti-Mormon rubbish to me.  I wondered how my Baptist friend in high school who told me years ago that Joseph used a hat and stone to translate the Book of Mormon ever got wind of such a crazy idea which, of course, I denied. Never would I have believed that any Church leaders could have possibly been against black civil rights in the 60′s because they were all too “nice” or “enlightened” to have such backwards views.  Probably the only thing that would have surprised me more was that our “politically neutral” Church sent a letter to California wards telling members how to vote.  But of course, if I had known about the ERA then I wouldn’t have needed to be so surprised.  Yes, it’s been an action-filled year for me.

Sometimes when I sit in church on Sundays, I feel like I’m in a different world than that of my fellow branch members.  Although most of them have a good grasp of the English language, most of them are not at the level that they would be able to read Bushman or listen to Mormon podcasts.  They would know about as much about Prop 8 as you all know about ekteskapsloven and probably assume that The September Six were a rock band.  Tell them that Emma wasn’t Joseph’s only wife and some of them would surely deny it.  And I’m sure that they’re still telling their friends that polygamy was needed because of all the widows and singles.

When I think about it, I’m not sure who is better off: them or me?  Would I be better off if I could go back to the days when I had no clue about any of this stuff?  Or should they have the opportunity to know more about the history and current events of the Church that they claim is true?

Since the majority of Mormons in this world do not have access to and/or do not have the language skills to read anything other than the few official Church publications in their own language, are they at a disadvantage?  I certainly don’t expect the Church to start broadcasting news to its international membership or sponsor the translation of Rough Stone Rolling into 85 languages.  Perhaps the Church really can’t do anything more in the case of non-English speaking members.  But is it thriving as a result of their ignorance?  And if so, does it really matter?

So who is better off?  Them or us?  We’re always told that we should acquire as much knowledge as possible since it’s the only thing we will take with us from this life.  Is Church history an exception?

Who will be able to withstand the challenges that the Church faces in the future?  Will it be those who have a solid knowledge of the real Church history so that they have a chance to distinguish truth from rumour, or will it be those who stick to the official publications?

Does the history of Mormonism stand in jeopardy of being forgotten or altered as the non-English speaking membership of the Church abroad continues to grow and become a clear majority?

The guests on Oprah were young transgenders, who underwent hormone therapy and/or a sex change operation because they felt they had been born into the wrong body. One had been born a boy, but was living as a woman. The other had been born a girl and was now living as a man.

The more that I witness the personal stories of such people, the harder it is for me (or anyone, in my opinion) to deny that what they feel is extremely real and often devastating, depending on the support — or lack of it — that they receive from their loved ones.

I found the story of the young girl-to-man especially compelling. It was interesting to see old pictures of when he was a little girl. You could see the unhappiness and, more than anything, the awkwardness. I don’t mean to be mean, but she was a very homely girl. Why? Because she looked like a boy in a wig and dress. Now that “she” has become a “he,” he looks normal.  I never would have guessed that he had been born female.

His mother described the living hell that their family went through when this young girl was suicidal because of her mental and emotional agony. As soon as she began with hormone therapy and started on the road to becoming a man, he became a happy person, and the depression and suicidal feelings disappeared. Being Mormon, I tried to imagine being in the position of that mother, who wasn’t Mormon. If she had followed Church policy on gender — which, from what I understand includes excommunication for those who undergo transgender operations — and pushed for her daughter to continue living as a girl, the daughter very likely would have taken her life or at least remained terribly depressed her entire life. Talk about feeling torn.

I’m not a mother.  For those of you who are a parent, think about it.  If your teenage child was suicidal and you knew that the “remedy” (i.e. a sex change operation) is grounds for excommunication, what would you do?  Yes, you could go through the rounds of fasting, prayer, and hope.  But what if that wasn’t enough?  What if your child was still suicidal or at least extremely miserable?  Would you feel torn between your (or your child’s) membership in the Church vs. his or her happiness and well-being?

I find especially perplexing the question of those people who are born intersex.

“Intersexuality is the state of a living thing of a gonochoristic species whose sex chromosomes, genitalia, and/or secondary sex characteristics are determined to be neither exclusively male nor female. An intersex organism may have biological characteristics of both the male and female sexes. Intersexuality is the term adopted by medicine during the 20th century applied to human beings who cannot be classified as either male or female.” (Wikepedia)

If the parents of an intersex child feel forced to decide which gender the child should become through surgery, in order to allow for a future opportunity to serve a mission or marry in the temple, is that any different than transgender operations by those who feel that they’re trapped in the wrong body?  The parents and doctors might be wrong, and the child could grow up to feel trapped in the wrong body.  To me, I think that would be worse than being intersex.

In “The Family: A Proclamation To The World,” the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles stated:

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

Where does this leave intersex people? They’re neither one nor the other. Do they have to choose? Is their gender determined by how they feel, or is it determined purely by biology, which is sometimes still ambiguous?  Would someone who is intersex be able to serve a mission?  Marry in the temple?  What would life be like in a church where gender is virtually everything to someone’s identity, when s/he is neither one nor the other, or perhaps feels that his/her mind does not match his/her body?

I’ve tried to imagine what it would be like if someone said to me, “FD, you are a man, so you just need to accept it. You need to start thinking, acting, walking, talking, and dressing like a man. And therefore you should be attracted to women.”

Can you imagine what it would be like if you had to convince yourself that you were actually the opposite sex that you think and feel you are?

I agree with the the “Proclamation On The Family” that “(G)ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” I believe that our gender is eternal and that Heavenly Father didn’t just leave it up randomly to our DNA to decide whether we would be one gender or the other.

But…

I’m thinking more and more that gender really is a state of mind and spirit: one that is as much a part of us as all the other aspects of our spirit and intelligence. I am female because I feel and act female. If I were sitting in a male body at this very moment but with the same mind that I have now, would I consider myself to not be female?

Heavenly Father can and does allow some of us to be born into bodies that are defective or imperfect, for reasons that are often a mystery to us. The physical state of such individuals does not change their spirit. Could it not also be the same case with physical gender? Could he not have allowed certain individuals to be born into the “wrong” physical body, which then causes a conflict with their spirit, which is of a different gender?

We are taught in Mormonism that our physical bodies are imperfect, subject to disease and defect, and that our spirits and intelligences are eternal. Why, then, should our gender be defined solely by our physical bodies? Should not the mind and spirit take precedence over the body?

A commenter, Chedner, from the discussion on my blog said:

“Say, for example, a young man came to his father or his Bishop or any of his Priesthood leaders and said, “I feel like I am innately a girl.”  Would it not be easy to take a day or two of fasting, scripture study, meditation, and end with a sincere Priesthood blessing to discern the true, eternal gender of that child?  One may be surprised to find that this child’s mother was supposed to have a little girl, but something went awry within the womb and a male body was formed instead.  How is that not possible?  It doesn’t threaten any LDS doctrines. Nothing in our canon has to be further revealed, nothing has to be altered or made more perfect.  We simply need to fully embrace what we do have: gender existed in the pre-existence; our bodies are imperfect and prone to birth defects.”

A non-member commenter and trangender woman, Just Jennifer, had this to say:

“Simply put, our “gender” is inherent. It is something that is fixed at birth. And yes, it is anatomical, but not in the way that some think. A better term is “sexual differentiation of the brain.” And our genitals may be sexually differentiated at odds with our brains. It all has to do with hormone levels in utero. I was born a male physically. But my brain was female. I struggled for much of my life, not knowing what was wrong. Even when I figured it all out, it took some more years to reach the point where I understood what could be done to rectify the situation. I am now a happy and successful woman. And I am closer to God than I was as a very unhappy parody of a man. Those who wish to tell people like me that I should “just deal with it” are both ignorant and cruel.”

Zoe, a non-member transgender woman said:

“Your post shows not just compassion, but true understanding of a situation most people find incomprehensible. I can’t blame them either, it’s no easier for those of us in this situation. Many of us go through decades of denial, trying to be like others around us.”

Another commenter from my blog, Mina, a non-Mormon, had this to say:

“I just want to say thank you so very much for an amazingly compassionate position from all of you – as a trans-woman myself, I’m not used to such understanding from deeply religious people.  I’ll be honest in that this aspect of who I am caused me years of anguish. I had grown up in a very conservative Dutch Reformed community, and even though I knew I was different from a very early age – 4 or 5 if I remember correctly, I denied it into my mid 20′s. Then I came across a very interesting opinion piece by a young Catholic priest. Basically he took the position that we need to remember the Fall from Grace, and that one of God’s punishments was visitation of pests and plagues on Adam and his descendants. The world was MADE imperfect then and there, including how we develop from conception. We humans have added to this imperfection through chemical pollution and the like, and so intersex and transsex are to be expected.”

After reading her comment, I thought, “How sad, that a human being having been born into such difficult life circumstances could be met by anything BUT compassion from deeply religious people.  Can we Mormons do any better?”

What do you think?  Are we over-simplifying the teachings on eternal gender by Church leadership by interpreting them to mean that either male or female physical body parts are the only factors that determine spiritual gender?  Or are transgender and intersex people simply suffering from a mental and emotional trial which they need to bear through this mortal life?

This got me thinking about something I’ve never been quite sure about. How do we Mormons really feel about the cross? It’s one of those things that we don’t really discuss very often, but over the years I’ve heard everything from respect to disdain from Mormons for the symbol of Christianity. Some reasons that I’ve heard the cross being absent from Mormon life is that:

a) It’s more of a Catholic or Protestant symbol and we are neither
b) The cross represents some terrible crimes that have been committed in the name of Christianity, such as the Crusades, and we don’t want to be associated with that
c) The cross has become nothing but a fashion statement for most
d) We want to focus on the Resurrection and not so much the Crucifixion

Non-LDS Christians are often quick to notice the lack of crosses in LDS chapels and materials. When they’ve asked me about it, I usually give them the speech citing reason d), about how we don’t use the cross because we prefer to focus on Christ’s resurrection and the fact that we believe that He lives, instead of focusing on his death. I don’t feel like I’m lying when I give them the speech, but I have wondered about other possible reasons. I will summarize a story that I remember reading once, which illustrated how some Mormons feel about the cross. A non-LDS Christian woman entered the home of an LDS family. The non-LDS woman was wearing a cross, and somehow the subject came up. When asked why they did not use the cross, the LDS woman said that she could explain it this way: “If one of your loved ones was killed in a car accident, would you wear a car around your neck to remember them?”

• Have you or would you wear a cross or crucifix to meetings in the LDS Church?
• Would you display a cross, crucifix, or a traditional Christian work of art where the cross is prominent, in your home?
• Do you think that we should be more open to using and displaying the cross (at least outside of official LDS Church capacities), or will we lose our unique Christian-Mormon identity by doing so?